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."

Comments

Compare to AIPTEK?

[AtariAmarok]

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.

This is actually the smalcamera ultra-pocket.

[isaac]

This camera is an OEM version of the Smalcamera Ultra-Pocket. See smalcamera.com for the original developer of this camera. It won "Best of Show" at CES 2001. It's been on sale in Japan for a while as the "eyeplate" under the Fuji AXIA brand - see here. The english version of the eyeplate manual is available for download here.

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

Re:Neat

[WNight]

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?