Casio Exilim XZ-750

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Julia Henshaw - 30 Dec 2005 21:45 GMT

Thinking of getting one of these. Read reviews & seems OK. Small,
versatile & pretty good quality pics.
Any owners out there want to share their thoughts as to whether it's a good
buy?
Thanks.

Reply to this Message

Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!) - 30 Dec 2005 22:49 GMT

>Thinking of getting one of these. Read reviews & seems OK. Small,
>versatile & pretty good quality pics.
>Any owners out there want to share their thoughts as to whether it's a good
>buy?

I just picked one up before X-mas to carry around when I just want
something to stick in my pocket compared to my D70 and big lenses.

So far it seems to take decent photos. The lcd is big and the menu system
is easy to learn. A couple of the better shots I've taken so far can be
seen at http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/Z_750/index.html

Signature

Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet2@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html

Reply to this Message

baker1 - 31 Dec 2005 02:04 GMT

>Thinking of getting one of these. Read reviews & seems OK. Small,
>versatile & pretty good quality pics.
>Any owners out there want to share their thoughts as to whether it's a good
>buy?
>Thanks.

I returned mine last week and got the Canon SD550. I couldn't get
sharp pictures at parties and of my dogs (stationary). At parties, it
would focus on the center person of a 3 person shot, and beacause the
two people standing flank were maybe 6 inches closer, they were out of
focus. I know it's a point and shoot with minimal depth of field but
the Canon gives me better shots.

I was hard to give up because its feature rich and very easy to use.
It just wasn't giving me crisp in focus pictures.

Reply to this Message

Derek Fountain - 31 Dec 2005 09:38 GMT

> I know it's a point and shoot with minimal depth of field but
> the Canon gives me better shots.
>
> I was hard to give up because its feature rich and very easy to use.
> It just wasn't giving me crisp in focus pictures.

Maybe you had a duff one? As a point and shoot it would have a maximal
depth of field, not a minimal one.

My Dad has one of these cameras and is very happy with it. Chalk a point
up for the XZ-750 in the "clueless newbie" market.

Oh, he did have problems getting a manual though. It comes on disk as a
PDF file and his ancient Win98 system didn't have a reader modern enough
to read it. Nor a web browser recent enough to install Adobe Reader! He
wrote to Casio and they sent him a printout from their laser printer!
(Which, at 250-odd pages, was good of them - another point for their
customer service then!)

Signature

<a href="http://www.derekfountain.org/">Derek Fountain</a> on the web at
http://www.derekfountain.org/

Reply to this Message

Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!) - 31 Dec 2005 10:36 GMT

> > I know it's a point and shoot with minimal depth of field but
>> the Canon gives me better shots.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>Maybe you had a duff one? As a point and shoot it would have a maximal
>depth of field, not a minimal one.

If set on auto indoors in not bright light it will select f/2.6 so
relatively a short DOF for a P&S.

>My Dad has one of these cameras and is very happy with it. Chalk a point
>up for the XZ-750 in the "clueless newbie" market.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>(Which, at 250-odd pages, was good of them - another point for their
>customer service then!)

I printed it out in booklet form and it's bigger than the camera! By a wide
margin. :-)

Signature

Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet2@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html

Reply to this Message