Casio Exilim Pro EX-F1 vs Casio Exilim EX-FH100

Casio Exilim Pro EX-F1
Casio Exilim EX-FH100

Reasons to buy the Casio Exilim Pro EX-F1

High speed movies
High-speed framerate
1,200 fps
Rapid fire
Continuous shooting
60 fps
Great viewfinder
Viewfinder
Digital
External flash
External flash
Better lighting
 

Reasons to buy the Casio Exilim EX-FH100

Wide angle
Wide angle lens
24 mm
Size
Really small
Compact (104×60×28 mm)
Thickness
Thin
1.1"
Weight
Light-weight
201 g

galleries

Explore our gallery of 3 sample photos taken by the Casio Exilim EX-FH100.
Explore our gallery of 9 sample photos taken by the Casio Exilim Pro EX-F1.

competitors

Casio Exilim Pro EX-F1 Competitors

Casio Exilim EX-FH20

Casio Exilim EX-FH20

Super zoom

$1,525

Wide angle Much better wide angle
Screen size Significantly larger screen
High-speed framerate Lower speed movies
Canon PowerShot G7 X Mark II

Canon PowerShot G7 X Mark II

Pro digicam

$649

Wide angle Much better wide angle
Screen resolution Much higher resolution screen
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies
Nikon 1 J4

Nikon 1 J4

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$459 with 10-30mm lens

Screen resolution Much higher resolution screen
Screen size Significantly larger screen
Image stabilization No image stabilization

Casio Exilim EX-FH100 Competitors

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 IV

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 IV

Pro digicam

$811 - $848

Screen resolution Much higher resolution screen
Aperture Significantly wider aperture
High-speed framerate Lower speed movies
Casio Exilim EX-100

Casio Exilim EX-100

Pro digicam

$556

Screen size Much larger screen
Screen resolution Much higher resolution screen
Wide angle Worse wide angle
Sony Cybershot DSC-RX100

Sony Cybershot DSC-RX100

Pro digicam

$424 - $448

Screen resolution Much higher resolution screen
Aperture Significantly wider aperture
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies

discussion

Casio Exilim Pro EX-F1
Exilim Pro EX-F1
Casio

Report a correction
Casio Exilim EX-FH100
Exilim EX-FH100
Casio

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments