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."
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.
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'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.
Except for the pro, and some of the prosumer digicams out there, no consumer digicam does a good job of interpolating an optical resolution to a higher resolution...just as a "9600 dpi" scanner with a 600 dpi optical resolution cannot give you true 9600 dpi images. Photoshop's bicubic interpolation for enlarging stuff is 99% of the time the best choice if you want to enlarge images...I'd stay away from the built-in interpolation that some proprietary digicam transfer/edit utilities provide...go with Paint Shop Pro or Photoshop.
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 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.
I don't think this is good for a spare/accident camera. For 100-140 $ you are better off with a 35 mm camera (for example olympus stylus epic). In little more than 100 g you have a perfect 4 or 5 elements GLASS lens (coated of course), you can take pictures as good as with a 5000$+ SLR, you have a more than decent flash, 10 to 50 times (!) the pixels from a top 5000+$ digital camera, more contrast, real autofocus, auto exposure, controlled flash power, macro, long exposure for night, and many many other things (like splashproof). But what is most important is that you can put the lithium baterry (good for 15+ films) in the camera and take the same camera 3 years later, push the button and you have the picture (I would say 10 years, but the film will not last that long) ! The batery for most current digitals will last a couple of weeks.
And if you think 36 pictures are not enough and you need more you can buy film _anywhere_.
Yes, digital is good when you take each day some pictures. No, digital is not good for a crash or backup camera.
While it's impossible to state that "true resolution" of film, because it's an analog medium, it's not infinite. The grain of film puts an upper limit on detail, as much as resolution of digital image does.
As for contrast, colour range, and the like, digital is starting to beat out filmin this regard.
Check out sample pics from a Canon EOS-1D, it's only 4MP and not only is it the best digital camera out (except perhaps for digital medium format) it's rivaling film in all but a few cases.
Most people estimate analog film, good stuff, Provia 100F and such, to have about the same usefull resolving capacity as a 9Mpixel digital camera, based on the fact that when you scan a film negative (on a $50k scanner) you don't gain any more detail by scanning it at a much higher resolution.
As for batteries, many low end digital cameras (and some high-end ones, like the Minolta Dimage 7i) take AA batteries which should last just as long - downtime - as they would in a film camera. You have to replace batteries more frequently than with a film camera, but batteries are cheaper than film + processing.
The benefit of a low end (though not very low, like the ones mentioned here) digital is that you can see how the shot turned out. I shoot ten times more (easily) with my digital than I did with film and I get many more different pics because I don't have to bracket all the time, taking many different shots in the hope one will turn out. In the end, I get way more pics from the combo.
At this range, a digital isn't as great, except that it lowers your threshold for an image to be worth taking. You might not waste film if you aren't sure if that's a dented bumper, or just dirt.
But if you're really cheap, and it is for emergencies only, get one of the disposables. They're really cheap, crappy, but cheap. And when you simply need a quick pic of the vehicle, what more do you need?