i've been looking at some slim cameras that i could carry around without feeling like a got a cinderblock in my pocket. cellphone cams are out of question because as good a resolution you can get on those now, they still lack a decent flash and optics are terrible.

the main question i have is how does the picture quality compared between the extending-lens cameras versus internal lens cameras, everything else being equal.

these are not exact models i am looking at, but in general i mean


vs



does depth of field and light sensitivity and all that suffer much with the difference in lens design? i would thing the cameras with internal lens would have quicker startup times in general, and also the ruggedness factor would be a bit higher. but on the other hand i don't want my pics to look as flat as kate moss' body, so it an extending lens would add depth i'd rather sacrifice a second or two of startup time.

also why almost 100 dollar price difference between
http://tinyurl.com/ya6frl
and
http://tinyurl.com/ycsxfo
the 7.2 MP one being cheaper?

any other suggesstions would be highly appreciated



[Edited on November 4, 2006 at 2:47 AM. Reason : links]

11/4/2006 2:41:22 AM

sorry dude, your pics will be flat regardless of the lens, unless you use a "LASER" (for laser holography)

in summary, I think you should get a "LASER"

11/4/2006 9:52:24 AM

you know what i mean

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field

11/4/2006 11:55:57 AM

i still like the sony credit card camera.

11/4/2006 5:16:21 PM

yeah that looks pretty sweet. it's still about 100-150 up on the casio, but about same price as that nikon. that lens looks tiny though. i guess i would nee to see some pictures taken with it

11/4/2006 7:03:01 PM

from my somewhat limited personal experience,

cameras with embedded lenses like the nikon shown here tend to have more purple fringing on the edges of light sources, and also do pretty horribly in low light (super grainage).

YMMV.

11/5/2006 12:53:40 AM

I've worked at Wolf Camera for a little over 3 years now, and in my experience, the cameras with the lenses such as the Casio that come out give a much better picture than the Nikon or Sony super-slim cameras. This not only has to do with the size of the sensor involved, but of the amount of glass and the size of the glass that the light has to go through to reach the sensor. In the Nikon/Sony type, the light comes through a lens, is reflected on a mirror to another mirror, which then deflects it to the final mirror and lens, which then focuses the image on the sensor. More Glass & Mirrors == More Diffraction, More Purple Fringing, and a horrible low-light situation.

The Casio, with the bigger lens and the image stabilization on a lot of their models, yields a surprisingly higher image quality, much, much, much better low light performance, and in general, a more robust and survivable camera that is a joy to use!

See http://www.dpreview.com for sample images from both of those cameras and, on a lot of cameras, the purple fringing phenomena.

11/5/2006 11:35:41 AM

igor look at my thread about cameras, there's one in there that you'll love. that black flat one

11/5/2006 11:07:55 PM

[Edited on November 6, 2006 at 10:31 AM. Reason : double post]

11/6/2006 10:30:26 AM

yeah i've seen that one.. about 100 dollars more than i would like to spend on a point-and-shoot. although it is rated at 10mp and got that dual lens deal going on. i think one of my friends got the 6mp version of it, ill look at the pics she has

11/6/2006 10:31:34 AM

another vote for the Casio, I had the Exilim and the picture quality was incredible

11/6/2006 1:51:09 PM

Quote :

"also why almost 100 dollar price difference between http://tinyurl.com/ya6frl and http://tinyurl.com/ycsxfo the 7.2 MP one being cheaper?"

This Casio you posted isn't one of the slim ones. If a Casio has a 'Z' in it it's a standard thickness camera, if it has an 'S' it is a slim camera.

I have a Casio S-500, looks exactly like the first pic you posted, but its 5mp instead of 6. I like it a lot, the only complaint I have is sometimes pictures are pretty grainy in a large, dark, indoor place.

11/6/2006 10:32:36 PM

i donno, looked pretty slim to me at the store.. i guess it comes down to tenths of an inch these days

11/6/2006 10:45:51 PM

I have a digital Elph with a fixed lens, and it is an absolute piece of shit.

11/7/2006 12:34:33 AM

I have a Sony T5 (Carl Zeiss lens) - 3x optical zoom works great. I've used it in all kinds of settings and it generally turns out just fine. Sure, it's not the quality of a SLR, but then again, who's going to go out with one of those things hanging around their necks? I would rather have that than a telescoping external lens, but that's just me. And a high-rez 5.1 MP shot is just fine for me - gotta scale them down to send to anyone anyway and looks just fine on a small print

11/7/2006 9:16:06 AM

do not go less than 10x optical zoom...3x is almost pointless

11/7/2006 9:56:54 AM

10x costs premium in these slim cameras. 3x is allright for takin drunk pics at a party

11/7/2006 12:11:27 PM

so how much are you trying to spend, lets start with that

11/7/2006 12:17:43 PM

^^ true...but i figure if your only goal is to take drunk pictures at parties, you wouldn't want to spend $texas on a nice camera

11/7/2006 12:21:31 PM

350 before tax tops, but would like to keep it closer to 250

[Edited on November 7, 2006 at 12:30 PM. Reason : ^ yeah but it would be my only camera so some balance is necessary]

11/7/2006 12:29:18 PM

yea i'd have to break somebody's face if they fucked mine up at a party

11/7/2006 12:34:55 PM

thats what they did to your last camera, didnt they?

11/7/2006 12:43:08 PM

Not sure if this will help you any, but below are some pictures I took with my Casio

11/7/2006 1:56:00 PM

^ when it comes to digital photography, i think it would be more beneficial if you'd host the pics on a site that doesn't degrade the quality (NOT tdub), and if you posted the full-sized pics

11/7/2006 1:57:32 PM

and if you posted some pics in lower light and/or with motion.

11/7/2006 2:02:44 PM

as mentioned before, http://www.dpreview.com/ might have sample pictures for the camera...should help

11/7/2006 2:08:48 PM

I owned 2 of those casio's the ex-z60 and something else, and it took really great pictures. Low light wasn't the greatest, but you really need a tri-pod for that anyway. I highly suggest the casio (startup time isn't an issue, it's quick enough IMO)

11/7/2006 2:30:20 PM

10x optical zoom in a ultra-compact? you have one legitimate choce that I can find in a quick search of dpreview - Kodak V610 as far as I can tell. It's a 10x optical zoom, but has "just" 6MP resolution...it's also 25% thicker (.2") and 20% wider (1") than most of the Sony line

i have used my 3x optical zoom for trips around the world and parties and everything inbetween. if it's something where I want better quality and more zoom, I'm going to use my 35mm anyway - I prefer traditional film for that kind of stuff

[Edited on November 7, 2006 at 2:48 PM. Reason : .]

11/7/2006 2:48:29 PM

eh, to each his own, i guess...before i got my new camera, i constantly hated being limited by 3x optical...seemed kind of pointless, i guess...now that i have 12x built-in, i realize how confining my old camera really was

11/7/2006 3:53:52 PM

alo have noticed this pani. it is not very thin, and its "only" 5MP, but optics look solid and all other specs are quite a bit better than anything superslim, and its in the same price range.

11/8/2006 2:10:21 PM

btw http://www.dpreview.com/ had some sppecs on these casios, but no sample pictures. and cutomer reviews kept bitchin about poor low light performance. of course. those guys seemed to hold their cameras up to higher standards than average consumer.

11/8/2006 2:21:51 PM

I found out yesterday that my ancient (+4 years old) digital camera finally crapped out on me.

I'm looking very closely at the Panasonic Lumix FX8...they're slim but with the Leica glass and super fast AF, it looks like a winner.

I was once told that everyone in Japan buys Panasonic because they don't spend all their money on R&D, they wait until other companies do it, then they do it better about 6 months later

[Edited on November 13, 2006 at 11:38 AM. Reason : ]

11/13/2006 11:35:18 AM

afer much deliveration i decided to go with fujifilm f20, more famous f30's little brother. looking at some reviews and sample images, i pretty much came to conclusion that the superslims didnt cut it in terms of low-light performance and speed (at least in my price range). f20 ran me 200+tax, it is about 1.5x -2x thicker than the superslims, but still small enough to toss in the pocket. added bonus is about 1.5x-2x longer (rated) battery life. i'll post some pics after i put it through a few tests

12/10/2006 11:15:30 PM

I have the Casio and Love it.

12/11/2006 7:47:41 AM

nice pics. where were they taken? do you have z60 or s600?

12/11/2006 11:51:16 AM

LUMIX LX2

10.2 mega
4x zoom
image stabalization
leica lens

can't go wrong only 400$

http://panasonic.co.jp/pavc/global/lumix/lx2/index.html

12/12/2006 12:39:20 AM

looks like a badass cam for the size, but that's moving more from superslim into compact advanced

12/12/2006 8:19:56 AM