Konica Minolta Dimage X60
Before merging with Konica, Minolta was the first to release ultra flat digital cameras with fully integrated optic zooms in the camera body. This series was somehow the leading product of the manufacturer, which progressively changed its strategy to the big zoom family (Dimage Z3, Z5, etc.). For a year now, no flat cameras were released until this unique X60, the only substitute for the previous line.
The X60’s design is directly inspired by the X50. Both are very much alike. The monitor, however, is bigger for the X60 and the color correction is much more accurate and less red with the new camera. There is proof that this camera is no longer the focus of all efforts in that we haven’t noticed any improvements in speed or video (it is even slower to switch on and between two pictures). Also, the X60 is one of the last dinosaurs to work in 320 x 240 pixels. This function is completely useless so you can forget about it right away.
Ok, the camera is affordable, but the X60 lacks advantages compared to the Canon Ixus 50 (just a little more expensive), or even the Acer CR-8530. To become really competitive the price will have to be reduced once again.
We still have hopes to one day see a stronger version of this line with a bigger sensor, or more importantly, be faster and with a better video mode. Finally, we don’t like deceiving names. To call a 5 megapixel the X60 might lead to mistakes. X51 would have been a better choice. Also, considering the improvements from one version to the new one, the camera does not really deserve such a name modification.
Nikon Coolpix S1
In the beginning of this test we planed to include the latest Nikon, the S2. The manufacturer, however, sent us the camera too late and we had to choose the S1. Nikon reassured us both cameras are identical expect for one detail. The S2 body is
all weather and the S1 isn’t. In shops, the price gap between the two cameras is $70 and in our opinion a little to much just for protection against the rain. All weather doesn’t mean waterproof so don’t dive with it.
Like the other cameras, the design is sober and thin and the zoom is internal. The optic device is permanently protected in the camera body. Also like many others, it doesn’t have an viewfinder but a wide LCD monitor in the back. The price is also in the middle of the range so how will this camera stand out from others with a metal body, identical sensors, 3X zoom. It does in the tests, but not in a good way. It’s actually quite disappointing with a lack of sharpness even with lower sensitivities, images are blurred from 200 ISO, lack of accuracy for video, lack of flash homogeneity, and a focus from further away in macro mode than competitors. Not great!
Olympus FE-5500
The FE-5500 doesn’t resemble any other Olympus cameras. Except for the IR-300, also currently released, flat cameras weren’t this manufacturer’s speciality, which was better known for its Mju series. Our conclusion after the tests is that it’s better to stick with the Mju rather than this new quite disappointing model.
To begin with, the camera is one of the most expensive, one of the biggest (24 mm thick, the average is 21 mm) and it has the smallest monitor (5.1 cm diagonal). Could we have higher expectations with such a price?
From the beginning we realised something was wrong. The FE-5500 is twice as slow as the average to switch on (3.4s) Then you need to wait 2.7 seconds between two pictures. For sharpness, and color accuracy indoors this camera was systematically one of the last. We are far from the Kodak V500 and Fujifilm Z1’s accuracy. It uses like the Olympus xD format memory. This format is of interest, but it is also more expensive for performances similar to SD. Finally, the zoom appeared to be the least accurate of all. Lower level of detail, colors inaccurately reproduced and to top this off the video mode is only in 320 x 240.
Try again.
It isn’t a total failure, but it does provides slightly poorer results than others for the same price or even lower. Also, there aren’t any special functions to make up for lack of performance. If it was 100€ less expensive, it would be of more interest and our criticism would have been less harsh.
