Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ70
Nikon Coolpix P610
Nikon Coolpix L840
Nikon Coolpix S9900
Canon EOS 1200D
Canon PowerShot G9 X Review
Ricoh WG-M1 Review
Nikon Coolpix L31 Review
Nikon Coolpix S2900 Review
Nikon Coolpix S33 Review
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
this is a review and there are personal bickering here.. sheeesh !!!
2:17 pm - Saturday, December 8, 2012
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
You can see “awesome” pictures made by this camera.
This is without any photoshop or filters, just default pictures made as good as possible:
10:37 pm - Monday, June 10, 2013
The favourable review influenced my decision to buy this camera. My main use for a digital camera is close-up nature photography. My previous camera (Olympus D-535) had just died after nearly 10 years of use and I needed a quick replacement. Note that the previous camera was another entry-level model with few adjustable controls. With some experience of how to manage its shortcomings in low light it produced controllable and sometimes even impressive results. Fast forward to 2014 and the “amazing” VG-170. In a few words, it produces photographs of inferior quality than the 2004 model. I don’t know the philosophy behind this, how a comparable level camera with specs from a decade ago produces better photographs, but after six months of use it’s true. Though I am not an expert photograph analyst, it’s quite obvious that photographs in good and in bad light are not sharp enough. These are all photographs at ISO 100 and resolution set at 14 MP taking up 6, 7 Mb of memory. It’s amazing where all that memory gets wasted when you zoom in slightly and lo and behold graininess and the feeling you are looking at a messy oil painting rather than sharp, real-life surfaces. Bright colours do not come out bright enough, and this is especially true for greens and yellows which are never captured true. Macro mode is important to me and this camera can’t focus on anything closer than 5 cm. (Older camera could manage less.) The depth of field in macro photos is pretty poor. Sometimes higher end cameras take low depth photos for artistic effect, but that’s not what I’m looking for. Normally, I’d compensate this by aligning all my subjects in one plane, but this camera needs more than just that. I regret buying this though I have myself to blame for the hasty choice and for having tall expectations for what feels like an intentionally underpowered camera. I feel better now having shared my tale with you. :)
8:10 pm - Sunday, October 19, 2014
Support PhotographyBLOG: Buy the Olympus VG-170 from
one of our affiliate UK retailers:
3 inch LCD,
point and shoot. beginner,
Olympus VG-170 Review,
Camera Reviews ·
Camera Buying Guide
Camera Buying Guide
Lens Reviews ·
Photography News ·
Best Digital Cameras
Best Digital Cameras
Best Compact Cameras
Photo Gallery ·
© Copyright 2003-2015 Photo 360 Limited