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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jan 23, 2006, 9:11 AM   #1
Junior Member
 
ahamay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 20
Default

Hello everybody,

I have a big dilemma; I went toan electronica-store and wanted to look for a nice replacement for my Kodak DX3900. One of requirements is a good moviemode (640x480 30fps) 3 Camera's looked fine:

199EURO
Casio S 500. Looks very cool, very small en MPG4 Moviemode.
I find this camera awesome just looking at it.

199EURO
Casio Z110. 6Mp brother of the z120? no mpg 4 movie?

239Euro
Casio Z120. 7Mp no mpg4 movie

Question 1
Image quality, which one is the best. I want to make A4 prints.

Question 2
Is the video quality of all camera's the same?

Question 3
Or should I wait for the S600? Is it that much better than the S500 ?This one costs 300 Euros !

Thanks,

Maurice






ahamay is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jan 23, 2006, 10:37 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 189
Default

Hello,
IMHO Z120 is the most solid performer of these 3- better CCD, some manual control etc.

Best, JR

Reps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 28, 2006, 6:13 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 143
Default

Ya for those prices the Z120 seems your best bet

Though don't expect anything out of this camera's flash. Its really weak...
The camera is solid, but really don't get too excited over it. Though MP4 is overated, its just better compression in the camera really, you can always convert the file later (on your computer) to whatever format you want)
Lexiticus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 28, 2006, 8:14 PM   #4
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 14
Default

Lexiticus wrote:
Quote:
Ya for those prices the Z120 seems your best bet

Though don't expect anything out of this camera's flash. Its really weak...
The camera is solid, but really don't get too excited over it. Though MP4 is overated, its just better compression in the camera really, you can always convert the file later (on your computer) to whatever format you want)
are you happy with the z120?


KIMBERLY1X is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 28, 2006, 8:18 PM   #5
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 14
Default

KIMBERLY1X wrote:
Quote:
Lexiticus wrote:
Quote:
sorry error
KIMBERLY1X is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 28, 2006, 9:43 PM   #6
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 82
Default

The S500 only has average image quality, above average (sometimes unacceptable) noise levels and has no optical viewfinder.

The Z120/Z110 on the other hand have commendable image quality and a nice set of additional features.

I agree that the S500 looks very sleek, and I wish that it was a better camera. Unfortunately, the Z120 just edges it in every department except appearance.
tennisforums is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 28, 2006, 10:40 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 143
Default

Ya you could say i'm happy with it, for what I bought it for
(A take anywhere camera, like skiing and party's where taking my Olympus 5050 would be suicide)

I already own a 5050, And it spoils me with its nice lens and decently powerfull flash, So I never realized how good I had it till I used the Z120

The Apperature range for starters, in apperature priority has only 2 steps. So you will be like 2.8 or 5.0, or 4.5 or 7.8 (forget the exact numbers) so you have limited flexibility there.

Also I know it says it has anti shake, but you can basically count that out. Because to get it to work you need to be using Auto ISO, And this camera is bad at selecting low ISO's, For example indoors it would ALWAYS select iso 1600 (with no flash) And that turns out super noisy!

another thing that irked me, is the Macro mode, 10cm in my opinion is not macro, thats just close range.. But there are a few advantages to having the macro mode in the first place, Its easy to get short depth of fields with it. So thats alright.

The flash is really really weak. Probably the weakest ive ever seen on a camera, Its usefull only for portrait shots, because even interior pics It will not illuminate the walls properly. It has a fill flash / auto assist built in to try to help that out, but doesn't seem to do much.

Kepp in mind everything I'm saying here is the bad parts about the camera, I'm just telling you so you know what to expect should you buy it.

All those negative things aside, I think its a really fast performing camera, with a really high quality video capture. (for a point and shoot). In daylight the pics come out really nice, And it has a really quick startup time too. so its handy to just wip out and start taking pictures. And at ISO 50 on a nice sunny day the pictures turn out excellent, even at 100% and 7.2 MP is HUGE.

It also has a memory of all the settings you do, and even the last zoom settings. So thats always handy (Something my 5050 doesn't have so I like that)

so for the 300$ CAD I paid for it, It was definitely worth it, but it could never replace my 5050 as a serious camera. (Its awesome to take skiing though!)

If you like i could post some pictures for you (or link you to some cause then i can post them at full resolution)
Lexiticus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 28, 2006, 11:48 PM   #8
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 82
Default

The Z750 might even be a better choice- that is- if they fixed the lense error problems!
tennisforums is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 29, 2006, 2:12 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 226
Default

I find the flash on the Z120 fine it can be boosted -2 / +2

Idid have a pansonic Fx9 and compared to that, my Z120 flash looked good.

It does have a huge (32) range of presets which negate some of the need for manual controls, though when you do want manual, it would have been nicer to have had the full range of manual settings to be available.

I like the colour reproduction and the speed (no shutter lag of note).

I would agree that the anti shake option is limited. It simply jacks up the ISO, which gives a very noisy image on screen, though i have yet to print something, to see whether this also shows up in small prints.

One of the good things about macro is that the flash appers to power down properly (you can also manually decrease the flsh power).

As a take anywhere camera, it has lot of features and will be able to cope with a lot of different situations. I paid £150 at Dixons for mine, which is a superb price. i was in there today and they have run out of stock, they are doing the Z110 at the same price !!!!! one of the staff members who works on the camera section is waiting for them to come in because the Z120 is to be his next camera - to me that says much
norm smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 29, 2006, 2:33 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 448
Default

The Z120 has the best CCD. The other two have smaller 1/2.5 CCDs with lower resolution which cannot compete with the 7 MP 1/1.8 CCD of the Z120. It is the same CCD as in the Canon A620 and many other 7 MP cameras. Also I wouldn't take mpeg4 too seriously. There are many flavors of mpeg4. Mpeg4 without motion compensation is not really better than mjpeg used in the Z120 (its only 25% smaller). For good mpeg4 compression with motion compensation you need an extremely powerful image processor which would drain your batteries. You have to recompress your movies, anyway.
kassandro 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 4:35 AM.