Samsung Digimax S600 review

Performance
The performance was mixed in our lab tests. The camera took 1.7 seconds to power up and capture its first image, which is actually somewhat fast, but once it started up, it took 2.3 seconds between shots without flash and an even slower 3.3 seconds with flash turned on. The shutter lag was a speedy 0.6 seconds in high-contrast situations and 1.1 seconds in low-contrast lighting. Continuous shooting was sluggish, capturing 36 VGA-size JPEGs in 31.8 seconds for an average of 1.13fps, and 30 6-megapixel JPEGs in 32.7 seconds for an average of 0.92fps.

The LCD partially washed out in bright sunlight, though it was still possible to see enough to frame our images. It gained up in low light just enough to frame the image, though not as much as some of the LCDs we've seen lately. The flash is rated to provide even coverage out to about 3m with ISO in auto mode.

Image quality
Automatic white balance produced very warm, yellowish images with our lab's tungsten lights, while the tungsten white-balance setting had a noticeably bluish cast. Thankfully, the manual setting produced neutral results, though the audience for these cameras is not very likely to set a manual white balance. Given that even Olympus's dirt-cheap FE-series cameras manage to provide a neutral white balance in auto mode, we don't understand why it should be so difficult for this camera, although it does so many things that those Olympus FEs can't even dream of. In natural daylight, the Digimax S600's automatic white balance did a good job of neutralising colours, which were natural-looking and well saturated.

Even at ISO 50 (the lowest setting possible with this camera), some noise was visible in our test images, though it was very minor and remained so at ISO 100. At ISO 200, noise was very noticeable, causing even moderately dark colours to become mottled with splotches of varying lightness and colours, though many finer details were still unobscured. By ISO 400, the noise overwhelmed lots of detail, resulting in images unfit for print.

Exposures were generally accurate, though images were slightly soft and had noticeable fringing in highlights, especially with backlit subjects. We also noticed JPEG artefacting, which lent a choppy look to some curved edges.

Given that Samsung has shown that it is capable of making cameras that capture pleasing images, such as the Digimax L85 and the Digimax L60, there's little excuse for its S-series cameras turning in pictures that are plagued by artefacts and other noise. So, while the Samsung Digimax S600 certainly has a feature set that looks solid, you're better off spending a little more on one of Samsung's better-performing cameras, or looking at an other brand altogether.

Additional editing by Kate Macefield