Regrettably, from the moment I had it out of the box, this camera presented me with a long string of snags that, had I anticipated them, would have caused me to think twice.

Beginning with the battery/recharger (which in many cameras is conveniently combined into one), the mains plug worked only in some power sockets, not in others. The battery went flat faster than expected — and to make matters worse, the charge indicator went from full to flat in the blink of an eye. This meant that my camera required two hours’ recharging, and was unexpectedly out of action at the very moment I intended to put it to its first serious use. Part of the problem, perhaps, was that I had not realised, when accessing the flash card inside the camera through the camera cable, that there was a drain on the battery. Yet nowhere was I warned about this. Many digital cameras do not discharge when plugged in. I decided to use the “power save” feature to give me better prospects next time round — yet this kept blanking out the display while I was framing a picture. And every time, the camera wiped out the settings I was working with. So I went to buy a back-up battery — which cost me more than a tenth of the (not too cheap) camera.

I registered the Olympus software over the Internet, as requested, and Olympus confirmed the registration. Very soon, however, an ineradicable message came up on my screen, insisting on further registration for some plug-ins. This process hogged my Internet connection, which from my location in Africa was not a luxury easily to be afforded. As my broadband usage shot up profligately, I cut off the connection. On returning to the Olympus software, however, Olympus once more requested registration — and the plug-ins I could not find. It was the Panorama feature that interested me the most. I clicked on the Panorama icon — yet an unrelated Olympus pop-up appeared, obscuring the screen. When I tested the Panorama feature, it did not stitch well at all. The manual didn’t say as much, but apparently this feature should only be used at certain distances. Yet even the correct distances didn’t necessarily yield good results. Apparently a panoramic view should be taken in bright light in order to stitch without banding — again no mention was made of this was made in the manual. One would think that the software could have addressed such problems.

These were only the beginning of my problems with the Olympus ì-550WP — but let me pause first to highlight some of its strengths and attractions. The Olympus ì-550WP is undoubtedly very pocketable. It is a pleasure to carry around. And it is attractive — one might say “cute”. It is also waterproof to three metres or ten feet (but more of this in a moment). It does take some nice panoramic pictures, if distance and lighting are appropriate. The zoom works well, if jerkily. Also, it offers a macro feature and a super-macro feature (as close as 7 centimeters or 2.8 inches), which have performed well. The movie mode has also performed well. The camera has recorded smoothly and without any “skipping”, as some digital cameras do. I also like its easy white-balance, ISO, and resolution settings. The camera also has an “intelligent” setting which generally works well — but I have sometimes found it to be hit and miss (as the manual says it may be in some situations), so that I would rather rely on my own judgement.

But back to my troubles. These have been various, and I shall survey them (not all of them) quickly. Photography in bright light is good, but in subdued light without flash (often required in my profession) the Olympus clearly under-performs. Photos in subdued light are markedly more grainy than those taken with other digital cameras using similar settings. With this in mind, the 10 megapixel resolution of the camera seems academic. Cameras with half the resolution may outperform the Olympus ì-550WP. Bright lights (not least the sun) prove to be a problem, too. The camera repeatedly produces “shadow” images of overhead lights in strange places, or blue smudges from the sun, where this is well out of the “field of vision”. The layout of the face of the camera presents problems. Consider, for instance, how a person would hold this camera without obscuring the flash, or closing the microphone. Even if the owner should learn the trick, this is by no means guaranteed for anyone else who might use it — for instance, someone taking a photo of the owner. The anti-red-eye flash feature does not necessarily avoid red-eye. Finally, although it works, I am not much impressed with the underwater feature. After using the camera in water, it is difficult to clear the lens of water droplets, which tend to reappear every time one closes and opens the external “steel door” shutter.

I would have liked to speak well of my new Olympus camera, after my early experiences with the Olympus Camedia C-2 Zoom. All in all, perhaps the greatest strength of the Olympus ì-550WP would be as an “outdoors” camera used, for example, for beach sports, scuba diving, or sunny surrounds (but bear in mind those “shadow” images). It would also perform well in many situations where a flash is judiciously used. But it begins to reveal its weaknesses particularly in more subdued light without flash (dusky evenings or indoor shots), or for sporadic use in the wet.

The image quality does not make me excited to buy this camera. The pictures show a significant amount of noise, even when I forced the ISO down to 100. Every shot without a flash looks pale and slightly hazy. With a flash, the image quality improved, but there is still an unreasonable amount of image noise. The best shots were taken of objects about 10 feet away. This was a good distance to prevent the flash from washing out the subject, but still providing an adequate amount of light to get a decent picture. Even those shots seemed to lack sharpness. They were OK, but I guess I expected more. I understand that there are trade-offs in image quality when buying a waterproof camera, but I had hoped that they wouldn’t be this bad.

Besides image quality, my only other complaint was the couple of seconds delay between shots. The screen goes blank, so you can’t even compose your next shot while you wait. The noticible delay upon startup and between shots was a deal-breaker for me when deciding if the image quality was acceptable.

On a positive note, the size and shape of the camera is pleasing and it feels well-built and sturdy. It is not too heavy, and I didn’t feel like I needed to be overly protective of it. It’s not ultra-thin, but it could easily fit into a pocket. Also, I really liked the menu graphics. The menu structure seems very similar to that of the Olympus weatherproof cameras from the last couple of years, but the icons on the 550WP are in color and are much brighter. This may seem trivial, but it definitely makes for a flashier interface than the couple of models just prior to the 550WP. I also tried out the Tough Series 8000 and noticed that it shares the very cool, updated menu graphics with the 550WP.

I wanted to like this camera and it was my top choice to replace the Fuji Z33, but I was not satisfied enough with the test shots I took to spend my money on it. The slightly older and mixed-reviewed Olympus 850SW that I tested on the same visit responded much more quickly on startup, on auto-focusing, and in recovering between shots. It felt fast in all areas and the pictures were much better than the Oly 550WP and the Fuji Z33 WP. The image quality on the 850SW wasn’t perfect either, but I was much more excited about its performance than the two newer cameras. Since it has been out for a little longer than the 550WP and Z33, the 850SW can be found for a similar price. Without spending the extra $100 to step up to the next level of image quality and performance, I think my money is going to the Oly 850SW instead of the Oly 550WP or the Fuji Z33.