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

Neat

[Sc00ter]

Digital's version of the Kodak Disc camera. :) Not bad as a spare or backup. They had some sample images in the review, not bad considering. I got a cheapo camera like this Agfa something. No LCD, no zoom, it was like $70. I'd still use it but if there's motion then it's blurry, that was the only problem. Otherwise the pictures were great. Good spare to keep in the car in case of accidents (either passing one, or getting into one for insurance reasons) or you see something wacky.

Re:Hmmm.

[mstyne]

Perhaps, if you had read the review, you would have noticed that they do not recommend the camera for print use, in fact:
"If you want a digital camera whose images you can print and frame on a shelf or wall, even sticking to 3 by 5- or 4 by 6-inch size, the Pocket Digital will disappoint."
And as far as "filling a screen", the review suggests its best uses are for emailing photos and publishing less-than-VGA size images on the web.

Re:Megapixels

[Transient0]

Your understanding of the term is spot on. The trick here is that the camera captures at 640x480, but has a built in scale&dither which will put out 1.3 megapixel resolution. The person who wrote the article properly calls the 1.3 megapixel claim an advertising fib in this case. He suggests using the camera in 640x480 mode and scaling in a photo-editor. i suggest the same. something like photoshop will do a much better job of preserving image quality while scaling than the built in function on a tiny device like this will.

Re:Hmmm.

[Jucius Maximus]

"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."

If you have a 12-year old who wants to snap photos and send them to her friends, this is a godsend. A display of 640x480 is pretty good for such purposes. When she breaks it, it's not like she's losing your $500 fuji or canon digicam. (Still $130 is not pocket change.)

Clue check in the camera department

[zaren]

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?

No, it's not. It's SIX MEGAPIXELS! *

[Dr. Ion]

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.