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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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)

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: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.

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

[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

[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.

Skeptical

[Hao Wu]

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

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

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.

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.

another review

[Leto-II]

There's a much better review at Steves Digicams

Might want to check that one out too.

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!

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.

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.

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?

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: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%.

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

[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)

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

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!

It's ceramic so you can...

[mtec]

take pictures of really hot women!

*sorry*