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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Dec 28, 2003, 2:49 PM   #21
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 10
Default

Sorry Ralph, the results on mine have been pretty awful. I bought it on Boxing Day and took about 40 shots - the first "snap" was really really terrible.

I took it out on 27th December and took 112 shots on it, ALONGSIDE 82 shots on my old Olympus as a control. It was a very dull day again, grey and raining a lot of the time. There were no sparkling shots from either camera to be honest, but the Olympus got a higher proportion of better shots.

I took a further 48 shots in BRIGHT SUNSHINE today, with the Casio on its highest resolution at "fine" quality. It selected higher shutter speeds, and smaller apertures, and the results should have been stunning.

The pictures are better than yesterdays, but still not acceptable IMHO. Some are good, but even so "grain" or "noise" or whatever it's best described as, is still there.

The images I have now are 1.3 to 1.8MB. The results should
have been stunning from a 4 megapixel camera under these conditions.

But I think they are still fairly poor - I sent some compressed samples to another Forum member to see what he thought.

Pictures of leaves, berries, scenes etc are fine, but skin tones and hair
are not good enough, in my opinion. Hair looks incredibly "digital".

Maybe I'm too fussy. (I notice the new
Olympus C4000, which seems to be a remake of my old Olympus C3000, has a
report of "well above average picture quality - so maybe I have been spoilt
in the past).

I also worked for Kodak for 12 years - in quality control for
part of it - so maybe my standards are just too high. I also use Nikon F3 and 801 SLRs with pretty good lenses - so am I just expecting too much from a small digital camera?

Anyway - I'm probably going to try and return it within 7 days, and try and
change it for something else. Might be difficult, as it's not actually
faulty or anything, but I just don't think it's as good as it should be.

The galling thing is, the little Casio has even failed just to take a simple, happy-snap of a simple subject - like my little boy sitting motionless on his bike. I got a blurred image - not so much camera-shake - but like the camera just failed to be able to focus properly. Do you think I've just got a rogue one?

I've been re-reading reviews of various digital models now, and rather than go for the glowing reports, which make far nicer reading if you've just bought, or are about to buy a particular model, I've pulled out the negative reports.

I've found other comments (on Olympus Mju / Stylus cameras actually) where users have found the same thing.

Take a shot, in good light, with a steady hand - and get a blurred "soft" image. WHY???? :?:

I love the feel of the little Casio, great metal body, good size, great start-up time, but even as a fairly accomplished photographer, I just can't get reliable, good results from it.

I'd like to keep it, I want it to work well, but I just cannot live with this inconsistency.
Bill R is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 28, 2003, 3:02 PM   #22
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 54
Default

It sounds to me like you have a dodgy camera there, it sounds totally opposite to mine. It may be that I am too lenient though? I can send you some samples from mine to compare if you want me to?
ralphuk100 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 28, 2003, 3:16 PM   #23
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 10
Default

Yes please Ralph. I've just sent you some samples to try and illustrate my problem. They are compressed, using Picture Tray though, so the lack of quality is less obvious than on the originals.
Bill R is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 29, 2003, 7:07 AM   #24
eak
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1
Default

Hi Bill
I bought a Casio CV-R40 from PCWorld on Saturday and returned it today for a refund. I too was disappointed in the picture quality, mainly because I am too much of a perfectionist! I honestly think the picture quality is good enough for the price paid, but I was unhappy with the high level of noise, and lack of detail in shadow areas. Although I had used the camera, I obtained a refund on the basis that the PCWorld website advertises the camera as having Continuous Shooting mode, which it does not (I printed off the spec from the website, as well as an extract from Steve's review and took to the shop with me)

I have now ordered a Canon Ixus II (SD100) from Amazon, currently in stock at the very good price of 179.99. I am hoping that for near enough the same money, I will be happier with the picture quality. By the way, a review of the QV-R40 is due at www.dcresource.com any time now.

I hope this helps you, I don't want to get into lengthy discussions about picture quality, but thought that my experience may help you get a refund if you decide thats what you want.
Liz
eak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 29, 2003, 7:53 AM   #25
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 54
Default

well i'm no expert and on the whole I get my pictures developed at a photo printer's and there is no problems with them. Maybe I am just not critical enough

For what its worth eak, my friend has an Ixus II and while his outdoor shots can look slightly better than mine his indoor ones generally look on par or slightly worse.
ralphuk100 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 30, 2003, 11:44 AM   #26
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 10
Default

Thanks for that helpful tip Liz. My main concern was poor picture quality, but the incorrect information on the camera's spec on the Curry's site was better grounds for returning it.

I got a full refund this afternoon. I even got my money back for the extra memory card and case which I bought at the same time.

Full marks to Currys for this.

I was pleasant with them however, stated my case clearly and patiently, and showed them a print out of their own website and like you did, the relevant portion of Steves review. I had offered to put up some extra money for the Canon Ixus 400 (AKA S400 in the states), as the Currys price is as good as Amazon's right now - but they didn't have it in stock, and neither did any branch in the area.

I'm really pleased you brought up this continuous shooting issue. It's a feature I have on the bulkier Olympus, but in all honestly had rarely used it. Some of the Casio shots I'd been unhappy with, were of my of my little boy, cycling. Particularly in poor light, often a difficult subject anyway - continuous shooting enables you to take several shots in fairly quick succesion and get a good one, but one shot, then a 4 second wait before the next is poor.

I also note, that when you read the excellent camera reviews on this site, and the other linked one, all the sample photos are taken in beautiful, sunny, well lit American weather - not dreary old England. So, with higher shutter speeds and smaller apertures, the demo photos are always going to look as good as possible.

However, one of the demo photos (on Steve's Digi-cam site I think) taken with the Casio, is of a Collie dog running around someone's garden. The dog is on the move, and jumping, so not an easy subject to catch. Even on this demo shot, there is an example of the poor quality I was referring to. the dog is slightly blurred, due to subject movement - it's often going to happen with a subject like this. But, the shutter speed used was 1/640 and I would have thought the dog may have been "frozen" at this speed. It's at times like this, when either there is slight subject movement, or the subject is very slightly out of focus, the Casio responds with "noise" or grain it seems. Zoom right in on the Collie dog and you'll see it.

Now, imagine taking shots in grey old Britain, with 1/60 at F2.8 and this "noise" effect is much much worse. This is very noticeable on skin tones, but doesn't seem to show on buildings, trees, leaves, inanimate objects etc. The Casio was great for everything except people shots in dull light, and it's turn-on to ready time was excellent, but due to the number of shots that I wasn't happy with, it had to go.

I'll probably get a Canon - I can't seem to find a bad word about the picture quality - and due to my picky nature, I think picture quality will have to come first.

Thanks for all the discussion on the subject.
Bill R is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 6, 2004, 4:55 AM   #27
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 10
Default

At long last (too late for me), see here for DC Resource's review of this camera; http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/ca...ew/index.shtml (alt+w) ??

"The QV-R40 took a sharp, albeit noisy shot of our macro subject. The colors and exposure are both very good. The noise in the image (which is an issue with this camera) gives the subject a fuzzy, "video capture" appearance"

And, on the close up, red-eyes picture....

"Also note the amount of noise in this ISO 80 shot"

"The biggest gripe I have with the photo quality is the noise level -- it's higher than average. The place where the noise is most obvious is in the sky, and on flat things like walls. It really eats away at the detail in your shots......


Lowering the sharpness helps a little, but there's still a lot of junk in the photo that shouldn't be there. The noise won't affect your 4 x 6 inch prints, or if you downsize your images quite a bit. But the bottom line is that other cameras deliver better picture quality for around the same price."



Phew! Liz & I weren't the only ones who thought this.



Bill R is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 6, 2004, 12:21 PM   #28
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 4
Default

Quote:
Lowering the sharpness helps a little, but there's still a lot of junk in the photo that shouldn't be there. The noise won't affect your 4 x 6 inch prints, or if you downsize your images quite a bit. But the bottom line is that other cameras deliver better picture quality for around the same price."
What other ones? Can you recommend a few please? Thanks.[/quote]
Mister PK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 7, 2004, 4:30 AM   #29
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 10
Default

sorry PK - the review sentences about the Casio were quoting the DC Resource article, and I don't know which others he was referring to.

After returning the Casio, I bought a Canon Ixus 400 instead (S400 in the States). I do think the picture quality is better on this, but it was nearly twice the price.

The other person on here (Liz?) was going to buy an Ixus 2 (S200?) which is a similar price (but less zoom), maybe she can comment.
Bill R is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 31, 2004, 8:01 AM   #30
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill R
sorry PK - the review sentences about the Casio were quoting the DC Resource article, and I don't know which others he was referring to.

After returning the Casio, I bought a Canon Ixus 400 instead (S400 in the States). I do think the picture quality is better on this, but it was nearly twice the price.

The other person on here (Liz?) was going to buy an Ixus 2 (S200?) which is a similar price (but less zoom), maybe she can comment.
Bill R, after having owned and presumably used your substitute, can you comment a bit more on what your Canon does better or worse than the Casio? In particular, does it start as quickly, and does it use AA cells?
Swissboy is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


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 5:06 AM.