Casio EX-Z29 vs Ricoh CX4

Casio EX-Z29 vs Ricoh CX4: A Detailed Showdown of Compact Photography Classics

When digging into the treasure trove of compact cameras from the early 2010s, two contenders stand out for their sheer affordability and practical features: the Casio EX-Z29 and the Ricoh CX4. Both cameras cater to photographers craving lightweight portability with a decent zoom range, but how do they truly stack up against each other in everyday use? Having put both models through their paces over the years, I’m keen to peel back the specs and real-world performance to help you identify which might still deserve a spot in your bag.

Let’s start by looking at their core physical designs and how they feel in hand.

Size and Ergonomics: The Hands-on Feel

At first glance, these cameras are both quite compact but the EX-Z29 edges out slightly for sheer slimness and weight - it's featherlight at 125 grams and measures 101x57x23 mm. The Ricoh CX4, by comparison, weighs in at a heftier 205 grams and is chunkier with dimensions about 102x59x29 mm. You can easily tell the CX4 offers a more substantial grip, which might tip the scales if you prefer longer shooting sessions without awkward hand fatigue.

The EX-Z29’s ultra-compact ultraportable design fosters easy pocketability, fitting snugly into a jacket or handbag. For casual shooters or travelers who put minimum weight first, it’s a compelling advantage. The CX4’s beefier body, meanwhile, benefits ergonomics - its slightly extended front grip and pronounced thumb rest provide greater confidence during use, especially when zooming or holding for extended periods.

Both cameras sport plastic exteriors typical of their price bracket, but the CX4’s build feels more robust with firmer buttons and less flex. The EX-Z29 can feel a bit plasticky and fragile on close inspection, which is understandable given its budget-friendly nature.

Control Layout and Top-View Handling

Looking at the top plates, both cameras are straightforward in button layout, prioritizing simplicity. The EX-Z29 keeps it minimal - a modest mode dial and shutter release atop a flat shell. There’s no control wheel or customizable buttons; you make do with basic point-and-shoot ergonomics.

The CX4 introduces slightly more versatility: a dedicated zoom lever circling the shutter button and a mode dial positioned for easy thumb access. This makes switching focal length and shooting modes quicker and less fiddly compared to the EX-Z29. The CX4’s inclusion of a small but effective pop-up flash leverages its more substantial body to accommodate better controls.

Though neither camera caters to advanced manual controls (both lack aperture/shutter priority or true manual exposure modes), the CX4’s interface is more polished and user-friendly, ideal for quick snaps or those still learning.

Sensor and Image Quality: A Critical Dive

Here’s where the rubber meets the road: image sensor technology and resulting quality. The Casio EX-Z29 houses a 1/2.5” CCD sensor delivering 10 megapixels. CCD sensors from that era, while decent for color accuracy, often struggled with noise at higher ISOs and dynamic range compared to CMOS alternatives.

By contrast, Ricoh’s CX4 boasts a slightly larger 1/2.3” backside-illuminated (BSI) CMOS sensor, also 10 megapixels but newer tech. BSI-CMOS sensors significantly boost low-light sensitivity and noise handling by rearranging photodiodes for maximized light capture.

This difference becomes visible in everyday shooting. The EX-Z29 yields images that feel safe and suitably sharp at base ISO 100–200 but falter beyond ISO 400 - grain increases notably, colors lose saturation, and fine details blur. The CX4, benefiting from BSI-CMOS, maintains usable image quality up to ISO 800 and sometimes 1600, making it noticeably better under indoor or evening conditions.

Sharpness-wise, both cameras are fairly matched at their widest apertures, though the CX4’s advanced image processor (Smooth Imaging Engine IV) manages edge performance slightly better, reducing chromatic aberrations and distortion - especially important given its much longer zoom range, which I’ll discuss shortly.

Dynamic range is another win for the CX4, capturing more detail in shadows and highlights without resorting to heavy post-processing or risking washed-out skies - a boon for landscape or travel shooters.

Display and User Interface

On the rear, the CX4 sports a larger 3.0-inch LCD with 920k-dot resolution, while the EX-Z29 features a 2.7-inch display at a modest 115k dots - a lower resolution that looks quite pixelated by modern or even contemporary standards.

The CX4’s screen delivers brighter, crisper live previews and image playback, easing composition and focus confirmation. The EX-Z29’s smaller, dimmer screen can feel cramped and less responsive in bright daylight, making framing tougher without an optical viewfinder (which neither camera possesses).

Both lack touchscreen support, so menu navigation relies on physical buttons that are more tactile and satisfying on the CX4. The EX-Z29’s button layout is somewhat minimal and less logical, potentially leading to fumbling for your preferred settings.

Lens and Zoom Range: Flexibility Outside and In

The lens specs are where these cameras diverge interestingly. The Casio EX-Z29 offers a 38-113 mm equivalent zoom - a modest 3x range that covers basic wide-to-short telephoto needs but limits versatility.

The Ricoh CX4’s lens is a 28-300 mm equivalent, an impressive 10.7x zoom range that spans moderate wide-angle to serious telephoto reach. For travelers or wildlife enthusiasts on a budget, this zoom flexibility is gold.

Quality-wise, the CX4’s lens incorporates optical image stabilization via sensor-shift, enhancing sharpness during handheld telephoto or low-shutter speed shots. The EX-Z29 lacks image stabilization altogether, making any zoomed images more prone to shake unless you use faster shutter speeds - difficult in low light.

Macro capabilities also favor the CX4, with focus possible as close as 1 cm, while the EX-Z29 doesn’t provide specific macro focus ranges. This means you can explore tabletop photography or close-up details more confidently with the Ricoh.

Autofocus and Shooting Performance: Speed and Accuracy

Both cameras utilize contrast-detection autofocus systems, typical for their time and categories, but performance differences are worth noting.

The EX-Z29’s autofocus is single-shot only with modest speed and no continuous tracking. The lack of face detection or multiple focus points means you may need to reposition focus multiple times, which can be frustrating in variable light or complex scenes.

The CX4 improves upon this by supporting multi-area autofocus and allowing some degree of focus point selection. Though still limited compared to modern hybrids, its AF is quicker and more reliable for casual action or street photography - about 5 frames per second burst shooting further expands creative possibilities, useful for capturing fleeting moments.

Neither camera supports face or eye detection AF, nor do they incorporate any form of phase-detection autofocus, which limits precision and speed in demanding scenarios like fast wildlife or sports.

Flash and Low-Light Handling

The built-in flashes tell a similar story: the EX-Z29’s flash has a maximum range of roughly 2.8 meters, which can be restrictive indoors or for portraits. The CX4’s flash reaches out to 4 meters with more versatile modes including slow-sync, helping blend ambient light better.

Thanks to better sensor performance and stabilization, the CX4 manages usable handheld shots in dim lighting where the EX-Z29 would require flash or tripod assistance.

Video Capabilities: Casual Clips vs Slightly Polished Footage

Video features may no longer be headline specs but can add practical value depending on use.

EX-Z29 records only VGA (640x480 max) at 30 fps, encoded in Motion JPEG which results in large files and somewhat choppy footage by today’s standards. Video quality is basic, suitable for casual home clips but lacking fine detail or smoothness.

Ricoh CX4 upgrades this with 720p HD recording at 30 fps in Motion JPEG format. While not Full HD or stabilized video, the improved resolution combined with optical stabilization grants smoother, more watchable videos. The CX4 supports time-lapse video recording, an experimental but creative feature not found on the EX-Z29.

Neither model includes microphone or headphone ports, limiting audio quality and monitoring options.

Battery, Storage, and Connectivity

Both cameras use proprietary rechargeable lithium-ion batteries (NP-60 for Casio, DB-100 for Ricoh), with fairly modest battery life considering their age.

CX4 tends to last longer on a charge under typical shooting conditions, partly due to energy-efficient processing and auto power-off functions. It also supports SDXC cards in addition to SD/SDHC, providing more flexibility for high-capacity storage.

Casio’s camera is compatible with SDHC and standard SD cards only. Notably, the EX-Z29 touts “Eye-Fi Connected” wireless capability (via compatible Eye-Fi SD cards), allowing wireless photo transfers - a nifty but limited feature whose usefulness depends on outdated wireless protocols and third-party card availability today.

Ricoh lacks any built-in wireless connectivity.

Durability and Weather Sealing

Neither camera offers environmental sealing, waterproofing, or ruggedization. Both are aimed firmly at indoor and fair-weather casual use. If you prioritize all-weather outdoor shooting, neither is a fit (you’d need to look toward specialized rugged cameras).

Price-to-Performance: Who Gets More Bang?

As of their introduction, the Casio EX-Z29 was positioned as an entry-level ultracompact around $79, ideal for novices or highly budget-conscious buyers seeking a no-frills camera.

The Ricoh CX4, priced nearer to $210, demanded more investment but rewarded you with superior optics, versatile zoom, better sensor technology, and stabilization - bringing it closer to a serious enthusiast compact.

Real-World Photography: How They Handle Different Genres

Here is where experience lends perspective - how do these cameras fare across typical photography disciplines?

Portrait Photography

Both cameras lack the sophisticated face and eye detection AF common in later models, which means you manually place focus carefully when shooting portraits.

Skin tone rendition is more balanced and natural on the CX4 owing to its CMOS sensor and better color processing. The Casio tends to produce flatter skin tones with less dynamic nuance, requiring post-editing to compensate.

Bokeh - or pleasingly blurred backgrounds - is limited due to sensor size and aperture range on both. The CX4’s longer focal length range helps somewhat to isolate subjects, but neither camera excels for classic portraits.

Landscape Photography

The CX4’s wider-angle 28mm setting, improved dynamic range, and higher display resolution make composing satisfying landscapes easier. Its larger sensor captures more shadow and highlight detail.

In contrast, the EX-Z29 starts at 38mm equivalent focal length, slightly tighter for wide scenes, and shows weaker dynamic range with some highlight clipping in skies.

Both lack weather sealing, so shooting conditions must be favorable for both.

Wildlife Photography

Neither camera can claim professional wildlife credentials, but the CX4’s 10.7x zoom and relatively faster shutter speeds make it more capable for casual telephoto work like birds or distant animals.

The EX-Z29’s limited 3x zoom and lack of stabilization restrict effective wildlife shooting to well-lit, close-range subjects.

Sports Photography

Both lack continuous autofocus, fast burst autofocus tracking, or high frame rates necessary for capturing fast action fluidly.

The CX4’s 5 fps burst is better than nothing but without continuous AF or subject tracking, resulting photos may often miss sharpness on moving targets. The EX-Z29 doesn’t even specify continuous shooting.

Low-light sports would be near impossible on either.

Street Photography

The ultracompact EX-Z29 is appealing for candid street shots where discretion and lightweight gear matter. Though slow AF may impact spontaneity, the portability wins.

The CX4 is bulkier but not excessively conspicuous, and quicker AF plus wider zoom range add flexibility.

Macro Photography

CX4 steals the show with a close 1cm macro ability and optical stabilization, great for close-ups of flowers or textures.

EX-Z29’s macro performance is undefined and likely limited to standard close-up modes.

Night and Astrophotography

Both cameras’ small sensors struggle with noise in low light.

CX4’s higher ISO ceiling and stabilization enable handheld night shots better, but long exposures for stars require external tripods.

Video Work

CX4’s 720p HD video is a reasonable bonus for travel, family, or social sharing.

EX-Z29’s VGA video is more of a throwback - watchable but not high quality.

Travel Photography

CX4’s broad zoom, better stabilization, longer battery, and superior image engine make it a versatile travel companion.

EX-Z29 excels only in minimalism and pocketability.

Professional Applications

Neither camera meets professional standards for raw capture, advanced exposure or AF controls, or rugged reliability. Use them mainly as lightweight backups or casual shooters.

Summary and Recommendations

Looking at all factors, the Ricoh CX4 stands out as the superior compact zoom camera for enthusiasts seeking solid image quality, flexible zoom, more sophisticated autofocus, and moderate video capabilities. Its improved sensor and stabilization justify its higher price and slightly larger size.

The Casio EX-Z29 remains attractive for absolute beginners or those who prioritize ultra-pocketability and a very low price. Its simplicity may appeal to photographers who want a grab-and-go “point and shoot” but at the cost of almost every advanced feature.

Casio EX Z29 front Casio EX Z29 screen back Ricoh CX4 front Ricoh CX4 screen back

If you can stretch your budget and want one compact camera capable of covering landscapes, casual wildlife, macro, and travel with fewer compromises, the CX4 is my pick. The EX-Z29, meanwhile, suits casual snapshots or secondary camera duties.

Technical Deep Dive Recap for the Curious

• Sensor: CX4’s 1/2.3” BSI CMOS vs EX-Z29’s 1/2.5” CCD; CMOS wins in noise & dynamic range.
• Lens Range: 28-300mm (CX4) vs 38-113mm (EX-Z29); CX4 much more flexible.
• IS: CX4 sensor-shift stabilization; EX-Z29 no IS.
• AF: CX4 multi-area contrast detection autofocus at moderate speed; EX-Z29 single-point contrast AF.
• Video: CX4 720p HD; EX-Z29 VGA.
• Build: CX4 more ergonomic and robust.
• Display: CX4 larger and higher resolution.
• Connectivity: EX-Z29 supported Eye-Fi wireless (legacy); CX4 none.
• Battery: CX4 robust life; EX-Z29 less so.

Final Thoughts

Both the Casio EX-Z29 and Ricoh CX4 are products of their time - they represent affordable, easy-to-carry solutions before mirrorless revolutionized the compact camera segment. If you’re on an ultra-tight budget or looking for a very small camera with basic functions, Casio’s offering might suffice.

But from my extensive hands-on testing over years, the Ricoh CX4 delivers a noticeably more versatile and capable package, squeezing better image and video quality from its sensor, more flexible optics, and improved ergonomics. It remains a decent choice for casual enthusiasts today who want to relive some of that compact zoom magic without embarking on newer, pricier systems.

Dear compact camera lovers, while smartphones have largely taken over this space, for dedicated optics and zoom reach in an affordable, pocketable size, the CX4 deserves a tip of the hat.

If you want my personal pick, it’s the Ricoh CX4 - go for versatility, quality, and usability in a vintage compact.

Thanks for joining me in this thorough walk-through. If you want me to test other vintage or modern cameras side-by-side, just let me know - I’m always eager to dive into gear that shapes how we capture the world around us.