Pentax Optio 550 PROJECT

Kell

Kell

Messages
3,421
Name
Kell
Edit My Images
Yes
My first ever digital camera was the above.

A Pentax Optio 550. It cost a lot of money for a PAS back in 2003 (£550) and, because I'd not really got 'back into' photography at that time, I shot everything in JPEG and didn't do any post. Pretty sure I would have had it in auto mode the entire time I owned it.

But worst of all, I didn't even own a PC at home so saved all my pics to my Work PC and had to save them out at something like 70% quality to get them to fit on to a floppy disc.

(Hangs head in shame)

But even so, I always liked the images from it.

And every now and again, it would produce an image that had a quality that I really liked.

Clearly by accident.

Every subsequent PAS camera I replaced it with (including 3-4 Panasonic Lumix) didn't give (IMO) the same light quality.

So I hung on to it until it was literally held together with Duct Tape. Then eventually. my daughter dropped it on a stone floor and it was no more.

Always missed it, and every now and again would look for one on eBay. Finally found one which looked pretty good and made a bid and won it for £22.50. Which is a 25th of its original price.

Now it's turned up, it looks immaculate.

So, this project is to see if I can deliberately produce some nice images from it.

Basic Features

  • 5.0-megapixel CCD, for images up to 2592 x 1944 pixels.
  • Real-image optical viewfinder.
  • 1.5-inch color TFT LCD monitor.
  • Glass, 5x, 7.8-39mm lens, equivalent to a 37.5-187.5mm lens on a 35mm camera.
  • 5x digital zoom
  • Program, Aperture Priority, Shutter Priority, and Manual exposure modes.
  • Shutter speeds from 1/4,000 to eight seconds.
  • Aperture range from f/2.8 to f/7.9, depending on lens zoom position.
As I say, I only ever used JPEGS, but in the back of my mind seemed to remember that it shot RAW.

Now that i've got it, I've realised that's not true, but there is an option for TIFF images, so I've set it to that as at least it's a lossless format.

So the next step is to start using it. I also remember that it was hopeless in low light, so I've probably picked the worst time of year to buy one, but beggars can't be choosers.
 
Last edited:
Going to kick off with some of the images I did like from my old one.

Alpe D'Huez 2009

AD187 by Kell Lunam-Cowan, on Flickr

This is me and my daughter in 2007. Liked this because of the way it captured the water.

2007.07.JUL.176 by Kell Lunam-Cowan, on Flickr

Universal Studios 2004

Universal Studios, LA 2004 by Kell Lunam-Cowan, on Flickr

Monument Valley 2004

Monument Valley 2004 by Kell Lunam-Cowan, on Flickr

California, 2004

Delano, Road Trip 2004 by Kell Lunam-Cowan, on Flickr

Delano, Road Trip 2004 by Kell Lunam-Cowan, on Flickr

Valley of Ice, 2004

Valley of Ice, Yosemite 2004 by Kell Lunam-Cowan, on Flickr

My daughter, 2005 (I actually have this blown up as an A2 print in our hallway.

27.05.05.09 by Kell Lunam-Cowan, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
Some cracking images there. I can see why you loved that camera. But then it's a Pentax...and I'm a Pentax fan (albeit not a Pentax digital owner)
 
Thanks Lindsay.

I must admit, because I wasn't happy with any subsequent PAS after this camera, when i finally made the move to a DSLR I almost went for a Pentax. I don't remember the model now, but it looked really good and had a magnesium (IIRC) body.

Whatever it was, I think it was a FF, pro body but was double the price of an entry level Canon though.

The biggest reason I didn't was I figured more people shoot Canon, and there'd be more of a SH market to pick stuff up cheap.

To be fair though, I never investigated that theory. It was just a hunch.
 
Last edited:
A few things that are immediately obvious.

  1. 1. It's so s-l-o-o-o-o-o-w. Slow to start up, slow to focus, slow to write images.
  2. Everything seems to have a weird magenta-ish cast. Which I've tried to remedy, but not had much success.
  3. The images seems somehow 'thinnner' at the minute, they lack depth or richness.
  4. how much smaller the images are - even against the 1" sensor in the little Canon.
Here's how they look when brought into the same photoshop doc at full resolution. (Obvious given that one is 5MP and one is 20MP).

1664126631638-png.367902
 
Last edited:
Love the one of you and your daughter that is a real cracker, I replaced my 550 with an i10 which I loved until it got broken in a motorbike accident. Looking at E bay I might have to get another one just to put in my pocket when out on the bike. People dismiss these cameras but they are still capable of taking great photos and the MP value is greatly over rated in my opinion. Some of the best photos I ever took was on a 6mp Olympus.
 
Only just noticed this thread Kell, and it seems clear to me that the camera definitely does not maketh the image!

Some really good photography here, and at these resolutions on screen, it's clear 5MP is absolutely fine. Well done!
 
I recently dug out my old Powershot A640. Haven't used it for years. Still powered up as well. It certainly does have a quality about it. The pictures from it are lovely.
 
Harlequin565 said:
Only just noticed this thread Kell, and it seems clear to me that the camera definitely does not maketh the image!

Some really good photography here, and at these resolutions on screen, it's clear 5MP is absolutely fine. Well done!
Click to expand...

Thanks.

As I say in a post above, I have the one of my daughter in the striped onesie blown up to A2.

Some print company or other was doing an intro offer on A2 posters. I'd always been told a 5MP wouldn't blow up that much, but it was my only camera so I thought I’d risk it as they were only charging about a fiver for the print.

It’s perfectly acceptable unless your nose is against the glass.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top