Casio QV-R200

7 Reasons why Casio QV-R200 is better

than the average

130gvs 376g (the average)
vs 65.5g (best: HTC Re)
2.A little higher pixel density
366ppivs 360ppi (the average)
vs 544ppi (best: Sony A7)
57.6mmvs 95.2mm (the average)
vs 26.2mm (best: DxO One)
4.Notably less body volume
135.39cm³vs 531.12cm³ (the average)
vs 65.29cm³ (best: Sony Cyber-shot DSC-TX55)
23.6mmvs 50.8mm (the average)
vs 13mm (best: Sony Cyber-shot DSC-TX55)
6.Lots wider aperture at minimum focal length
2.8vs 3.0 (the average)
vs 1 (best: Leica Q (Typ 116))
With a wider aperture the sensor can capture more light, helping to avoid blur by enabling a faster shutter speed. It also provides a shallow depth of field, allowing you to blur the background to focus attention on the subject.
7.Shorter minimum focal length
26mmvs 27mm (the average)
vs 1.18mm (best: HP Photosmart R937)
A shorter minimum focal length allows you to get more of the scene in the photo, and offers a wider angle of view than longer focal lengths.
Casio QV-R200
Casio QV-R200 specs
Casio QV-R200 features
Casio QV-R200 pros and cons
Casio QV-R200 advantages
Casio QV-R200 disadvantages