Ricoh WG-6 vs Casio EX-ZR300 Comparison

Camera to replace

Change

Ricoh WG-6

20 MP | 1/2.3" (6.17 x 4.55 mm) BSI-CMOS Sensor

CHECK PRICE

Change

Casio EX-ZR300

16 MP | 1/2.3" (6.17 x 4.55 mm) BSI-CMOS Sensor

CHECK PRICE

Ricoh WG-6 vs Casio EX-ZR300 Comparison Overview

Here we are comparing two cameras with different body types: Ricoh WG-6, which was introduced in February 2018 is a Waterproof camera with a 20.0MP 1/2.3-inch sensor whereas Casio EX-ZR300, which was introduced in May 2012 is a Small Sensor Superzoom camera with a 16.0MP 1/2.3-inch sensor. As you can see, EX-ZR300 is 6 years older than WG-6. Let's see if this age difference between two cameras makes a big difference.

Here is a brief look at the main features of Ricoh WG-6 and Casio EX-ZR300 before getting into our more detailed comparison.

Ricoh WG-6 Key Specs

Announcement Date: 2018-02-21

20MP - 1/2.3-inch BSI-CMOS Sensor

ISO 125 - 6400

28-140 mm F3.5-5.5 Zoom Lens

Digital only Image Stabilization

3" Fixed Type Screen

continuous shooting

4K (UHD) - 3840x2160 video resolution

246g. 118 x 66 x 33 mm

Weather Sealed Body

Replaced Ricoh WG-5 GPS Compare

Casio EX-ZR300 Key Specs

Announcement Date: 2012-05-22

16MP - 1/2.3-inch BSI-CMOS Sensor

ISO 80 - 3200

24-300 mm F3.0-5.9 Zoom Lens

Sensor-shift Image Stabilization

3" Fixed Type Screen

Unknown continuous shooting

Full HD - 1920 x 1080 video resolution

1000fps High-Speed Video

205g. 105 x 59 x 29 mm

Let's read on the following sections in order to better understand in detail how Ricoh WG-6 and Casio EX-ZR300 compares and hopefully end up with enough arguments to decide which one is better for you.

Reasons to choose Ricoh WG-6 over Casio Exilim EX-ZR300

Face Detection Focus	Yes vs No	very handy for portraits
Max Sensor Resolution	20 MP vs 16 MP	25% more pixels
Max ISO	6.400 vs 3.200	100% higher Max ISO
LCD Screen Resolution	1.040k dots vs 461k dots	125% higher resolution screen
Max Mech. Shutter	1/4000s vs 1/2000s	faster mechanical shutter
Environmental Sealing	Yes vs No	shoot at tough conditions
Timelapse Recording	Yes vs No	creative shooting
Max Aperture - Tele	5.50 vs 5.90	faster lens at tele
Flash Coverage	5.5m vs 4.7m	0.8m longer range
Max Video Resolution	3840x2160 vs 1920 x 1080	Higher Resolution Video
AE Bracketing	Yes vs No	Useful for tough lighting conditions and HDR

Reasons to choose Casio Exilim EX-ZR300 over Ricoh WG-6

Battery Life	500 shots vs 340 shots	160 more frames with a single charge
Weight	205 g vs 246 g	41 g lighter
Manual Exposure	Yes vs No	better exposure control
Focal Length - Wide	24mm vs 28mm	4 mm wider coverage
Focal Length - Tele	300mm vs 140mm	160 mm longer tele reach
Optical Zoom	12.5× vs 5x	more flexible focal coverage
Max Aperture - Wide	3.00 vs 3.50	faster lens at wide

Common Strengths of Ricoh WG-6 and Casio Exilim EX-ZR300

Image Stabilization	Digital only vs Sensor-shift	Sharper images at longer focal lengths and long exposures
Built-in Flash	Yes vs Yes	Useful in low-light
Manual Focusing	Yes vs Yes	both have manual focusing modes

Common Weaknesses of Ricoh WG-6 and Casio Exilim EX-ZR300

Fixed Screen	Fixed Type vs No	No flexible viewing angles
External Flash Shoe	No vs No	Not suitable for flash photography
Viewfinder	None vs None	No eye-level shooting option
RAW Support	No vs No	Lower image quality

Ricoh WG-6 vs Casio EX-ZR300: Physical Specs and Body features Comparison

Size and weight is a big decision factor when you are trying to find the ideal camera for your needs. In this section, We are going to illustrate Ricoh WG-6 and Casio EX-ZR300 side-by-side from the front, back and top in their relative dimensions. Ricoh WG-6 has external dimensions of 118 x 66 x 33 mm (4.65 x 2.6 x 1.3″) and weighs 246 g (0.54 lb / 8.68 oz) (including batteries). Casio EX-ZR300 has external dimensions of 105 x 59 x 29 mm (4.13 x 2.32 x 1.14″) and weighs 205 g (0.45 lb / 7.23 oz) (including batteries).

Below you can see the front view size comparison of Ricoh WG-6 and Casio EX-ZR300. Casio EX-ZR300 is clearly the smaller of the two cameras. Its body is 13mm narrower, 7mm shorter and 4mm thinner than Ricoh WG-6.

Comparison image of Ricoh WG-6 and Casio EX-ZR300 Size, Weight and External Dimensions - Front View

Here is the back view size comparison of Ricoh WG-6 and Casio EX-ZR300.

Comparison image of Ricoh WG-6 and Casio EX-ZR300 Size and Weight - Back View

Now lets look at the top view comparison of Ricoh WG-6 and Casio EX-ZR300.

Top View Comparison image of Ricoh WG-6 and Casio EX-ZR300 Size

Weight is another important factor especially when deciding on a camera that you want to carry with you all day. Casio EX-ZR300 is significantly lighter (41g ) than the Ricoh WG-6 which may become a big advantage especially on long walking trips.

Weight Comparison

Compact Cameras

WG-6

EX-ZR300

Min

Average

Max

Thickness Comparison

Compact Cameras

WG-6

EX-ZR300

Min

Average

Max

Weather Sealing

LCD Screen Size and Features

Ricoh WG-6 and Casio EX-ZR300's LCD screens has the same diagonal size of 3".

Unfortunately, both cameras has fixed screens so they don't tilt or flip in directions.

Ricoh WG-6 vs Casio EX-ZR300: Sensor Comparison

Ricoh WG-6 has a 20.0MP 1/2.3-inch (6.17 x 4.55 mm ) sized BSI-CMOS sensor . On the other hand, Casio EX-ZR300 has a 16.0MP 1/2.3-inch (6.17 x 4.55 mm ) sized BSI-CMOS sensor and features Exilim Engine HS processor.

Below you can see the WG-6 and EX-ZR300 sensor size comparison.

Sensor Size and Resolution Comparison image of Ricoh WG-6 and Casio EX-ZR300 Cameras

Ricoh WG-6 and Casio EX-ZR300 have sensor sizes so they will provide same level of control over the depth of field when used with same focal length and aperture.

Ricoh WG-6 vs Casio EX-ZR300 Lens Specs Comparison

Ricoh WG-6 features a 28-140 mm F3.5-5.5 5x zoom lens whereas Casio EX-ZR300 features a 24-300 mm F3.0-5.9 12.5× zoom lens.

Casio EX-ZR300 has 4mm wider coverage than the Ricoh WG-6. At f3.00, it is also faster at widest end. On the tele end, Casio EX-ZR300 has 160mm longer telezoom reach than the Ricoh WG-6. However, with a max aperture of f5.50, Ricoh WG-6 is faster at widest end.

Wide Coverage

Compact Cameras

WG-6

EX-ZR300

Widest - Ricoh WG-M1

Average

Telezoom

Compact Cameras

WG-6

EX-ZR300

Longest - Canon SX520 HS

Average

Max Aperture at Tele

Compact Cameras

WG-6

EX-ZR300

Fastest - Ricoh GR Digital IV

Average

Max Aperture at Wide

Compact Cameras

WG-6

EX-ZR300

Fastest - Leica D-Lux 6

Average

What types of Photography are Ricoh WG-6 and Casio EX-ZR300 Good for?

In this section, we rank and compare Ricoh WG-6 and Casio EX-ZR300 for five different photography types in order to make your decision process easier in case you are specifically interested in one or more of these areas.

Ricoh WG-6 for Portrait Photography

POOR

Casio EX-ZR300 for Portrait Photography

POOR

Very High Resolution Sensor: 20.0MP
Image Stabilization
Manual Focus Mode
Small 1/2.3" (6.17 x 4.55 mm) sensor
No RAW shooting capability
No External Flash Shoe
No Built-in Viewfinder
No Manual Exposure Mode
Not so good Ergonomics&Handling
Read the details

Image Stabilization
Manual Focus Mode
Manual Exposure Mode
Average Resolution Sensor: 16.0MP
Small 1/2.3" (6.17 x 4.55 mm) sensor
No RAW shooting capability
No External Flash Shoe
No Built-in Viewfinder
Not so good Ergonomics&Handling
Read the details

Ricoh WG-6 for Street Photography

GOOD

Casio EX-ZR300 for Street Photography

GOOD

Image Stabilization
Manual Focus Mode
Small Body
Live-view
Face-Detection Focusing
28 mm - Good Wide Angle Coverage
Small 1/2.3" (6.17 x 4.55 mm) sensor
No RAW shooting capability
No Built-in Viewfinder
Read the details

Image Stabilization
Manual Focus Mode
Small Body
Live-view
24 mm - Good Wide Angle Coverage
Small 1/2.3" (6.17 x 4.55 mm) sensor
No RAW shooting capability
No Built-in Viewfinder
Read the details

Ricoh WG-6 for Sports Photography

POOR

Casio EX-ZR300 for Sports Photography

POOR

Image Stabilization
Manual Focus Mode
Environmental Sealings
Fast Max shutter speed: 1/4000s
140 mm Tele Lens
No RAW shooting capability
No External Flash Shoe
No Built-in Viewfinder
No Manual Exposure Mode
Not so good Ergonomics&Handling
9 Focus Points
Read the details

Image Stabilization
Manual Focus Mode
Manual Exposure Mode
300 mm Tele Lens
Average Max shutter speed: 1/2000s
No RAW shooting capability
No External Flash Shoe
No Built-in Viewfinder
Not so good Ergonomics&Handling
Environmental Sealings
Unknown Focus Points
Slow Lens at Tele: f5.90
Read the details

Ricoh WG-6 for Daily Photography

GOOD

Casio EX-ZR300 for Daily Photography

GOOD

Compact Body
Environmental Sealings
246g
5.0X Optical Zoom
Small 1/2.3" (6.17 x 4.55 mm) sensor
No RAW shooting capability
Read the details

Compact Body
205g
12.5X Optical Zoom
Small 1/2.3" (6.17 x 4.55 mm) sensor
No RAW shooting capability
Read the details

Ricoh WG-6 for Landscape Photography

POOR

Casio EX-ZR300 for Landscape Photography

POOR

Very High Resolution Sensor: 20.0MP
Manual Focus Mode
28 mm - Good Wide Angle Coverage
Environmental Sealings
Small 1/2.3" (6.17 x 4.55 mm) sensor
No RAW shooting capability
No Manual Exposure Mode
Read the details

Manual Focus Mode
Manual Exposure Mode
24 mm - Good Wide Angle Coverage
Average Resolution Sensor: 16.0MP
Small 1/2.3" (6.17 x 4.55 mm) sensor
No RAW shooting capability
No Environmental Sealings
Read the details

Ricoh WG-6 vs Casio EX-ZR300: OUR DECISION

You may have already made your decision about which camera suits better for your needs and your budget so far but in case you wonder how we rated Ricoh WG-6 and Casio EX-ZR300, below you can find their scores in five different aspects. Our Decision Algorithm dynamically scores cameras using 63 different specs, current price and DxO Mark scores (where possible) in order to make a more objective and consistent comparison.

Here is a summary of how Ricoh WG-6 and Casio EX-ZR300 scores compare:

Ricoh WG-6

Imaging

Features

Value

Portability

Overall

Ranked #72 out of 475 in Compact cameras
Ranked #513 out of 1226 in all Cameras

Casio EX-ZR300

Imaging

Features

Value

Portability

Overall

Ranked #129 out of 475 in Compact cameras
Ranked #632 out of 1226 in all Cameras

Ricoh WG-6 is the overall winner of this comparison. It has a higher Overall Score and beats Casio EX-ZR300 in all criteria except one: Portability. But the size difference between these cameras are negligible in real world so it is not a big disadvantage for Ricoh WG-6.

Casio EX-ZR300 vs Ricoh WG-6 Specs Table

Detailed comparison of specifications

General	Ricoh WG-6	Casio Exilim EX-ZR300
Brand	Ricoh	Casio
Announced	2018-02-21	2012-05-22
Body Type	Compact	Compact
Sensor
Type	BSI-CMOS	BSI-CMOS
Size	1/2.3-inch	1/2.3-inch
Dimensions	6.17 x 4.55 mm	6.17 x 4.55 mm
Area	28.07mm²	28.07mm²
Megapixels	20 megapixels	16 megapixels
Max Resolution	5184 x 3888	4608 x 3456
Max Native Light sensitivity	6,400 ISO	3,200 ISO
Min Native Light sensitivity	125 ISO	80 ISO
RAW Support
Autofocus
AF Touch
AF Continuous
AF Single
AF Tracking
AF Selective
AF Center
AF Multi Area
AF Live View
AF Face Detection
AF Contrast Detection
AF Phase Detection
Number of Focus Points	9	n/a
Lens
Manual Focus
Lens Mount	fixed lens	fixed lens
Lens Focal Range	28-140 mm (5x)	24-300 mm (12.5×)
Max Aperture	F3.5-5.5	F3.0-5.9
Macro Focus Range	1cm	1cm
Screen
Type	Fixed type	Fixed type
Size	3"	3"
Resolution	1,040k dots	461k dots
Touch Screen
Viewfinder
Viewfinder	None	None
Photography Features
Max Mechanical Shutter	1/4000s	1/2000s
Shutter Priority
Aperture Priority
Manual Exposure Mode
Custom White Balance
Image Stabilization	Digital only	Sensor-shift
Built-in Flash
Flash Range	5.50 m (with Auto ISO)	4.70 m
External Flash
Multi-Segment
Average
Spot
Partial
AF-Area
Center Weighted
AE Bracketing
WB Bracketing
Video Features
Max Video Resolution	3840x2160	1920 x 1080
Video Formats	MPEG-4, H.264	H.264
Microphone Port
Headphone Port
Connectivity
Wireless Connectivity	Supports FlashAir SD cards	Eye-Fi Connected
HDMI
Physical
Environmental Sealing
Weight	246g	205g
Dimensions	118 x 66 x 33mm	105 x 59 x 29mm
Battery Life	340 shots	500 shots
Other Features
Timelapse Recording
GPS	Built-in	None
DxO Sensor Scores
	Report a correction	Report a correction