What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
How to Make Your PC as Fast as the Day You Bought It view!
howlifeworks.com - What's the fastest way to restore a computer to its original blazing glory
96 Comments
- toosas, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21i'd like to see pictures made with it, not pictures of it ;)
- trvale, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17With 10MP available, you could zoom and crop a photo later on.
- alanspach, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15It takes at least 20 MP to cast any good spells
- ModernGeek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8With a little lens like that, I don't see very many good pictures coming out of this. Sure, it will come in at 10MP, but up close it will be very blurry. If it had a large professional grade lens, then the ten megapixels would be relevant.
- DaffyDuck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Agree. With these cameras, the lens is the bottleneck. Adding more pixels will help a small amount but not nearly as much as outfitting with a better lens. Put a 30MP sensor behind a blurry lens and the photos will still be blurry. Also, there is a tradeoff between noise and pixel density.
The big numbers help sell cameras because most people don't understand these things. - cbreaker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7You could put 30 megapixels, and it still won't look as good as an SLR at 6 Megapixels. Look at the optics - it's so tiny. There's a limit to how good of a picture you can resolve through tiny little optics like that.
Megapixels is nearly synonymous with Megahertz. A little bit of truth, and a LOT of marketing. - domr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Sample images
http://world.casio.com/exilim/en/ex_z1000/gallery.html - collintheweak, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7If you're recording to 10 MP you probably don't want to dick around with lenses measured in #x. Any lens worth its sand'll give you actual, useful numbers in mm.
This lens probably cannot even scratch the surface of resolving 10 MP.
Edit: Aha! I found them! 7.9-23.7mm. How awful to leave them as a footnote. Again, #x format used to hide a mediocre lens. - Yarnage, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8I used to sell Casio cameras. Let me tell you, compared to other cameras the picture quality is horrible. I've compared some of their highest MP cameras (5 MP at the time) compared to Olympus and other brands at 2-3MP and the picture quality was so much better than the Casio.
A 10MP Casio probably has the quality of a 5MP Olympus, if it's lucky.
Honestly, I can't understand why anyone would want to buy their cameras. They don't have high quality lenses and the pictures are always grainy.
No digg - DaffyDuck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4By the way, the Canon 1D with a 85L f1.2 lens attached would wipe the floor with this camera in the image quality department and it's only 4MP.
I wish these companies would put more focus on low light noise, color rendition, lens quality, and overexposure handling on these compact cameras and stop this stupid megapixel game. - anagoge, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5This is the thing really, isn't it? If you're using 10mp, then you're either a professional photographer and therefore need more manual control i.e. a DSLR, or, you're an average user and you're never going to use 10mp for anything. I myself use 7.1mp and since the only place I display them is on the net, find myself resizing all of my 3000 pixels wide images down to just 800x600.
- willhaney, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Casio cameras are inferior to Canon and Nikon. Always have been. No digg.
- loac, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5More pixels does not equal better pictures, it actually makes for more noise.
Two things determine picture quality, the lens and the sensor. A better sensor can be made through a bigger physical size, not more pixels. - webandflow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I have an Exilim Z750 (7.2 MP). It really is a great camera, takes great pictures. I assume this one would have the same kind of image quality. Unfortunately, I just had to get the whole lens apparatus replaced. Yay for warranties.
- chad78, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6You could cast a low level healing spell for 7 or 8 MP. Then there's always the SLOW spell... Blah! It never works.
- JimV, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4If you're making 4x6 prints, then a 2 megapixel camera is all you need.
A 2 megapixel picture is about 1200x1600 pixels. A photo quality print is about 300 dpi. So a 1200x1600 (1200/300x1600/300=4x5.3) photo will make an excellent 4x5 or 4x6 print.
I use my 5 mp for 8x10's and the occasional 12x18...and it looks good, though the 12x18 is slightly pixelated.
*BTW, Costco does excellent prints for a great price. 12x18 for $3 and 8x10 for $1.50 - nhansen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4here's a link to a credible source with more than just a clip of the press release available: http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/content/Casio-Introduces-10-Megapixel-EX--Z1000-.htm
Give these guys/gals a month and they'll have a review posted. - skell, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I too own the EX-Z750. I have never looked back. Casio makes superb non-DSLR cameras. I don't need a 10mpixel model, however, if the features are that much better, I may have to consider. Major props to Casio though. They are highly underrated in the digicam market, imo.
- sixlocal, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The Casios are great for little pocket cameras.
But the focus on it having 10MP is bad. Packing more and more pixels into such small sensors is not a good thing.
To be honest, I'd be more happy with a 3MP camera on a full APS frame sensor. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I have used a 5 mp Casio and found it to be an average point and shoot, with a great form factor. However I will wait for a review before I instantly pass judgment of a camera that I have only seen a picture of , not the pictures that it actually produces.
- dbr_onix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Erm, comparing a DLSR to pocket-camera isn't the best comparison ever..
How many megapixels in a camera is immaterial compared to the advantages of an SLR camera, mainly the manual controls, and the changeable leses..
A 10MP camera wont make your pictures better, or worse.. If their blurry at 3MP, they'll be just as blurry at 10MP (Well, ever more so since the images are bigger..)..
Really, depending on price differences (If it's £2 more for a 10MP camera, why not get it..? Buf if it doubles the price, dont), if I was recommending a camera to someone for typical snap, theres absolutly no beifit of having anything over a 5 or 6MP..
- Ben - stokestack, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This entire discussion is asinine. The most important factor at this point is NOISE. Once you get beyond 5 MP or so, you have a decent-sized image. But cramming more sensors onto a ***** little chip is NOT the way to go.
Compare the images of the 4 MP Canons to the 5 MP Canons. The 4 MP images are clearly superior because the 5 MP chips produced noise-riddled garbage for images. - saligamaster, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I have one of the older Exilim Z3s and I love it. Small camera and great pictures. I particularly like the size because it makes it convenient to carry around and have whenever you need it. I'm sure this newer model is good too, but I wouldn't plan on buying it. I got my camera 3 or 4 years ago and paid about $400 for it. It has a 3x zoom and is only 3.2 megapixels. There are definitely other cameras out there that'll give you a bigger bang for your buck, but you cant be the small camera size and large screen size.
- Chompy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@sixlocal: sure, they're called idiots.
- PelleX, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Well, at 139 grams it's exactly 1/10th the weight of my Nikon D200 18-200 VR combo, and certainly more pocketable. Though for a pocket camera I'd go with a few less megapixels, I don't really want to crowd my hard disks with 10mp drunken-party shots... :)
- blackomegax, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2yup, advancements in lcd and chip and battery tech means modern casio's can take pictures, with or without flash, for the whole day, and then you just recharge it overnight. Or record audio for 50+ hours on a charge.
- theduke01, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Olliholliday has got it wrong. More pixels does not always translate into better images. If the sensor size is kept constant (in this case 1/1.8) adding additional pixels means each pixel is smaller, and due to the underlying physics, necessarily noiser. Higher noise can easily obscure finer detail. Better images with less noise and more detail can actually be had with fewer (but less noisy) pixels on the same size sensor.
Joe Blow consumer buys cameras based on the number of pixels so it is a sound marketing to increase the number of pixels even if the images aren't better (or perhaps even worse).
The ex-z750 and the ex-z850 used a 1/1.8 sensor and had 7.2 and 8.1 Mpixels respectively. I have a feeling they may very well provide better images. Given that and the fact the ex-z850 can be had for $284 at Dell, I'm not so sure the z1000 is the better deal.
Casio pocket cameras are fantastic however, so you won't go too far wrong with this camera at any rate. - hartist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Press Release:
The EX-Z1000 will have a suggested retail price of $399.99 and will be available at retail in June. - 15charmaxwtf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I'm pretty sure anyone buying a fun camera doesn't really give that much of a flying ***** about the image quality. As long as it does the job and is responsive, what is the problem?
I'm not even going to comment on people comparing it with SLRs. - mediaphile, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Megapixel is just a consumer buzzword. Most end-users know absolutely nothing about the technology they're using. Write on the box that the lens can open to a f1.4, and that wide open at 5 feet they can get a depth-of-field that's only a few inches, and it means nothing. Write on the box that the camera has an animated album view where you can crop pictures onto funny backgrounds, and people eat it up.
It's. All. About. The. Glass. - cdman98, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Well for taking pictures for fun and for family junk the Casio is better than my old Sony 3.2. I have the 5.0mp Exilim its smaller, takes better pictures, the battery works and doesn’t cost 1/3 the price of the camera and came with a 256mb SD card (oh it uses SD not memory stick).
I don’t need an $800 or $2000 camera to go to Disney World, or shoot pictures half drunk on my birthday. It needs to work first and foremost and quality vs price should be second. And to be honest the exilim delivers the perfect balance or quality and price. Pro or NOOB most folks need a camera just to mess around with and carry with them as cell phones are not getting better any time soon (state side). - sixlocal, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2So more resolution = better quality?
Have you seen the really ancient Nikon DSLRs? Their pictures are of far more quality, despite having a terrificly small output resolution. - skell, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ billyboobs
You're missing the point. He was comparing the Casio's rival (which is the Elph btw, not the PowerShot) saying his had manual features and the EX didn't. He doesn't know what he's talking about.
And yes, anyone knows that a DSLR is the way to go. We're talking about compact/economical cameras that fit comfortably in your pants pocket. If you know of one that is as complex as a DSLR, then please by all means, we would love to hear it.
Until then, go troll on someone else's comments. - ZapWizard, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1While they may be "perfect pictures"
The image of the child is simply amazing.
The stray hairs above his head have no jaggies.
You can see dried baby slobber on his lips.
You can see the fuzz of the fabric of her shirt. - CosmicJustice, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Useful camera reviews:
http://www.steves-digicams.com/default.htm
Best cameras:
http://www.steves-digicams.com/best_cameras.html - skell, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1My mistake, the PowerShot is in the same class. Maybe I'm thinking the Elph was an older model, or a sub-name for the PS.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2theduke you've never used a DSLR or a SLR in general have you?
The quality of a DSLR is leaps and bounds better than a pocket cam. Casio is not nor will ever be a major player in the professional or even 'prosumer' market.
casio belongs right next to the kodak easyshare in the cameras that suck pile along with fuji and olympus. - phsv, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2sorry for dupe comment.
- phsv, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I think we are all missing the point here. The real question we should be asking is, "Does it fit in an altoids box?" Just imagine . . .10MP in my Altoids Tin; that sure will make me smile.
- llbbl, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2don't buy this camera. I bought a earlier model casio exlim and the battery life is about 5 minutes. shoot about 10 pictures and you need to change the battery. I wouldnt buy any point and shoot that didn't have a view finder. Using the LCD to compose ur shots eats battery really fast.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"hundreds of settings" bahahaaha yeah ok.
maybe you mean hundreds of combinations of the same 4-5 settings
Most cheap cameras only have ISO, white balance, shutter speed, F-stop, and maybe a 10 sec timer in the manual mode.
oh and you can change the quality of the crappy jpeg - chodaboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"I totally agree with what others have said above about improving low light performance should be of more importance -- but I just don't understand why so many people get bent out of shape when a camera manufacturer increases their products megapixels. Yes, alot of it has to do with marketing, but I'd sure feel better about taking a standard 4 x 6 photo with a 10 megapixel camera than with a 3 megapixel camera. If nothing else, the sensors would be (i assume) of a higher quality."
Uh, no that's not a good assumption. As someone stated earlier in this thread, if you cram more sensors into a given space (ie. making a 10MP CCD on the same sized chip as a 3MP CCD), the higher density sensor will generally be noisier due to crosstalk between the photosites (sensors.) You can see this in a number of products, for example, the Nikon 5400 vs. 8700. The 8700 crams 8MP into the same sized sensor (the 5400 is 5MP). The results being reported by folks is that the 5400 pictures at higher ISO speeds (>200) are actually better than those on the 8700, because the noise levels start to degrade picture quality.
I wish the manufacturers would stop the 'more megapixels is better' mantra, and come out with some really useful features like the aforementioned low light sensitivity. I would also like to see faster, deeper frame buffers, higher frame speeds, faster autofocus, and lower shutter lag. I think it would be great to have a 3 or 4 megapixel camera that was capable of shooting 5fps, with zero shutter lag. Why is it you need to go to a DSLR if you want these kinds of features?
What people need to do is assess their needs, and get some rudimentary photo skills. Sure a 10MP camera is going to make terrific 20x30" poster prints, but do you ever do that? Sure you can crop out 80% of a 10MP picture and still get a good 4x6 print, but do you ever do that? If that part of the picture was so important to begin with, why wasn't it part of the central composition? Other things to consider:
- Larger filesizes reduce the number of pictures you can take on a given size memory card and necessitates the use of larger memory cards.
- You're going to have to download these pictures somewhere. Do you have adequate disk space for storage of these images?
- Editing and manipulation of larger images require more computer memory. You might be able to get away with editing your 2MP pictures on your XP machine with 256MB of RAM, but 10MP pictures are just going to be painful.
- If you're planning on keeping your images around, do you have something to archive these images to? - broo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I have the 7.2MP Casio (damn, guess I already need to upgrade? lol) and it shoots some great pics in normal light- but not so good on night shots (very small flash) or sports/action shots (ISO400 setting is a little noisy). I do not think that the 10MP will be very different over Casio's other cameras as the lens opening is still only about 3/4".
I am sure this camera will go for at least $500 and that is a good chunk of a DSLR price (my next camera). - JestaMcMerv, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The problem with the 10 mp small cameras such as this is the lenses are still too small. Once you blow up the picture enough, you will still see grain. If you compare this 10 mp to say the Canon Rebel XT at only 8mp, you will see the 8mp picture is sharper, so alas, nothing is accomplished but a higher number.
When I was working with digital cameras, I've seen a 4mp canon take as a better quality picture than an 7mp Sony. Its about the overall quality, not just the number of mega pixels. - phsv, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I think we are all missing the point here. The real question we should be asking is, "Does it fit in an altoids box?" :) Just imagine it . . ."10MP in my Altoids Tin!"
- EnhanceYourCalm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@Chompy:
Idiots, you say?
I must be the goddamn King of Idiots then, for using stuff like this:
http://www.hasselbladusa.com/index.asp?pageURL=/launch0106/h2d39.asp?secId=1143&itemId=3849
http://www.mamiya.com/cameras.asp?id=1&id2=2022
http://www.linhof.de/english/index.html
But don't worry, you keep banging with those tiny sensors/film planes!
Schmuck. - bigpeeler, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Too small for "man hands". Sorry Casio, I'm sticking with Canon.
Oh, and I do not need 10MP. Bigger isn't always better. - ziggystardust, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1My uncle works for a technology company that tests equipment before it hits the market and brought one of these to his sons birthday party last weekend. I used it for a little while and was impressed. I can't really say too much about it only because I used it indoors for all of 5 minutes but what can say is the speed in which pics were taken was impressive and the quality of the pics seemed to be great on the display. It was compact and had an overall solid feel to it. I use a Cannon now and one of my biggest gripes is the delay between hitting the button and the photo being taken.
- aldenhg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Another one of those toys that people who are easily fooled by big numbers will buy.
With a sensor that small and a lens that tiny, I can't imagine that thise camera would match even a 6 megapixel DSLR. Smaller sensors mean more noise and lower sensitivity and small lenses mean small apertures. Most consumers don't need more than 5-6mp, so why waste your money? - ZapWizard, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I don't have a 7MP, but I have owned two Casio Digital cameras.
They a have awsome image quality for a compact camera.
For those who think Canon and Nikon are the only camera's to buy, you are have been stuck in the past.
Both have good image quality, sure, but they suck when it comes to features, user interface, boot-to-shoot speed, etc....
Casio's camera's have won DIMA awards to image quality, over Nikon and Canon. -
Show 51 - 96 of 96 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is