Slashdot Mirror
Logitech Pocket Digital Review
randomErr writes "Earthweb/Internet.com has this article about a new ultra slim camera for $130. It has no flash, zoom, or LCD monitor, and takes snapshots instead of spectacular pictures. The advertised resolution is 1.3 megapixels with and actual resolution of 640 by 480. But it's the size of a credit card, half an inch thin, with all-day battery and image capacity."
The Canon's are really small, and let's face it - nobody really wants 640x480 pictures any more, as they look terrible when printed and nowhere near fill a monitor nowadays.
Things shouldn't be so small that they get lost with change and taco fillings.
Free Mac Mini
Check out this little Aiptek:
http://www.aiptek.com/products/digital/mini.htm
(The Mini)
It isn't much bigger than a credit card, and it to takes much higher-res pictures. It only costs about $80 as well.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Something like this is just what I need for taking those candid shots when you're with your family or traveling. While my Olympus D-640 takes terrific pictures, it is sort of clumsy to carry around. Thus, I don't, and I end up not taking ANY pictures. I would love to have a small, ultra portable camera to just snap away with and not worry too much about.
But that's just me.
Jason
He's totally creeping out the Great One, eh...
I've had some REALLY bad luck with logitech products recently that turned out to be lemons after i bought them, but this is still rather neat. I don't see Macintosh mentioned anywhere in this article-- any idea if this will support the mac?
Are there any products in this price/quality/slimness range that use memory sticks or something, so if i was gonna be taking LOTS of pictures i could just keep a couple extra sticks in my backpack instead of having a hard limit of 52?
I want one.
Scratch that,I want two. one for my bag for work, and one in the car, or at home, or something.
In my mind this is the perfect semi-disposable device. It does what 90% of picture takers need in a great little package, and if you trash it, ?$100 isn't all that bad to get it replaced.
I wonder what OSX support is like, I assume it will mount it like any USB mass storage device.
wow.
Can someone explain the true meaning of "megapixels" to me? Here I was thinking that it meant the resolution had so many of millions of pixels in its resolution... in this case, 1.3. But right after saying it had a 1.3 megapixel resolution, the poster states it actually has a resolution of 640x480, which consists of 307,200 pixels. Can anyone clear up my confusion here?
"Prejudice is wrong; you should hate everyone the same."
I doubt that. I use a 64mb card up in a few hours and I have filled half of my 1G microdrive in a day.
:)
Bad wording on the author/editors I hope
What the hell does that mean? It can record 24hrs worth of video/pictures? How much is that in real terms?
Well, if it's anything like my Logitech 640x480 webcam, the pictures will still look crap when down-sized by 320x240...
From the review: "And while most entry-level consumer cameras cost $300 to $400, the Logitech is almost an impulse buy at $130."
Huh? Entry-level consumer cameras, such as the Aiptek models and similar "Clever Cams" start at $50... that is 1/6 as much as the $300 in the minimum.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
I have a really tiny digital camera (can't even remember who makes it or anything) that takes pics at 640x480 and really like it. It's not as thin, but the camera is quite small (about the size of a pager I'd say) and really nice for bringing to concerts (where they don't allow real cameras) and other events because it's easily concealed. I have a picture of it here, for scale, or if anyone knows what kind it is please respond. If I was at home I could tell you, but I'm at work. Anyway, it's a lot cheaper than the new Logitech one anyway, and connects via USB.
They cant have a big battery so the processor would have to be well power efficient.
We are working on asynchronous logic which uses loads less power and can cope with power fluctuations. I did have the idea of charging a cap a few seconds before a computation is required so you can use a low power battery. And asynchronous allows it to still work if the voltage drops to something really low when the cap is drained.
Mouse powered Chips, Open source Processors and Lego
I have kids, and all that noise spoils so many pictures. Well, the kids do when they hear the noise.
If this thing is silent it may be a good deal.
Oh for a real viewfinder camera!
-- ac at work
Does anyone know if it's compatible with the Mac? That would be the only thing stopping me from getting one.
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
I've never seen this tiny camera before; looks nice. There are many examples of this. Tiny cheap digital cameras cameras have been around for over a year now. They are "not as thin" as the Logitech, but are real close.
Something else needs to be taken into account with these cameras: if you carry them naked in your pocket, they will break. I carry my Aiptek in a rigid glasses case. I imagine that this Logitech might do well with a metal cigarette case.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
As the article points out, you can't mount the camera as a drive like with most cameras; you have to either go through TWAIN or the bundled camera app. Both the TWAIN driver and the camera app built around it are the single most clumsy and bug-ridden pieces of software I've used in recent years; even on a "lowly" Athlon 750, a USB device shouldn't be eating up 80% of the CPU! And when it wasn't dropping the connection mysteriously or sending back blank pictures, it was crashing left and right; keeping the camera app open for more than 30 minutes at a time called for a reboot.
The camera itself isn't much better. Outdoor pictures are alright, but don't even bother if you have florescent lighting. Pictures of people taken from about 10 feet away were almost unidentifiable.
Overall, I'd say it's more like a Webcam with the added bonus of snapping stills than a digital camera. It might be a good toy to give to kids, but I wouldn't pay more than $30 or so for it. The newer model's small size might seem intriguing, but a tiny piece of garbage is still garbage.
there the Casio WristWatch Camera for not much more.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
SANE drivers?
How does a 1/2 thick camera really fit in the credit card slot in your wallet?
http://www.askthevoid.com
As to the 1.3 megapixel claim being a fib as the article calls it, better names for this would seem to be fraud or deceptive and false marketing,. The 50 image capacity is nothing to be impressed about either, given the small size of each image. I've seen many cameras in the $29 to $49 range that match or beat this in specs.
The sad thing is, given the quality of their products in the past, I would have expected Logitech to "get it right" if they decided to enter this market. I'm still shopping for a digital camera, but here's what I'm looking for:
Adjustable Focus with macro capability
Flash
Decent pixel size (>1.3 meg)
Ability to capture a picture without storing it in a lossy jpg format
Ability to use a standard battery, not a $5 non-rechargable one that only lasts a brief time
Beyong that, an LCD, storage options and price will all factor in o the final selection. Any suggestions?
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
"The other button switches between 640 by 480 and 1,280 by 960 image size -- the 52-shot capacity is unaffected by your choice"
I'm buying one.
"no an entry level Digital camera is $300-$400USD. the crap you are talking about is toys you give to little children."
This Logitech is firmly in the camp of those "toy-children" cameras then. Whatever you call them, the Logitech should be compared to these $50 cameras instead of the entry level group you refer to.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
... http://www.tomthemovie.com than play with that thing - it's LAYME
(not karma whoring, just rambling)
I've always liked the concept of lowend digital photography:
Starting with a kodak DC20...amazing light (like, hollow) small camera, 16 320x240 (or 8 493x373, never messed with that tho). Lasted forever on one of its little batteries. Got some decent shots from it.
Then later got a kodak palmpix add on to my Palm IIIc...not quite convenient/small enough to justify its drawbacks as a camera, though using the Palm as a viewfinder was kind of a trip.
My friend got a cart so he could upload pictures from his game boy camera.
I loved those old b+w quickcams, made some tiny animated GIFs out of them.
And now this...of course, now I have a tiny Canon elph powershot in my pocket at all times...but it's a bit bulky...maybe I should compromise and go for this new thing, who needs good resolution anyway? (But then I'd hardly ever use the canon, argh...)
SO YOU'RE GOING TO DIE: The Comic for Dealing with Death
I keep putting them in my wallet and they snap in half when I sit down.
DOH!
.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
Bottom line: Logitech suck, the ydon't give a damn about customers.
Oh, and the webcam? I mailed it back to them suggesting that someone use it as a suppository...
I'm guessing it will be a TWAIN-camera like similar devices from other companies.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Biggest limitation is the tiny lens. Exposure times are long, and the unit is useless in less than bright light.
Usable as a slow webcam, if desired.
Comes with an unsigned Windows driver. Tacky.
...the best site I've found is Steve's Digicams... summaries of most of the cameras on the market today, from low end to digital SLR...
--Zachary
I ordered one of these from japan a few weeks ago, and it's the coolest little thing. The battery is lithium-polymer and recharges from the USB port while you download pictures, so really, one never has to worry about the battery at all (a *HUGE* plus). It's only a 640x480 CMOS camera, but it fits in my wallet, and takes reasonable photos for web/email use.
The AXIA version only has 8 megs of flash, compared to the Logitech's 16, but I much prefer the eyeplate's slimmer design. It's a flat 6 mm thick - the lens/viewfinder assembly pops up when you turn it on, and to turn it off yo just push the lens assembly back - way cool!
-Isaac
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
Not quite true... according to the article, the CCD only captures at 640x480. The larger image size is achieved by interpolation. In fact, since "the 52-shot capacity is unaffected by your choice", it seems to me that the image is ALWAYS stored by the camera at 640x480, regardless of what mode you set it to, and only performs the interpolation to enlarge the image during upload to your computer.
Beware. The article makes it prety clear that the image sensor is 640x480 and that if you op for 1280x960 that the extra pixels are just interpolated. The author also indicated that post processing image software will do a far better job of interpolating the pixels than the software in the camera. Actually, since the capacity is unaffected by this setting, I suspect that they don't even interpolate and store the extra pixels at all, they just set a bit for the image based on the switch position and then when it's time to output the image do the interpolating if needed. What a waste, the switch is a marketing gimic, not a feature.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
From the review:
With neither a zoom lens nor LCD monitor, it takes some practice to frame shots properly -- subjects that filled the tiny viewfinder proved to be only an off-center portion of the captured image.
Gee, it sounds like he's never used an actual 35mm film camera in his life. No LCD monitor? Heaven forbid you have to use the viewfinder that's happily provided. Guess he's never heard of parallax error, either.
-----
Apple hardware still too expensive for you? How about a raffle ticket?
Come to the University of Mars! Classes starting soon!
Mustek has got a very worthy alternative, the "gSmart MINI2". It's the size of a credit card,
with 16 MB memory and an actual 1.3Mpixel CMOS sensor (2.1 Mpixel "software enhanced").
Cheaper than Logitechs camera too, $70-$100 depening on where you look...
http://www.mustek.com.tw/html/prod_camra/gsmartmi
Uh, the fact that "The shot capacity is unaffected by your choice" should be a HUGE red flag.
How do you think it stores FOUR TIMES as many pixels in the same amount of memory? Think about it.
The fact is, it's a 640x480 sensor that stores 640x480 pictures. At the time you upload them to your computer, the software will do a crummy job of expanding the image to fill 1280x960, just like you could do yourself in any image editor.
Why stop there? They could advertise 1600x1200 resolution, or even "Six Megapixels!". Once you're interpolating in software, the sky is the limit. You could make gigabyte-images if you like. They will look like total crap, but the marketing department can never tell the difference.
When people ask how many megapixels or "what resolution", they're asking about the sensor in the camera, since that's where your quality starts.
Logitech is flat out lying, and should be called on the FRAUD and deceptive advertising. I hope a more ethical reviewer will take such a stance and punish them for abusing recognized terms with incorrect specs.
Pricegrabber lists it as low as $101.53! Too bad that is lunch for a month!
"If you consider the Aiptek models "entry level" digital cameras then you probably would consider a Ford Escort an entry-level F1 car."
Aiptek = entry level digital camera
Escort = entry level car
(Had to remove the F1 to make the comparison work. Aipteks are digital cameras sure as Fords aare cars; for better or worse)
Dynamism has some cool little cameras by way of Japan.
They seem to be real slaves to M$.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
When OS 9 came out, it broke the serial drivers for Logitech's QuickCam cameras. Logitech's response was to tell everyone T.S., buy a USB card and shell out an additional $100+ for their USB camera, the QuickCam VC, if they want OS 9 support.
Today, there's no OS X drivers for their Mac "supported" QuickCams - the VC and 3000. Even worse, previous references of "OS X drivers are under development" have been removed from the drivers page. Out of their whole family of products (scanners, gaming devices, keyboards) the only thing that have OS X drivers are the mice, and they've been in beta for eons.
Logitech *used* to have a heavy Mac presence. Companies that don't support the mac don't tick me off. However, companies that made their fortunes during the late 80's with Mac peripherals, and then abandoned the mac in the mid 90's really piss me off.
Buy this for your girlfriend/friend that's a girl. She'll love it
Can I bum a sig?
If you can still find one, the HP618 does everything you mention. It's not very small, but on the low end of the normal price range, and allows excellent user adjustability. (auto focus, aperture, shutter speed, etc)
And to make it an even better toy for geeks, it allows full digita scripting. I can add all sorts of new menu options to the camera using the digita script language.
As for anyone who isn't thrilled with the optical quality of HP cameras, the HP618 was a joint venture between HP and Pentax, with HP electronics inside, and Pentax optics.
"If you have a 12-year old who wants to snap photos and send them to her friends"
There are $40 cameras available for this purpose. You can get three of them for the girl to play with and break for the price of one of these Logitechs.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
They keep breaking when I accidentally insert them in the automatic teller ATM machine instead of using my ATM card. (though once the shutter somehow got pressed during the card reading and I got a picture of one of those elves that works inside the machine)
Something to rival those damn X10 cams. And now that Im going off to college in co-ed dorms...maybe its small enough to hide in the girls showe...crap! Ive given away my plans, NOOOOO!
In college, really poor, need a flatscreen.
.. for never creating w2k drivers for my old logitech beige ring quickcam. They said they were developing drivers and then they just gave up and said on the "darker ring" webcams would get new support. Bah!
Not to mention they won't open up their driver specs so that a linux usb driver can be created. [unlike Philips, who does]
http://www.smcc.demon.nl/webcam/
My point? Quickcam was a kick ass company/product until Logitech bought it.
What I'm really looking for is a 50 buck digital webcam that I can put on my keychain where I can snag an image or two and quality isn't the biggest concern. i.e. I see a cool item at Costco that I want to show the wife. I snap some pics and show her when I get home.
Live web cams
I tried this once with a set of 320x640 wwf wrestlecams interfaced via Commodore SIO cables. Within a few minutes, I got a feedback loop, and the resolution balooned to gazillions of terapixels before it blew out. Drats. Just when I was hoping to digitize a 3x image of the Andromeda Galaxy.
...But I just got to rant. Sorry, cameras do not 'take good pictures'. Its the person behind the viewfinder that takes the pictures. Some really awesome exposures have been taken with cheap plastic cameras.
Equipment can help you, sure, if youre trying to catch images of the rare south african pocket fox in his native environment, but what makes or breaks a picture is the composition. If you really want to say your camera 'takes good pictures', then start studying composition and the artistry of photography. Heres some obligatory links:
Photo.net
Apogee Photo Magazine
I lost my concept of community when my community lost all concept of me.
640x480, or if you go on the website it also says it takes 1162x864 (or some such resolution) shots, is just not enough. Actually, 1162x864 might squeak in, but if I'm taking pictures, I want the resolution of my picture to be at least as big as my monitor, which is going to be the primary means of viewing the picture. So while this is really cool, it doesn't fit my needs, which are desktops/screen saver pictures that take up the entire screen, without resizing and making it less precise.
Synergy is your friend
That's a stupid form factor anyways this is a much better one...
This one has a an LCD view screen and there will be a version with a built in mp3 player. Details: http://www.casio.com/corporate/pressroom.cfm?act=2 &pr=5530
I am pro-lifechoice.
Does anyone know of a nice underwater digital camera that has a decent resolution, and isn't overly expensive?
Yeah, I'm a cheep a**.
(I'd use it for SCUBA diving, it must to be able to take 200 meters pressure or so, not just be 'water resistant')
It even looks like a toy, and is less ergonomic than the "tall" ones since you have to reach over the camera for the button on the side.
The weird thing about the Aiptek 1.3 is its use of DRAM to hold the video data. Cool because it's cheap and small, but bad because of the constant thirst for power, even when off.
So the AAA batteries last one week whether you use the camera or not. Something to think about if you're thinking of carrying one around in your pocket.
It's the size of a zippo lighter, just the perfect crappy camera to carry around in your shirt pocket just in case. It's cheap too: I got mine for 7000 Yen, about US$70. Holds 26 640x480 or 106 320x200. Can also take short movies. Connects via USB and works for PC and Macs (also OS X).
Bad point: refuses to take pictures if the light is too low. Otherwise, quality is quite impressive, considering. I love it.
http://che-ez.com/english/spyz/
-- Slef
If I've had this problem with 1U servers?
"And it's the only digital camera we've ever tested that made us temporarily panic, thinking we'd left it in a shirt pocket in the laundry."
My $0.02 will always be worth more than your â0.02, so
"Heres some obligatory [photography] links:
Photo.net [photo.net]
Apogee Photo Magazine [apogeephoto.com]
Stop Fascism.. Support the Southern Poverty Law Center [splcenter.org]"
So, what F-stop is best used for photographing Klansmen?
Seriously, the SPLCenter's opposition to fascism rings hollow when they give left-wing hate groups (CPUSA, etc) a free ride.
I already have a phone and a PDA, I want them combined in one and then I want to have the camera put in as well. So no thank you Logitech, I'll go get the Nokia 7650 once its out.
Yeah, but it doesn't have the resolution.
The mini pencam doesn't have a viewfinder or anything like that?
I might have to get one of these. I like in NYC and never feel like carrying a camera around with me.
I've noticed that a lot of the cheap digital cameras lately are taking advantage of rapidly decreasing memory prices by doing less compression - instead of 2MB memory with tightly compressed pictures, they've got 8MB memory, and the files are about twice as big, maybe more. My guess is that this lets them save money and/or battery by using dumber CPUs or get faster storage performance.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
It looks like the view finder is the little square above the lens. I've been very happy with an Aiptek twice the size of this one and am thinking of upgrading to the Mini.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
So if there's anyone near the wreck, such as emergency workers, you're going out of your way to make sure you can't see where they are, while you drive close by them.
Here it is. This is a quite attractive digital camera.
:)
I need to place a bid
The SiPix seems to be a battery hog - I'm now using NiMH rechargables instead of the rechargable alkalines I used at first, which helps a lot, but at least they're all standard AAA batteries, so in a pinch you can switch batteries on the fly and hope you don't lose any pictures :-(. And it really *is* nice and small, though you need to keep it in the case since there's no lens cap. Unlike my old Toshiba PDR camera (lens scratch - sigh...), or most higher-end cameras, the software doesn't look like a disk drive - it uses Twain drivers and some hokey software that copies them into temporary files and encourages you to edit them with lame decorations. I've had other cheap cameras that also did this. Much more trouble, but once you figure it out you can work around the limitations, and at least it's running on USB power while it does it.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Their FAQ says no Mac drivers ever. No big deal, if I were ever to switch from PC to Mac I'd be giving up a lot of capabilities anyway.
I've only used the AIPTEK pencams. I've had some fantastic photos outdoors, and have had little problem in lit rooms. I wonder if the 5 in 1 is worse than the pencams?
As for webcam, I've not done actual webcam, but I've run it as a tethered camcorder with my own capture software that I have written, and never a problem at all.
"Try getting drivers for an Aiptek device. You have to fill out an online form [aiptek.com] and hope you get a response back so you can get in, I tried this three times and I never got a single response"
I think someone has pirated AIPTEK hardware, and AIPTEK has gotten snitty about just letting anyone download drivers. Not that this excuses them making it difficult for real buyers!
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Bought one, the 640x480 that says it does 1024x480 using "magic"! EASY to carry and it takes pictures RIGHT away, without the autofocus lag.
I took it on a nice bike ride & shot some potentially great shots. It was really nice to have something so light and small. The pictures it produced were, unfortunately, real junk. It doesn't seem to be able to do contrast. I couldn't salvage a single picture worth looking at (from the bike ride).
I have a Cameda and a Sony DV8 so am experienced in using digital pics. I've taken maybe 50 pictures with the AIPTEK, in all sorts of situations and lighting, and I've tried all sorts of image enhancement - all to no avail. I consider it $80 wasted and will throw it away rather than use it for snapshots. It does seem do do OK connected to the USB port as a web cam - maybe useful for live images over the web.
I always duck below the level of the doortops and hood when I am driving in the vicinity of an accident. That way I won't see anything that might frighten me.
Digital Dream makes a similar product called the l'espion which has similar specs. it's like $60, and has 352x288, self timer, works as a webcam - it even has a keyring attachment so you can keep it on your keychain. It's supercheap, but it's british, so shipping to U.S. kinda kills it.
This is where I get my recommended daily allowance of "Foot in Mouth."
I'll buy one as soon as I can:
http://www.sipixdigital.com/
Mats
Perhaps it is made from that Kraft american cheez-food, you know the kind that turns into plastic if left in the fridge uncovered.
The claims in the article clearly were lifted directly from the ad copy. For instance, the previously discredited statement
And while most entry-level consumer cameras cost $300 to , the Logitech is almost an impulse buy at $130.
is so untrue that no credible writer would put it in an article. There are several cameras less than $300, most with better specifications. One also wonders how the reviewer missed all the ads for the stick camera that has been floating around lately. Perhaps not as nice as the Logitech, but certainly still an "entry level camera". On the other hand he must be a very good writer if he makes so much money that $130 is an impulse buy.
The article is particularly clever, as it does expose the limitations of the camera, but always in such a way as to make it look like a perfectly reasonable compromise.
I wonder if the pictures were taken by the author or supplied by Logitech. They look rather nice, and I can't a believe a person so clueless about cameras could have taken them.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
- Adjustable Focus: Well, no, you can't adjust focus manually, it's automatic. You CAN do spot metering, though, to focus on exactly the point you want. You CAN manually adjust EV, ISO, white balance though. I've never had a problem with the focus not working perfectly.
- Macro capability: Yup. You can get as close as 3 cm.
- Flash: Yup, and you can set it to always on, always off, or auto, and can set the brightness level.
- Decent pixel size: It is 2.1 megapixel, it can do 640x480, 1024x768, or 1600x1200. I can't imagine needing more than 1600x1200 for computer work. 1600x1200 is great for printing up to 8.5 x 11.
- Lossless format: Yup, it can do uncompressed TIFF, and two compression levels for JPGs. It can also create stop-motion 10 frame animated GIFs, and 320x240x8fps MPEG video (no sound), length only limited by storage space. (On a 128MB stick, you can do up to 22 minutes, or 90 minutes of 240x120)
- Battery: It really shines here, it can take either Sony Infolithium -OR- standard AA cells. Go buy a 4 pack of AA NiMH batteries and a charger for like $30, and you're laughing. And you can use standard AA in a pinch (it drains these like water though)
- LCD screen: BEAUTIFUL LCD screen. Very very bright (adjustable), sharp, and accurate. I think it's around 110,000 pixel screen.
- Storage options: Sony Memory Stick.. yeah I know it's proprietary, but these babies really do rock. Pick up a 128MB stick for $70 USD. (Unfortunately, the camera only comes with a measly 4MB stick)
This camera takes great looking pictures. It has a long exposure "twilight mode" which takes some of the best low-light pics I've ever seen.Here's a couple of in-depth reviews for you:
"Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
Many digital cameras do something about as bad. They quote the number of elements in the sensor, even though the elements near the edges are "dead" and never used at all. So for instance a consumer might think a 2.4 megapixel camera is better than a 2.1 megapixel camera when they both output exactly the same max sized image.
Finally, all consumer digital cameras are somewhat deceptive in that they do not take 3.1 million (or whatever) color samples. They only measure intensity at each point, with different colored filters in some pattern over the sensor array. (This is like how your eye works, with 3 different types of monochromatic sensors responding to different wavelengths).
The opshot of this is that a non-lossy format like .tif has a whole lot of redundant information because it stores a full three-component color at each point.
I bought a "StyleCam" for about $14. It's super small -- the size of the width of a credit card along the lengths, and the height of about a quarter inch.
3 0194 6 FY L/ref%3Ded%5Fbest%5Fh%5F1%5F2/026-4070624-3257254
Also has 640x480 res, no flash, and 8mb of memory.
Pretty sweet deal.
Some info:
http://www.vnunet.com/Products/Hardware/11
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00006
Cheap digital cameras are really bad in low light. You could spend $700 or so on a Canon s40 with waterproof case, and end up with bad pictures due to low light.
Why not use film? ISO 800 fuji film will look better than the 800 ISO setting on any sub-$600 digicam. Plus, use a cheap camera and you aren't out so much money if you lose it or a fish eats it.
Someone's going to put together a Linux install for this?
$u(k 1t!!!!11!
I picked up a Sipix for $50 at Fry's a few weeks that's got basically the same specs and a lot cheaper. Albeit 640x480, but the picture quality is quite good... And if you're really cheap, Polaroid has a $35 320x240 digital camera...
I have been looking for something like this to take to concerts. An easily concealed camera that could be put into your wallet would be quite useful in getting past those pat downs. Anyone know of any similarly concealable products with better resolutions?
Also I read about a few camera / cell phone combos with less than stellar performance, Why can't they make a camera that just "looks" like a cell phone? It could along with the binocular flask.
I've had an eyemodule for several years now, and I've taken several hundred pictures with it. It was great to leave it plugged into my visor, and know I always had a camera on me if I came accross something I wanted to show to other people.
I picked up an Eyemodule 2 a little while ago, and I've only taken a couple of dozen or so pictures with it. While I love the built in lens cap, and the higher resolution is nicer under optimal circumstances, under low light levels the eyemodule 1 works better, as the eyemodule 2 is easy to blur.
Import "duties" and tariffs are nothing but taxes. So the government profits and customers are punished for choosing better products.
It has this "size-enlarging" feature, as it takes small (320x200), medium (640x480) and large (1280x1024 or something like that). The large takes the same amount of memory as the medium shots, so I was suspicious immediately. The picture quality isn't terrible when it comes out at that size, but I certainly don't use it anymore because I can get same-to-better results enlgarging it myself, if I really want to.
Never hit your grandmother with a shovel, for it leaves a bad impression on her mind...