Is 4MP Enough In 2018? Part 2 – Olympus Camedia C4040 Zoom Review

This is part two of my 4MP digital classics experiment.

With 36MP digital cameras widely available, and even smartphones offering 19MP plus, the manufacturers try to tell us the more MP, the better your photography will be.

But after coming to love a small collection of classic digital cameras in the last year or so, mostly around 10MP, I’m starting to wonder how many MP we really need to make pleasing images.

For this 4MP experiment, I came across, in an unconnected way, a Sony and an Olmypus, which, though unplanned at the time I found them, both have a 4MP sensor.

You can read about the Sony DSC-L1 here, though the abbreviated review is that I loved it, it’s absolutely tiny, the pictures were far better than I expected and I plan to keep it as part of my core arsenal.

The other 4MP camera I acquired is four years older than the Sony, released by Olympus in 2001.


Meet the Olympus Camedia (isn’t that such a 90s name?) C-4040 Zoom, with 1/1.8″ 4.1MB CCD.

Here are my first impressions, plus some photographs I’ve made with it. Click on any of them to see at larger sizes on Flickr.

The size is quite chunky for a compact camera, and the shape is akin to a very small DSLR. Which means at least the handling is good with plenty for the right hand to grip on and the shutter button exactly where you want it. It came with a neck strap which is complete overkill. One of my favourite Footprint handstraps works much better for me.

Though I found it’s not a camera you can grip the whole time, and whilst not actually shooting, it’s more comfortable to hold around its lens.


Ah yes the lens, which is very promising for a couple of reasons.

It’s a zoom, inevitably, but starts at a not particularly wide 35mm. For me though, this has become my favoured focal length, so I could just never touch the zoom control and treat it as a 35mm prime, without having to zoom in a little, like I might with a 24 or 28mm zoom.

Add a maximum aperture of f/1.8, and this makes for a pretty unusual and potentially rather special lens for a digital compact.

Maintaining the promise is the sensor, a CCD, which from unscientific experience I have come to prefer to later CMOS sensors which seem to render in a cooler, more clinical, more digital way.

At 1/1.8″ the sensor is pretty large for a compact too, a fraction smaller than my Ricoh GX100 (1/1.75) and GRD III (1/1.7) and far larger than the Sony L1’s 1/1.27″.

The DSLR-esque mode dial also includes Off, and Playback, which is a neat way to avoid two further buttons. I used it on P (Program) throughout, which tended towards larger apertures.

The screen is pretty small, but enough to compose with, and there’s a focus confirm light. There’s also a viewfinder, but pretty small. I didn’t bother with it.


After exploring the menus, I went with HQ (High Quality) mode, auto ISO (100, 200, 400), spot AF, flash off, and the black and white function selected. I’ve bumped up contrast to +3 (it goes -5 to +5).

Setting these features, I turned the camera off, then later powered it up again to find most of the functions had reset. This alone is a complete deal breaker for me, I’m not going to spend a few minutes selecting half a dozen functions every time I switch on. So was the Olympus adventure over before it had even begun?

Fortunately no, because the Olympus engineers must have thought the same, and included a clever Custom memory mode.

You can tell it whether to reset everything or not when the camera is turned off. Then, if it is remembering, the Custom mode lets you sets the default for individual functions, everything from the initial f/ stop and shutter speed, exposure compensation, flash mode (off for me!), macro focus (on for me!) and so on. You can even set the initial focal length – 35, 55, 80 or 105mm.

All of this is very clever and useful, and reminds me of my Ricohs. These are cameras you can set up once, save to the Custom mode, then use the camera pretty much as a point and shoot.

If I wanted to shoot b/w with the C4040 at ISO400 with a 55mm focal length all day, I’d set the Custom mode once then just shoot. If another time I wanted low contrast colour with the 80mm focal length and a stop underexposed, I could set and forget that in the same way.

It makes it a number of different cameras in one body, where you choose what you want it to be for each photowalk then go and make pictures, rather than a camera where a bunch of functions can be adjusted for every single shot. Very much in tune with my approach to photography.

The step zoom is a feature I can’t live without now too, after first discovering it with the Ricoh GX100. I just need to know what focal length I’m at!

Memory is an unusual (in these days where we’re all used to SD cards) SmartMedia card, but mine came with a 128MB one which should be good for around 120 photos – more than I shoot on any single photowalk.

Oh and another plus is the batteries, good old AAs. I have a set of four Duracell 2500mAh rechargeables I got for my Samsung DSLR that last absolutely ages in that camera, so should last even longer in the smaller, simpler Olympus.

Even with the batteries it remains pretty light, significantly less than you might think from both looking at it, and feeling the pleasing build quality in your hands.

Finally, the C-4040 cost me £22 inc postage. Not the greatest bargain but I’ve seen them sell for far more, and dead cheap for the potential photographs and fun it can bring.

So down to the important aspects. How was it to use, were there any deal-breaking flaws or quirks, and what sort of photographs can it make?

Handling is enjoyable, and a lovely size, once you accept it’s not a pocketable digital like the Sony DSC-L1 or a cameraphone. The crucial functions, mostly the shutter button, are just in the right place, and works well with the typical half press for focus lock.

Which, er, is a little fickle to say the least. Ironically in darker places it seemed to (auto)focus better. A walk in bright sunlight had it really struggling to focus on any surface lit up by the sun – the ground, gravestones, walls – unless there was something with a very dark contrast right next to it.

I tried the manual focus but couldn’t figure it out, in a way which is instinctive in other cameras I have.

Consulting the manual, there are convoluted actions like “hold the OK button for more than one second so the manual focus scale bar appears. Set the focus distance using the up/down arrows. Hold the OK button again for more than one second until the MF indicator turns red. Now you a ready to shoot at the manually set focus distance”.


In practice, whilst I’m sure this would become easier with, er, practice, and the screen does magnify helpfully when you are focusing manually, it’s too fiddly, and the screen too lo-res to be very effective.

So I stuck with the old trick of focusing on something the same distance as what I wanted to focus on, so the camera would lock focus, then recomposing to the scene I wanted.

I started out with auto ISO (100, 200 or 400) and 35mm. But the camera was struggling to focus (see above) and the minimum focus (whether manual or auto) of 0.2m just feels too limiting when all other digital compacts go closer than this, and I’ve been spoilt by both of the Ricohs’ 0.01m close focus.

ISO400 was seeming a bit washy too. So with some further thought and fiddling I decided to set the zoom to 80mm (remember the Custom menu lets you tell the camera to remember a focal length of 35, 55, 80 or 105mm) and the ISO to 100, and saved the settings.

Because of the greater “reach” of 80mm, the minimum focus then seemed enough. And me and the Olympus started to find our rhythm.

Yes, the AF was still a bit hit and miss, or rather difficult to lock sometimes. And yes the exposure was sometimes well over when the composition was as I wanted. I used the AE lock button extensively, far more than any other camera, to get the exposure I wanted from the C4040, meaning for most shots I was locking AF, AE or both before actually settling on the final composition and taking the picture.

But when I saw the images, after my usual minor processing with Snapseed, a broad grin grew across my face.


The Olympus had found its own little niche. With its baby SLR feel, and using 80mm and ISO100, I was able to draw images out of the camera with plenty of sharpness plus more soft and dreamy bokeh than most, if not all, of my other compacts are capable of.

In conclusion, that Olympus “Super Bright Zoom Lens” is a little gem, combined with the CCD sensor at ISO100 seems a winning partnership.

Whether I could get over the other “quirks” of the camera enough to make it regular on my photo adventures remains to be seen. I’m leaning towards no, being a rather lazy photographer and enjoying more invisible cameras.

It’s not the easiest, most logical, or most forgiving camera to use, and because of this it’s not going to be a digital classic for everyone. But for a 4MB from 2001, it still packed enough to make me smile.

Have you used a similar Olympus Camedia camera, or indeed any other digital camera from around the turn of the century? How did you find it? 

Please let us know in the comments below (and remember to tick the “Notify me of new comments via email” box to follow the conversation).

Thanks for looking. Please share this post with others you feel will enjoy it too. If you’re interested, this is what my photography life looks like right now.

18 thoughts on “Is 4MP Enough In 2018? Part 2 – Olympus Camedia C4040 Zoom Review”

  1. Wonderful images, Dan. And there is clearly a lot to like about the Olympus. Unfortunately, my “new” old D-Lux is on the way back to its seller: the same power issues I had with my own camera ten years ago. Should have listened to my gut feeling when I hesitated before buying. Older digital compacts do have a certain “lo-fi” charm, but due to the technical unreliability it is a route that I would not choose a second time.

    1. Thanks Robert.

      Ah, that’s a real shame about the Leica. Yes an inevitable risk with anything electronic (whether ten days old or ten years old) is the reliability.

      Though I’ve splashed out a little on the Ricoh GRD III (£150) and Pentax Q (£120), most digital cameras (or indeed film cameras with electronic parts) I’m reluctant to spend more than pocket money on. Then even if they do die after a few weeks I’m not too disappointed, or out of pocket.

      On the flip side, there are cameras made in the 70s and 80s who electronics are still going strong, so as well as quality, there is a luck element too.

  2. To me Oly seems better than Sony, more depth to images, age didn’t make camera worse. As for megapixels, if the sensor is really tiny, pixel count doesn’t play the game. Very rarely the image can be usable at 100% zoom, for mid/high-end cameras mostly, not for phones definitely.

    Wonderful shots!

    1. Thanks for your comments.

      Yes, despite the Olympus being older, I think the much larger, faster lens and the larger sensor, combine to edge out the Sony and give more depth, like you say.

      The Sony delivers more than adequate images for me and its compactness and simplicity I love. I far prefer it overall to the Olympus.

      But… Yes the Olympus can conjure up special moments, and sometimes when you have to work harder to extract these images from a camera, they feel more rewarding in the long run. I’m not ready to sell the Olympus yet.

      I hardly ever use zooms as zooms, which I why I treat the Sony as if it has a 32mm prime lens, and really appreciate the step zoom combined with memory, on cameras like the Olympus and my Ricoh GX100. At 80mm the Olympus gave some lovely depth of field and bokeh, much more impressive than I expected from it. I think I’ll try it at 105mm at some point (ie fully zoomed in) but don’t expect it to deliver as well as at 80 or 55mm.

      And yeh most phones take a nosedive in quality as soon as you touch the zoom…

  3. Reading the posts of this blog and loving all, the pictures and text, thank you!
    I just restarted photography last year, because I needed to make a folding brochure for my work.
    Bought a used Dslr(my first), I had some lenses from my old film camera and used them. After buying a lot of very cheap old lens.
    I’m living in Japan and here old stuff is very cheap, I started to buy old point and shoot digital and now I have a lot of them. Since I make bicycle frames and when I can shoot almost of time are during rides. Spending a lot of money on a new camera for riding bikes is not a good idea, in many situations like bike events, bad weather, carrying stuff on a cargo bike.
    I’m using nice 2.1mp camera like Casio qv2400ux, olympus camedia 700,720,730, pentax optio a30 etc. Many ones were broken and I like to make and fix things it is I very good hobby, some times I sell or give to some one.
    The fujifilm cameras with super ccd are fantastic, try one if you have a chance!

    1. Gerson, thank you for reading and your comments, seems we have much in common!

      Regarding the Fuji Super CCD, I have tried one, and I agree!

      See this post –

      I just finished (almost) a month with a Lumix TZ2 and compared it with the Fuji. I preferred the Lumix to use but said if you’re patient there’s definitely something quite special about those Super CCD sensors…

  4. If you want to go lower, try the Sony Mavica MVC-CD1000. A 2.1MP monster of a camera, that saves taken images to a mini CD. Slow to focus, abysmal shutter lag, slow image saving (2-3 seconds JPG or 30+ seconds if saving in TIFF). But boy, it did produce lovely, colourful images, that still look nice today. Still have mine, a bit battered, the CD mechanism has become flaky and the CD door latch has become sensitive to vibration and causes a re-read of the CD when knocked. BUT it still works.

    A £1000 camera back in 2000.

    1. Thanks Mr Wolf. Yes I’ve come across the Mavica a number of times, very intriguing! Sony have certainly been pioneers in many areas over the years.

      The lowest MP camera I’ve tried is also 2MP, a bright pink VTech KiddiZoom our kids have. Even that you can get a decent picture out of if you apply simple principles like ensuring focus is locked on the correct part of the composition and keeping the camera steady when releasing the shutter to avoid camera shake…

      I wonder how many cameras (millions?) have been dismissed by their operator over the years (especially in the digital age) as not being able to take clear, in focus pictures, just because the above two basic techniques aren’t adhered to!

  5. The C4040Z was my first digital camera, and it was magic There was a holy war going on at the time between that camera and the Nikon Coolpix 900, with the swivel head. Both were actually state-of-the-art and very good cameras. I preferred the shape of the Oly, and the f/1.8 lens was pretty sweet.

    1. Thanks Mark. As you can see, I came to this Olympus much later. It did make me appreciate more simple digital cameras where you had to work harder and overcome their shortcomings. I wrote more about this here –

      Looking back at the images I made with the C4040, they have a certain charm that much more sophisticated cameras with way higher MP CMOS sensors can’t produce. A certain “magic”, like you said. My FujiFilm S7000 is similar in this, with its 6MP Super CCD sensor.

  6. Hi Dan,

    As I was browsing eBay for an Olympus C5050, I found the C4040 for £8, and purchased it right away, even before checking reviews online. I figured that, at that price (comes with original bag, 64MB card and remote), it was a real bargain whatever the performance. But after finding your great blog, reading your assessments, and above all looking at the photos you took with it, now I’m *certain* I won’t regret this impulse purchase.

    I’ve bookmarked your great site.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s