Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Hardware

Logitech Pocket Digital Review 193

Posted by CmdrTaco from the don't-accidentally-run-it-through-the-laundry dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Logitech Pocket Digital Review More

Logitech Pocket Digital Review

Comments Filter:

  • Hmmm. (Score:1, Interesting)

    by ranulf ( 182665 )
    Doesn't sound that impressive.

    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.

    • Re:Hmmm. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by mstyne ( 133363 )
      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:Hmmm. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Jucius Maximus ( 229128 ) on Wednesday June 12, 2002 @01:48PM (#3688096) Journal
      "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.)

      • For a cheap digital camera for kids, you might as well use the Barbie or WWF el-cheapo models. 320x240 I think, and only $50 I think.
        • 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.
          • 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...

      • Re:Hmmm. (Score:4, Funny)

        by sheepab ( 461960 ) on Wednesday June 12, 2002 @02:25PM (#3688343) Homepage
        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.

  • Neat (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Sc00ter ( 99550 ) on Wednesday June 12, 2002 @01:29PM (#3687932) Homepage
    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 (Score:2, Funny)

      by phillyclaude ( 215272 )
      it is nice and small. i wonder how loud it is? it could come in handy if it is quiet (stealing corporate secrets, a pic of that hot girl across the street, etc, etc)
    • I had a Kodak disc camera, it took SHIT pictures.

  • Compare to AIPTEK? (Score:5, Informative)

    by AtariAmarok ( 451306 ) on Wednesday June 12, 2002 @01:29PM (#3687938)
    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 would be handy (Score:2, Insightful)

    by jhaberman ( 246905 )
    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
    • A much better solution is a Canon Powershot G2. 3.4MegaPizel, 3X optical zoom, and uses CF Type 2 so you can have up to 1GB of storage. I can put mine plus a spare battery in a shirt pocket, portable enough for just about anyone and it gives great pictures (8"X10" prints with almost no pixelation)

      • Re:This would be handy (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Zelet ( 515452 )
        The only difference is that the Canon Powershot G2 costs ~$600 while the cameras that are being discussed are at most $150-200.

        I would expect to get a better camera for ~$400 more.
      • portable enough for just about anyone

        Huh? "Portable" in this context means it's something you just keep in your pocket all the time. You sure as hell can't do that with the G2. These cameras are smaller than the Elph series.

    • my fuji 4700 is pretty damn small. About 1.25 by 4 by 3 inches. I carry it in my pocket. And it rocks. I absoutely love it.
  • I want one.

    Scratch that,I want two. one for my bag for work, and one in the car, or at home, or something.

    In my mind this is the perfect semi-disposable device. It does what 90% of picture takers need in a great little package, and if you trash it, ?$100 isn't all that bad to get it replaced.

    I wonder what OSX support is like, I assume it will mount it like any USB mass storage device.

    wow.
    • I wonder what OSX support is like, I assume it will mount it like any USB mass storage device.

      You might want to check that to be sure before you buy it. I have no specific information but the article did mention it doesn't directly mount under Windows Explorer on Windows which leads me to believe it uses a slightly non-standard USB imaging driver, which may mean it needs specific OSX support.

    • Assuming can be a bad thing. Why the heck can't they just have the camera register itself when connected to the USB port like one of those keychain USB devices? Is showing up on the desktop as a new removable drive all that difficult, or are they so set on adding crapware to (presumably) nag you to order prints? The review mentions nothing, but the Logitech website [logitech.com] mentions a downloading application and Windows-only compatibility.
      • but the Logitech website [logitech.com] mentions a downloading application and Windows-only compatibility.

        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.

  • Can someone explain the true meaning of "megapixels" to me? Here I was thinking that it meant the resolution had so many of millions of pixels in its resolution... in this case, 1.3. But right after saying it had a 1.3 megapixel resolution, the poster states it actually has a resolution of 640x480, which consists of 307,200 pixels. Can anyone clear up my confusion here?
    • Now that I read through the linked article, I see that the 1.3 megapixels is in fact not even true. So how exactly can they make that claim?

    • Re:Megapixels (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Transient0 ( 175617 )
      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.
    • Well, the article also notes that basically it's a marketing fib in this case, much like backup tape capacities pretty much always assume 50% savings from compression (but tape companies tend to be pretty upfront about that, labelling TR5s as having 10GB/20GB capacities for instance).

      Megapixel does equal 1M pixels. Given 307,200 pixels actually used to compose the image, the camera presumably can interpolate to create a 1.3MP image. Of course, it won't have anywhere near the detail that a true 1.3MP sensor would provide...
    • 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.

      • Re:Megapixels (Score:2, Informative)

        by izx ( 460892 )
        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.
    • It does mean millions of pixels. This camera can also take pictures in 1,280 by 960 resolution (the ~1.3 megapixels).

      Its unclear if the 1280x960 resolution is just some fancy upscan of the lower res mode or what in the review...And yes, the writeup above (and the review) are short on information and long on confusing statements.


    • 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 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 :)
    • But if you're limited to 640x480, 64MB will hold a LOT of pictures. For my current camera, if I set it to 640x480 I can fit upwards of 140 pics on my 32MB card. Almost 300 pictures is more than enough for one day for me!

      Jason
    • I use a 64mb card up in a few hours and I have filled half of my 1G microdrive in a day.

      At what resolution? The 16mb storage on this thing holds 52 pictures. No matter what mode you put it in, it takes 640x480 shots. The 1.3megapixel mode just blows up the 640x480 image when you retrieve it. It still stores it at 640x480.
    • It's a 16MB capacity, and holds 52 images. The article itself says it's enough to "slip the Logitech into a pocket and head out for a weekend trip." But I agree with you. Would be nice if it was upgradable, like you could slip a compact flash or smart memory card in there with 128 MB. No mention of that in the article. Anyone plan to hack one of these?
    • Which means you're either a capture freak :) or a pro/semi-pro. Which means this is not the right camera for you. This camera is for the masses, not us cognoscenti
    • If you take so many pictures that you use up 64mb in a few hours most of them are probably total boring shit that should be deleted anyway.

      Unless you're taking pictures of hottie models or something. If you were you wouldn't be using this camera (or most any digital camera, I'd hope) to do it.

      • 64MB won't last very long with a decent-resolution camera generating TIFF images instead of lossy JPEGs.
        • If you invest in a camera good enough to bother taking TIFFs with (no need doing so on a 1.3MP camera) you should check out Canon's line. They use the RAW format, a proprietary one, that actually does a better job than TIFFs, but is much smaller.

          I've gotten into using .RAWs because they store the output of the CCD directly, you can play with the white-balance (and other non-optics changes) without actually having done anything to the actual image. TIFFs might be uncompressed, and can be 16b/channel, but they still have a white-balance and some other effects applied. And while proprietary, the RAW format is documented well enough that many 3rd party utils decode it, so you don't run into problems trying to use it.

          Which camera do you have?
    • 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.


      Are you taking your pics @ 640x480 resolution?

  • 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.
    • no an entry level Digital camera is $300-$400USD. the crap you are talking about is toys you give to little children. Just like an entry level film camera is also around $300-$400 dollars (US)

      never ever think that the really low priced junk out there is entry level...

      Calling the clevercam entry level is like calling a dreamcast a entry level computer.... it's a toy, no matter how they market it it's a toy for children.

      go pick up a cannon or other good camera (Keep away from Kodak their digital cameras suck now) and spend $400.00 you'll be happy, and you can easily creat photograph quality prints.
      • "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.
  • 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 [jeffwilhelm.com], 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.
    • 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.
    • Its the SiPix Stylecam [sipixdigital.com]
    • Oh ya... SiPix. I could see the Pix part in the picture and did a google search on that but I couldn't see what was before it so it didn't do me much good. Anyway, it's a very basic camera but does a good job even in low light. I like it (not as my primary camera, but for when I need it).
    • That'd be the SiPix [sipixdigital.com] StyleCam [sipixdigital.com]. 640x480 with 8MB of storage for (I believe) $50. SiPix also makes the StyleCam Blink [sipixdigital.com], which has the same resolution, but is even tinier.

      Unfortunately, SiPix's cameras don't seem to be supported under Linux (gPhoto) or OS X (iPhoto). If someone knows differently, I'd like to know. :)
    • I've got one of those. It's only marginally thicker than the description of the Logitech, and the price at Fry's has gone down from $49 to $39. It's also usable as a webcam, and comes with a stand. There was an article in the San Jose Mercury News about SiPix, saying they're coming out with an even smaller camera for about $39 (square, same height as the current one but less wide, and only one battery).

      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.

  • 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.
    • 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.
  • Does anyone know if it's compatible with the Mac? That would be the only thing stopping me from getting one.
    • When OS 9 came out, it broke the serial drivers for Logitech's QuickCam cameras. Logitech's response was to tell everyone T.S., buy a USB card and shell out an additional $100+ for their USB camera, the QuickCam VC, if they want OS 9 support.

      Today, there's no OS X drivers for their Mac "supported" QuickCams - the VC and 3000. Even worse, previous references of "OS X drivers are under development" have been removed from the drivers page. Out of their whole family of products (scanners, gaming devices, keyboards) the only thing that have OS X drivers are the mice, and they've been in beta for eons.

      Logitech *used* to have a heavy Mac presence. Companies that don't support the mac don't tick me off. However, companies that made their fortunes during the late 80's with Mac peripherals, and then abandoned the mac in the mid 90's really piss me off.

  • Logitech digital cameras: buyer beware (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    We were given a similar model (nearly-identical specs except it was "normal" size) from my brother, who got it free for signing up for DSL service. And even at free, I feel like I was ripped off.

    As the article points out, you can't mount the camera as a drive like with most cameras; you have to either go through TWAIN or the bundled camera app. Both the TWAIN driver and the camera app built around it are the single most clumsy and bug-ridden pieces of software I've used in recent years; even on a "lowly" Athlon 750, a USB device shouldn't be eating up 80% of the CPU! And when it wasn't dropping the connection mysteriously or sending back blank pictures, it was crashing left and right; keeping the camera app open for more than 30 minutes at a time called for a reboot.

    The camera itself isn't much better. Outdoor pictures are alright, but don't even bother if you have florescent lighting. Pictures of people taken from about 10 feet away were almost unidentifiable.

    Overall, I'd say it's more like a Webcam with the added bonus of snapping stills than a digital camera. It might be a good toy to give to kids, but I wouldn't pay more than $30 or so for it. The newer model's small size might seem intriguing, but a tiny piece of garbage is still garbage.

  • there the Casio WristWatch Camera [casio.com] for not much more.

  • How does a 1/2 thick camera really fit in the credit card slot in your wallet?

  • What crap! (Score:2, Informative)

    by frovingslosh ( 582462 )
    What crap. OK, it's thin. Big deal. If you need tiny get one of those web cam/camera devices. Heck, at this price, get two.

    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?

    • Hmm. You might want to browse www.dpreview.com [dpreview.com]; they let you filter cameras based on various criteria such as megapixels and whether or not nonlossy format is provided.

      I've got a Minolta S304 -- 3.1MP (actual; 3.3MP is sensor size), 35-140mm zoom (35mm equiv) w/ 35.5mm threads (so certain Olympus step-up rings will work, for instance), CompactFlash (so just about any CF card should work AFAIK; I use 128MB SanDisk cards. Only Type 1 slot, 'tho, so no MicroDrive.), takes 4 AA (in my case, 1600 NiMH). I figure it's pretty good for what I paid for it (~$400 late last year), although at 14.9 oz and 4.5"x2.6"x2.3in it's not particularly compact if that's important to you. It's good enough for squirrels, not good enough for (non-caged) hawks...

      If macro is particularly important to you, be aware that the S304's "macro" doesn't focus well within 6" or so. Also, the TIFF format it can use is, 'natch, pretty big, so you'd want a big CF card. The newer S404 is similar, from what I've read, although at 4MP you'd want a bigger CF card for those TIFFs, heh.

      It's no DSLR (standard parallax viewfinder + LCD), but it's a hell of a lot cheaper than a Canon D60 + lenses.
    • If you can still find one, the HP618 does everything you mention. It's not very small, but on the low end of the normal price range, and allows excellent user adjustability. (auto focus, aperture, shutter speed, etc)

      And to make it an even better toy for geeks, it allows full digita scripting. I can add all sorts of new menu options to the camera using the digita script language.

      As for anyone who isn't thrilled with the optical quality of HP cameras, the HP618 was a joint venture between HP and Pentax, with HP electronics inside, and Pentax optics.

    • Re:What crap! (Score:2, Informative)

      by or_smth ( 473159 )
      I am by no means a professional photographer, and I tend to grade my pictures by the oooh and ahhh scale but I know exactly what you are looking for.

      A digital camera that truly rivals a normal one. The problem is, once you want that you're going to end up with something high-end, maybe even in the $500+ range. Believe me, it is worth it.

      The camera(s) I highly recommend are part of the Canon PowerShot G series. The newest member [powershot.com] is expensive however has absolutely every feature you mentioned. It uses nice compact flash cards instead of crappy memory sticks or slow CDRs too and even takes 4 megapixel shots. If the G2 is out of your pice range you may be able to pick up a G1 somewhere, as the difference is small (I have a G1). The macro focus on it is truly magnifigant too. If you take a look at my DeviantART page [deviantart.com] you can see some examples of what I have taken with my trusty old G1.

      Can't say to much more without sounding like a totally shameless plug, just I recommend going to a store and checking it out.
    • You can get a Sony DSC-P50 for $400 *Canadian* right now. (Current low price on cnet: $238 USD) I have one, and I love it to death. Here's how it stacks up to your critera:
      • 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:

  • "The other button switches between 640 by 480 and 1,280 by 960 image size -- the 52-shot capacity is unaffected by your choice"

    I'm buying one.
    • 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.
    • Beware. The article makes it prety clear that the image sensor is 640x480 and that if you op for 1280x960 that the extra pixels are just interpolated. The author also indicated that post processing image software will do a far better job of interpolating the pixels than the software in the camera. Actually, since the capacity is unaffected by this setting, I suspect that they don't even interpolate and store the extra pixels at all, they just set a bit for the image based on the switch position and then when it's time to output the image do the interpolating if needed. What a waste, the switch is a marketing gimic, not a feature.

    • No, it's not. It's SIX MEGAPIXELS! * (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Dr. Ion ( 169741 ) on Wednesday June 12, 2002 @02:08PM (#3688229)
      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.
  • (not karma whoring, just rambling)
    I've always liked the concept of lowend digital photography:
    Starting with a kodak DC20 [kodak.com]...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 [kisrael.com] from it.

    Then later got a kodak palmpix [kodak.com] 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 [kisrael.com] out of them.

    And now this...of course, now I have a tiny Canon elph powershot [cnet.com] 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...)
  • I keep putting them in my wallet and they snap in half when I sit down.

    DOH!

    .
  • I just bought a StyleCam Blink for $40. This is about as low as you can go in a digital camera, yet it's halfway decent. It's 640x480, with 8MB of memory. 55mm x 55mm x 15mm, this thing looks like a keychain ornament. USB, TWAIN, comes with CD of the usual cheezy image-editing applications, but will talk to Photoshop via TWAIN import. Internally compresses to JPEG, at some fixed compression quality level.

    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 [steves-digicams.com]... summaries of most of the cameras on the market today, from low end to digital SLR...

    --Zachary

  • This is actually the smalcamera ultra-pocket. (Score:3, Informative)

    by isaac ( 2852 ) on Wednesday June 12, 2002 @02:04PM (#3688192)
    This camera is an OEM version of the Smalcamera Ultra-Pocket. See smalcamera.com [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 [axia.co.jp]. The english version of the eyeplate manual is available for download here [axia.co.jp].

    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

    • Hrrrm, with the above posts asking about "Mac compatibility" the Fuji website claims PC & Mac compatibility. I wonder how much "modification" Logitech did to the Smalcamera reference design? Probably little or none. The Japanese drivers still would not work unless you can either "spoof" the camera model/manufacturer, or hack the driver. Interesting nonetheless.

  • Clue check in the camera department (Score:3, Insightful)

    by zaren ( 204877 ) <fishrocket@gmail.com> on Wednesday June 12, 2002 @02:06PM (#3688210) Journal
    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 [macraffle.com]?
  • Pricegrabber [pricegrabber.com] lists it as low as $101.53! Too bad that is lunch for a month!
  • Dynamism [dynamism.com] has some cool little cameras by way of Japan.
  • This is perfect for a night out on the town with my girlfriends. It will fit easily into a small/trendy handbag, it's lightweight, and I can email my frinds images of their drunken escapades (or that hot guy at the bar) the very next day.

    Buy this for your girlfriend/friend that's a girl. She'll love it

  • Ok, i know you all dont care.. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by xtermz ( 234073 ) on Wednesday June 12, 2002 @02:35PM (#3688411) Homepage Journal
    ...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 [toycamera.com].

    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 [photo.net]
    Apogee Photo Magazine [apogeephoto.com]
    • Sorry, cameras do not 'take good pictures'.

      Quite. I talked about this a bit in the cheap digital camera comparison [dansdata.com] I did a while ago.

      You can get some quite startlingly good results out of cheap baby digitals. There are lots of things that they just can't do, of course, but the $100 toy-cam that you can keep in your pocket all the time has a lot going for it compared with the $3000 pro-cam that's sitting with its lenses in the camera bag at home.

  • My Che-ez SPYZ is smaller! (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Slef ( 8700 )
    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/ [che-ez.com]
  • 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."
  • I'll buy one as soon as I can:

    http://www.sipixdigital.com/

    Mats
  • 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.

    Also has 640x480 res, no flash, and 8mb of memory.

    Pretty sweet deal.

    Some info:
    http://www.vnunet.com/Products/Hardware/113 0194
    http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000066 FY L/ref%3Ded%5Fbest%5Fh%5F1%5F2/026-4070624-3257254

  • Sipix (Score:2)

    by vanyel ( 28049 )
    I picked up a Sipix [sipixdigital.com] 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.

Slashdot Top Deals

A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.

Close