Olympus VG-170 Review

4.5
February 15, 2012 | Matt Grayson |

Your Comments

10 Comments | Newest Oldest First | Post a Comment

#1 Aar0n53

aar0n53.blogspot.com This is a photo blog that you try not to do this and do not have a single comment. So it’s not you deserve this URL.

8:15 pm - Wednesday, February 15, 2012

#2 R Narain

whats the point of reviewing a camera with such a huge size flash when you have not included even a single indoor sample shot.

6:02 pm - Friday, February 17, 2012

#3 Teg_j

I really don’t understand how you claim to see NO purple fringing - several of your shots with trees in silhouette show quite marked purple bands on the underside of branches.  I accept that it is no worse than usual, and certainly not bad in the context of a very economical camera; but claiming that there is none at all just makes it look like commercial hype - or that you haven’t looked at your own photos.

5:18 pm - Sunday, February 19, 2012

#4 Rapa-Ripa

The sample photos of this camera look really horrible when viewed in they original size.

So, how can you give 4.5/5 for the image quality, even if this not an expensive camera? There are much better cameras that cost about as much/little as this.

10:17 pm - Saturday, March 3, 2012

#5 david l

I’ve tried using the USB-camera cable, but I end up charging the battery when I actually want to download to my computer.
Does anybody care to help a techno-simpleton to do it?

4:03 pm - Thursday, March 22, 2012

#6 Igor

The quality of video that takes this camera is terrible. Modern phones shoot better. At 1280x800 image blurred and faded paint completely. Bought after this review, disappointed in the camera and in your website. Rating chamber 2 points out of 5

9:47 am - Sunday, August 26, 2012

#7 Yamadipati

Just wondering… to those that says this camera is bad… or good in this matter.

Mind telling me how you shoot your shots?
Lighting conditions, range, focus, shooting mode, ISO, custom settings or not, etc.

Because from what i’ve experienced with pocket cams is that if you want decent shots off it you need to play with the settings quite a lot…

11:53 am - Monday, October 29, 2012

#8 joe black

this is a review and there are personal bickering here.. sheeesh !!!

2:17 pm - Saturday, December 8, 2012

#9 CannedZ

If the VG-170 is anything like the VG-160 I just bought (and returned for a refund a day later) I would only accept one if it were free.

The VG-160’s photo quality is atrocious, NO sharpness, evident pixels even BEFORE using zoom with Windows’ JPG viewer, exaggerated red/green/blues in each photo, and a flash that more often than not imparted a blue hue to any white objects in the picture.
If it weren’t for the fact I bought it at a reputable shop I could have believed I’d bought a counterfeit. My first Olympus, and my last.

6:09 am - Wednesday, March 13, 2013

#10 Krzysztof Nalazek

You can see “awesome” pictures made by this camera.
This is without any photoshop or filters, just default pictures made as good as possible:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/photos/107096448666151634141/albums/5887980052994220609

10:37 pm - Monday, June 10, 2013

Entry Tags

3 inch LCD, compact, wide-angle, 14 megapixel, olympus, 3 inch, wideangle, flash, budget, 5x, point and shoot. beginner, VG-170, Olympus VG-170, Olympus VG-170 Review, vg170, vg 170

Tracker Pixel for Entry