Casio introduces 7.2 megapixel Exilim EX-Z70

So Casio's just announced that it's taking the six megapixel Exilim EX-Z60 and bumping the resolution up to 7.2 megapixels in a new model whose name you can probably guess, while at the same time managing to make it just a little more pocket-friendly by shaving a few millimeters off the depth. Besides those extra million or so pixels, though, the Exilim EX-Z70's specs remain nearly identical to its sibling's, so the 2.5-inch LCD, 3x optical zoom, and digital image stabilization will come as little surprise. Retailing for around $425, a black version of this 118-gram point-and-shooter will be available at the beginning of July, while a silver edition will hit the streets about a month later. Keep reading to get a view from the back, though if you're familiar with Z60, you'll have seen it all before...

[BiggusDiccus @ Jun 22nd 2006 11:01AM]

I wonder if the resolution is going to be better than previous models. I know that my Z50 was a little lacking on res quality. Big screen, poor quality. I will say that I've taken my Elixim down to 105ft when I went scuba diving and it took good shots. Very slow between macro shots but usable. It was especially nice when I switched it to video mode. You could hear my SCUBA regulator. And yes, I had it in a Casio UW housing. :)

[umijin @ Jun 22nd 2006 11:01AM]

Hmmm... I have the Casio EX Z-750 with the same resolution - came out a year ago.

Same stats, minuse the little joystick thingy, and mine has a viewfinder.

I can't see how this is much of an improvement, unless the innards differ.

[Jason @ Jun 22nd 2006 11:07AM]

Casio seems to make great cameras but they are going to hurt themselves if they continue to release so many similar cameras.

[Sacramento Photographer @ Jun 22nd 2006 12:41PM]

I'm still having trouble understanding why a camera like this needs 7+ megapixels. I'm sure it's directly related to the general public's idea that more MP automatically relates to better quality pictures.

I realize that more data means better quality when you get into the digital zoom range, so that's a plus, but other than perpetuating the mine's bigger than yours, this looks like a nice little camera to carry around Disneyland or other vacation destination.

[frank @ Jun 22nd 2006 2:14PM]

Sacramento Photog: Totally agree. I mean shit, look at cell phones. A 160 x 120 thumbnail from a pic taken on a real camera has more detail than a 1 MP shot taken on any of the various Motorola cell phones I've owned. A camera of this caliber shouldn't exceed 5 MP. My experience has been that anything higher than that on a camera in the $300 - $400 dollar range just gets you more JPG noise.

[Fred Finisterre @ Jun 22nd 2006 2:16PM]

Do you still need the dicking station to charge it? Like with my old Exilim? Why can't they make one that charges via a USB cable like my mobile phone does. Or at least just a simple mains lead. I hate having to carry the docking station AND power brick around.

[Wisin y Yandel @ Jun 22nd 2006 2:18PM]

Looks nice. I wonder of the silver looks better.

[Timmy!!! @ Jun 22nd 2006 3:22PM]

heh.... dicking station.

[Zeek @ Jun 22nd 2006 3:44PM]

Speaking of dicking station, that pic looks like the multi-talented Taylor Hayes.

[Don O'Shea @ Jun 22nd 2006 11:12PM]

So you have all this pixel real estate, no stabilization, and no viewfinder. In low light...BLURRR!

[Tony Baker @ Jun 23rd 2006 5:58AM]

Gee, Don, you should really read at least the summary before saying that it doesn't have image stabilization!

Personally, I go for Canon cameras, they kick ass.