Casio Exilim EX-Z1080 vs Casio Exilim EX-S880— kwanbis

Hi, I want to buy a camera to replace my Canon SD1000.I’m a “point-and-shotter”, foto maniac, and i love to take a lot of pictures.

Problem is that most of the times, with my SD1000, when i review them, 30% are “blurred/moved”.

I know that is very dificult to find the “perfect (ultra-)compact”, because of tech limitations, that is why i’m asking for help trying to find the camera that most matches my requeriments.
So lets list them:

1) First of all, it has to be as compact as possible: I used to have a Canon S1IS and a Sony DSC-H2, both very good cameras, but so big, that i would never carry them.

2) Quality of pictures: the better the pictures in automatic mode, the better. Pre-confirured modes would also help. Manual mode is a plus that i would use probably 1% of the time, unless is very simple/intuitive.

3) Low Light/No Flash: i love to take pictures at any time, and at any light condition, so a camera that can take good pictures in low light is a must.
4) Image Stabilization: because it (should?) help low light pictures.

5) Speed: a camera is no good if it takes forever to take a picture, cause most of the time, that moment would be gone. So, the faster the camera to startup, shutting, etc, the better.
6) 3x minumum: this is almost a standard.

7) Batteries: as most lasting as possible.

I came to narrow my search to this two models:
Casio Exilim EX-Z1080 10MP 3x $211
Casio Exilim EX-S880 8.1MP 3x $207

What does the experts think about them? Are they close enought to what i want? Any other better option?
Thanks, and happy new year.

— rube39

The movie mode (which is why I got a Casio) seems the same for the Z1080, the s880, and the V8. I had the s880, but although some shots were fine, many came out either soft or blurry (or both). Just exchanged it for the V8, and after 50 plus shots, with various settings, find it just fine, with no blurry shots outdoors.Doubt that it can compare with the Fuji F-series (which are bigger) for low light/indoor shot, however.

Comments(0) | Add Comments |