OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Cameras Methodology v1.0
Cameras Methodology v1.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are evaluated mathematically under Frontumo Cameras Methodology v1.0 using verified laboratory benchmarks, technical specifications, and authentic consumer ratings with 0% commercial bias.
Explore Cameras Methodology v1.0

Casio QV R200 Review | 108 Data compared

Avg. price:~£70Sensor size:1/2.3"Weight:130 gBattery life (CIPA):190 shots

Casio QV R200 Review: Compare 108 technical specifications and user reviews to see how this product ranks in the Cameras category and whether it is worth buying.

3.2

Overall score

Score
3.2/ 10
✕
What it is
An overall evaluation of the camera's quality, based on technical analyses and user reviews.
When it matters
When you need a quick reference to identify the best cameras on the market.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 99% of models
Score components

90%

3.2

Technical score

10%

?

User score

â–¼Worse than 99% of cameras
3.2

Technical score

Technical score
3.2/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of technical performance for products in the Cameras category across these key areas: Sensor & Image, Photo Features, Video & Audio, Display & Design, Battery & Power, Connectivity & Storage.
When it matters
When you want to compare cameras based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 99% of models
Score components

28%

4.2

Sensor & Image

25%

1.7

Photo Features

18%

3.4

Video & Audio

14%

4.4

Display & Design

8%

2.5

Battery & Power

7%

2.2

Connectivity & Storage

â–¼Worse than 99% of cameras
?

User score

User score
8.0/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the camera.
When it matters
When real-world owner satisfaction and review volume matter to your decision.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 78% of models
Score components

70%

?

User ratings

30%

?

Number of reviews

  • No image
No image

Best prices

    N/A~ £70

Best rankings

Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of camera Casio QV R200

Technical score
Technical score
3.2/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of technical performance for products in the Cameras category across these key areas: Sensor & Image, Photo Features, Video & Audio, Display & Design, Battery & Power, Connectivity & Storage.
When it matters
When you want to compare cameras based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 99% of models
Score components:

28%

4.2

Sensor & Image

25%

1.7

Photo Features

18%

3.4

Video & Audio

14%

4.4

Display & Design

8%

2.5

Battery & Power

7%

2.2

Connectivity & Storage

3.2
User score
User score
8.0/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the camera.
When it matters
When real-world owner satisfaction and review volume matter to your decision.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 78% of models
Score components

70%

?

User ratings

30%

?

Number of reviews

?
Popularity
Popularity
1.0/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator based on the number of reviews received by the camera.
When it matters
When you want to see which cameras attract the most buyer attention and review activity.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 99% of models
Popularity:
Casio QV R200 has a popularity score of 1, which is lower than 51.3% of cameras.
1.0
Value for money
Value for money
5.2/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the camera's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you want to know how much overall quality you get for the price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 93% of models
Score components:

60%

3.2

Overall score

40%

10

Price

5.2
Sensor size
1/2.3"
Sensor size
1/2.3"
â–¼ Worse than 61% of models
This camera uses a sensor classified as 1/2.3"; it is smaller than the sensor in 60.5% of cameras and the same size as the sensor in 38.1% of cameras.
Main camera megapixels
14.1 MP
Main camera megapixels
14.1 MP
â–¼ Worse than 76% of models
This camera has a sensor resolution of 14.1 MP, which is lower than that of 75.5% of cameras and equal to that of 2.7% of cameras.
Main camera pixel size
1.4 µm
Main camera pixel size
1.4 µm
â–¼ Worse than 73% of models
Market range: <1.33 µm – >5.94 µm
This camera has sensor pixels measuring 1.4 µm, which are smaller than those in 73% of cameras and the same size as those in 0.2% of cameras.
Base ISO
100
Base ISO
100
â–¼ Worse than 28% of models
Market range: <80 – >200
This camera has a base ISO of 100 which is higher than that of 19.9% of cameras and equal to that of 52.4% of cameras.
Max ISO
ISO 1600 ISO
Max ISO
ISO 1,600
â–¼ Worse than 86% of models
This camera reaches a maximum sensitivity of ISO 1,600, which is lower than that of 85.9% of cameras and equal to that of 13.2% of cameras.
Show more
Lens mount
N/A
Built-in focus motor
no
Built-in focus motor
no
â–¼ Worse than 11% of models
This camera does not have a built-in focus motor. 11% of cameras have a built-in focus motor.
N. of focus points
1
N. of focus points
1
â–¼ Worse than 95% of models
Market range: <9 – >399
This camera has 1 focus points, fewer than the number offered by 95.4% of cameras and equal to the number offered by 4.6% of cameras.
Phase-detection autofocus (photos)
no
Phase-detection autofocus (photos)
no
â–¼ Worse than 37% of models
This camera does not support phase-detection autofocus for photos. 37.5% of cameras support phase-detection autofocus for photos.
AF tracking
no
AF tracking
no
â–¼ Worse than 88% of models
This camera does not support AF tracking. 88.1% of cameras support this feature.
Show more
Max video resolution
1,280 px
Max video resolution
1,280 px
â–¼ Worse than 71% of models
This camera supports 1,280 px video recording which is lower quality than that of 71.4% of cameras and equal to that of 18.5% of cameras.
Video bitrate
8 Mbps
Video bitrate
8 Mbps
â–¼ Worse than 98% of models
Market range: <12 Mbps – >237 Mbps
This camera has a video bitrate of 8 Mbps which is lower than that of 97.6% of cameras and equal to that of 0.6% of cameras.
Video bit depth
8 bit
Video bit depth
8 bit
â–¼ Worse than 12% of models
This camera supports video at 8 bit, a bit depth higher than that of 7.8% of cameras and equal to that of 80.6% of cameras.
Video chroma subsampling
4:2:2
Video chroma subsampling
4:2:2
â–² Better than 78% of models
This camera supports 4:2:2 video chroma subsampling which is more advanced than that of 77.9% of cameras and equal to that of 22.1% of cameras.
Video codecs
Motion JPEG
Show more
Type
compact
Weight
130 g
Weight
130 g
★ Better than 93% of models
Market range: <142 g – >812 g
This camera weighs 130 g which is lighter than 93.1% of cameras and equal to the weight of 0.1% of cameras.
Width
99.6 mm
Width
99.6 mm
â–² Better than 84% of models
Market range: <96 mm – >142.6 mm
This camera has a width of 99.6 mm which is narrower than 83.9% of cameras and equal to that of 0.3% of cameras.
Height
57.6 mm
Height
57.6 mm
★ Better than 90% of models
Market range: <57.6 mm – >105.8 mm
This camera has a height of 57.6 mm which is shorter than 89.6% of cameras and equal to that of 0.5% of cameras.
Thickness
23.6 mm
Thickness
23.6 mm
â–² Better than 87% of models
Market range: <21.9 mm – >92 mm
This camera has a thickness of 23.6 mm which is thinner than 87.1% of cameras and equal to that of 0.2% of cameras.
Show more
Battery life (CIPA)
190 shots
Battery life (CIPA)
190 shots
â–¼ Worse than 95% of models
Market range: <210 shots – >700 shots
This camera has a CIPA-rated battery life of 190 shots, which is shorter than that of 94.6% of cameras and equal to that of 1.1% of cameras.
Battery capacity
700 mAh
Battery capacity
700 mAh
â–¼ Worse than 88% of models
Market range: <700 mAh – >2.2k mAh
This camera has a battery capacity of 700 mAh which is smaller than the batteries in 88.2% of cameras and equal to those in 3.6% of cameras.
Removable battery
yes
Removable battery
yes
â–² Better than 1% of models
This camera has a removable battery, and 98.7% of cameras include one.
USB Power Delivery (PD)
no
USB Power Delivery (PD)
no
â–¼ Worse than 10% of models
This camera does not support USB Power Delivery. 10.1% of cameras support USB Power Delivery.
Wi-Fi connectivity
no
Wi-Fi connectivity
no
â–¼ Worse than 48% of models
This camera does not support Wi-Fi. 47.9% of cameras include this feature.
Wi-Fi version
N/A
Bluetooth connectivity
no
Bluetooth connectivity
no
â–¼ Worse than 23% of models
This camera does not have Bluetooth. 22.7% of cameras support Bluetooth.
Bluetooth version
N/A
USB Type-C
no
USB Type-C
no
â–¼ Worse than 15% of models
This camera does not include USB Type-C. 14.6% of cameras use USB-C.
Show more

Casio QV R200 vs the average camera

246810TotalDisplay & DesignSensor & ImagePhoto FeaturesVideo & AudioBattery & PowerConnectivity & Storage
  • 265 g lighter
    Weight
    130 g
    ★ Better than 93% of models
    Market range: <142 g – >812 g
    This camera is lighter than the average camera (130 g vs 395 g). The average camera weighs 395 g.
    130 g vs 395 g
  • More complete chroma subsampling
    Video chroma subsampling
    4:2:2
    â–² Better than 78% of models
    This camera supports better video chroma subsampling than the average camera (4:2:2 vs 4:2:0). The average camera supports 4:2:0 video chroma subsampling.
    4:2:2 vs 4:2:0
  • Built-in timelapse
    Timelapse function
    yes
    â–² Better than 56% of models
    This camera includes timelapse capture, the average camera does not.
  • 0.04 GB more storage
    Internal storage
    0.0435 GB
    â–² Better than 80% of models
    Market range: <0 GB – >0.07 GB
    This camera has a higher internal storage than the average camera (0 GB vs 0 GB). The average camera offers 0 GB of internal storage.
    0.0435 GB vs 0 GB
  • 16.3 mm shorter body
    Height
    57.6 mm
    ★ Better than 90% of models
    Market range: <57.6 mm – >105.8 mm
    This camera is shorter than the average camera (57.6 mm vs 73.9 mm). The average camera has a height of 73.9 mm.
    57.6 mm vs 73.9 mm
  • 20.3 mm narrower
    Width
    99.6 mm
    â–² Better than 84% of models
    Market range: <96 mm – >142.6 mm
    This camera is narrower than the average camera (99.6 mm vs 119.9 mm). The average camera has a width of 119.9 mm.
    99.6 mm vs 119.9 mm
  • 22.4 mm thinner
    Thickness
    23.6 mm
    â–² Better than 87% of models
    Market range: <21.9 mm – >92 mm
    This camera is thinner than the average camera (23.6 mm vs 46 mm). The average camera has a thickness of 46 mm.
    23.6 mm vs 46 mm
  • 4.14x cheaper
    Casio QV R200 is cheaper than the average camera (£70 vs £290).
    £70 vs £290
  • 4.14x cheaper
    Casio QV R200 is cheaper than the average camera (£70 vs £290).
    £70 vs £290
  • 265 g lighter
    Weight
    130 g
    ★ Better than 93% of models
    Market range: <142 g – >812 g
    This camera is lighter than the average camera (130 g vs 395 g). The average camera weighs 395 g.
    130 g vs 395 g
  • 16.3 mm shorter body
    Height
    57.6 mm
    ★ Better than 90% of models
    Market range: <57.6 mm – >105.8 mm
    This camera is shorter than the average camera (57.6 mm vs 73.9 mm). The average camera has a height of 73.9 mm.
    57.6 mm vs 73.9 mm
  • 20.3 mm narrower
    Width
    99.6 mm
    â–² Better than 84% of models
    Market range: <96 mm – >142.6 mm
    This camera is narrower than the average camera (99.6 mm vs 119.9 mm). The average camera has a width of 119.9 mm.
    99.6 mm vs 119.9 mm
  • 22.4 mm thinner
    Thickness
    23.6 mm
    â–² Better than 87% of models
    Market range: <21.9 mm – >92 mm
    This camera is thinner than the average camera (23.6 mm vs 46 mm). The average camera has a thickness of 46 mm.
    23.6 mm vs 46 mm
  • More complete chroma subsampling
    Video chroma subsampling
    4:2:2
    â–² Better than 78% of models
    This camera supports better video chroma subsampling than the average camera (4:2:2 vs 4:2:0). The average camera supports 4:2:0 video chroma subsampling.
    4:2:2 vs 4:2:0
  • Built-in timelapse
    Timelapse function
    yes
    â–² Better than 56% of models
    This camera includes timelapse capture, the average camera does not.
  • 0.04 GB more storage
    Internal storage
    0.0435 GB
    â–² Better than 80% of models
    Market range: <0 GB – >0.07 GB
    This camera has a higher internal storage than the average camera (0 GB vs 0 GB). The average camera offers 0 GB of internal storage.
    0.0435 GB vs 0 GB
  • Smaller sensor
    Sensor size
    1/2.3"
    â–¼ Worse than 61% of models
    This camera has a smaller sensor than the average camera (1/2.3" vs APS-C).
    1/2.3" vs APS-C
  • No AF tracking
    AF tracking
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 88% of models
    This camera does not support AF tracking, the average camera does. 88% of cameras support it.
  • 0.3 in smaller screen diagonal
    Screen size
    2.7 in
    â–¼ Worse than 84% of models
    Market range: <2.7 in – >3.2 in
    This camera has a smaller screen than the average camera (2.7 in vs 3 in). The average camera has a screen size of 3 in.
    2.7 in vs 3 in
  • 1.94 µm smaller sensor pixels
    Main camera pixel size
    1.4 µm
    â–¼ Worse than 73% of models
    Market range: <1.33 µm – >5.94 µm
    This camera has smaller sensor pixels than the average camera (1.4 µm vs 3.34 µm). The average sensor pixel size is 3.34 µm.
    1.4 µm vs 3.34 µm
  • Lacks HDR mode
    HDR mode
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 55% of models
    This camera does not support HDR mode, the average camera does. 55.1% of cameras include HDR mode.
  • Lower video resolution
    Max video resolution
    1,280 px
    â–¼ Worse than 71% of models
    This camera records lower-resolution video than the average camera (1280 px vs 1920 px). The average camera records at 1920 px.
    1280 px vs 1920 px
  • No continuous video AF
    Continuous autofocus (video)
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 71% of models
    This camera does not support continuous autofocus in video, the average camera does.
  • No hot shoe
    Hot shoe
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 54% of models
    This camera does not have a hot shoe, the average camera does.
  • 18.5% worse value for money
    Casio QV R200 has a worse value-for-money score than the average camera (5.23 vs 6.2).
    5.23 vs 6.2
  • 93% less popular
    Casio QV R200 is less popular than the average camera (1 vs 1.9).
    1 vs 1.93
  • 0.3 in smaller screen diagonal
    Screen size
    2.7 in
    â–¼ Worse than 84% of models
    Market range: <2.7 in – >3.2 in
    This camera has a smaller screen than the average camera (2.7 in vs 3 in). The average camera has a screen size of 3 in.
    2.7 in vs 3 in
  • No hot shoe
    Hot shoe
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 54% of models
    This camera does not have a hot shoe, the average camera does.
  • Smaller sensor
    Sensor size
    1/2.3"
    â–¼ Worse than 61% of models
    This camera has a smaller sensor than the average camera (1/2.3" vs APS-C).
    1/2.3" vs APS-C
  • Lacks HDR mode
    HDR mode
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 55% of models
    This camera does not support HDR mode, the average camera does. 55.1% of cameras include HDR mode.
  • 1.94 µm smaller sensor pixels
    Main camera pixel size
    1.4 µm
    â–¼ Worse than 73% of models
    Market range: <1.33 µm – >5.94 µm
    This camera has smaller sensor pixels than the average camera (1.4 µm vs 3.34 µm). The average sensor pixel size is 3.34 µm.
    1.4 µm vs 3.34 µm
  • Lower sensor resolution
    Main camera megapixels
    14.1 MP
    â–¼ Worse than 76% of models
    This camera has a lower sensor resolution than the average camera (14.1 MP vs 16.2 MP). The average camera has a sensor resolution of 16.2 MP.
    14.1 MP vs 16.2 MP
  • 4,800 ISO lower maximum sensitivity limit
    Max ISO
    1,600 ISO
    â–¼ Worse than 86% of models
    Market range: <1.6k ISO – >40k ISO
    This camera has a lower maximum sensitivity than the average camera (1600 ISO vs 6400 ISO). The average camera reaches a maximum sensitivity of 6400 ISO.
    1,600 ISO vs 6,400 ISO
  • 1 older
    Release date
    2012
    â–¼ Worse than 61% of models
    Market range: <2k – >2k
    This camera is older than the average camera (2012 vs 2013). The average camera was released in 2013.
    2,012 vs 2,013
  • No AF tracking
    AF tracking
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 88% of models
    This camera does not support AF tracking, the average camera does. 88% of cameras support it.
  • 22 fewer AF points
    N. of focus points
    1
    â–¼ Worse than 95% of models
    Market range: <9 – >399
    This camera has fewer focus points than the average camera (1 vs 23). The average camera offers 23 focus points.
    1 vs 23
  • No RAW photo capture
    RAW photo capture
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 63% of models
    This camera does not support RAW photo capture, the average camera does. 62.8% of cameras support RAW formats.
  • No manual focus mode
    Manual focus
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 72% of models
    This camera does not support manual focus, the average camera does. 71.7% of cameras include a manual focus mode.
  • No manual exposure control
    Manual exposure
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 72% of models
    This camera does not support manual exposure, the average camera does. 72% of cameras support manual exposure controls.
    No true manual exposure mode.
  • 29 s shorter maximum exposure
    Longest shutter speed
    1 s
    â–¼ Worse than 98% of models
    Market range: <4 s – >1.8k s
    This camera supports a shorter maximum exposure than the average camera (1 s s vs 30 s s). The average camera supports a longest shutter speed of 30 s s.
    1 s vs 30 s
  • Lower video resolution
    Max video resolution
    1,280 px
    â–¼ Worse than 71% of models
    This camera records lower-resolution video than the average camera (1280 px vs 1920 px). The average camera records at 1920 px.
    1280 px vs 1920 px
  • No continuous video AF
    Continuous autofocus (video)
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 71% of models
    This camera does not support continuous autofocus in video, the average camera does.
  • 1 fewer microphones
    N. of microphones
    1
    â–¼ Worse than 63% of models
    Market range: <1 – >2
    This camera has fewer microphones than the average camera (1 vs 2). The average camera has 2 microphones.
    1 vs 2
  • 22 Mbps lower video bitrate
    Video bitrate
    8 Mbps
    â–¼ Worse than 98% of models
    Market range: <12 Mbps – >237 Mbps
    This camera has a lower video bitrate than the average camera (8 Mbps vs 30 Mbps). The average camera records at 30 Mbps.
    8 Mbps vs 30 Mbps
  • 140 shots fewer shots per charge
    Battery life (CIPA)
    190 shots
    â–¼ Worse than 95% of models
    Market range: <210 shots – >700 shots
    This camera has shorter battery life than the average camera (190 shots vs 330 shots). The average camera delivers 330 shots per charge.
    190 shots vs 330 shots
  • 420 mAh smaller battery capacity
    Battery capacity
    700 mAh
    â–¼ Worse than 88% of models
    Market range: <700 mAh – >2.2k mAh
    This camera has a lower battery capacity than the average camera (700 mAh vs 1120 mAh). The average camera has a battery capacity of 1120 mAh.
    700 mAh vs 1,120 mAh
  • No HDMI output
    HDMI output
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 79% of models
    This camera does not support HDMI output, the average camera does. 78.7% of cameras support HDMI output.

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

Third-party reviews

What we like about Casio QV R200

  • Extremely compact and lightweight (130g) for high portability
  • High continuous shooting speed for its class (up to 30 fps)
  • Wide 26mm lens allows for better landscape and group shots
  • Intuitive and easy-to-use menu system suitable for beginners
  • Effective Face Detection and Anti-Shake modes for clearer snapshots
  • Removable and rechargeable battery for easy maintenance

What we don't like about Casio QV R200

  • Small 1/2.3-inch sensor leads to noise in low-light conditions
  • Limited ISO range (max 1600), affecting performance in dark environments
  • Does not support RAW image format, limiting post-processing options
  • No sensor-shift image stabilization
  • Short battery life compared to more modern compact cameras (approx. 190 shots)
  • Slow and limited autofocus system with only 5 focus points

Verdict

The Casio QV-R200 is a lightweight, 130g compact camera featuring a 14.1-megapixel 1/2.3-inch CCD sensor and a 5x optical zoom lens with a 26mm wide-angle focal length. Its primary characteristics include a 2.7-inch TFT LCD, 720p HD video recording at 30 fps, and various shooting modes like 'Super Macro' for close-ups as near as 5cm. Main pros are its portable, pocket-sized design, simple USB charging, and Face Detection technology for optimized brightness. However, it lacks an optical image stabilizer, has no continuous autofocus during movie recording, and produces a limited battery life of approximately 190 shots per charge.

Compare Casio QV R200 with other products in the Cameras category

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of Casio QV R200 and other products in the Cameras category

No results found