how did this old camera stack up to competition: Casio Exilim EX-Z70

[LOUISSSSS]

i was given this camera for doing a favor for someone. Casio Exilim EX-Z70 7.2mp digital camera.

how does/did it stack up to competition (of its day/today?)

how much is it worth on the stree?

 

[996GT2]

Worth? $75? if it's in good condition.

I've said this before and will say it again. 95% of all point and shoot cameras produce similar image quality. There might be little differences in noise reduction, sharpening, and other post processing treatments applied in-camera, but the simple fact of the matter is that a tiny P&S sensor is only capable of so much. That is to say, once you go beyond ISO 200, the images they produce get very muddy and devoid of detail due to tons of noise reduction (which is necessary due to the high noise generated by the small sensor surface area). There's not much point comparing how an old P&S camera stacks up to modern cameras because they are all only capable of producing acceptable images within a very limited range of shooting conditions. At night, a point & shoot really dies compared to any DSLR, old or new.

 

[magomago]

I think 95% of p&s produce similar quality from the same generation. I have friends with cameras (like a 5 MP Casio Exilim) that produce shit pictures compared to newer p&s. Of course, high iso it all gets murkey, but the quality is still better than what older p&s cameras produce. For one friend, with the 5 MP Exilim it was enough to get him to go out and buy another P&S (I reccomended him the panny LX8).

If I had to get a P&S, I'd focus on on ergonomics and whether I liked how it looked...because you are right that most are similar. But I would for sure take a P&S from the past 2 years over anything older (and actually, I'd take my parent's f31fd over the majority of new p&s today in a heart beat).

As for the OP - compare photos to the newer cameras. at 7.2MP, you might be fine as far as pixel density is concerned. A lot of the newer cams, even though they probably has good NR techniques, are still horrible because they try to cram 10-12 million pixels on a friggin tiny sensor.

GT2: I wouldn't say NIGHT, as much as I'd say low light.

 

[dnuggett]

Originally posted by: 996GT2
Worth? $75? if it's in good condition.

I've said this before and will say it again. 95% of all point and shoot cameras produce similar image quality.

I disagree. Unless you don't consider a Canon G10 or Panasonic LX3 point and shoots like the rest of the world does.

Wait.... maybe you consider the G10 and LX3 in that 5%?

 

[996GT2]

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Originally posted by: 996GT2
Worth? $75? if it's in good condition.

I've said this before and will say it again. 95% of all point and shoot cameras produce similar image quality.

I disagree. Unless you don't consider a Canon G10 or Panasonic LX3 point and shoots like the rest of the world does.

Wait.... maybe you consider the G10 and LX3 in that 5%?

I do consider the LX3 to be in that 5%. The G10 has excellent resolution at very low ISO, but deteriorates quickly beyond ISO 200...so I'm wouldn't consider it in that top 5%.

Some other cameras I would consider in that "5%" would be the Sigma DP1, Fuji F series (e.g. F200EXR), and Leica D-Lux 4. Not many point and shoots are capable of good results beyond ISO 400.

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: 996GT2

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Originally posted by: 996GT2
Worth? $75? if it's in good condition.

I've said this before and will say it again. 95% of all point and shoot cameras produce similar image quality.

I disagree. Unless you don't consider a Canon G10 or Panasonic LX3 point and shoots like the rest of the world does.

Wait.... maybe you consider the G10 and LX3 in that 5%?

I do consider the LX3 to be in that 5%. The G10 has excellent resolution at very low ISO, but deteriorates quickly beyond ISO 200...so I'm wouldn't consider it in that top 5%.

Some other cameras I would consider in that "5%" would be the Sigma DP1, Fuji F series (e.g. F200EXR), and Leica D-Lux 4. Not many point and shoots are capable of good results beyond ISO 400.

How about the Sony R1? Too large?

Long in tooth now, but that was a DX sized CMOS sensor, iirc?

 

[996GT2]

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: 996GT2

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Originally posted by: 996GT2
Worth? $75? if it's in good condition.

I've said this before and will say it again. 95% of all point and shoot cameras produce similar image quality.

I disagree. Unless you don't consider a Canon G10 or Panasonic LX3 point and shoots like the rest of the world does.

Wait.... maybe you consider the G10 and LX3 in that 5%?

I do consider the LX3 to be in that 5%. The G10 has excellent resolution at very low ISO, but deteriorates quickly beyond ISO 200...so I'm wouldn't consider it in that top 5%.

Some other cameras I would consider in that "5%" would be the Sigma DP1, Fuji F series (e.g. F200EXR), and Leica D-Lux 4. Not many point and shoots are capable of good results beyond ISO 400.

How about the Sony R1? Too large?

Long in tooth now, but that was a DX sized CMOS sensor, iirc?

Yep, the R1 had an APS-C sized sensor. However, it had pretty bad NR algorithms so the noise performance was nowhere near that of say...a Rebel XT.

And it's pretty hefty to be considered a "Point and shoot." It's basically a DSLR without the mirror, kinda like the Panny G1.