New Ceramic Lensed Exilim Ex-S100

stuart miles writes "pocket-lint has managed to be the first to review the new ex-s100 3mega pixel from Casio that uses a ceramic lens rather than the standard glass version. "

Comments

This is bad?

[stilist]

Since when is a 3.2 megapixel size bad, especially for a small digital camera? Guess I'm just behind the times...

Re:This is bad?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't understand this either:

"The bad:

Only 3.2 megapixels, no SD card in the box"

No SD card in the box is a GOOD thing, who uses wimpy 8-16MB cards that come with the camera? SInce the Casio Exilim line has builtin memory (10-20MB), there is no sense in including small SD card.

Re:This is bad?

[Technician]

Since when is a 3.2 megapixel size bad, especially for a small digital camera?

My biggest beef with this camera is the battery choice. Re-chargable batteries self discharge. When I need shots, I need to grab and go. Expensive batteries that may or may not be ready to go are not an option for me. This camera takes a Li-ion battery. This means, dead camera at unexpected times, insufficient capacity for the birthday party, parade, sporting event, wedding, Burning Man weekend, etc. I'll take a slightly larger camera if I can use off the shelf batteries in a pinch as needed. I have several cameras. Any of them that can't share memory cards and batteries have been replaced. The type of battery and type of memory are the two things that are as important to a camera now as pixel count, low light, size and zoom range. If any of the requried features are lacking, I can't use it. When I go to shoot something, I take one or both of the cameras, the memory cards, 2 sets of NiMH batteries and a new pack of Alkalines, more if it's expected to be a big shoot. If the rechargables are dead, then I don't have a dead camera. If they are good, then I don't need the alkalines this time. I can't do this in an affordable way with a camera that uses a propritory battery. I can buy at least 4 sets of rechargable batteries for my camera for about the price of one propritory battery. Li-ion batteries are usualy $40 and up each. This significantly adds to the cost of ownership if you plan on having enought battery power to cover all the various needs. This is especialy true if you can't use off the shelf batteries in a pinch as needed.

Re:This is bad?

[arodland]

Since... always. If it's under 5MP it's barely acceptible for looking at onscreen, and mostly useless for prints. Just because back in the day you had to walk five miles in the snow uphill both ways with no shoes just to get 3MP doesn't mean that 3MP was good back then, just that you couldn't get good.

Re:This is bad?

[Technician]

Perhaps you have a bad battery or camera?

Actualy I do prefer rechargables. I have come to not rely on them as a single power source as I often find them dead after the first 10 shots or so. This is true for the intermittant amature photographer. In regular use, the batteries are maintained, charged and used before they self discharge. In an amature setting, the state of charge is not known due to self discharge and discharge by the camera to maintian the clock and such. This is why I often have batteries in the camera on the last quarter tank even when they were charged after the last use.

I had one camera that used a Li-ion battery. It was fine as long as everything could be done in an hour or less. (flash, indoors, carmera on waiting for the right pose...) This usualy left me with a dead camera before the recrption was over. I was to the point of carying a couple disposable cameras to back up my camera. That gave me film and batteries ready to go. I was glad to get rid of that camera. Instead of buying a couple $40 batteries, I replaced the camera.

I've gone to the "refillable tank" and never considered going back. I sometimes do a lot of heavy shooting. The moment isn't always right, so I shoot lots, keep the good ones and toss the rest. With flash, I am a little hard on batteries. I like them priced as a consumable because they don't last forever, not priced as an investment.

Re:This is bad?

[Technician]

So you dont want li-ion batteries fine, you dont need to go telling world about it.

Actualy, I've bought too many things and was impressed by the ooh- aah bright and shiny thing, only to be disapointed later by something that spoiled it BY DESIGN.

Being unable to replace the battery without emptying the wallet was a bummer so yea ooh aah it's a shiny thin cool camera. We will see who is still shooting at the end of the parade. Hope you got extra money for batteries (can you get them? how much? how long to wait?) and memory. Are you already using SD for memory? If not, plan on making an investment.

This would make a great camera for a mom to keep in the house in the cradle (so it's charged) to shoot all the cute things the kid does. It doesn't take much room in the purse so you can take it to the birthday party. For more serious uses, I like a more substantual camera with more optical zoom, and use easly found replacement battries. I don't like getting stuck with a dead camera and nothing I can do about it. The corner 7-11 isn't going to have the replacement batteries for this camera. Wal-Mart and other stores will have memory for it though.

Re:This is bad?

[LtOcelot]

Under 5 MP "barely acceptible" onscreen? What resolution is your monitor, 2560x1920? Somebody better tell Nikon to recall the D2H. If you're not getting excellent onscreen images and 300 dpi 4x6 prints out of 3 MP, it's not the megapixel count that's the problem.

Re:This is bad?

[IamNotWitchboy]

That's the whole point. It makes no sense to include a tiny SD card with the camera that almost no one uses and it only serves to drive the price up.

Re:This is bad?

[mrsev]

There is one thing that most people forget is that there are huge variations in the amount of power stored in rechargable batteries. You need to look on the side to see how many mAh (milli Amp hours) the can store. For the AA size this can vary from 800 to 2300. I had a set of 1200mAh batteries and they would die after 30 shots on my Canon A20 camera. I switched to 2300mAh batteries (that cost much more) and now I can shoot more than 300 shots with the display on, without problems. Expect to pay around 15 EURO for 4 AA 2300mAh batteries.

Re:This is bad?

[wizrd_nml]

I've had the exact opposite experience. Because of their memory effect, NiMH are the most inconvenient batteries to use. You have to spend about 24 hours prior to using the camera to discharge and rechard them to make sure you have the maximum charge.

No thanks, I'll take a couple of Li-ion any day. Just plug them in a few hours before I intend to shoot and off I go. One Li-ion generally lets me take about 90 photos at 3.2 megapixel resolution, with a bit more than half using flash (Casio has pushed that limit even further with their Z3 and Z4 models, I believe over 200 photos with one charge). And if you're planning on taking more than 150 photos for an event, generally speaking you're probably looking for more than a compact (digital SLR maybe?).

Re:This is bad?

[Mattcelt]

I've taken to carrying a set of "dummy" alkaline batteries in the device (which serve to maintain the time/date/etc. in the camera), and carrying my Li-ion batteries separately. When I need a quick shot, I simply replace the batteries and go - takes less than 30 seconds. So long as I'm in a situation where 30 seconds isn't a big deal, it's no problem... YMMV.

Re:This is bad?

[uberdave]

Holy Moley! What kind of screen do you have??? 5MP is barely acceptible onscreen? 5MP would work out to a 31" monitor at 100 pixels per inch. NVidia's G6 maxes out at 2048x1536 which is 3MP.

Re:This is bad?

[RedBear]

Typical viewpoint. Everyone else in the world != you.

NiMH AA rechargeables self-discharge much more quickly than Li-Ion, and as you point out they take up more space for the same amount of power. You don't like the camera? Fine, don't buy it. Yay, free market capitalism. But many people are just casual camera users. For them it often makes sense to have a very compact camera that doesn't have batteries that need to be topped off once a week and treated gingerly. Yeah, you can buy some alkalines in a pinch, but that soon gets to be more expensive than just buying another proprietary Li-Ion and recharging it every other month. It's a self-contained solution that for the casual user ends up being a lot simpler to deal with than sets of loose NiMH AAs.

For people like you who use multiple cameras it may make some sense to make sure they all use interchangeable parts, but for most of the rest of us the Li-Ion actually makes some sense, despite the prices. Either way they are immensely cheaper than alkalines in the long run. Have you thought about getting an external Li-Ion powerpack? With those it doesn't matter what type of battery your cameras take as long as you have the proper power connector. Lasts forever too. Check out the DPS-9000 power pack, it screws to the tripod socket so you don't have to mess with a cable running to a belt pack. Great solution if you need to shoot all day.

Re:This is bad?

[jedrek]

Hmmm...

I often find them dead after the first 10 shots or so

I am currently on my 4th digital camera, a Canon 20D. The 3 previous - Fuji 4700, Fuji 6800 and Ixus SD-10 took 150+ photos (a full card) on their rechargable batteries (I used 2100mA AAs in the 4700). The 20D's battery is rated at 1000 shots w/o Flash. I charged the battery when I bought it - a week and a half ago - and have taken, viewed, dumped, etc over 700 photos so far. The battery is still going strong.

On the other hand, when I went to a kiosk and put two alkaline AA batteries into my 4700, it was good for all of 15 photos.

So, what models are you using that kill their rechargable batteries so quickly, while running forever on disposables?

Re:This is bad?

[moonbender]

Okay, this will remove the drain of the status display etc from the LiIons, but it won't do anything about self-discharge. There's really not much you can do about that, apart from freezing it which merely slows the process. Different battery chemistries have very different self-discharge characteristics, though, some take tens of years, other months.

Re:This is bad?

[RedBear]

3 megapixels is "bad" if you ever want to print your photos larger than 8x10. We've had 5MP cameras since 2001 (Minolta Dimage 7 was the first, I think). There are currently many compact cameras with 4-5MP chips, and a new crop with a 7MP chip although they aren't quite compact. So having a new camera come out with "just" 3.2MP isn't too impressive.

Going up just one step there is a group of prosumer cameras with an 8MP chip that have all been out for several months. 8MP will give you the ability to stretch your photo to 16x20 and still have impressive resolution on the paper, thus rivaling the enlargement ability of your typical 35mm consumer film camera. So from the quality perspective a 3MP camera is still sort of a toy unless you'll never print anything but 4x6 snapshots and a few 8x10s. It's only within the last 18 months or so that consumer and prosumer digital cameras have really started to cross the hump and become as good or better than film for most common purposes. 3MP just doesn't cut it if you want quality anywhere close to film.

Re:This is bad?

[Lumpy]

I get fantastic print and onscreen with a 2.1 megapixel camera.

Can I go above 5X7 prints? no. but 99.5% of all photos taken also cannot. (blow up an 8X10 from a ASA400-800 speed film... it looks like hell.)

people obsessed with megapixels are simply uninformed.

most people do not shoot 35mm with 100 speed or lower that is required for a fantastic large print. so people thinking they need 5-20 megapixel cameras are simply nuts if they are not professional photographers, and then getting that outside of a SLR format with high end lenses is plain silly.

Re:This is bad?

[inflex]

My other hobby other than listening to trash on /. is model aircraft - specifically electric powered ones.

Li-Ion batteries have the lowest discharge rate around, superior to NiMH and definately NiCd. Better yet would be Li-Poly but they're still a tad risky for some people's likings (I have videos of model planes bursting into flames due to a bad lipo).

The trouble with Li-Ion/Poly is that they have a comparitavely low draw capacity on demand, especially if they're cold. This is where a lot of people pick up the feeling that Li-based batteries are a poor choice relative to NiMh/Cd. Typically if the battery cannot supply the required current the apparent voltage drops and it seems like the battery is 'flat'. The trick is to keep them warm - not always an option I know.

Incidently, I've had lipo cells have nearly full charge (over 80%) despite having been left after a charge for more than 2 weeks.

Oh, one other last problem with Li based batteries is that if they drop below a specific voltage then technically you're not supposed to try revive them (else things can go boom!). A lot of laptops with Li based batteries suffer to this, people throw out 'dead' packs which actually just were left too long without a charge.

PLD.

Re:This is bad?

[Echnin]

Well, my Exilim Z40 (I think) lets me take over 300 pictures without changing. The Z50 supposedly has even better capacity according to the ads. I only have a 128 MB SD card, so 300 is plenty for me, even when I delete a lot. NiMH doesn't give as good battery time in my experience, at least when you only have 2. And even 2 AAs is much bigger than the Li-Ion in my camera.

Re:This is bad?

[FireFury03]

Because of their memory effect, NiMH are the most inconvenient batteries to use.

NiMH have very little 'memory effect' - NiCd's are the offenders there. However, all batteries need to be treated correctly - I keep my batteries in sets and don't mix the batteries within those sets, that way I never end up mixing fully charged batteries with semi-charged, etc (which really does kill batteries).

NiMH cell capacities are now on-par with Alkalines, the only downside of NiMH cells is that they do discharge over time.

Whilest Li-ion's have a higher energy density, they are also not compatable with alkaline batteries, and when I'm on holiday and stuck with a dead battery I'd prefer to have the option to buy some alkalines from the shop rather than do without my camera.

(I have a HP Photosmart 850 and am _very_ happy with it)

Re:This is bad?

[anti-trojan]

If you need to resample your 5 MB pictures to make them "barely acceptable", you have a very bad lense or a "fake" 5 MP camera. Some cameras advertise as being "software interpolated" 4 MP whereas their sensor is only 1-2 MP.

Re:This is bad?

[TykeClone]

I have an older Nokia cell phone and did the same thing and got the "big" battery for it. If I use it lightly now, I can get more than a week's worth of use on one charge.

Re:This is bad?

[kkovach]

Then maybe they should include a higher capacity SD card instead?

- Kevin

Re:This is bad?

[1967 Ferrari 312]

Here here !

Most of the time I actually "downgrade" my Fuji S3800 to 2MP (from 3.2). There's no noticeable difference when printed at 4x6, and I almost never have a need to blow-up photos.

Richard.

Re:This is bad?

[GooberToo]

Not to mention, not all batteries, even at the same capacity, are equal, especially if they are part of a pack. And, the associated charger can make a huge difference in both ACTUAL charged capacity and the cycle life of said batteries.

Re:This is bad?

[Ayandia]

I've had the Casio Exilim EX-Z3 for about a year now and I just plain love it...once I got one that would charge.

My gripe was also the battery. It's some kind of special Casio-only battery model, apparently handmade by a single very busy, very slow person! And they must have that same slow busy person making the travel chargers for it, because everywhere I tried to get it had a backlog. The ONLY way to charge my camera was the dock, and my camera arrived with a damaged dock. At that point I pretty much had to suck it up until they sent a new one.

I would have much prefered they use a popular type of battery so I wouldn't have had to gaze adoringly at my cool and compact, but utterly useless brand new camera for almost a month. I'd still like rechargable, but I'd like it to be easy to find and not absurdly expensive to buy three of them to keep on hand.

I'll forgive them based on the not exceptional, but good quality battery life when the dock issue was solved. Also, the video with sound feature elevated me from "black sheep" to "honored amateur videographer" when I used it to capture the only videos of my cousin's wedding. Bad first impressions aside, it's an excellent camera.

Re:This is bad?

[Nimey]

Because of their memory effect, NiMH are the most inconvenient batteries to use. You have to spend about 24 hours prior to using the camera to discharge and rechard them to make sure you have the maximum charge.

That's NiCd cells that have the memory effect. NiMH cells will just gradually discharge when not in use.

Re:This is bad?

[wizrd_nml]

Hey, tool, it's the NiCds that have the memory effect. Perhaps next time you want to try to sound knowledgeable, maybe you should , uhh, get some knowledge?

For those who posted in response to my original post about NiMH cells having no memory effect, I believe you're mistaken. Here are a few links to back that up:

• NiMH Batteries and Memory
• Matt's Battery Site
• CellPower
• The user's manual of my Sony digital camera

It is true that the term 'memory effect' now has a much looser meaning than before, and that even NiCd batteries only suffer true memory effect under stringent lab conditions. However, today the term is used to refer to any drop in battery performance as a result of charging the battery before a (almost) complete discharge.

Re:This is bad?

[drinkypoo]

If you need maximum battery power for your professional work, you need a professional camera, and multiple batteries. A pro wouldn't use a Fisher-Price Kodak 110 camera, either, unless maybe they were doing something experimental. If you don't want the batteries to self-drain, leave it connected to the charging system at all times. Easy peasy.

Re:This is bad?

[drinkypoo]

The memory effect is a myth. The problem with NiCd is that each cell only provides 1.2V, maybe 1.35V peak if you actually have a peak charger, and that may only be a surface charge. The real "memory effect" is that there are multiple cells in series in a pack, and unless you have a new pack made of matched cells (Cells which, upon charge and discharge tests, are found to have near-identical characteristics) the cells will charge and discharge unevenly. This has the effect of eventually killing cells as they are backcharged during discharge or overcharged during charging. Lithium-ion batteries have a 3.6v/cell charge, so they have less cells per pack and are less prone to this effect.

Re:This is bad?

[drinkypoo]

Can I go above 5X7 prints? no. but 99.5% of all photos taken also cannot. (blow up an 8X10 from a ASA400-800 speed film... it looks like hell.)

Depends on the film and the grain size, though. Kodak T-Max for example, which is not even anywhere near their top-end film, is going to blow up better than the crap Kodak film you can buy as you approach the checkout aisle at the supermarket.

Re:This is bad?

[pqdave]

The chance of them getting the size card I want is fairly small, and if they get it wrong, I'm either paying too much or I'm going to have to buy another card.

Re:This is bad?

[Not The Real Me]

Sorry to break the news to you buddy, but NiMH batteries are also 1.2volts. I've got about 60 NiMH AAs that I use in my digital cameras and all the AAs are all rated at 1.2v. They range from 1600 mA all the way up to 2400 mA.

I built an external battery pack consisting of D sized NiMH cells. The D sized NiMH batteries are also rated at 1.2 volts. These are 9500mAh batteries.

Re:This is bad?

[drinkypoo]

I didn't even mention NiMH so I'm not sure why you need to break news to me. I have quite a few AA size NiMH cells, mostly 2 Ah, which I bought at wal-mart on assorted occasions because they sell 4xAA for $10 with a crappy charger. Actually I misspoke previously: NiCd is 1.25V, NiMH is 1.2V.

ceramic

[aaron_ds]

Ceramics==Transparent?

Re:ceramic

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, ceremics can be transperent. It's harder for cermics to be, however, seeing as it's just a bunch of (transparent?) granules smushed together under high heat.

Optical quality (and price) general go as the following:

Cermics
Amorphous Solid (glass)
Single Crystal

The more "regular" the structure (the less interface bounderies and material gradients) the better the optical qualities are.

Re:ceramic

[uberdave]

So, they are using a cheaper, lower quality lens and expecting people to pay 350 pounds for it? That's about US$630! Am I missing something? Is the ceramic lens harder/more scratch resistant? You could buy a 7 or 8 megapixel camera for that kind of money.

Re:ceramic

[whitespacedout]

ceramic==usually more scratchproof
eg: the rado ceramic watchface cannot be scratched with mild steel.

Re:ceramic

[jamesshuang]

Aren't ceramics supposed to be harder than glass? I guess the more regular the structure, the more brittle it is as well, at such thinness

Re:ceramic

[morcheeba]

I'm holding out for a lens made of concrete or Aluminum!

Re:ceramic

[morcheeba]

Actually, the crystal is sapphire, and it's the non-transparent case, crown, and bracelet that are made of ceramics. quick info and much more info.

Re:ceramic

[milletre]

So, they are using a cheaper, lower quality lens and expecting people to pay 350 pounds for it? That's about US$630! Am I missing something? Is the ceramic lens harder/more scratch resistant? You could buy a 7 or 8 megapixel camera for that kind of money.

Not in England, you couldn't! I've lived here about a year, and one of the items with an immense price difference is little consumer electronics items like this. It's not uncommon for me to find something like a digital camera in a store that costs the same in pounds as it does in US dollars, even though a pound is worth about $1.80. So what is £350 here might be $350 in the States ... for the exact same item!

Following the "Check Price" link from Steve's Digicams, it looks like you can get the camera for $400 in the USA, or £350 here.

Re:ceramic

[secretsquirel]

High quality glass lens's were probobaly too cheap to produce so they had to switch to ceramic so they can still charge $600.00 by calling it a nano-composite microstructured giggily fart. At least that's my theory anyway.

Re:ceramic

[OneDeeTenTee]

What about plastic?

Actially, the cheapest lens is probably a pinhole lens.

Re:ceramic

[RazorBlack]

No, the idea is that ceramic has a fantastic refractive index (2.08 compared to 1.5-1.85 for glass) so the lenses can be thinner. So the camera can be smaller. So you can take it with you more and take more pictures. So... *voice fades away*

See this: http://www.dpreview.com/news/0408/04080401casiocer amiclens.asp

image noise

[spacerodent]

they mention image noise several times in the article and act like it's isn't a big deal. If you can see image noise on a normal 3 megapixel image (assuming its somehwere around 1024x768 or greater) then its probally pretty bad. They mention it twice too. I wonder if it has anything to do with the ceramic lens which seems to be the only interesting thing about the camera. Otherwise it seems pretty average in about every category.

Re:image noise

[cujo_1111]

1024 x 768 is only 0.8 MP, not 3 MP.

3 MP is more like 2048 x 1536.

The image noise is probably more due to the ludicrously small CCD unit (4.54 x 3.42 mm) that Casio are using. As a comparison the 2.8 MP Nikon D1H uses a largish CCD of 23.7 x 15.5 mm and I know which one would give better photos, lenses notwithstanding.

The ceramic lens would impact the sharpness of the photo more.

Re:image noise

[Kyle Hamilton]

The more pixels a digital camera has on its CCD sensor, the larger the pictures you can take. The following is a list of the maximum size an image may be (measured by height x width) for the three most popular types of digital cameras on the market today. * 2-megapixel digital cameras - 1600x1200 * 3-megapixel digital cameras - 2048x1536 * 4-megapixel digital cameras - 2272 x 1704

Re:image noise

[cujo_1111]

You have a point, but if you have two 6 MP CCDs, one 5 mm x 5 mm and the other 25 mm x 25 mm. The larger CCD will take the better photo.

This is one case where smaller is not necessarily better.

Re:image noise

[arodland]

On a related note, if you have two CCDs, one 5MP, and the other 8MP, both 11mm diagonal, the 8MP one doesn't necessarily look much better ;)

Re:image noise

[jeff_bond]

On a related note, if you have two CCDs, one 5MP, and the other 8MP, both 11mm diagonal, the 8MP one doesn't necessarily look much better ;)

Actually, the 5MP one might look better, since the pixels will be larger, and therefore able to capture more light. ie. The signal to noise ratio will be better for a given 'shutter' speed.

Jeff

Re:image noise

[arodland]

That was my point :)

Ceramic vs. Glass

[HotshotXV]

You know, the review did a good job of letting you know that ceramic lenses allow you to make the camera smaller... but is the image quality the same through ceramic? Wouldn't it be more translucent, and thus more susceptable to light refractions? Someone help me out here.

Re:Ceramic vs. Glass

[HotshotXV]

I like this analogy - CDs are more damage resistant than LPs, as is ceramic versus glass. However, a scratch on an LP ruins the quality, just as a scratch on a glass lens will ruin the pictures... But ceramics are crippled in the first place with their image noise, just like CDs and their flatness. Wow, I really like this analogy. Thanks.

Re:Ceramic vs. Glass

[Anonymous Coward]

Just would like to point out how silly all of this ceramic vs. glass business is, since glass is considered a ceramic! And, "ceramics" encompasses quite a lot of materials. You really have to take announcements like this with a grain of salt, and realize that while it may be better, it is also a gimmick when they say something like new "ceramic" lens! Oh yeah, and I'm a ceramic engineer...

Re:Ceramic vs. Glass

[CaptainCheese]

Oh yeah, and I'm a ceramic engineer...

Cool potters job title, but is that the "I design high-tensile turboprop blades" type of ceramic engineer or the "I slipcast plates for a living" type?

(not attempting to undermine you, just wondering where you fit on the scale...)

Re:Ceramic vs. Glass

[fossa]

As the other ceramic engineer pointed out, glass is considered a ceramic. What makes it good for lenses is the fact that it is amorphous, i.e. has no periodic crystal structure. Thus, light will pass through it without being refracted in strange ways because on a macroscopic level, all the glass is the "same" (or the heterogeneity is small enough and distributed evenly and randomly).

Now, I didn't read the article, though I wouldn't expect it to get into details. I assume by "ceramic" they mean "crystalline ceramic" (versus amorphous). When you make crystalline ceramics, you don't typically make one continuous crystal (like a polished gemstone), but many small (10 to 500 micron is typical) crystals (grains) surrounded by very thin amorphous regions (grain boundaries). Grain boundaries serve to refract the light (I suppose they are much larger and thus less heterogenous than anomalies in the amorphous glass), which is why ceramics (think dinner plate) are opaque. I'm getting to the limits of my [limited] knowledge, but I believe the only real way to make transparent crystalline ceramics is to use a single crystal which contains no grain boundaries. This tends to be costly due to the need to melt the material to coax it into a single crystal and the high melting temperatures of ceramics (see silicon industry).

Given that, I'm not sure why using a single crystal lens would have an advantage over an amorphous glass lens... Perhaps you can achieve a higher index of refraction.

Re:Ceramic vs. Glass

[Discordia]

There's another way to make polycrystalline (as opposed to single crystals) ceramics transparent: Make the grains smaller than the wavelength of light you're trying to transmit, eliminate porosity completely, and eliminate the sintering aids that go to the grain boundaries and fudge up the refractive index there.

Transparent polycrystalline alumina (not aluminum) has been in regular use for 40+ years. It's called Lucalox by GE and is the refractory material that makes up the tube used to hold the molten sodium in all those yellow/orange sodium streetlamps.

I'm assuming this is what the camera lens is made of, but have nothing to back that up with.

As a side note, you may have noticed that every few years someone publishes a paper on a new way to make transparent polycrystalline alumina, then the non-materials-science media (*cough slashdot*) catches wind and assumes alumina is the same thing as aluminum, and suddenly the prophecy of transparent aluminum from Star Trek IV has come true. It's sort of a running joke in the materials science community.

Re:Ceramic vs. Glass

[Ohreally_factor]

As a side note, you may have noticed that every few years someone publishes a paper on a new way to make transparent polycrystalline alumina, then the non-materials-science media (*cough slashdot*) catches wind and assumes alumina is the same thing as aluminum, and suddenly the prophecy of transparent aluminum from Star Trek IV has come true. It's sort of a running joke in the materials science community

So, you're saying I won't be able to see through my hat?

Re:Ceramic vs. Glass

[cfuse]

Call me when it's made from diamond.

Skeptical

[Hao Wu]

Sounds like a gimmick. Can someone say if ceramic is truly better than glass, or just better "in theory"?

Re:Skeptical

[einhverfr]

I would think a ceramic would be optically worse due to the fact that the structure would be less regular....

Re:Skeptical

[Usagi_yo]

Perhaps a ceramic lens can go places a glass lens cannot?

Re:Skeptical

[servognome]

I would think a ceramic would be optically worse due to the fact that the structure would be less regular....
Umm you're calling glass "regular", glass is amorphous, it doesn't get much more irregular. Ceramics have an ordered structure.

Re:Skeptical

[einhverfr]

But aren't ceramics basically (in this case) crystalline transparent particles which are basically fused together around the edges (amorphously)... because these particles are not likely to be packed regularly, this is where the problem is likely to occur....

Re:Skeptical

[mysticgoat]

Sounds like a gimmick. Can someone say if ceramic is truly better than glass, or just better "in theory"?

I'm guessing, but I think in this case the ceramic is better than glass because production can be less expensive.

Cheap cameras of this size use plastic lenses formed in molds, where the chosen plastic has a relatively low index of refraction. The lens is thicker, but is tolerant of the surface imperfections from the molding process, and is generally lighter than a glass lens that had the same optical quailities.

If you molded glass lenses this way, you'd face an expensive polishing operation afterward.

I'm guessing that these ceramic lenses are molded as "green bodies" and then sintered to reduce them to their final dimensions. The shrinking would reduce the surface imperfections of the molding process, so ceramics with fairly high indexes of refraction could be used. The end result would be a thin lens with many glass-like qualities, produced by an inexpensive molding process (a sintering oven would not add much to the cost).

Re:Skeptical

[servognome]

"regular" isn't the correct term "homogenous" is. Glass is basically all the same, no short range order (which makes it amorphous) or distinct boundaries, ceramics have short range order in the form of grains (so are not considered amorphous). Within the grains the structure is ordered, but the grain arrangement is not, it's the grain-to-grain interface which causes issues. Single crystals are "the best" since they are ordered and do not have grain boundaries.

Re:Skeptical

[einhverfr]

Ok. Maybe regular is not the right word. I was thinking of global irregularity from a refractive perspective.

Re:ceramic lens in newer cameras

[cujo_1111]

Is a Nikcon just a rebadged Nikon?

BTW Ceramic lenses are usually of lesser quality than glass lenses.

What I want to see is cheaper glass lenses for my Canon...

review

[AresTheImpaler]

There is also a review in Steve Digicams. I like their reviews because they also include some sample pictures you can use to compare to other cameras (of course the pictures are taken of the same buildings, etc. but they differe in light available. The sample pictures are still good).

Re:review

[Sosarian]

might be nice to actually link to the review?

http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/ex-s10 0.html

Re:review

[AresTheImpaler]

might be nice to actually link to the review?

You are right, I forgot to do that because my main idea was that stevesdigicams.com has good review with sample pictures you can use to camera several cameras. Thanks for the link

Re:review

[Erik_]

I do have doubts that Steve Digicams review's are done without any influence by the constructors. There is no way such a person can have access to so many cameras on a private budget, and spend all his time doing just reviews.
But don't get me wrong, I still read a lot of Steve's reviews as they are nicely detailed and the comparison with other products are great.

Re:review

[cetan]

Has Steve ever said anything bad about a camera, ever?

He's a cheerleader, not a reviewer. I don't have a problem with cheerleaders, I just don't think he should call his articles "reviews."

Re:review

[cetan]

And just to be sure I use the word "ever" more, here it is one more time:

ever.

Did I miss something?

[RandyOo]

I don't see how they were the first, when Steve's Digicam's has a review for this exact model dated two weeks ago. It's a much better and more thorough review as well, IMHO.

Re:Did I miss something?

[momerath2003]

Note the email address on the article submitter:

stuart@pocket-lint.co.uk

A little bit of self-whoring on his part.

Re:Did I miss something?

[goneutt]

I was beginning to wonder if /. was supporting itself by doing affiliate programs. Though I think us /.'ers pretty much trash anything that comes across.

this looks interesting but..

[Anonymous Coward]

If I wanted a ceramic pitcher I'd go to my local pottery shop... er, wait, ceramic picture???
Yeah yeah yeah... you saw right through that one...
mod my punny as all hell.

expensive!

[harshbarj]

I paid less for my nikon 4mp camera. Sure this is a smaller camera but smaller is not always better. I already feel like I'm going to break my current one and it's huuge next to this one.

Re:expensive!

[Begemot]

smaller is not always better

right, but thinner is better. i don't care if it's wide and high(up to the size of my pocket) but i really hate when it's thick.

another review

[Leto-II]

There's a much better review at Steves Digicams

Might want to check that one out too.

Re:another review

[jericho4.0]

And your link is modded 'redundant', while his is 'informative'. lol.

Re:another review

[wvitXpert]

lol, somehow when I clicked on you link it took me to the front page of steve's digicams. Sorry about that, I'm not sure how it happened.

Ceramic is tougher than Glass ... but not the HULK

[xmas2003]

Hulk drop Puny Human Glass digicam - stops working.
Hulk drop Ceramic digicam - still works.
Hulk get angry, SMASH ceramic digicam - stops working.

Hulk running for president.
Puny Human /.'ers vote for Hulk here!

Page 1 is just flashy

[Da Twink Daddy]

Save yourself some time and jump to the full review, the verdict, or the reader reviews--doesn't look like readers agree with the 9/10 rating.

Re:Page 1 is just flashy

[Lord_Dweomer]

Don't do the slashvertiser any more favors. The email address of the submitter is stuart@pocket-lint.co.uk. Just another slashvertisement, nothing to see, move along.

Size a consideration?

[HotshotXV]

I have an HP Photosmart R607, which is 4.2 megapixels, and not all that large. Sure, it's bigger than a credit card, but it easily fits into any pocket I have, and the image quality is wicked. Is it worth buying a camera like this just for it's size? Wouldn't you be better off buying a Cybershot U or its offshoots? Sure, you may be getting a slightly lower megapixel rating (and not in some cases) but you won't have that noise.

What's up with the ceramic lens?

[MythoBeast]

What I want to know is why a ceramic len is more useful than a glass one. I presume it's more durable, but I don't remember the last time a lens in a consumer electronics digital camera broke before the CCD went kaput. Does it have a higher defraction index? Is it more transparent to a wider range of colors? What's up with that?

Re:What's up with the ceramic lens?

[scotch]

I believe the ceramic lens are stiffer than their glass counterparts, so that the lens can be made thinner without deforming. Also, the phrase you are looking for is "refractive index".

Re:What's up with the ceramic lens?

[klang]

dpreview had a press release from Casio a few weeks ago..

Highlights: ... higher refractive index than glass. [snip]... thinner and stronger than conventional glass. ..[snip] reduction in the profile of a lens system by approximately 20%.

Re:What's up with the ceramic lens?

[Exocet]

Does anyone happen to know if a ceramic lens would be "more" or "better" suited to ultraviolet photography as opposed to a glass one? I know that around, oh, 315nm UV won't penetrate the glass. UV photos supposedly look "fogged" when trying to shoot at or below 315nm with conventional glass-based optics. At that point a UV photographer must invest in hideously expensive crystal-based optics.

I do a tiny bit of UV photography, BTW.

Re:What's up with the ceramic lens?

[Daedala]

Cool! Maybe we'll get ceramic eyeglasses.

uhhh digital?

[deglr6328]

Why is this story under the Digital Equipment Corporation category? Does the submitter not know of the once great now dead company?

Re:uhhh digital?

[erick99]

Compaq bought DEC in 1998 and that is why DEC is no more.

Re:uhhh digital?

[Erik_]

Still running a MicroVAX 3100/24 with VMS 5.5-H2 under my desk. For sentimental reasons.

Ceramic lenses

[nels_tomlinson]

I had no idea what a ceramic lens is, so I googled and found: this press release and this on Gizmodo.

In a nutshell, the transparent ceramic lens can be thinner and lighter than a glass lens because it has a higher refractice index (bends light more). It's also stronger, they say. Nifty, just what you need to make a smaller camera. Of course, if you put that tiny lens in front of lousy electronics, you get a lousy camera. As another post mentioned, the review said there was a lot of noise, which sounds like a lousy camera to me.

Re:Ceramic lenses

[dwj]

Mod parent up. Ceramic = smaller. Probably another good use for ceramic lenses are mobile phone cameras, where size is everything.

Re:Ceramic lenses

[nels_tomlinson]

isn't glass technically a liquid?

What I've heard is that it is called an ``amorphous solid''. It has no crystalline structure, as do most other solids, but it is solid.

... if you let it sit for 100 years it would droop ...

I've heard various stories on this one. I don't think that I believe them. Consider antique bottles. Even the ones which have been buried under many feet of soil don't seem to have ``drooped'' out of shape, even after several hundred years. I think that at human-survivable temperatures (say, 0-100C, to be generous), glass isn't going to sag, period.

Re:Ceramic lenses

[Anonymous Coward]

That is total hog wash. They are larger at the bottom because of the way they made the glass. You are aware that "colonial" times were only 200 years ago?? And you are aware in europe there are churches with stained glass windows much older than that?? So why didnt they "droop"?? Because drooping glass is untrue :) Anybody with more than 1/2 a brain can figure that out by looking at ancient egyptian glass works. Did they all melt into a puddle?? I think not :)

Re:Ceramic lenses

[dfn_deux]

I've heard it called a transitional solid or a transitional fluid before. I guess both terms refer to it being borderline fluid or solid....

Re:Ceramic lenses

[eclectro]

No, they don't melt, but much of egyptian glass I have seen is filled with hairline cracks.

I could find no definitive research in the short amount of time I had to google it.

So it might be a manufacturing defect, or maybe it's the stress of bearing weight that might make it sag.

The one mention I did find said it would make a good graduate research project.

Re:Ceramic lenses

[imsabbel]

Well. Wrong.
Back then, they didnt create glass by pulling it out on molten tin, so their sheets were uneven in thickness. so of course they put the thick side down for stability reason....

Glass doesnt have a phase transition while cooling, thats true. But still it reaches a hardness at room temperature where the force to move 2 atoms against each other is greater than the breaking threshold.
Sorry, no normal glass is melting or deforming at room temperature.... (but at 200 or 300 C the matter is quite different)

Re:Ceramic lenses

[Ford Prefect]

Yes, it is a liquid, and it does sag with age. In fact if you visit some of the early colonial houses that had panes of window you can see where the glass is thicker at the bottom of the pane!

Glass doesn't sag. Panes of glass in such windows are like that because that's how they were made.

A good example of glass not sagging would be in a large, modern reflecting telescope - a huge concave mirror ground from a disc of glass, with a shape accurate to perhaps a single wavelength of light. If glass was a liquid at room temperature, astronomers would be able to tell, as the mirror would quickly lose its original accuracy (in a measurable fashion, thanks to interference effects) as it sags out of shape.

Re:Ceramic lenses

[Jamesie]

It's just the way it's made - glassnotes.Com

Re:Ceramic lenses

[eclectro]

Hey look, I'm just reporting the incorrect information fed to me by some tour guide, and I'm too lazy to check it out for myaself until everyone piles on like now. Garbage in garbage out, ya know?

Re:Ceramic lenses

[eclectro]

Yes but they make telescopes out of fancy shmancy material so it won't sag. Obviously its all the impurities (like sand) in old glass that makes it sag.

Re:Ceramic lenses

[Ford Prefect]

Hey look, I'm just reporting the incorrect information fed to me by some tour guide, and I'm too lazy to check it out for myaself until everyone piles on like now. Garbage in garbage out, ya know?

Don't take it personally - it's just one of those false bits of information that continually gets passed around as scientific fact.

Kind of like water supposedly going down plugholes in different directions in the Northern and Southern hemispheres. :-)

Re:Ceramic lenses

[djmurdoch]

Ceramic = smaller.

Not if you're talking diameter, only if you're talking about thickness. The higher refractive index means you can make the lens thinner. As the grandparent said.

The main thing that determines the diameter of the lens is the sensor in the camera. If it could have more pixels that were more light sensitive in a smaller package, the whole lens could be smaller. (To a point: then diffraction would start to mess things up...)

Re:Ceramic lenses

[Zapman]

Well, Take a look at the 'Steves Digicam' review linked above. At the end of the review are some full rez pictures from the camera... I have to say that I'm not that impressed, however I am a self admitted camera snob.

If you're taking these pictures at a party, and just going to post them to the web or something, you're fine. The images will do great. However, if you're planning on printing out these images, you're probably in for some disappointment.

Basically, it comes down to the usual mantra: Right tool for the right job. I have to admit that the form factor on this thing is great... But I'm still going to buy a Nikon D70 next year.

Though I might sell my canon G3 and purchase this after that, just to have a true, pocket camera... hrm.

Re:Ceramic lenses

[swv3752]

Add an order of ten and you might see some sag. Some really old glass windows in usually cathedrals have thicker bottoms than tops.

Re:Ceramic lenses

[D43m0n_C0d3r]

Do some *more* research... Glass doesn't flow on timescales of human history. It's a myth about the windows. The craftsmen just had enough knowledge to install them with the larger end at the bottom. Or do you honestly believe that they were using float glass 200 years ago?

Re:Ceramic is tougher than Glass ... but not the H

[uofitorn]

Hulk drop PC with no ceramic or glass. Hulk see PC break and stop working. Hulk think, does not matter if ceramic or glass - PCBs break.

Quicktime VR

[LS]

Here's a quicktime VR of the camera if you are interested:

360 view

LS

Re:Quicktime VR

[AresTheImpaler]

a little bit offtopic, but is there a way to get the quicktime VR to work under linux?

Re:Quicktime VR

[ynohoo]

not yet, but I'm sure some will get Linux running under Quicktime VR...

What is a ceramic

[LS]

Stupid question #1: Why isn't glass considered a ceramic? I've googled around for information on what a ceramic is, and I haven't found anything that precludes glass...

LS

Re:What is a ceramic

[Concerned Onlooker]

Well, ceramics are generally made by forming something (such as clay) and then subjecting it to high heat. Glass, on the other hand, comes out of high heat and is formed before it cools down.

Re:What is a ceramic

[servognome]

Difference in microstructure. Ceramics have an ordered structure, while glasses are amorphous. Glasses is considered a sub-category of ceramics

Re:What is a ceramic

[goneutt]

Oddly enough, Steel with 6.67% bw Carbon is Iron Carbide, a ceramic. According to my material science book, Ceramics are compounds of metallic and nonmetallic elelments. Ionic or Covalent bonds form which are stronger than metallic bonds.

Glass is an amorphous solid, a liquid that is cooled at a rate too high to allow crystals to form. Glass ceramics have a high crystalline component to their microstructure. As a result the hardness of a glass ceramic comes to a higher level.

And yes, I am a Mechanical Engineering student. (Who should be typing a lab report for his material science class right now)

Re:What is a ceramic

[hopethishelps]

Steel with 6.67% bw Carbon is Iron Carbide, a ceramic

Rubbish. Iron carbide is a ceramic, but steel contains not more than 2% carbon. Thus, steel is a mixture of a ceramic and a metal, with most of its properties determined by the metal.

There is more detail about this here than you want to know, unless of course you are a taking a materials science class, and are confused about what exactly steel is.

Casio first developed transparent ceramic lens

[erick99]

Some googling came up with this:

August 02, 2004, TOKYO, JAPAN - Using its proprietary optical technology, CASIO COMPUTER CO., LTD. has developed the world's first lens using transparent ceramics. This breakthrough will make it possible to create zoom lenses for cameras with greatly reduced profiles.

There are soom cool pictures of the lenses as well as some text and graphics that explain what is going on pretty well.

Refractive index

[LS]

Here's a picture of the lense. Apparently the cool thing about this lense is that it has a higher index of refraction, allowing it to be thinner and take less space, hence the slim profile of the casio.

LS

Re:Refractive index

[naeger]

Sounds interesting. Is it possible to use the ceramic lens as glasses (the ones on the nose) or contact lenses? Thinner yet more robust glasses would be cool for the shortsighted. Any information if development in this direction is going on?

Re:Refractive index

[eclectro]

Indeed, that is the key point. From this list you can get an idea of the index of refraction of common materials. This ceramic glass has index of refraction of 2.08.

Presumably this ceramic glass has the advantage of being hard and have a very low cost, otherwise they might as well use cubic zirconia (index of refraction 2.17)

This might be a case of a solution finding a problem.

Re:Refractive index

[secretsquirel]

I've seen some pretty small glass lens's get pretty good quality, if it ain't broke don't fix it.

Re:Refractive index

[yahyamf]

My nose wants these lighter ceramic lenses in my eye glasses.

Re:Refractive index

[JazzHarper]

It seems that the properties of a ceramic lens offer only marginal benefits to a camera, particularly one with such a small lens in the first place.

Reduced weight and greater resistance to scratches would be of great value in eyeglasses. Where can I get Lumicera lenses to put in front of my eyeballs?
-

FINALLY!!!!

[stevok]

Now I can take pictures of Mt. St. Helens' glowing rocks! Before, my camera lens kept melting. With this new ceramic heat-resistant lens, my time on the volcano is only limited by the durability of my asbestos suit!

Re:FINALLY!!!!

[coyote_oww]

Now I can take pictures of Mt. St. Helens' glowing rocks! Before, my camera lens kept melting. With this new ceramic heat-resistant lens, my time on the volcano is only limited by the durability of my asbestos suit!

:-) Not a good thing. You want the first thing that fails to be something that is NOT critical to continued life. So that:

When your camera melts first, you continue to live but think, "Gee, I should get out of here."

When your suit melts first, you die...

By way of offering a solution, take your old camera with you to use as a canary.

pssht transparent ceramic

[gfody]

where's our transparent aluminum!

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:nice but..

[Concerned Onlooker]

Im waiting for one than can shoot past my thumb.

Consider getting a ceramic thumb. :-)

It's ceramic so you can...

[mtec]

take pictures of really hot women!

*sorry*

Lens manufacturer's information

[helge]

The lens is made by MuRata and is called Lumicera. Info can be found at http://www.murata.com/opt/lumicera.html

Comparison of Refractive Index between Transparent Ceramics and Conventional Optical Glass
The refractive index of the transparent ceramics is 2.08 (lambda = 587 nm). It is quite high compared with that of conventional optical glasses (between 1.5 to 1.8). Furthermore, as there is no birefringence in the ceramics, there is a potential for downsizing and advancement of optical devices with optical elements, such as lenses.

Re:Lens manufacturer's information

[haut]

What I can't seem to find are the dispersion characteristics of this material. Dispersion is the change in index of refraction with wavelength and is the reason prisms work. In a lens, dispersion causes different colors to focus at different points. This is the cause of chromatic aberrations, or purple fringing, in a camera and can be mostly compensated for in the design, but this material could be difficult to match up a glass to that would compensate.

Ceramics and glasses

[panurge]

This is largely marketing speak, IMHO. Glasses are supercooled liquids but inevitably contain a certain amount of crystallised material. Ceramics are crystalline, but unless they are single-crystal will usually contain a certain amount of glass in the matrix. This is one reason why ceramics usually have a softening range rather than a sudden melting temperature as with pure crystals. (The other is that the variation in crystal structure also creates a range of melting.)

I suspect the actual achievement here is managing to produce a transparent lens from a high refractive index material, but explain that to the masses who buy low-end digital cameras.

So-so offering from Casio

[Photo_Nut]

The specs on it are here:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Casio/casio_ exs100.asp

Now I'm going to compare it by specs with two similar cameras from the digital camera market leaders:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare_post.asp?m ethod=sidebyside&cameras=canon_sd300%2Ccasio_exs10 0%2Cnikon_cp5200&show=all

There are 3 things that impact image quality in digicams: sensor size/resolution/noise, lens quality, and lens maximum aperture. The Canon and Nikon models have more resolution, larger aperture when wide open, and larger sensors (also more resolution). They both have optical viewfinders and come with more memory than the Casio (memory is cheap). The max aperture enables you to shoot in worse light without a tripod. The sensor size and resolution impact the amount of noise, and the lens quality impacts sharpness.

The LCD size of the Casio is large (by digicam standards), but it's matched by the Canon in size and beaten in resolution by both the Canon and Nikon. So by using ceramics for their weight and hardness, Casio has reduced image quality and lost some max aperture. Maybe this is an acceptable trade-off for reducing the weight by 70 grams (113g compared to 180g). The camera is the same size as the Canon. The Nikon is about twice as thick.

Add another 30 grams and subtract $75, and we can compare with two older and cheaper Canon/Nikon models which are mildly larger, and still beat the new Exilim:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare_post.asp?m ethod=sidebyside&cameras=casio_exs100%2Ccanon_s410 %2Cnikon_cpsq&camuser=canon_s410&show=all

Yes, it was noteworthy that Casio made a ceramic lens, just like it was noteworthy when Kodak created a one-time use camera with a plastic lens... The problem for Casio is that the image quality isn't as good as "still-very-pocketable" offerings from years past. For the same price of a newer model from Canon or Nikon, you don't get as much. Size is the same, it weighs a little less, and it has worse image quality and needs twice as much light.

piece of crap

[Djinh]

Check the pics in this review.

No matter that it's ceramic, the lens is still crap...

What will it take before we see a smallish digicam with a decent lens???

Phase diagrams-progress!

[panurge]

Your generation doesn't know how lucky it is. I wish we had had clickable points on phase diagrams in my day, instead of getting looked down on by lecturers when we asked stupid questions (that nobody else in class knew the answer to either...)
And we had to make our own steel out of charcoal, magnetite and a lot of clay...and we were lucky, our neighbors were still living in the Bronze Age.

Shouldn't it read "stuart miles from pocket-lint"

[Zapdos]

Thinks he was first in posting a review.

His review is dated: Review posted on October 12 2004 16:38 GMT by Stuart Miles

Digicam Resource's review is dated: Originally posted: August 28, 2003

Steves-Digicams review is dated: Review posted 10/1/2004

It looks like stuart was third at best.

Glass is *not* a "supercooled liquid"

[porkchop_d_clown]

It's an amorphous solid, which is different.

Sigh.

[porkchop_d_clown]

That explains why museums are full of puddles where the roman vases used to be.

You're spreading a myth.

Birefringence

[djmurdoch]

Furthermore, as there is no birefringence in the ceramics, there is a potential for downsizing and advancement of optical devices with optical elements, such as lenses.


I didn't know what birefringence was, so I looked it up: it's the phenomenon in certain crystals that causes them to have two indices of refraction, so light beams entering are split into two parts.

It's not a problem in glass lenses, but would be if you made a lens out of those crystalline materials.

The same reason...

[karlandtanya]

For much the same reason some people are going back to vaccuum tubes

That reason being an uncritical appreciation of snake oil.

Birefringence

[TeknoHog]

Furthermore, as there is no birefringence in the ceramics, there is a potential for downsizing and advancement of optical devices with optical elements, such as lenses.

For those not familiar with birefringence, it means that the material would have different refractive indices for different polarizations of light. Since most light is usually a mixture of different polarization planes, a birefringent lens would create a blur of multiple images.

Many ceramics are birefringent, because the ordering of the atoms has a preferred axis of symmetry. This one is an exception, which means good optical properties for a lens. On the other hand, birefringence has several applications, for example in modulating laser light with ones and zeros in fiberoptic communication.

As other posters have pointed out, the lack of birefrincence may be due to the amorphous (as opposed to single crystal) phase of the lens material.

Better than higher resolution, older Exilim Z4U?

[seniorcoder]

I purchased an Exilim Z4U (4MP) almost 1 year ago. Is this a better camera? The Z4U is certainly very small (fits nicely into my shirt pocket) and takes good pictures. How do these two cameras compare?

On a different topic, why does /. have a motherboard icon next to this article?

My batteries...

[lowmagnet]

...are Powerex 2300mAh NiMH batteries. Four batteries + charger cost $50 total. My charger is a "slow/cold" charger that bounces polarity to reduce crystallisation. I haven't charged my batteries in over two weeks, and I'm at around 150 shots, about 30-40 with flash with no problems. The camera is a Canon PowerShot A70.

My mom's Kodak is a devourer of batteries. I don't know why anyone would put out a camera that can only take 30 shots before running out of juice. I take up to 150 is a typical outing.

Re:My batteries...

[cetan]

My average is 450 shots, LCD on full time, and about 10% flash usage on a set of 2200mAH PowerEx's with my Canon A80.

NiMH's are a wonderful invention.

Quality writing

[Crouching Turbo]

It's annoying that camera manufacturers are moving this way and even though the camera is only 3.2megapixels its still annoying that you'll have to buy an additional card straight away as in the cameras finest mode you be able to save a total of five images.

That's some good writing!

This camera seems like a decent challenger for the Canon Digital Elph. Honestly I'm not disappointed in the lack of SD card, because generally they'll include a paltry 8MB or 16MB card. Save a few bucks on the purchase price and go buy a bigger card, makes sense to me. :)

This ruins a google search

[nathanx]

Great...now any search in google about the Exilims and their problems with pocket lint getting in the inside of the lens is ruined.

joules of wisdom

[Doc Ruby]

Why do they rate batteries in mAh, instead of joules? Who knows how many amps the device draws, at what voltage? So the hours of use is also completely unknown. With joules, the device and its batteries can be compared with every other powersource. And "joules" has a better marketing resonance than "milliamphours". Most Americans (and foreigners) haven't internalized this weird metric yet - it's not too late to normalize it.

Re:joules of wisdom

[Doc Ruby]

I rarely care how many amps, or at what voltage, my battery delivers current. I want to know how much use I can get out of a battery. Of course the batteries must remain standard, with their rating clearly identified so we know whether it will work in our device or damage it. But I want to know "how much juice" is going to come out of one battery before it dies. Then I can compare it to other batteries, and plan how long it will last in a device. Currently (pun intended ;), I have to figure out the amperage of my device, divide the battery mAh, and guess at the integral of the power transfer curve to which you refer. That's ridiculous, nearly useless. We can compare mAh between two batteries, but how much different, in a practical sense, are they?

The best resolution will be when even the cheapest devices are smart enough to describe remaining battery life in operational terms. Like "32-37 pictures left, depending on plainness; 12-3 with flash". Meanwhile, the freely interconvertible joules would be a better unit.

Re:joules of wisdom

[drinkypoo]

Actually the mAh rating is just a convenience, if you really want to know a battery's characteristics you have to look at the discharge charts that tell you at a specific load what the provided voltage will be over time. Some battery companies refuse to provide mAh ratings for their off-the-shelf batteries now, and insist that if you want information you need to look at the chart, which they will be happy to fax to you.

Re:joules of wisdom

[Doc Ruby]

I'm waiting for devices that will read the barcode (or other machine readable ID) on the battery, and request that fax over the Net, decode it and translate it in terms of device usage in its UI.

Ceramic, baah!

[Kahrul]

Personally, I'm waithing for the transparent aluminum lens.

Hello... Mr. Computer?

What about other optical properties?

[Inode Jones]

We are told that the ceramic material has an index of refraction of 2.08 and is more durable than other glasses.

Being highly myopic, I am interested in ophthalmic applications of new materials. Right now, I am wearing a Nikon 1.74 index plastic lens, which is quite thin for its power.

The highest-index material that I am aware of currently being marketed for eyeglass use is the Zeiss Lantal 1.9 index glass. However, this material is quite shatter-prone, having only 1mm center thickness. I am told that one can poke a finger through a Lantal lens.

In addition to refractive power, for eyeglass use one must consider other optical properties, in particular the Abbe value. The Abbe value characterizes the chromatic aberration of a lens. The lower the Abbe number, the worse color fringing will be; some eyeglass wearers cannot tolerate high-index lenses because they typically have lower Abbe values than plain plastic.

Interestingly, Abbe is potentially irrevelant in a digital camera, because any chromatic aberration can be digitally removed. Effectively, you treat the R/G/B images from the sensor as three independent images and size them individually to compensate for the aberration. This cannot easily be done with a film camera, and is not possible at all with eyeglasses.

Re:What about other optical properties?

[ChrisMaple]

High dispersion is still a problem in digital cameras. Digital processing cannot completely fix chromatic focus errors. Even with three sensors at different focus points, there is an error band across the split spectra.

High index material also causes more problems with internal reflections. This is solved with coating (and multicoating), but I've read that suitable materials to multicoat high refractive index optics are unavilable.

Please post a link!

[glrotate]

I have videos of model planes bursting into flames due to a bad lipo

Hopefully these are in-flight.

Cromemco and the MITS Altair 8800

[narcc]

Hmmm... S100, camera... doesn't this sound familiar somehow?

3mp is enough

[Cesare Ferrari]

I shoot a Canon D30, which is a 3.2mp dSLR. I get prints of comparible quality to 35mm film. I tend to do 6*9 inch prints, or mount 10*15 inch prints.

The digital processing needed to get a 10*15 inch print (at 300dpi) from a 3.2mp image isn't difficult. I usually apply an unsharp mask to the original, then do a bicubic interpolation to the required resolution. A little extra sharpening if you want, and this gives a very acceptable print.

Which 5mp camera have you used which led to these problems? Why are you so sure this is a problem with 5mp, and not a problem with the particular model of camera that you were (are) using?

Re:3mp is enough

[arodland]

Why is it that everyone reading my message seems to think that I have a problem with 5MP? What I said is that 5MP is great, and that anything less doesn't match up.

Re:Ceramic is tougher than Glass ... but not the H

[bobv-pillars-net]

...Hulk think...

???

!