New Ceramic Lensed Exilim Ex-S100

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

New Ceramic Lensed Exilim Ex-S100

Posted by samzenpus on Wednesday October 13, 2004 @05:01PM from the more-pictures dept.

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. "

20 of 209 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

This is bad? by stilist · 2004-10-13 17:03 · Score: 4, Interesting

Since when is a 3.2 megapixel size bad, especially for a small digital camera? Guess I'm just behind the times...
1. Re:This is bad? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-13 17:09 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  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.
2. Re:This is bad? by LtOcelot · 2004-10-13 19:15 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
image noise by spacerodent · 2004-10-13 17:09 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.
1. Re:image noise by cujo_1111 · 2004-10-13 17:19 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  If I point out that you are incorrect, making me a foe does not make you any more correct.
Re:ceramic by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-13 17:10 · Score: 5, Informative

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.
Skeptical by Hao+Wu · 2004-10-13 17:10 · Score: 4, Insightful

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

--
I suggest you read Slashdot
Did I miss something? by RandyOo · 2004-10-13 17:15 · Score: 5, Informative

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.
1. Re:Did I miss something? by momerath2003 · 2004-10-13 17:52 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Note the email address on the article submitter:
  
  stuart@pocket-lint.co.uk
  
  A little bit of self-whoring on his part.
  
  --
  I had but a simple dream, to destroy all humans.
another review by Leto-II · 2004-10-13 17:19 · Score: 5, Informative

There's a much better review at Steves Digicams

Might want to check that one out too.

--
Do not anger the worm.
Page 1 is just flashy by Da+Twink+Daddy · 2004-10-13 17:25 · Score: 4, Informative

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:review by Sosarian · 2004-10-13 17:35 · Score: 5, Informative

might be nice to actually link to the review?

http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/ex-s10 0.html
Ceramic lenses by nels_tomlinson · 2004-10-13 17:39 · Score: 5, Informative

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.

--
See what I've been reading.
Re:What's up with the ceramic lens? by klang · 2004-10-13 17:39 · Score: 4, Informative

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%.
Casio first developed transparent ceramic lens by erick99 · 2004-10-13 17:54 · Score: 5, Informative

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.

--
http://www.busyweather.com/
Refractive index by LS · 2004-10-13 17:54 · Score: 4, Interesting

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

--
There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
FINALLY!!!! by stevok · 2004-10-13 18:19 · Score: 5, Funny

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... by mtec · 2004-10-13 18:45 · Score: 4, Funny

take pictures of really hot women!

*sorry*

--
Cake or Death? Cake Please!
Re:Ceramic vs. Glass by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-13 18:56 · Score: 5, Informative

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:What is a ceramic by goneutt · 2004-10-13 20:28 · Score: 4, Informative

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)

--
Bacardi + slashdot = negative karma.