Lots of features but not ready for prime time

Author's Rating:

Pros: High speed capabilities (if you have enough light)

Cons: Picture quality not quite there.  Movies are grainy.

The Bottom Line: 
Unless you really really need high speed, wait. 

Author's Review
I was doing as much research as possible between this and the Casio EX-S12 (see my review of the EX-S12).  A neighbor of mine has this camera and let me borrow it for a few days, so I learned a lot.  It helped me decide that between the two, I prefer the EX-S12, not this one. 

First, don't be fooled by number of megapixels.  My experience in owning several digital cameras is that while I would not want a 2MP camera now, I don't care if it's 6, 8, 10, 12, or 200 for that matter.  You will discover that cameras need much more scrutiny than megapixels.

The EX-FS10 is part of a newer line of Casios that are touted as having 'high speed' capabilities.  More on that later.  First, this is one sharp looking camera.  And, when you turn it on, the lens cover snaps open in a jiffy, very amusing and cool.  Not like the grinding motor type of cover. 

As for high speed, this is true.  You can do slow motion which is really nifty, and the absolute strongest feature of this camera is that as you are pressing the shutter half way, you can have set the camera so it is taking multiple shots at rapid speed, saving them all (albeit at slightly less MP), so you can choose your favorite ones to keep.  In other words, if your baby only smiles for that one split second, you have a much better chance of catching that smile, as opposed to the drool, the blinking, the head turned to the side, etc.  The high speed is also good for capturing video for slo mo, fast action, etc.

So, with it about the same price as the EX-S12 (and now usually cheaper), why did I choose the EX-S12?  Very simple: picture and video quality.  No other reason whatsoever.  Now, as I said in my other review, I am not a guru who knows every hue, every lighting arrangement, bla bla.  But, I definitely know a grainy picture from a sharp one.  Likewise movies.  The pictures, and I did use the same MP for both, showed superiority with the EX-S12.  Not a huge difference, but noticeable.  Your average 4x6 print, probably not a big deal, but more noticeable for enlargements. 

However, the video was really the kicker for me.  A definite difference.  Whether comparing regular (640x480) to regular (640x480) or HD to HD movie setting, the FS10 just didn't cut it.  More grainy, and it did not adjust to the lighting as well as I would have liked. 

This led me to contemplate: what could be the reason for the images, and especially the movies in this camera, being inferior to the EX-S12, and even my old EX-Z60?  Well, as I mentioned, this camera has a 3x optical zoom (very typical), but unlike most cameras with 3x optical zoom, the lens does not protrude out when you turn on the camera.  Therefore, any zooming is actually done without visible movement of the lens apparatus.  That's right - all the workings are inside the body of the camera, which is great because there is less risk of damage to your precious lens (since it doesn't protrude).  But, here is my question:  if this kind of optical zoom really were just as good as the kind that have the lens rotating and protruding out, wouldn't all digital cameras do this?  I mean, what is the advantage, if all things were equal in image quality, of having the lens stick out more, if it didn't have to?

Hmmmm....may I hypothesize that as of today, 2009 technology, the protruding/zooming lens is a superior technology, at least in terms of image and movie quality.  This is my conclusion.  I have no proof other than my experience with my old Z60, my present S12, and this camera, but I think it makes perfect sense.

Also, remember one thing about that nifty feature of taking multiple rapid shots as you press the shutter: this would not be the case with flash photography of course.  So, the feature really is only for daytime outdoor shots, or indoor shots with much less quality to the image because of the different ISO setting they must use. 

Honestly, it's not a bad camera, but definitely not one that is ready for prime time yet.  I mean, if your number one reason to have a camera is to get your kid's ice hockey slap shot, or better yet his/her baseball swing since that would be outside in better light, then really, this is your camera - you'll get better results than other cameras, due to its high speed capabilities.   Just don't expect miracle picture-movie quality.  I'd love to have a high speed camera, but I think they need to improve this and I'll see how the next one is.  I'm sure the way I handle cameras, my S12 will be broken by then anyway, so I'll be looking for Casio to iron out the wrinkles.  Frankly, I think they will.