Casio Exilim EX-Z1000 Review

The new Casio Exilim EX-Z1000 leads the way in the megapixel wars, with no less than 10 megapixels on offer from this compact model. Casio have included a host of other standout features on the EX-Z1000, including a 2.8 inch LCD screen, anti-shake mode, stainless steel body, high sensitivity mode (ISO 3200) and 37 different scene modes. The Casio EX-Z1000 is the company’s top-of-the-range point and shoot digital camera, but can it find a place at the top of your shopping list? Carry on reading to find out…

Website: Casio Exilim EX-Z1000 Review

Published: Wednesday, July 12, 2006

Reader Comments

1. Baloney, Mike! I have not had any of the problems with the image quality you described in your review. Could it be that you received a defective Casio EX-Z1000? I have used it in low light situations as well as situations that would require backlighting and have not seen any of the abberations you described. True, that most prosumer cameras have issues with noise, but this camera stands head and heels above most of them in this price range. This little gem is compact, well built and a real performer. I also own a Sony DSC R1, a Panasonic FZ5, Sony T1 and Canon EOS 20D. The Casio is still a great camera for the price (309 USD). To each his own.

   Royce Potter at 08:32pm on Wednesday, July 12, 2006

2. Mike, I'd like to understand your concept of image quality better. Do you consider a 2MP camera with superb per-pixel sharpness and very low noise to offer better image quality than a 10MP camera with obviously lesser quality in those attributes, but *much* higher quality in the final print?
   
   Try downsizing those 10MP to 5MP (using Lanczos3 algorithm), then apply some sharpening. I think you'll be surprised by the results.
   
   Prog.

   Prognathous at 10:52pm on Wednesday, July 12, 2006

3. Mike? Who's Mike?
   
   The review sample was not faulty. Agreed, everyone is entitled to their opinion, that's why we provide a wide range of full-sized sample images for you to look at and print out, so that you can judge for yourself if the quality meets your needs.
   
   Prognathous, I don't think anyone who buys a 10 megapixel point-and-shoot camera is going to downsize all their photos to 5mp and sharpen using third-party software. If you buy a 10mp camera, surely you expect it to perform well at the resolution? I certainly would...

   Mark Goldstein at 09:14am on Thursday, July 13, 2006

4. I couldn't care less if it's a 10MP or a 5MP sensor, all I care is the actual print quality. 100% crops won't tell you anything about the print quality if you only look at the per-pixel sharpness/noise and forget about the pixel count. In short, it's fun to pixel peep at 100% crops, but it has little bearing on the final print (or web) quality.
   
   Printing is best, but to get a good comparison of image quality without printing, you can simply normalize the pixel count of two competing models. Here's one such example, taken at ISO 400:
   
   http://test.boren.sent.com/FZ30/eng.html
   
   Theoretically, the original FZ30 per-pixel results are not as good as the S2, but when one normalizes the pixel count in both directions it's easy to see that the Panasonic beats the crap out of the Canon. I believe that the same is true about the results of the EX-Z1000. Once you normalize the pixel count of the Casio to the competition, you'll see that its image quality is excellent. You've simply been fooled by those 100% crops, Mike.
   
   Prog.

   Prognathous at 09:32am on Thursday, July 13, 2006

5. If you primarily care about the print quality, then download our samples and print them out - that's what we provide them for.
   
   Mark...

   Mark Goldstein at 09:39am on Thursday, July 13, 2006

6. Mark (sorry to get your name wrong the last time), that's certainly a good suggestion, but I think that many people would simply settle for your verdict and won't bother doing any further tests themselves.
   
   This is why I think you should revise your image quality comments (in general), taking into account the per-print and per-web quality, rather than the interesting-yet-quite-meaningless per-pixel quality. It would do readers and potential buyers a great service.
   
   Thanks!
   
   Prog.

   Prognathous at 09:45am on Thursday, July 13, 2006

7. Mike, it's a visual problem!

   nick in japan at 09:46am on Thursday, July 13, 2006

8. His name is Mark, not Mike.
   
   Prog.

   Prognathous at 09:49am on Thursday, July 13, 2006

9. Everyone knows who he is except, evidently, you and Royce, Mark has alot of credibility with those of us that know his name.

   nick in japan at 10:49am on Thursday, July 13, 2006

10. Forget the name thing, I already apologized for getting it wrong.
    
    Now, do you have anything to say regarding the issue at hand (per-print and per-web quality vs. per-pixel quality)?
    
    Prog.

    Prognathous at 12:32pm on Thursday, July 13, 2006

11. I have something to say. I have no idea what you are talking about.
    I never heard the terms "per-web quality" or "per-print quality" so I
    decided to Google them. It appears you have made these terms up
    so I suspect that no one else knows what you're talking about either
    (not even Mike ).
    
    I'm sure you have a valid point in there somewhere, but you'll have
    to explain your point in simpler terms for those of us that are a little
    slow.

    GARY POGODA at 04:20pm on Thursday, July 13, 2006

12. Per-print quality = the actual quality of a photo printed to a given size (e.g. 8x10").
    
    Per-web quality = the actual quality of a photo downsized for web display (e.g. 800x600 pixels).
    
    Per-pixel quality = the actual quality of a 100% crop (viewed on-screen at 100% magnification), regardless of the total amount of pixels.
    
    If you check out this page you'll see why per-pixel quality should never be a measure of image quality in itself, that is without considering the total pixel count.
    
    Prog.

    Prognathous at 04:39pm on Thursday, July 13, 2006

13. IMHO I was trying to say that Mark does a fair and balanced review of things, and, I believe that 99% of folks use what he says as a tool to form an opinion. We all know that there are many ways to view an image, subjective to say the least. Most of us, I believe,think that there are advantages to pixel count as long as the engine controlling then hides the disadvantages, with high count numbers, well.
    I got the feeling that there was a bit of disrespect intermingled, where-as Mark should be commended more for his hard work!
    Thank you for your patience!

    nick in japan at 09:49pm on Thursday, July 13, 2006

14. Thanks Prog. BION, I now see your point. If you look at 100% crops
    (i.e., per-pixel quality) a higher megapixel sensor will usually appear
    more noisy than a lower megapixel sensor (of the same size) due to
    its smaller pixels.
    
    However, if you make the images the exact same size (i.e., per-print
    quality) and then compare them, the image from a higher megapixel
    sensor will look better than the image from a lower megapixel sensor
    due to its higher resolution.
    
    Your point was that the first method of comparison tells us something
    we already knew, and the second method would tell us something we
    need to know.
    
    I agree that in cases where the noise is not excessive (unlike the LX1
    or R3, where the per-pixel examination is revealing), it would be good
    to have the second method of evaluation as a tiebreaker. I also agree
    it would be nice to hear Mike's conclusions, rather than having to print
    the photos ourselves (although I would still recommend doing so once
    you become serious about a camera).

    GARY POGODA at 11:00pm on Thursday, July 13, 2006

15. If it's one or the other, I would take the per-print quality as a more useful measure. Per-pixel quality evaluations are fun to look at, but they're not revealing the truth about what quality one can expect from the camera.
    
    Prog.

    Prognathous at 11:22pm on Thursday, July 13, 2006

16. Mr. Pagoga got it summed up well! Thanks Gerry!

    nick in japan at 03:55am on Friday, July 14, 2006

17. Very informative review, clear and enjoyable to read, which is important! Well done Mr.Reviewer Mark Mick Mac MIKE ...BUT now having read ROYCE POTTERS (comment #1) comments, I am wondering, mmm maybe i SHOULD buy this camera and expect good qality images?

    Pan!c at 10:41am on Monday, August 07, 2006

18. I agree with this review. Bad image quality especially when I use controls.
    
    The analysis helped me to understand that it is the camera and not me.
    
    I also found that the color quality was drab compared to SONY Cybershot.

    marc gordon at 07:28pm on Tuesday, August 08, 2006

19. Hmmm.. I've been on the verge of buying a Z1000, but Mark's very thorough review and now this mixed bag of responses has made me come over all unnecessary... Folks seem to either love this camera or hate it. I want to replace my ageing and monstrously battery-hungry Nikon Coolpix 950 - I've been very happy with its image quality but now want something that is light, very small and with better resolution. The Z1000 looked to be just the ticket (with the added bonus of a movie mode thrown in) but now I'm not as confident about that as before! Mark, (or anyone else?) in your opinion which of this type of small format zoom camera (of around 6-8 megapixels) would you recommend as having the best image quality? Cheers!

    Nick at 10:38pm on Tuesday, August 22, 2006

20. I'm very happy with the Canon PowerShot SD700 IS --- 6 megapixels,
    4x zoom, image stabilization, ultra-compact, very stylish and well built,
    USB 2.0 'High Speed', very good image quality, excellent performance.
    The worst I can say about it is that it is strictly point-and-shoot and the
    2.5" high-resolution LCD needs continual wiping with a cloth.

    GARY POGODA at 01:08am on Wednesday, August 23, 2006

21. Thanks for the info on the Canon SD700 (it's called the Digital Ixus 800 here in the UK). I just checked out the review on dpreview.com, and it looks very nice. Yet another to add to the list for consideration! It's almost a shame there's so much choice these days - on paper, the Casio Z1000 looks like a no-brainer choice as it has everything I want. However, the demo images from some other cameras (particularly the Ixus) do seem to have the edge over the Casio, despite its 10MP resolution. Its seems size really isn't everything!

    Nick at 11:29am on Wednesday, August 23, 2006

22. No problem, Nick. Funny thing about the PhotographyBLOG review, its
    4.0 rating of the camera, although good, is the lowest score I've seen
    for that camera in the 5 reviews I have read (for an explanation of the
    score, see the comments posted by the review's author, Gavin Stoker).

    GARY POGODA at 01:18pm on Wednesday, August 23, 2006

23. This is the fourth Casio EX camera I've owned, I would consider myself a faithful Casio camera user. However, within a month of purchasing the EXZ1000, the LCD screen cracked under no different circumstances than the previous 3 EX cameras were under. Cost to repair the screen, more than 1/3 of the cost to replace the camera. Customer service with Casio has a reputation of being less than helpful, and unfortunately, this has been my experience. I'm heartbroken to say that because of this issue, I'm currently researching a new camera manufacturer. Beware of this problem if you are looking for a new camera....

    Becky at 07:44pm on Friday, July 13, 2007

24. This is the second Casio EX camera I have owned and the second time the camera fully works but does not save any settings, casio are confused and say thet cannot help me. So turn the cam on, have to set time date etc, take a photo all works, turn it off, turn it on next time i want to use it, have to reset settings again, this happens while the batt is still installed, confused! Has anyone else had this issue, and if so did you manage to fix it.

    RIchard at 09:32pm on Monday, November 12, 2007

25. Forgets? My camera started doing that two months ago after owning it for almost a year. I bought the camera because of the quick startup....now I have to hit menu twice to bypass "new startup" screen. All setings are lost when it is turned back off.

    Paul at 01:00am on Tuesday, March 11, 2008