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.
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.)
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.
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.
...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.