dcresource.com Review - Casio Exilim EX-Z750

[Michael Neu]

I think everyone has a right to his own opinion and these reviews are just a subjective opinion, especially since almost nothing in those reviews is based on any "objective" measurements, but just the assesment of the reviewer.

If you take this into consideration, using those reviews is fine, but you should use several opinions, since all reviews are somehow biased.

BUT what I really think is not good at all is adding this chart as a kind of a justification. Thats in my opnion just ridiculous - you could always pick the bulletpoints in a way that any cam could win, and additionally the points listed are mostly subjective opinions anyways - this leaves a very unprofessional impression on me and discredits the whole review - even if the rest of the review is very well done - so the reviewers should avoid such comparisons at all cost if they are not done in a controlled and professional manner.

There are quite a few points which are worth critisizing on the z750 and those should be in the review and not some minor points which really dont matter in reality.

 

[Dominic Williams]

I agree. After my initial comments and the subsequent decision by Jeff to put that silly comparison chart I've changed my mind about his view of the camera...

So I've decided to put my own chart together:

Cleanest Image quality = SD500
Naturality of images = Z750
Colours captured in images = Z750
Likeness to original scene = Z750
Number of options to adjust image saturation/contrast/sharpness = Z750
Aperture control = Z750
Shutter speed control = Z750
Fully manual control = Z750
Best for action photography = Z750
Best for long exposure photography = Z750
Least softness in images = Z750
Least Noise in images = SD500
Number and usefulness of preset scenes = Z750
Best for low light shooting = Z750
Most customizable camera = Z750
Battery life = Z750
Having an onscreen battery meter(!) = Z750

Result = SD500 2pts, Z750 15pts... A landslide victory for the Casio Z750!

I could go on forever, but above are the important things to me in a camera.

Anyone else think my chart is better than Jeff's?

--
Dominic Williams

 

[netswap]

And please, imho, add the MPEG-4 movie feature.

I believe a lot of users enjoy using it ...

Cheers

 

[Remedy]

and now my chart

most biased towrds SD500 = Jeff
prefers Z750 = this forum

hmm, looks like a draw 1 all. I think I'll wait for a proffessional review of my chart to see what action to take next.. I just wish I performed better in low light(ah well thats another story)

 

[jimr]

Remedy wrote:
.. I just wish I

performed better in low light(ah well thats another story)

Don't we all!

 

[SteMa]

What can you do with all the features if the indoor shots are pathetic! Full of HEAVY noise, resizing to 1024x768 and still see it, yukk... I want a cam, but 1/3rd of my pictures are taken indoor (and it's a common ratio I think), so 1/3rd of my shots are worse than pictures I could take with a better mobile phone ( look at sonyericsson k750 review on http://www.mobile-review.com : amazing image quality, better than most 2mpx cams, low noise, amazingly fast shutter speed (not lag, shutter speed! look in the exif)). I was really looking forward to this cam, but even outdoor shots have less detail than it should (I shouldn't say which resolution it's nearest to because somewhere it's close to 7mpx and there are places washed out, worse than a 2mpx (hair, fur, one of the first shots i've seen was of a terrier, try to look that up))

 

[Master Yoda]

Well said. I was one of the first along with "jmr" and others in questioning why Jeff harped so much on his claim of some over-saturation and sharpness, which even Jeff indicated could "EASILY" be corrected. Still, he constantly leaped back on these issues as being "PROBLEMATIC". Succintly put . . . he did this because frankly he couldn't find anything else to whine about.

Some of us questioned and suspected some Canon bias in that Casio review for that reason. However, he seriously tipped his own hand big time when he put up that very telling CHART ! Clearly, he was selectively picking items to choose that would justify his retaining the Canon as the top of the class. "The Canon has an Underwater Bag available" . . . gee that will make us all run down and by that instead huh? I'm glad to see others are seeing it now more than before.

Casio could have easily put up a similar "selective item" chart that skews the advantage back to their camera. Duh? Either side-by-side compare every single feature fairly or do none of them! A pro-reviewer using such antics to skew folks towards Canon is just wrong and I think he owes not us in this forum but Casio an apology.

We all have personal likes and dislikes. But we depend on a degree of fairness and objectivity in these reviews. A professional reviewer really needs to guard as much as possible aganst skewing professional reviews towards a given manufacturer. They have the ability to make or break a camera. What he attempted to do with that secondary chart that went up was shameful at best, but very revealing of what we all suspected.

 

[Michael Neu]

I really cant take that seriously.
The K750 doesnt even come close to the z750 in ANY respect.

The one noisy indoor shot of the z750 on the review - i have never ever been able to produce an as bad shot, not even with ISO400, so this image cant be taken really as an indoor example of the z750 image quality.

What can you do with all the features if the indoor shots are
pathetic! Full of HEAVY noise, resizing to 1024x768 and still see
it, yukk... I want a cam, but 1/3rd of my pictures are taken indoor
(and it's a common ratio I think), so 1/3rd of my shots are worse
than pictures I could take with a better mobile phone ( look at
sonyericsson k750 review on http://www.mobile-review.com : amazing image
quality, better than most 2mpx cams, low noise, amazingly fast
shutter speed (not lag, shutter speed! look in the exif)). I was
really looking forward to this cam, but even outdoor shots have
less detail than it should (I shouldn't say which resolution it's
nearest to because somewhere it's close to 7mpx and there are
places washed out, worse than a 2mpx (hair, fur, one of the first
shots i've seen was of a terrier, try to look that up))

 

[Michael Neu]

Absolutely agree, with posting this chart he really didnt do himself a favor.

Also.. this terrible indoor shot he posted. I really dont get it what is going on.. i have never been able to produce such a bad shot, not even with ISO 400 (and i have taken about 1200 shots in the 2 weeks I owned this cam), so Im really wondering why he is posting such a horrible example. You can produce terrible pictures with any cam, but usually bad shots like this are NEVER EVER posted in reviews, just the best ones.

Just set the ISO on 400 on the canon or sony and do a low light no flash long expore shot and you will have something very similiar. whats the point?

Once again, I dont have any problem with a professional review which tells about the weaknesses and problems of the z750 - and the possible buyer should be informed about positive AND negative points, but this is not a fair comparison.

Well said. I was one of the first along with "jmr" and others in
questioning why Jeff harped so much on his claim of some
over-saturation and sharpness, which even Jeff indicated could
"EASILY" be corrected. Still, he constantly leaped back on these
issues as being "PROBLEMATIC". Succintly put . . . he did this
because frankly he couldn't find anything else to whine about.

Some of us questioned and suspected some Canon bias in that Casio
review for that reason. However, he seriously tipped his own hand
big time when he put up that very telling CHART ! Clearly, he
was selectively picking items to choose that would justify his
retaining the Canon as the top of the class. "The Canon has an
Underwater Bag available" . . . gee that will make us all run down
and by that instead huh? I'm glad to see others are seeing it now
more than before.

Casio could have easily put up a similar "selective item" chart
that skews the advantage back to their camera. Duh? Either
side-by-side compare every single feature fairly or do none of
them! A pro-reviewer using such antics to skew folks towards
Canon is just wrong and I think he owes not us in this forum but
Casio an apology.

We all have personal likes and dislikes. But we depend on a degree
of fairness and objectivity in these reviews. A professional
reviewer really needs to guard as much as possible aganst skewing
professional reviews towards a given manufacturer. They have the
ability to make or break a camera. What he attempted to do with
that secondary chart that went up was shameful at best, but very
revealing of what we all suspected.

 

[Dominic Williams]

What can you do with all the features if the indoor shots are
pathetic! Full of HEAVY noise, resizing to 1024x768 and still see
it, yukk... I want a cam, but 1/3rd of my pictures are taken indoor
(and it's a common ratio I think), so 1/3rd of my shots are worse
than pictures I could take with a better mobile phone ( look at
sonyericsson k750 review on http://www.mobile-review.com : amazing image
quality, better than most 2mpx cams, low noise, amazingly fast
shutter speed (not lag, shutter speed! look in the exif)). I was
really looking forward to this cam, but even outdoor shots have
less detail than it should (I shouldn't say which resolution it's
nearest to because somewhere it's close to 7mpx and there are
places washed out, worse than a 2mpx (hair, fur, one of the first
shots i've seen was of a terrier, try to look that up))

It seems highly unlikely that a mobile phone would be better than a proper digital camera, but to give you the benefit of the doubt why don't get hold of the cameras and do some comparison shots to your phone?

--
Dominic Williams
http://www.rudedogmedia.com/rudedogphoto/

 

[Andrew Mitchell]

I think he was quite fair in what he wrote, and quite generous in doing it. (Maybe he is thin skinned!) As a Mac guy, he must have been influenced by a camera that will not play its movies on his computer.

I found his review more than generous. Personally when I tried this camera - which I have a strong interest in - I found the resolution of the 2.5" screen to be truly horrible (the upcoming Kodak with a 2.5" screen and 230,000 pixels looks tasty), the grating zoom noise distracting (he didn't mention that) & the menu (compared to the Canon's) to be confusing.

Cheers

Andrew

I went back and checked out Jeff's "updated" review in which he
clearly has had his "ego bruised". He puts up a chart in a vein
attempt to justify the Canon being the leader in this class. I
find it curious that he INTENTIONALLY selected items of comparison
that would hold the Canon up as the camera of choice.

Casio could easily put up a similar chart of comparative items that
skews the choice to their camera. Such "antics" are shameful at
best and Jeff should know better! Put up a chart that compares
"ALL" the features equally or compare none of them. In that
chart he includes an incredibly ridiculous item such as an
underwater bag for the Canon.

Gez . . . now there's a realy biggie for deciding on a camera huh?
He fails to mention that there are plenty (and superior) after
market bags for just such a purpose!

Using such an obscure item to attempt to justify the Canon as being
the "class leader" is shameful at best. I'm even more convinced
now that bias has indeed filtered into this Casio review. I'm
going to treat that entire "review" with the honorable ignorance it
richly deserves.

--
Andrew (in Taipei, Taiwan)
C-21OOUZ, C-5O5O, S4OO, Minolta 800si, Ricoh GR1s ..and soon a D-SLR

 

[photopic]

His final updated review is now posted.

 

[whcarter]

The new conclusion seems fair. The only quibble I'd have is with the low-light performance, I think they're about equal if you consider the anti-shake mode. He's certainly listened to what everybody has said in this thread, and you do have to give him a lot of credit for that.

 

[digital_ray_of_light]

Indeed the new conclusion segment is now more professional and the silly table along with the drama-comments about the forums are gone!

The new conclusion seems fair. The only quibble I'd have is with
the low-light performance, I think they're about equal if you
consider the anti-shake mode. He's certainly listened to what
everybody has said in this thread, and you do have to give him a
lot of credit for that.

--
My brand new photography blog: http://www.livejournal.com/users/photographyetc/

 

[Dominic Williams]

Something else that bothers me about the review is quote "The Z750 has an appallingly low amount of built-in memory, which is really inexcusable on a 7.2 Megapixel camera like this".

Correct me if I'm wrong, but what other brand of camera affords the user 'built in memory'? Apart from Casio I don't know of any - they all just come with a standard 16mb or 32mb card, worth about £5.

The way I see it, Casio gives their cameras built in memory so that customisable features like new Best Shot scenes etc have somewhere to store their default images. I very much doubt Casio intended it to be for serious photo storage.

Considering the difference in price between this and other 7mp cameras, losing out on a £5 memory card is small change.

--
Dominic Williams
http://www.rudedogmedia.com/rudedogphoto/

 

[Torben Scharling]

Is it possible to buy a see-through sticker that does away with this problem?

Like som sort of coated sticker..?!

 

[BigWaveDave]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but what other brand of camera affords the
user 'built in memory'? Apart from Casio I don't know of any -

Sony W5/W7 have 32mb internal memory
HP R717 has 32mb internal memory
New Kodak V550 has 32mb internal memory

... and so on. Check out the camera section and you'll find most manufacturers are including either a memory card or more built in memory than the Z750.

--
BigWaveDave

 

[Bart Hickman]

I think the built-in memory is really meant to make it easier for the sales-droids in stores like Walmart to demo the camera to a customer.

And just to set the record straight--I can fit TWO pictures on the internal memory! That's TWICE the performance as mentioned in the review. ;-)

Bart

Correct me if I'm wrong, but what other brand of camera affords the
user 'built in memory'? Apart from Casio I don't know of any -

Sony W5/W7 have 32mb internal memory
HP R717 has 32mb internal memory
New Kodak V550 has 32mb internal memory

... and so on. Check out the camera section and you'll find most
manufacturers are including either a memory card or more built in
memory than the Z750.

--
BigWaveDave

 

[Bart Hickman]

For those who are still shopping, I wanted to comment on the use of a cradle for recharging and transfering pictures.

A couple of months ago when I was trying to decide between Casio, Nikon, Fuji, and Sony, I initially considered the cradle a disadvantage--the z750 won out on so many other aspects I initially decided I would "put up with" the cradle to get an otherwise great camera. But now I consider the cradle a big advantage.

Now all I do is plunk the camera down into the cradle (which stays neatly on my desk) and copy the files onto the computer. Meanwhile, the battery is also getting recharged.

On my previous camera, I had to pry open a little door, find the right usb cable and plug it in. Meanwhile I needed to remove the batteries to put them in a charger and put in fresh batteries. At any given point, if I hurriedly would grab the camera, I wouldn't know for sure how much charge was left and so would need to grab the spare battery just in case. (On the new Casio, I know it's always fully charged.) The whole process was at least twice as cumbersome.

I just thought I'd throw this out there because I know some reviewers consider the cradle a disadvantage, but I ended up being delighted with the cradle scheme.

Bart

 

[Dominic Williams]

I stand corrected on the internal memory issue. Thanks for pointing that out.

Regarding the cradle - I agree with that one. I find it most useful.

--
Dominic Williams
http://www.rudedogmedia.com/rudedogphoto/