Olympus FE-4000 review
Review Date : Fri, 12 Mar 2010
Author : Cliff Smith
-
Sample Photos:
View sample images of the Olympus FE-4000
Olympus FE-4000: It's slim, cheap and shiny, but is it any good?
| Pros: | Slim, cheap |
|---|---|
| Cons: | Image quality, performance, build quality |
Buying a digital camera for under £120 is a risky business. While there are a few genuine bargains available, most of the available choices will be cheap plastic point-and-click devices with limited features, slow performance and inferior image quality. Even buying a camera from a respected brand such as Olympus is no guarantee of quality, as this frankly disappointing FE-4000 demonstrates.
The FE-4000 is a budget-priced ultra-compact featuring a 4x zoom lens with a wide angle equivalent to 26.3mm, a 2.7-inch LCD monitor and a 12-megapixel CCD sensor. The camera body is all plastic, with a "Double Layered Crystal Shell" finish available in a range of five colours including dark grey, pure white, magenta, Arctic blue and the Tangerine orange shown here. The build quality is pretty poor even by budget camera standards. The body panels creak alarmingly under even a light squeeze, and the battery/card hatch is extremely flimsy. That shiny metallic finish looks great straight out of the box, but it attracts finger marks like a magnet and quickly looks grubby. It is also very slippery and hard to grip.
The controls look and feel cheap. The transparent plastic buttons are hard to see in low light and provide little tactile feedback, and the on-screen menu text is poorly anti-aliased and looks slightly blurred. The built-in flash is inconveniently located under the knuckle of the right middle finger when holding the camera in any normal one-handed grip, causing big shadows on most flash-lit shots.
The FE-4000 has only the most basic set of features. The main menu has only one page with just five entries. User input is limited to image size and quality, white balance, AF mode and ISO setting. There is no colour adjustment, spot metering, continuous shooting or any of the other small refinements found even on other cheap cameras. Even the self-timer is limited to 10 seconds only. It does feature digital image stabilisation, tracking AF and face detection, but none of these work particularly well.
Other severely limited features include the video mode, which is restricted to 640 x 480 resolution at 30fps with mono audio, although in this mode clips are limited to just 10 seconds in length. Needless to say the optical zoom cannot be used while recording.
The FE-4000 has two image quality modes; Fine and Normal, but in practice this makes little difference to the image quality, which is shockingly bad in both modes. Even in Fine mode shots show chronic over-sharpening, compression artefacts and very poor colour rendition. The lens quality is terrible, with poor contrast, severe chromatic aberration, corner blurring and so much haze that I thought there must be a fingermark on the lens. There wasn't, it really is that bad.
The image quality is matched by the performance, which is slower than any camera I've seen in maybe five years. Even in Normal quality mode the shot-to-shot time is nearly nine seconds, but this isn't really a problem because the glacially slow AF system and shutter lag of nearly two seconds means that you'll inevitably miss the shot you wanted anyway. Low light performance is almost non-existent, with the camera often failing to focus even in a room lit with a normal 60W bulb.
Verdict
The Olympus FE-4000 is a shockingly bad camera even by budget compact standards. It has inferior build quality, appallingly slow performance and image quality worse than most mobile phone cameras. In short, avoid.




Have your say!
Latest comments
May 18 09:55
Lucilia Carvalho
This camera is incapable of a good picture even with open light and a stand. It is the worst camera I have ever bought.
July 19 20:54
yarko
First of all, when you decide to buy such camera you should keep in your mind that you're gonna buy cheap camer so don't expect very much from it, but you first compare its features and advantages with its prize. For me, it quite good camera, very handy, very slim, easy to use and to handle, has longlife battery, good sound stabilization, takes wonderful picture in sunny open area and landscapes, perfect pictures in indoor (night), very bad picture in open (night) but it still better than corsponding camera like LUMIX, SAMSUNG but not sony cyber shot nor canon,
July 20 13:36
Fred
yarko, are you kidding? This camera is awful compared to Lumix cameras - Panasonic arguably make the best compact stills cameras on the market. If you had the knowledge of a side by side comparison then you'd see the difference.
July 22 08:56
yarko
Hey Fred, my bro has Lumix 10,1mp and friend of mine has olympus x920, my bro bought his camera with 165 euros while my friend bought his camera with 90 euros, when I compare the pictures I didnät find any significant difference expcept photos taken at night, phots taken by olympus far better than lumix. The only thing that make people angry and misjudge and biased is the shape and components of olympus which is very simple slim, and has awful screen, while lumix and samsung have fancy screena nd structure. But for me, I don't give damn, the most important thing (in my opinion) is the quality of the picture which is almost same as in LUMIX10,1mp or SAMSUNG12,2mp. thx