Olympus SP-550 UZ review

Shutter lag measured an unremarkable 1 second in our high contrast test, which mimics bright shooting conditions, and 1.6 seconds in our low-contrast/dim shooting conditions test. Continuous shooting yielded about 1.5 frames per second when capturing 7.1 megapixel JPGs.

Shooting speed (in seconds)
(Shorter bars indicate better performance)

Typical shot-to-shot time

Time to first shot

Shutter lag (typical)

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-H2

1.5 

2.6 

0.4 

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

1.7 

1.5 

0.4 

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-H5

1.8 

2.7 

0.6 

Olympus SP-510UZ

2.3 

2.2 

0.7 

Olympus SP-550UZ

4.6 

2.9 

1 

Continuous-shooting speed (frames per second)
(Longer bars indicate better performance)

Typical continuous-shooting speed

Olympus SP-550UZ

1.5 

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-H2

1.5 

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

1.5 

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-H5

1.3 

Olympus SP-510UZ

1.1 

Image quality
Image quality also left something to be desired. While the lens in the 550 UZ is admirable for its wide angle, fast f/2.8-to-f.4.5 maximum aperture range, and 18x optical zoom, it is noticeably less sharp than the lens Olympus included in last year's SP-510 UZ. All the images we shot were slightly softer than we would have liked from a camera of this class.

On the plus side, we only saw minor purple fringing, and mostly only at the edges of the frame and under harsh lighting conditions. Olympus' ESP metering did a decent job of judging exposure, but tended to sacrifice highlight detail to maintain shadow detail. Experienced shooters should be able to overcome this with the spot or centre-weighted metering modes. The SP-550 UZ's automatic white balance did a good job of serving up neutral images, even when faced with the challenge of our tungsten hot lights.

While we noticed some image artefacts not related to sensor noise, we also saw ISO-related noise as early as ISO 200. Even at ISO 100, we saw the beginnings, though it was extremely minor and would only be visible slightly when viewed at 100 per cent magnification on a high-quality monitor. Even at ISO 200, the noise present wouldn't show up in most prints, though you'll notice it on monitors. At ISO 400, noise was much more noticeable and chopped away at the finer details present in these already-soft images.

At ISO 800, the noise grew more, ate away more detail, and shadow detail began to fall off. You may still be able to get passable 100x150mm (4x6-inch) prints at ISO 800. ISO 1600 should be avoided at all costs. At that point there is very little detail or shadow detail. The decreased pixel count at ISO 3200 and ISO 5000 help to manage some of the noise issues, but your best bet is to stick with ISO 400 or below. For a camera in this price range, that's an unfortunate diagnosis.

Conclusion
Given its performance and image quality issues, it's difficult to recommend this super zoom. If you're willing to spend this much money on a camera, and you don't want an SLR, you should consider some of this camera's competitors, such as Canon's PowerShot S3 IS or Sony's Cyber-shot DSC-H5.

Edited by Lori Grunin
Additional editing by Nick Hide