Olympus IR-500 review

The VGA-resolution (640x480-pixel) motion pictures are limited to a jerky 15 frames per second (fps), which is a shame because the built-in electronic image stabilisation for movie mode helps sharpen clips significantly.

Performance
The IR-500 turned in average times in most tests, although its burst mode was more capable than that of many point-and-shoots in this class. We captured 7 full-resolution shots in 4 seconds at a commendable 1.7fps clip. At 640x480-pixel resolution, we were able to grab 68 shots in 45 seconds (1.5fps). The pixel-dense 64mm LCD also performed well, providing bright, viewable images, even with high ambient-light levels. It was harder to view under very dim illumination, gaining up only a little to provide a good image.

Autofocus performance was spotty. Shutter lag measured a commendable 0.6 seconds under high-contrast lighting but stumbled to 1.9 seconds under more challenging low-light conditions. A focus-assist lamp would have helped here. The built-in flash was effective out to 4.3m (ISO unspecified), but the IR-500's red-eye-prevention feature did a poor job eliminating red pupils. Power-up to first shot was a lengthy 4.38 seconds. Thereafter, we snapped off pictures every 2.2 seconds (4.62 seconds with flash).

Image quality
We were pleased with the image quality this camera produced; we've seen other 4-megapixel point-and-shoot models that did far worse. Sharpness was good, though JPEG artefacts marred it somewhat. Exposures taken outdoors under fairly contrasty lighting looked as pleasing as you could expect. But when the IR-500 captured highlights without washing them out, shadows tended to be too dense. Similarly, if it revealed detail in the shadows, it tended to wash out the highlights. Our chief optical complaint, though, was with the rampant purple fringing that surrounded backlit subjects, such as barren tree branches, with a violet glow.

Colours were pleasingly vivid, although we noticed a yellow cast to flesh tones. We could see some noise in our shots, but it wasn't much of a problem at lower ISO settings. By ISO 250, however, it became quite objectionable.

Edited by Aimee Baldridge
Additional editing by Nick Hide