Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

flash?

Mar 11, 2005 3:43PM PST

I loved my Casio Ex-M2, but it's weakness was definitely its pathetic flash, which required me to haul along a one-use camera for night and indoor use. The Casio folks say there is an improvement in the flash of the Z50, and obviously the battery is a lot more powerful, but I would appreciate someone (preferably from CNet) telling me whether they think the Z50 has a weak flash (I recognize that a super compact camera has limitations).

Thank you!

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Casio Z50
Mar 11, 2005 11:47PM PST

The specifications for the Z50 shows flash coverage:

8.5 feet when not using zoom.
6.6 feet when using zoom.

This is less than other cameras and better than some cameras.

Certainly not impressive.

The Canon ultra small SD series (SD200/300/400) of cameras has a specification of 11.4 feet.

The Canon SD500 specifies 16.4 feet.
The SD500 has a different battery.

It is a trade off, if you want brighter flash, you get shorter battery life.

...
..
.

- Collapse -
Thanks
Mar 12, 2005 8:04AM PST

Thanks for the quick reply, I'm glad I cam across you guys before making a choice. I wouldn't mind losing a little more power for an effective shot, because I don't take a lot of indoor or night shots . . . but I'd sure like them to work when I do.


I'm reading a lot about the new Exilim battery's lifespan, apparently it's 2.5X stronger than in previous models (I don't know if that's compensating for the higher energy use of taking bigger and more detailed pictures) . . . so assuming minimal use of flash, how does the ExZ50's battery compare to the SD300's? Whichever camera I buy will hopefully be joining me in the Peace Corps, so the ability to go a long time without recharging is very important.

Thanks again

- Collapse -
Battery Life
Mar 12, 2005 11:19AM PST
- Collapse -
Reply to: Battery Life
Mar 13, 2005 2:05AM PST

Would shooting 1024X768 pictures (on the Canon) rather than 1280 X 960 (the smallest reasonable size on the Casio) significantly affect battery life (along with memory space, obviously)?

- Collapse -
Battery Life
Mar 13, 2005 4:23AM PST

The size of the picture file has nothing to do with measurable battery life.

Flash, shortens battery time.
Carrying the camera around while it on turned on and not taking any pictures, shortens battery time.
Viewing photos you have taken, shortens battery time.
Downloading photos to your computer, shortens battery time (unless you are using a cradle).
And of course, taking photos shortens battery time.


...
..
.

- Collapse -
Oh
Mar 13, 2005 4:42AM PST

I would have thought taking larger images would affect battery use. Does quality?

- Collapse -
Photo Quality
Mar 13, 2005 6:06AM PST

In the case of digital cameras, the quality setting usually is dealing with the amount of compression that is used on a .jpg image.

The camera will usually have two or three quality settings. Different camera companies call them different names (such as "fine" and "normal").

Less .jpg compression results in larger image file sizes but better quality.
Using more .jpg compression results in smaller image files sizes but lower quality images (maybe ... it depends upon the complexity of the photo).

Neither image size nor quality setting will make any measurable difference in battery life.

...
..
.

- Collapse -
Resizing (smaller) affect quality?
Mar 13, 2005 8:24AM PST

So it's strictly a matter of memory and the hassle of resizing them. Good, that makes the ExZ50 and the X50 look better.

Do you know if/ think that quality is lost in resizing to a smaller size compared to taking the original picture at that size? Either one at a time through MS Paint or all at once by PixResizer.

- Collapse -
Resizing photos (resize/resample)
Mar 13, 2005 10:48AM PST

"Will resizing to a smaller size affect picture quality"

This question could cause a debate, you may be opening a can of worms.

My two cents:

When you throw pixels away, there has to be some degradation. But it is done all the time and few people even question the results.

Some people say you should resize downward in several steps, applying a little "unsharp mask" at each step.
There are plug-ins for Photoshop to do just that.

Do a Google search for "resize resample" and you will get over 50,000 hits. I can't summarize the subject.

...
..
.

- Collapse -
Thanks
Mar 13, 2005 1:11PM PST

Your apathy is good enough for me, I won't worry about it Wink