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."
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 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
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.
mstyne: real name, no gimmicks
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
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.
lysergically yours
You are correct. "Megapixel" means millions of pixels... in this case, it's .3 megapixel or so; if it were 3040x2016, it would be 6.1 megapixel.
Username taken, please choose another one.
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.
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.
there the Casio WristWatch Camera for not much more.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
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.)
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.
"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.
(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?
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.
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!
The fact is that silent operation is not an easy sell to the consumer. People are used to auditory feedback. My dicam has two modes: silent, and "film-camera" sound. I usually keep it in silent, but when someone else takes a picture with it, they can't figure out how long to keep the camera pointed at the subject. Then they're confused about whether or not they actually took a picture. People are so used to the audio "click" that digicam manufacturers have to add one in with tiny speakers! There's no reason a solid-state digicam should make any noise at all, but people need that reasurring "CLICK".
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.
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.
Buy this for your girlfriend/friend that's a girl. She'll love it
Can I bum a sig?
The same sort of utilities come with most digital cameras. Generally, they're just a silly little VB app that reads from, as you suggest, the virtual USB-mounted drive. You don't have to use the app at all. I never even bothered installing the one that came with my Casio camera.
Yes, I believe that every parent should give their hot 16+ year old daughter a digital camera to send *pictures* to all of her 'friends' on the internet.
In college, really poor, need a flatscreen.
The 'Barbie' camera is a total POS - I wish it did 320x240!
I looked at getting one for my 8yo daughter to play with (rather then using my digital camera) and, although cheap, wasn't worth anywhere near what they wanted for it. It also has a totally closed interface with really sucky software that you have to use to retrieve the photos!
I passed it up but, unfortunately, my in-laws didn't... It's worse then I'd thought (it only stores 6(?) of the really tiny photos onboard). I'll probably end up getting a cheap (but ok quality) camera for her.
...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.
That's a stupid form factor anyways this is a much better one...
I agree. I got one for my daughter, and it sucks bad. *I* had problems getting it to work right, and forget about using it indoors.
I picked it up for ~$20. You get what you pay for...
jred
I'm not a mechanic but I play one in my garage...
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
The camera has hardware interpolation that scales images up to 1280x960 (~1.3 Megapixels). The actual CCD itself though only has 300k pixels. So yes, the 1.3 megapixel claim is bogus with respect to the CCD but the images you actually download from the camera do have 1.3 megapixels.
An argument can be made that upsampling in the camera is better then with external tools since it gets to work with an uncompressed original but quadrupling the resolution is still a bit of a stretch.
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
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
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.
I'll buy one as soon as I can:
http://www.sipixdigital.com/
Mats
- 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
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
No, the article says that the camera stores 52 images in either 640x480 or 1027x768 format. Which means, it really only stores in 640x480 format, and does scaling as you download images from it.
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a 747 filled with CD-ROMs.
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.