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: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?

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.

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.)

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

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.

Re:Got Linux or OS X drivers?

[SquadBoy]

Looks like support in gphoto is up and coming.

http://www.gphoto.org/cameras.html

This is true of many camera makers they will not do anything official but generally they will release enough info that the gphoto people can make it work.

Re:Hmmm.

[sheepab]

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.

Ok, i know you all dont care..

[xtermz]

...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