The Olympus Stylus Verve S

Canon hit us up earlier today, now it's time for some Olympus action. First up, the Stylus Verve S, which is basically a five megapixel of their original four megapixel Stylus Verve, features a 1.8-inch LCD screen and a 2x optical zoom lens. We're still not digging the way it looks, but at least it comes in four colors now: blue, black, champagne gold, and pink. Should retail for $349.99.

[Carmi @ Dec 19th 2005 12:10AM]

Interesting form factor. I'm also not a huge fan of the shape, but I don't think Olympus cares about geeks like me.

Instead, they've succeeded in branding their cameras, and in separating them from the standard silver boxes that most other manufacturers are cranking out today.

Carmi
http://writteninc.blogspot.com

[TheZodiac @ Dec 19th 2005 12:10AM]

The style has been out for quite a while... dosnt anyone go to the movies early enough to see those stupid commercials? :)

www.amctheaters.com

I hate the Fantana's with a passion. Grrrr...

[Guido @ Dec 19th 2005 12:10AM]

"but at least it comes in four colors now"

It always came in colors, even the previous article linked mentions it...

[Space @ Dec 19th 2005 12:10AM]

Ok, how in the world can you say that ya don't like the way it looks??? That is the COOLEST camera I've ever seen. I'm 19 now, today's my birthday, and I love the way that camera looks! I wish everything had style like that instead of the usual box with buttons. People that don't like new designs like that are the reason that design has hardly progressed lately in consumer products; because you are boring! So anyway, i understand To Each His Own but c'mon, where else are ya gonna find a camera that looks that cool??? HUH? LOL. Anywho, not trying to be a jerk just really likes the cam cam. Later. Space

[Slaven @ Dec 19th 2005 12:10AM]

If it's any consolation I thought it looked ok! :)

Though, when I was trying the original Verve it felt somewhat cheap, and the performance was kind of choppy.

[Jeff @ Dec 19th 2005 12:10AM]

"I'm 19 now, today's my birthday, and I love the way that camera looks! I wish everything had style like that instead of the usual box with buttons."

Get a little older and maybe you'll realize there's more to style than swoops and curves.

There's a pretty well-known saying in industrial design, which is that form follows function. The best designs are those that follow that mantra, and it's why stuff with weird sloping curves and bubbles always look cheap and plasticky. It becomes self-conscious, it's saying "look at me, I've got style!" rather than saying "I am a great camera that also happens to look quite good."

Think of all the most famous designs of anything, throughout history. The Rolex watch, the VW Beetle, the Apple iPod, the Empire State Building. What they all have in common is being designed to their inherent nature, rather than just having a lot of frilly "design elements" tacked on to make them look cooler.

[James @ Dec 19th 2005 12:10AM]

I've actually used one of these and I'll say that the form factor works better than you'd think. Olympus did a good job on the ergonomics of it, especially compared to other competing tiny cameras.

[bruce m @ Dec 19th 2005 12:10AM]

ugh ... have you actually HELD on of these in your hand? my immediate and gut reaction was this has got to be the most consumer-hostile design for a digital camera ever. I think this sort of design typifies the "look at me" school of design rather than the "what works best" approach. this design might fool a few uneducated 19 year olds, but anyone that's actually going to spend their OWN money on a digital camera will probably take a pass.

[Pie @ Dec 19th 2005 12:10AM]

#6

Funny, outside America the Chrysler Building is probably more famous than the Empire State Building, and that's all fancy art deco. The Rolex watch design - it's ubiquitous among watches, but is it really that nice? VW Beetle - looks different, very much not form follows function surely? Isn't it one of the most unreliable cars around?

In reality there are very very few nice looking digital cameras - they are either silvered plastic boxes for consumers or chunky black boxes for professionals. At least the Verve tries.

[Space @ Dec 19th 2005 12:10AM]

"ugh ... have you actually HELD on of these in your hand? my immediate and gut reaction was this has got to be the most consumer-hostile design for a digital camera ever. I think this sort of design typifies the "look at me" school of design rather than the "what works best" approach. this design might fool a few uneducated 19 year olds, but anyone that's actually going to spend their OWN money on a digital camera will probably take a pass"


Ok, first off, allow me to say screw you to Mr Bruce M for a sec. I might be 19 but I am most certainly NOT uneducated! I also have my own money and I spend it on whatever I like. I just happen to like things that are differnt, sorta futuristic. However, I completely agree with those who said that form must follow function. I'm very much thinking of becoming an industrial designer and if there is one thing that drives me insane it's a weird looking little device that has no purpose. Although, I still think the camera looks cool. A bruce, I don't know if anyone told ya this, but educated people at least try and meet the person they are accusing of ignorance before the insult them. I'm sure you're a nice guy, but knock it off. Later. Space

[Keith @ Dec 19th 2005 12:10AM]

Hey I have one and I love it - the shape is quirky but it fits your hand well. It's light, the screen is a joy to use in full sunlight and it takes great shots.

[brocked @ Dec 19th 2005 12:10AM]

(sigh)

yes, form follows function.... so let's look at why some (apparently over 19) think this particular form is ugly...
maybe, it's because they're still tied to an oooold function? namely, the 35mm film format, and the necessity for a large, protuberant lens with a very square base necessary for film loading?

cameras are something I've felt needed to be reengineered for a long time... this camera looks much more ergonomic than the usual digital box-cam, and much easier to use than the goofy SLR wanna-be form factors - the function of a digital camera has not changed, but the technology has, and it's time industrial designers caught on to this fact - why not a cylindrical camera? must I use two hands to hold a camera?

my only complaint is the 2x optical zoom, though 5 MP might make up for it, I still like the extra sauce

[Dale @ Dec 19th 2005 12:10AM]

As a photographer I work with many different cameras. As a large customer of Canon and Olypmus, I also get the chance now and then to 'test drive' a camera. I'm holding the Olympus Stylus Verve S in my hands at the moment (rather, it's sitting next to the keyboard), and it's a very comfortable camera to use.

As any good photographer would tell you, one should always carry a backup camera. I have my Canon EOS in my bag, and have lately been using my Verve S as the backup. It takes wonderful pictures, very user friendly, and not too bad to look at. Sadly, I must send this camera back where it came from once my review period is up, but I'll be buying one very shortly. I have grown tired of looking at cameras that look exactly the same as the next, as I'm sure many of us have. Finally, Olympus comes out with, what has turned out to be in my household, a conversation piece, and some people waste no time in mocking the 'style' of it. If this isn't your type of camera, feel free to buy something different. I suggest Canon and/or Olypmus.

I would like to add, though this could ruin the credibility of the preceding statement, I am 'only' 17 years of age.

- Dale

[Mike @ Dec 19th 2005 12:10AM]

Space, if you are ever going to try to convince educated people, that you are educated, then at least try not to use run on sentences. You might also want to consider punctuation. I'm sorry to knock you down a peg or two, but you were really getting obnoxious.
-Mike

[KJ @ Dec 19th 2005 12:10AM]

I suggest you take a look at the major reviews of this little camera before trashing it too much. Check out the reviews at steves_digicams.com, dpreview.com, dcresource.com, imaging-resource.com, KenRockwell.com.....it comes out as one of the top ultra compacts for performance and I can't find better for the price and I spent a lot of time looking. I gave up the manual controls for the size and weatherproof style, which some of us enjoy around water sports. I didn't give up performance though. None of the ultra compacts are all that ergonomic and I couldn't find much to compete except the Casio EX-Z750 for $100+ more which isn't weatherproof. Around the beach I'll save the $100. Also, there are actually underwater housings and clipon telephoto and wide angle lenses for the little bugger if you want to squeeze a little more out of it. It needs some improvements surely, but what do you expect for the money and the size?