Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital Cameras (Point and Shoot) > Casio

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Sep 10, 2003, 9:19 AM   #1
Junior Member
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 19
Default Casio EX-S2 quality?

I tried out a Casio EX-S2 for a day.

I really liked the form factor and fast power-on and zero shutter lag, but the indoor pictures just didn't look that good.

Okay, the automatic mode made the pictures 'orangey yellow', so I manually selected fluorescent white balance which fixed that.

But the indoor pictures kept coming out rather grainy and/or fuzzy. Outdoor pictures looked great.

I ended up returning it, but keep wondering if there is a way to compensate for the lower quality indoor ones. I guess it is because the shutter speed slows down to reduce the need for the flash. How can you speed up the shutter speed, and does this result in better indoor pictures?

Does anyone have experience with this camera here?
Mystery905 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Sep 11, 2003, 7:03 AM   #2
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 12
Default Casio EX-S2 quality?

I have carried an EX-S2 around for the best part of 9 months
now, and find it very useful as a notebook, and can even
record pages if I borrow my wife's spectacles (about +2 dioptre)
to act as a hand-held close-up lens. Ideas on quality follow:

1) In good light, quality from the 2Mpx EX-S2 is good, but not
as good as from, say, a Nikon Coolpix 950 (also 2Mpx). The
comparison is perhaps not fair, given the relative size/cost of
the two cameras. In my S2, distant objects appear slightly
sharper near the edge of the frame than in the centre (pointing
to curvature of field in the image?). Images are really quite
good when printed up A5 (5in X 7in) size, although some can
be pushed to A4 (8in X 10in) if you're not too fussy.

2) In poor light, it seems that the S2 slows the shutter down
as far as 1/10 sec, and then increases gain (ISO) without much
further slowing of the shutter. EXIF data never seems to show
shutter speeds much slower than 1/8 sec. The only way to
have some control over this is to use the exposure
compensation in the negative (darker images) direction,
or to use the flash (no good for long distances) and accept
the lighting style that this introduces. So you need to brace
your hand or the camera against something in poor light or
shake will degrade the images. Alternatively prop the
camera and use the self-timer (10 sec delay), accessible
via the menu.

3) The increase in gain results in much noise ("grain") in poor
light, but this can add to the atmosphere of some shots. The
best software to post-process noise is probably "NeatImage",
but this requires an investment in time and effort before it gives
of its best.

4) In all, I am amazed that such a tiny camera produces the
quality that it does, but if you want exhibition quality A3
prints, look at something much more expensive and much

hope these comments are useful,
Norman Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 11, 2003, 8:34 AM   #3
Junior Member
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 19

Thanks for sharing your experience with this camera. Maybe I'll give it another try....
Mystery905 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 4, 2003, 12:09 PM   #4
Junior Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1
Default EX-S2 image quality is, uh, not real good, but.....

I bought an EX-S2 for one reason, and one reason only - it's tiny. Often times, having a grainy picture is better than no picture at all, and these are the times when you're really glad you slipped the tiny little EX-S2 in your pocket before leaving home.

That's the upside. The downside is that despite the 2 MP resolution of the EX-S2, the overall image quality borders on abysmal. The key is lighting in most cases -- if you're shooting outdoors in full sunlight where shutter speeds are fast, the camera does pretty good - certainly good enough to print 4x6 snapshot prints on an Inkjet. Go indoors, though, where you're relying on the miniscule built-in flash, and things get dicey at best.

If this were a medium-sized digital camera with a 3/4" wide lens or bigger on the front, I would have returned it due to poor general imaging performance. But, being so small, it still fits in my collection of usable cameras quite nicely.

hammong is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 5:28 AM.