Readers Write: Questions on the Fuji HS10 and Olympus SP-800 UZ

Two readers wrote to us with questions about our tests of the Fujifilm HS10 and the Olympus SP-800 UZ:

Hello, I noticed that you put 'powered by AA batteries' in both the positive and negative points of the conclusion. Could you explain why? I have a Finepix S6500fd that's powered by Ni-MH AA batteries and I don't really see why it could be a problem. [...] Either the HS10 consumes a lot of power, and that should be made clear in your test, or the person who tested it had some kind of problem with the battery polarity, in which case, that should also be mentioned. I think AA batteries are great, as you can pick up replacements anywhere, which is handy when you're on holiday or out and about. Regards.

Prices unavailable Recommended alternatives Editor's Choice Panasonic Lumix FZ150 Style and Substance Sony Cyber-shot HX100V Monster Zoom Canon PowerShot SX40 HS

In the HS10 test, we put the fact that the camera uses AA batteries as both an advantage and a disadvantage. That's because we've found that people tend to either love them or hate them.

It's not really a question of battery life any more either. In fact, a camera's overall design and its internal processing chip will have more of an impact on power consumption than the choice between high-capacity AA batteries or other types of battery. With the exception of a few models (some Casio cameras can last for almost 1,000 photos), the battery life of a compact or bridge camera currently on the market varies from 200 and 400 photos, no matter what kind of battery they use.

In practice, there are two schools of thought on AA batteries. Some people like the fact that they can power up their camera pretty much anywhere on earth by simply picking up a pack of AA batteries. That's pretty important for many a hardened traveller.

Others however, simply can't stand the heavy, bulky AA batteries, which tend to give cameras a larger, less sleek appearance. Plus, the litter blighters often come shooting out of the compartment and go rolling off when you open the lid to change them.

To be honest, I personally can't say whether AA batteries are better or worse than manufacturers' batteries. Being able to pick up replacements anytime, anyplace is pretty convenient, even if I have found myself scrambling around on the floor chasing after a runaway pair of AA batteries. At least that's a problem you won't have with a blocky proprietary battery.

I therefore think it's up to each individual user to decide whether AA batteries are suitable for their needs and use. That's why I put AA batteries as both a plus and a minus. It might not seem very logical, but it was entirely intentional, as some users will consider it a selling point whereas others will appreciate being warned!

Hello, I was very interested to see the results of your tests on the Fujufilm HS10 and Olympus SP-800 UZ superzoom cameras. The first is supposed to be an expert bridge whereas the second is apparently an entry-level model. Logically then, the image quality should be better in the Fuji. However [...] pictures taken with the Fujifilm camera looked to be very poor quality [...], whereas those take with the Olympus were actually quite good [...]. Did you mix the pictures up? Otherwise, how do you explain that the results are completely contradictory to what you say in your tests? Thanks,

Several readers have contacted us about this. First of all, it's important to point out that just because a camera is an 'expert' bridge, doesn't necessarily mean it will take high-quality pictures. An 'expert' camera is basically a camera with plenty of manual settings, including direct-access buttons to different functions and click-round dials for adjusting settings quickly. However, apart from that, there's no real difference in the technology used in an 'expert' or a 'consumer' camera, as the sensors and processing chips will essentially be the same.

Now let's take a closer look at picture quality. It's almost certainly the second cut-out detail of the 20 x 30 cm shot taken in wide angle (24 mm for the Fuji and 28 mm for the Olympus) that's the most striking:


Here, it's clear to see that the SP-800 UZ takes a better-quality picture, as the Olympus lens is much more accurate. However, don't forget that these are extracts from an image that's been resized to make a 20 x 30 cm print at 300 dpi. However, your monitor screen probably can't display anything higher than 100 dpi (a Samsung F2380M, 23" Full HD monitor is at 96 dpi, for example). Plus, the image detail you see on your screen is three times bigger than it would be in the printed photo, which effectively exaggerates the lack of sharpness.

In the HS10 test, we say: 'the results really aren't bad at all and pictures are accurate in the centre at all focal lengths, even if the edges are typically less well defined, particularly at 24 mm. Overall though, you wouldn't really notice anything afoot in a 20 x 30 cm print.' In other words, a 20 x 30 cm print wouldn't be prefect, and you probably would notice the lack of sharpness if you brought the print right up to your face. However, you probably wouldn't notice a thing if you were looking at it normally.

In the SP-800 UZ test we were more positive: 'The SP-800 UZ lens is remarkably good in wide-angle mode with sharp pictures, plenty of detail and good contrast. Photos still look good with the zoom half-way out, and even in telephoto, pictures are still full of life so long as the lighting remains good.'

So what about the scores for picture quality? This score doesn't just rate the performance of the lens, otherwise both cameras would probably have got four stars, or perhaps three for the HS10. The score also takes into account how the camera handles sensitivity, which is a very important factor. When taking a picture of your family at home, for example, sensitivity can quickly get up to 800 ISO.


At the different sensitivity settings, the HS10's picture quality remains incredibly regular. The picture is still sharp at 800 ISO, where the contour lines on the map are still visible and the pictures are still pleasant enough to look at. Even at 1600 ISO the image captured would make a decent 10x15 cm print or would look fine viewed on a monitor screen.

At 800 ISO, the SP-800 UZ is already pushed to the limit of its ability. Picture processing (aimed at keeping digital noise under control) makes lighter areas look smudged and wipes out pretty much any of the finer details. The picture also loses some of its colour, with green hues turning grey.

However, the lens sharpness is fine and you'll have no problems at all if you rarely use high sensitivity settings, and you often find yourself cropping or resizing images. It's swings and roundabouts really.

Personally, I find the difference in sharpness barely even visible on a regular photo print. However, the difference in performance at 800 ISO is marked, which is why we gave the SP-800 UZ a lower score.

> Product Survey: Bridge Digital Cameras



> Buyer's Guides: Our Pick of The Best Products