Ridiculous Price: 7.2MP Digital Camera
Casio Exilim EX-Z75 7.2MP Digital Camera with 3x Anti Shake Optical Zoom
I have the pre-predecessor to this camera: The Casio EX-Z50. My camera is 5 megs (not 7), no video capture, no Anti-Shake DSP image stabilization, and cost about ~$300 three years ago. I have been very happy with it, so much so that I got the predecessor EX-70 for the missus for about $200 18 months ago.
This one is wicked cheap: $134 at Amazon (w/free shipping)
Even better deal: If you are in NYC, J&R had an ad in today's paper: $129!
Casio Exilim EX-Z75 7.2MP Digital Camera with 3x Anti Shake Optical Zoom
Go buy 3 or 4 and give them out to all your friends . . .
Thursday, February 28, 2008 | 06:30 PM | Permalink
| Comments (26)
| TrackBack (0)
add to de.li.cious | 
digg this! | 
add to technorati | 
email this post
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c52a953ef00e5509e0e438834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Ridiculous Price: 7.2MP Digital Camera:
Comments
Wow! I was looking for something to buy in bulk to blow my tax rebate! This is perfect!
Posted by: dukeb | Feb 28, 2008 6:35:51 PM
"Deflation in things we want: Inflation in things we need."
Posted by: BCS | Feb 28, 2008 6:38:51 PM
More importantly in your opinion how does the predecessor work? How good is Casio?
Posted by: Pat G. | Feb 28, 2008 7:10:58 PM
I'm tellin ya', they're running out of expensive things to market. Imagine how cheap it'd be without inflation.
The economy of the future will consist of the homeless using super hi-tech wireless gadgets to run travelling sales man algorithms on the best places to pan-handle.
The rest of us will be working in the robot repair business... until the robots take that over.
Posted by: KirkH | Feb 28, 2008 7:30:03 PM
"The rest of us will be working in the robot repair business... until the robots take that over."
What would be wrong about a future like this? The robots produce all the stuff we need. We are going to make love, do sciences and art, or whatever we like to do best all day long.
Posted by: John Doe | Feb 28, 2008 8:47:13 PM
Isn't it more absurd to buy something one doesn't need, especially if they have a good, "efficient" camera that meets their current needs? The technology changes so fast, that it doesn't pay to just buy. Wait until one has the need and then buy the new camera. This one will be a dinosaur by then ;-)
Posted by: ef | Feb 28, 2008 9:31:36 PM
High fixed cost, low marginal cost.
Build a million units and get cheap.
Posted by: k2163 | Feb 28, 2008 9:44:41 PM
I'm very happy with my camera -- I would replace it, but 3 years later, it still works great.
As cheap as the new EX-Z75 is, I cannot rationalize buying a new one.
And yet, I am tempted . . .
Posted by: Barry Ritholtz | Feb 28, 2008 9:56:58 PM
Barry, great blog,
That's a Ridiculous Price, is a Boggart.
Posted by: David | Feb 28, 2008 10:10:45 PM
More megapixels does not mean a better camera. 7.2 MP is about 3200x2250. For comparison 1024×768 is the average desktop resolution for your average computer user, which is 0.8 MP! That means a 0.8 MP camera could take a photo that filled your entire monitor. Of course if you're making prints it makes a difference. But the fact remains, MegaPixels just measures the NUMBER of sensors a camera has, not their sensitivity, contrast etc.
Posted by: Shane Pearman | Feb 28, 2008 11:49:17 PM
John Doe. The future doesn't scare me. The transition to the future scares me.
Posted by: KirkH | Feb 29, 2008 12:01:46 AM
I've had two digicams in the past 5 years, the first died after a year and a half of light use, the second died after a year of VERY light use. I have film cameras that are over 70 years old that I can still buy film for and more importantly, still work. Lemme know when digital gets reliable enough to have a working one for ten years, then I'll be interested in buying another.
Posted by: mndean | Feb 29, 2008 12:03:39 AM
Large pixel count, more than 8 mp, is useless on compact cameras, because their cheap optics does not allow decent resolution anyway, and since the individual pixels get smaller as there is more of them crammed onto a very small sensor, it hurts the signal-to-noise ratio.
Posted by: Max | Feb 29, 2008 12:11:04 AM
BR-
Where'd you get the part about free shipping? This camera is sold by 6th Ave via Amazon. These arrangements almost never have free shipping. And Amazon does not indicate otherwise
Posted by: Bluzer | Feb 29, 2008 2:34:58 AM
Barry, it's inflation at work. NOT! As I have repeatedly said, we are seeing inflation in things we need, and deflation in things we formally wanted. The shite' on eBay upcoming will be something to see.
Posted by: SPECTRE of Deflation | Feb 29, 2008 8:24:40 AM
thanks for the tip barry,
I needed a present for my girlfriend's upcoming birthday and she has been wanting a camera...
You can buy via j&r on the web, got an extra 1g mem card too and with shipping it came out to 144.93 TOTAL.
Posted by: steve | Feb 29, 2008 9:40:24 AM
I have the Casio predecessor as well. I broke it - well, not completely, but I had something in the way when I turned it on and the lens extended out. The "telescoping" of the lens was obstructed and it clicked as it apparently skipped a gear in the telescoping mechanism, if you follow, and now takes ever so slightly blurry pictures.
No problem, right? Except when I tried to find an AUTHORIZED repair shop. There are all of TWO in the world - both in Asia - and it was going to cost 3x the cost of the camera to get fixed.
I bought a Kodak 12mp (which also takes HD movies) this xmas b/c I know that I will have support if somethign goes awry. Casio isn't a camera company.
Posted by: jswede | Feb 29, 2008 10:18:27 AM
My experiences have been quite different than mndean had as far as longevity of digicams. I've had a Sony for 7 yrs, still works perfectly, although large as a brick. So now I've used a Canon SD200 for the last 3.5 yrs with no problems. This has 3 MP, but produces great 8X10" prints, but of course very little cropping is allowed.
Posted by: Steve C | Feb 29, 2008 10:19:19 AM
Quick comment on Casio cameras (I have the predecessor Casio EX-Z60)
The best thing about these cameras is their size - think small and convenient. They take good (not great) photos and you end up using it a lot more often since its so easy to take it with you. The video capture for short clips is surprisingly good.
I normally also take my Canon dSLR along for vacations and other occasions when I don't mind lugging a larger camera.
Posted by: Giglish | Feb 29, 2008 10:56:09 AM
I have a much earlier Exilim model that I've been thinking of replacing-- today might be the day! Thanks for the tip!
Posted by: Madame X | Feb 29, 2008 11:59:34 AM
Barry: "As cheap as the new EX-Z75 is..."
One other factor to consider is the memory card that comes with the camera. You could end up spending almost as much for a 2GB card--unless it comes with a card that size, in which case it is an incredible deal! Buy several for your children, nieces and nephews. Also, does it use rechareable batteries or nons--that can add up.
Posted by: Ritchie | Feb 29, 2008 12:48:40 PM
Does it come with that nifty wireless USB port, so you don't even have to plug it in to the computer?
Posted by: Finance Monk | Feb 29, 2008 3:18:35 PM
For just a few bucks more, you could also get the EX-Z77, which seems to be pretty much the same camera plus a new "straight to YouTube" software feature for video. If you want a color other than silver, the EX-Z77 actually ends up being cheaper!
It's a nice little camera. My old "compact" camera is a bit long in the tooth these days. Incredibly compact, but the screen is almost too small to be useful and has no zoom. This one could be the excuse to upgrade.
Also, the Casios have nice waterproof housings available for those of you who (like me) need something to take on the river, in the pool, and skiing in the snow...
-btc
Posted by: BelowTheCrowd | Mar 1, 2008 1:06:44 AM
The human eye cannot resolve more than about 270 dpi. For an 12" by 8" photo (35 mm aspect ratio is 3:2) that translates to 7 megapixels (3240 x 2160) so that is all the resolution a consumer would ever need. Although eventually I see computer monitors capable of 3840 x 2160 (for 2160p video) so that would take about 8.3 megapixels to fill a computer screen.
Posted by: Richard Creasi | Mar 1, 2008 11:54:47 AM
After reading the majority of the remarks I shall not be buying into this scam of fast cash grab. I prefer quality and the right price for what I want. No games no catches just a simple transaction where both parties find themselve satisfied. Money made in this fashion is short lived as the poor quality of the camera and the high cost of maintenance is undoubtable going to be noticed. In this day and age customers are becoming much savvier I myself prefer to wait for something that catches my eye that appeals to all my senses and to be sure I am right I thoroughly read everything on the packaging and ask the salesperson questions. I certainly have made mistakes but they are getting fewer as I learn and my instincts are usually right more often than I am
Posted by: Michelle Madalena | May 22, 2008 7:24:22 AM
