Digital Camera Home > Digital Camera Reviews > Hewlett Packard Digital Cameras > HP PhotoSmart 215

HP PhotoSmart 215 HP's entry-level model offers ease of use for beginning shooters. Select a topic Reference: Datasheet PS215 Sample Images --------------------------------- 1. Intro and Highlights 2. Executive Overview 3. Design 4. Viewfinder 5. Optics 6. Exposure & Flash 7. Shutter Lag & Cycle Time Tests 8. Operation & User Interface 9. Camera Modes & Menus 10. Image Storage & Interface 11. Video, Power, Software 12. Test Results & Conclusion --------------------------------- Print-Friendly Review Version Additional Resources and Other Links Reader Comments on PS215 Review --------------------------------- Digital Camera Comparometer (TM) --------------------------------- <-- Digital Cameras (Home) <-- Digital Camera Reviews Index <<Video, Power, Software :(Previous) | (Next): Reference: Datasheet>> Page 12:Test Results & Conclusion Review First Posted: 3/10/2001

Test Results

In keeping with our standard policy, our comments here are rather condensed, summarizing our key findings: For a full commentary on each of the test images, see the PhotoSmart 215's "pictures" page.

As with all Imaging Resource camera tests, we encourage you to let your own eyes be the judge of how well the devices performed. Explore the images on the pictures page, to see how well the 215 performed, and how its images compare to other cameras you may be considering buying.

Overall, the PhotoSmart 215's automatic white balance system did a pretty good job. When shooting outdoors, the 215 tended to produce a warm cast in response to bright sunlight. However, despite a slight magenta cast, the 215 did a good job with the usually difficult incandescent lighting of our indoor portrait. Overall color saturation seemed a little flat in most of our test shots, though color accuracy was reasonably good. We did notice that the blue flowers in the outdoor and indoor shots appeared violet instead of royal blue (these blues are difficult for many digicams to reproduce correctly). The camera just barely distinguished the difference between the red and magenta color blocks on the middle, horizontal color chart (which is a common problem area for many digicams), oversaturating them slightly and losing the black separator line. We also noticed splotchy color transitions, such as on the models' cheeks in the Musicians shot and in the close-up outdoor portrait.

We did find some geometric distortion on the 215 (very common among digicams with wide angle lenses we've tested), measuring a barrel distortion of 0.43 percent. Chromatic aberration is present but very low, we caught about a half of a pixel of coloration on each side of the corner elements in our resolution target, shot at wide angle. (This distortion is visible as a very slight colored fringe around objects at the edges of the field of view on the resolution target.)

The PhotoSmart 215's resolution wasn't terribly impressive in the "natural" subjects we tested it on, but it didn't do nearly as badly as it's performance on our "laboratory" test target would indicate. The laboratory test results are hard to call, given the number of image artifacts, extending even to very low spatial resolutions. Discernible detail is visible out to perhaps 550-600 lines per picture height in both horizontal and vertical directions, but artifacts are quite evident beginning as early as 350 lines.

We found the 215's optical viewfinder to be surprisingly accurate in terms of scale, although the final image was shifted down and to the right relative to what we saw in the viewfinder. The image was almost dead-on the right size, as we measured coverage at 99.5% of the final frame area, at both 1280 x 960 and 640 x 480 image sizes. (A note though: These numbers are subject to a lot of interpretation: The edges of the viewfinder frame were quite indistinct, as we could see a lot more of the subject if we moved our eye around a bit. Normally, we determine framing by the maximum extent of the target we can see, regardless of eye position. In the case of the 215's finder though, we ended up having to move our eye around quite a bit to do this. We thus ended up using it as we'd assume most users would, more or less guessing where the edges of the frame were. Surprisingly, the end result was unusually accurate.) Images framed with the optical viewfinder are also slanted just slightly toward the lower left corner. The LCD monitor showed approximately 91.45 percent accuracy at both 1280 x 960 and 640 x 480 resolution sizes, but very well centered. We generally like to see LCD monitors as close to 100 percent accuracy as possible, so the 215 does well in this respect, though the resulting images were again somewhat slanted toward the lower left corner.

The 215 does a pretty good job in the macro category, capturing a minimum area of just 3.22 x 2.41 inches (81.67 x 61.25mm). Detail and resolution look pretty good, though slightly soft. A little corner softness shows up on the left side of the image. Noise is low in the gray background, and we notice some moire patterns in the tiny details of the dollar bill. Color balance looks good throughout the image, though a touch magenta. The 215's built-in flash does a pretty good job of throttling down for the macro area, and actually appears to sharpen the details slightly.

The 215 had some trouble in the low-light category, as you might expect, given its sole automatic exposure control and maximum shutter speed of 1/3 of a second. We were only able to obtain a bright, clear image at a light level of eight foot-candles (88 lux). The camera produced a usable image at four foot-candles (44 lux). Images became progressively darker with the lower light levels, taking on a bluish color cast. We could still distinguish the target at the 1/16 of a foot-candle (0.67 lux) light level, though the image was completely dark. Noise level remained moderate with a reasonably tight grain pattern. (We direct readers to Mike Chaney's excellent Qimage Pro program, for a tool with an amazing ability to remove image noise without significantly affecting detail.) To put the 215's low-light performance into perspective, an average city night scene under modern street lighting corresponds to a light level of about one foot-candle, so night exposures will require the built-in flash. The table below shows the best exposure we were able to obtain for each of a range of illumination levels. Images in this table (like all of our sample photos) are untouched, exactly as they came from the camera.

Overall, in looking at the PhotoSmart 215's performance, it's important to keep in mind that it's intended as an inexpensive, entry-level camera. The image quality is quite a bit below what you'd find in cameras costing even $100 more, but for the price, it's probably fine. The colors are a bit undersaturated, but otherwise reasonably accurate, and its white balance system does a good job of producing usable image under a wide range of lighting conditions. It's not a camera for the dedicated photo enthusiast, but then wasn't intended to be: A very basic, inexpensive digital camera, it produces acceptable images for the casual snapshooter.

Conclusion
Compact, portable, lightweight, and very user-friendly, the HP PhotoSmart 215 definitely accomplishes Hewlett-Packard's goal of creating a low-cost, simple-to-operate digicam. While we personally don't like to see digicams with no exposure or white balance adjustments, we recognize that some users really do want just a "point-and-shoot" camera, and the PhotoSmart 215 clearly fits that bill. With complete automatic exposure control, the user doesn't have to make too many decisions. The only adjustable functions include flash mode, digital telephoto, self-timer, and a macro lens setting. If you're looking for an inexpensive digital camera that can deliver prints up to 4 x 6 inches, the PhotoSmart 215 certainly deserves consideration.