Digital Cameras Go Disposable

iforgotmyfirstlogon writes: "Three Japanese companies are trying to make money off "disposable" digital cameras. You pay for using the camera, take it back to the store to get your pictures, and they recycle the camera so someone else can use it CNN story here. I think it's just a matter of (little) time before hordes of enterprising geeks figure out how to get the pics out and reuse it without paying the fee, or simply gut the camera for parts. Can't see how they'll make money..." And at $16 for .3 megapixels, this sounds like more of a novelty than a bargain, considering that 4-megapixel cameras are available now for less than a thousand dollars.

Comments

I would pay $10 to $20 for this

[WillSeattle]

Seriously, I'd love to rent a high-end digital camera, cause I can't justify wasting more than $300 on buying something I don't use that often.

But I'd love to rent one when I have guests from out of town, fill it up with pictures of us doing the town, take it back and get the pictures.

Will they be offering those digital movie cameras too? This is something I'd also be willing to rent, take it on a short trip, maybe film a ski trip with friends, then turn it in.

Bargains

[dmorin]

You're telling me that of all the people who might benefit from a digital camera, that the majority will see 4megapixels for "under a thousand" as the better buy? For a large part of the universe, "under a thousand" could very well mean "more than I paid for the whole PC in the first place". When the heck did our perspective on price get to be so...so....so Rain-Man? How much is geek toy X? Bout a thousand dollars.....

We got my dad his digital camera about 4 years ago. Cost like $400. I'm sure its resolution is a tiny fraction of what can be done now. But he's gotten 4 years out of it and is still going strong. He's still the hit of the family parties. Still the only one in the immediate fam that even has one. If we're at a point now where the disposal version can do even a piece of what his can, I'm sure they will be an instant best seller, not a novelty.

Re:Bargains

[stripes]

I don't think I could find a use for anything greater. 2megapixels is 1200x1600, which is full screen at the resolution I run at

In a word: printing

2Megapixels from most digital cameras (say the Canon PowerShot 100) will not make a good 8x10 print. The Nikon D1 is a pretty big exception, it's 2.7Mpixels can make decent 8x10 prints, you have probably seen some on the cover of Newsweek or Time. However it has exceptionally noise free images (as does the EOS-D30, Nikon D1x, and Nikon D1h, and some of the other $2000+ digital cameras).

Another good reason to have excess pixels is for cropping. Most good photos have their subject off center, like about 1/3rd over and up or down. Most cameras either only have a central focus point, or have the best focus point at the center, so cropping is useful. It is also useful if your viewfinder doesn't show a 100% view...

Wander over to DP review (digital photography, not double penetration) and see how disappointed people are that the new Canon EOS-1D has only 4.1Mpixels!

Re:Bargains

[stripes]

But not many people print 8x10s. 4x5 or 5x6 is as big as the average person goes.

Yes, but see my reply to the other message almost like yours. Also for no apparent reason large digital prints seem to cost less then large wet prints, er film prints. Like $10+ for a 8x10 or 8x12 from film, vs. $3 at ofoto.com, shutterfly.com, or any of a dozen (down from 100 last year) other places. Oh wait, that's the reason ".com" :-)

The lower cost may give some incentive to having larger prints made.

Even if not, it is pretty nice for ray tracings (my former hobby), ofoto even does 16x20 prints now...

Re:Bargains

[bill_kress]

I just bought a camera on sale at Frys for $20--no rebate either, it was $30 off a $50 camera. It also included cabling and software.

How is $16 for something you essentially rent better?

that's a laugh...

[Sj0]

And at $16 for .3 megapixels, this sounds like more of a novelty than a bargain, considering that 4-megapixel cameras are available now for less than a thousand dollars.

Yeah! I mean, for the low price of 50 of these, you could buy a high end camera!

Seriously, high definition isn't really as important as an accurate picture. even a decent 640x480 picture is fine, as long as the picture is accurate(no glitchy pixels). my USB webcam sucks in this regard except outdoors in summer (and even then it's not always a sure thing). Spending 16 bucks for a camera to go on vacation and take a few pictures sounds fine.

Ooo, I almost hate to say it...

[dmorin]

But it seems like one way they could make money is to offer some sort drop off / email service where you turn in the camera, and then they email you the pictures. Of course, that means that you have to give them your valid email, thus automatically opting you in to whatever evil schemes they have in mind.... :-/ I don't particularly love the idea, but I've also watched people with traditional cameras who rush to the 1hr place, and then gleefully proclaim "The pictures are ready! Let's go get them!" so to these people the idea of having the pictures show up right on your home PC would be a major win. It would never even occur to them what else it's costing them.

Duane

(Note, on that "automatically opt in" thing. While I don't agree with it, it's the logic that a "bulk email provider" friend of mine used on me once: register with a company and you are implicitly opting in. Yeah, sure. Glad she's out of work now :))

Quality may not suffer severely

[eAndroid]

150lpi? This is an odd way of specifying what a person can see. I mean, at what distance? Many billboards have FAR less lines per inch. if you used 640 x 480 on a billboard most people probably wouldn't notice, and here is the experiment to prove it:

1) find a billboard. bring along something you can measure with, even very approximately, like a business card (the narrow end is 2 inches wide).

2) stand as far away from the billboard as you would normally be to find it comfortable to read.

3) raise your measuring device up to your eye about as far from your face as you would normally view a photo.

4) take that width and imagine filling it with 640 pixels. For me, to the billboard out my window, that's about 500 dpi which is far more pixels than needed for not just a smooth photo, but to be able to read it.

So 640 x 480 does have practical uses. And I haven't even touched on web sites, business cards or even Ebay auctions.

Re:gimmick

[fjordboy]

Uhh...I dunno. I agree, it is sorta expensive...but then again, regular disposable cameras are quite expensive....9 bucks for a nice kodak flash one. However, people still buy them! Why? If they have a nice camera, maybe they don't want to take it camping where it might get broken; or maybe somone that doesn't plan on taking a lot of pictures in their future decided it was better to spend 15 bucks on a couple of cameras for a trip to get the pictures they want rather than spending like 70 or 80 bucks for a nice point and shoot. I see disposable digital cameras being in the same boat. The price isn't all that much different, and a lot of people wouldn't mind saving time/energy to get the pictures they want for on the web, no matter how low res they are (look at the casio watch camera which any geek would love to have).