Jump to content

Talk:Casio Exilim

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I changed the remarks about the 72 DPI lock, which really is nothing to worry about, it is more or less cosmetics.

I also added that some models DO support raw mode, but you have to use the hidden service menu, which means that it can be risky and should only be done if you know what you are doing.

MV, Saarbrücken, Germany

Good! - David Gerard 14:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed "Exilim Slim" to "Exilim Card." Casio refers to these cameras as their Card Series as late as their Spring/Summer 2006 marketing materials which I'm holding in my hands. 68.184.209.190

Yep, and in the earlier materials too - David Gerard 14:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

64-bit drivers

[edit]

Most recent Exilims transfer images via their cradle/dock, which is connected via USB to a computer. It acts as a regular mass storage device, therefore no extra drivers are necessary on recent systems. This includes the mentioned 64-bit Operating Systems. I think that part of the article needs to be corrected to reflect this.

Generalised para moved from intro

[edit]
A number a notable digital cameras firsts have been made by Casio, including the first consumer digital camera with an LCD screen, the first consumer 3 megapixel camera, the first true ultra-compact model, and the first digital camera to incorporate ceramic lens technology.

This was the second sentence in the intro ... but it's not Exilim-specific at all. And most of it needs citations - David Gerard 14:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Data to table

[edit]

I'm shifting the data on each camera to the table at the end, which should carry all the information in a much more accessible form. See Canon Digital IXUS for the sort of thing I'd like this table to become. We really need a good source on release dates - David Gerard 14:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


S600 charger

[edit]

I removed this, "(Current models, such as the EX-S600, do come with an external charger as well." According to manuals, the S600 does not come with a charger other than the cradle. The same goes for all other current models except the P700 and P505. 68.184.209.190 01:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, dude. I have an EX-S600. It came with a charger in the box. - David Gerard 05:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And it's going to be Jdforrester's soon, so we can check with him for stuff it does and doesn't ;-) - David Gerard 05:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, thinking about it, I'm not absolutely certain what's in the box I got was only stuff that would have been in the box as sent out by Casio. I'll have to check further - David Gerard 05:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the link to the manual online, http://ftp.casio.co.jp/pub/world_manual/qv/en/ex_s600/EXS600_e.pdf, it doesn't show it included. Maybe yours was included as an extra by the retailer you got in from? 68.184.209.190
Possibly! I'll need to ask around ... - David Gerard 08:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lowlight

[edit]
As for the low light one ... I'll need to find a third-party citation (review sites or whatever), but having used EX-S1, EX-S2/EX-M2 and EX-S20 extensively, and EX-S600 a bit, it appears to be using the same crappy CCD and/or internal processing. You can pull a picture out of the low-level output, but it's horribly noisy - David Gerard 05:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ultra-compact cameras in general have a hard time in low light levels, but I'll agree many Casios are well below average when it comes to noise. Still, I've used most of Casio's recent models and I have been happy enough with their low light ability, at least compared to similar cameras from other companies. And this is also a problem that is going to vary between different models. Older cameras are going to be worse than newer models more than likely. To just say, "The cameras do not perform well in low light," doesn't tell the whole story. I'm going to change it to, "In low light conditions, the image quality of some models suffers from above average image noise," but I'm still not happy with that. 68.184.209.190
Yeah, needs a cite. But Casio EX-S1/2/20 do notably worse than Canon Ixus and Fujifilm digitals from the same years, in my experience, and a friend with an EX-S100 commented without prompting on how bad it was at low light. Of course, that will be original research for these purposes ... perhaps I'll write up a page myself and someone else can cite that ;-p - David Gerard 08:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DPreview comments on this - says the Fuji cameras are generally best compacts at low light, gives the Exilims low marks. Look for a cite there - since they review cameras separately, look for a late model and it will probably say "Like earlier exilims..." and then criticise the low-light (high-iso) noise-reduction. [actually the measured noise is not bad because the noise reduction blurs it away]. --200.6.247.40 23:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Data for table

[edit]

I'm filling in the technical data from review sites which appear to use the Casio data sheets; see link to reviews in notes. Feel free to add others! - David Gerard 09:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sensor in table

[edit]

The sensor's number of pixels for some cameras in the table are incorrect, they refer to the effective pixels, so either the row title should be changed or the values be corrected. Any preference or correction to my view? --Outlyer 16:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been filling it in with effective pixels, because that's what the user cares about (similar to listing the 35mm-equivalent lens length, rather than the actual lens length, because that's what the user cares about so as to compare like to like). I've edited the header accordingly - David Gerard 09:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Order of table

[edit]

I'm not sure there is a natural ordering for the table - Casio don't seem to be releasing P-series Exilims any more, and the S model numbers tend to increase but the Z model numbers go all over the place. I'd suggest chronological per date of release, as per Canon Digital IXUS. Someone want to sort the table accordingly? - David Gerard 09:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've just put it into date order - David Gerard 23:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battery

[edit]

The table says np-20 and np-40 but there is no explanation of these terms. Does the np-40 actually hold twice the charge as the np-20? --200.6.247.40 23:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those are the Casio names for the particular batteries - David Gerard 16:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anti Shake DSP

[edit]

This section was removed by an anon editor; I've restored it, as Casio state precisely how it works here: "It also combines Casio’s well-received Anti Shake DSP, which reduces blur due to shaky hands or a moving subject by using higher ISO sensitivity and faster shutter speeds ..." - David Gerard 16:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EX-Z77, EX-S880 (July 2007 models)

[edit]

These have only a minimal set of specs given in the press release reprinted on DPReview. Anyone got a good source of more detailed info? - David Gerard 21:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

USB connector

[edit]

Anyone know what kind(s) of USB connector(s) these cameras have? A friend has an older EX-275 which had a small USB connector that didn't fit the "standard" mini usb cable that also fit her Blackberry. For example, the EX-Z200 is listed, on Casio's web site, as having a USB/AV port (Hi-Speed USB compatible) -- what is a USB/AV port? Of what kind of USB cable do I need to make sure I have plenty? (And sorry for not signing my earlier comment -- I don't know how to do that.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.186.195.39 (talk) 01:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, about all the Casio EXilims after the FH series losing manual Shutter Speed, capability for video past 1/2000

[edit]

I've done some looking around on the web(and have confirmed with a actual ZR 100 and FH 20)- Golfers complained about this on forums, but it turned out to be true after i messed with the cameras.

For high speed VIDEO- manual shutter speed control-the FH series went to 1/40000 second of a shutter speed- manually selectable. That is NO LONGER the case with the ZR series- you can manually select it up to 1/2000, but you can't go higher manually.

In those various forums where i saw this brought to attention, golfers noted that catching the head of a golf club at full swing in the video- the motion blur got really bad due to the limit of 1/2000. As opposed to the earlier FH's abilities.

Should this be mentioned in the article? I can dig to see if the cameras auto-setting will let it go past 1/2000, but even then- it's up to the camera computer and you won't be able to get it when you want it.


? 98.85.140.119 (talk) 07:21, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Casio Exilim. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:47, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Casio Exilim. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:55, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Casio_Exilim&oldid=1242114559"