| 5:43 pm on May 6, 2002 (gmt 0)|
It had no specs. It could be a little piece of junk.
It is cool looking though.
| 5:48 pm on May 6, 2002 (gmt 0)|
holds up to 52 pics at high res (1.3 megapixels) - 16mb on board memory. USB device of course.
| 5:55 pm on May 6, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Where'd you get the info Oilman? I saw a press release that said 'up to 52 pictures and up to 1.3 mp resolution.'
| 6:03 pm on May 6, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Logitech Website [logitech.com] ;)
| 6:08 pm on May 6, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Don't see anything on logitech's web site? That's marketing┐
Maybe it's just me but I got a 404 error using the url written in the article in your post, rc...
Cute beast though!
| 6:12 pm on May 6, 2002 (gmt 0)|
That is a great looking camera. They are finally making them the right size / price.
| 6:16 pm on May 6, 2002 (gmt 0)|
1.3 mp? That's not high enough resolution to make anyone kiss anything goodbye.
I personally wouldn't buy a new digital camera that offered less than 3mp these days, but I'm kind of a geek that way.
| 6:28 pm on May 6, 2002 (gmt 0)|
1.3 mp - yeah not great but it fits in your pocket and it's only gonna be $149 or something like that. Perfect for the kids and stuff - I think they're gonna sell a truck load.
| 6:33 pm on May 6, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Sell a truckoad, yes. It's cute as anything. But nobody will be kissing anything goodbye over it, IMO. It could very well may dominate the low end digital-equivalent-of-a-110-point-&-shoot market, but that's a small ballfield in the larger digital camera industry picture.
| 6:34 pm on May 6, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Ahh, thanks oilman. That 1.3 mp is interpolated. Hard to get happy over that.
| 6:40 pm on May 6, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Not over this particular model, but it knocks another leg (the disposable camera, for example) out of the film market.
Absolutely. It's interesting that they pitched it as a backup camera to the real estate and appraisal market.
| 7:08 pm on May 6, 2002 (gmt 0)|
backup camera to the real estate and appraisal market
Gads, after seeing what they're charging for Polaroid film these days, I'm amazed the real estate market hasn't switched wholesale to digital already!
The thing that's going to keep film around for a while yet is people like my mother, who refuses to even TRY installing her own scanner on her home computer, and people like my father, who won't even sit in front of my step-mom's computer long enough to learn how to use email.
Film will be around until the baby boomers are all gone, just because of the stubborn folks, like my family ;).
Fuji is doing some VERY nice things in the digital camera market, BTW... just bought a discontinued FinePix 4900 Zoom, and was very very pleased with the usability and picture quality. ( I should clarify... "Usability" by the standards of someone who prefers her 35mm cameras to be totally NON-automatic.)
I only wish it wasn't the "company camera," 'cause I want to take it home SOOO badly.
| 7:25 pm on May 6, 2002 (gmt 0)|
>real estate market hasn't switched wholesale to digital already!
They have, and the digital cameras, perhaps more than their film-munching brethren, fail. My real estate firm just went out and reshot some photos for an out-of-state appraisor whose camera corrupted all of his own pix. When travel/labor costs are involved, you could pay for one of these in afternoon.
| 7:33 pm on May 6, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Yipe! What a nightmare... but no house sale is complete without some kind of expensive/nerve-wracking screwup, right?
What really needs to happen is for a more-or-less universally compatible computer-illiterate/idiot-proof mini-printer to hit the market. It would be like a digital polaroid... check and see if the photos are good right there.
Plug your camera's memory card (of course the printer accepts all the major flash memory formats, and has a USB port to boot) into the teeny little Altoids tin of a printer, feed a small sheet of glossy cardstock in, and get a 4x6 out the other side. (Picture a really tiny sheet-feed scanner-style mechanism...)
If they could come out with a multi-color solid ink cartridge for it, all the better... pop a new "ink" stick in every "roll" of film or so. Plug it into the cig. lighter in the car to recharge the printer's battery.
| 7:40 pm on May 6, 2002 (gmt 0)|
My wife bought a couple of disposable cameras in a pinch. She used one. I took the other apart to see what was going on. Discovered that you could use it for relatively low light situations because the film inside was supposed to be pushed to 1600. Whatchya wanna bet you can't compensate for low light situations using the fancy software bundled with the Logitech. ;)
| 7:45 pm on May 6, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Whatchya wanna bet you can't compensate for low light situations using the fancy software bundled with the Logitech.
That's why I wouldn't buy any new camera under 3mp. Low resolution digital photos are almost impossible to "fix" if you shot them under less-than-ideal conditions. Just not enough data there to play with.
| 7:49 pm on May 6, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I carry a Mavica FD7 precisely because it can be easily checked on the road, just pop the diskette into a laptop. I carry a 2nd FD7 as backup when distances or other circumstances dictate. Because it uses a Sony battery popular with video cams, you can pick up an extra battery at Wal-Mart (been there, done that) and an AC/DC inverter (also in Wal-Mart, around $50) runs the AC charger in the car (though I try to keep 3 batteries on the ready).
> nightmare... but no house sale
It was a commercial appraisor doing a Holiday Inn. My firm did it gratis (he found us on the web -naturally), having an appraisor owe you a favor can be a good thing. Speaking of nightmares, he told of another appraisor that had to pay $500 for a reshoot of a resort property in California... his camera waited until he got back to Ohio, then burped.
| 7:53 pm on May 6, 2002 (gmt 0)|
>Low resolution digital photos are almost impossible to "fix" if you shot them under less-than-ideal conditions.
That depends on what you need the photo for. We have people that can fix a house pix taken at dusk and make it look like mid-day.
We can also digitally mow and weed the yard, too. No kidding.
| 8:28 pm on May 6, 2002 (gmt 0)|
OK, I was specifically referring to bringing it up to photo-album snapshot print quality. :) 1.3mp better be a perfect photo to start with if you want a really good print out of it. Then again, I'm a horrible nitpick about retouching. I've gotten raves from retouching work I was embarrassed to claim as my own.
And the real estate market, whoo... whole different world there! When I was house hunting (to say nothing of the crummy color copies I found in my appraisal packet), I was appalled at the quality of some of the house photos I saw! Kept thinking all I needed was a good digital camera and a business card, and I could have a whole new career as a "virtual" landscaper/house painter.
By the time I got done buying my house though, I wanted nothing to do with any kind of real estate business whatsoever... LOL
| 8:32 pm on May 6, 2002 (gmt 0)|
>bringing it up to photo-album snapshot print quality
My bet is we're less than 2 years away from that for a sub-$300 digi camera.
Kodak/Fuji put your head....
| 8:35 pm on May 6, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Kodak/Fuji put your head....
LOL... Fuji can stay afloat in the digital market. But I still say we have decades to go before all the technophobes die off/go digital. ;)
| 8:44 pm on May 6, 2002 (gmt 0)|
>we have decades
3-5 years, tops. Without the bulk film biz, there isn't enough volume in film techies to keep the industry afloat. Distribution and ancillary services are already suffering. This industry is toast. (and Skibum is probably already short-selling the stock.)
| 8:48 pm on May 6, 2002 (gmt 0)|
this little logitech deal is targetted at email photos for high schoolers to share with their friends etc. I honestly can't see them touting it as a real print quality camera cuz it just isn't.
I'm prolly gonna grab one just so I can share photos online real quick. Like today - crazy snow storm - I wanted to take a couple pics to show some friends and the webcam is really crappy - the Logitch cam would be perfect for this application.
| 9:07 pm on May 6, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I just emailed the local shop and had them check their logitech source -currently out of stock. I ordered 'first available.' (Heh! I love being able to expense off my bad digital habits.)
| 10:52 pm on May 6, 2002 (gmt 0)|
>>Like today - crazy snow storm
>>Heh! I love being able to expense off my bad digital habits
I smell whatchyer cookin'.
| 11:11 pm on May 6, 2002 (gmt 0)|
|this little logitech deal is targetted at email photos for high schoolers to share with their friends etc |
I agree. I can also see a good market where there is a chance that the camera can get damaged. For example, when I was skiing this winter a friend of mine had a expensive camera so he could take pictures of us jumping. He was always nervous about breaking a $500 camera or dropping it in the snow. The pain would be less if he only had a $150 camera that could easily fit in his pocket as opposed to a bulky camera bag around his neck.
Yesterday when I was out golfing we got caught in a big hail storm. The greens had about an inch or two of hail within a couple minutes and me and my friend were wishing we had a camera with us to take a picture of the path we had to "shovel" on the green so we could putt.
| 1:29 pm on Jul 4, 2002 (gmt 0)|
>I think they're gonna sell a truck load.
Evidently, Logitech can't make enough of these things. Mine finally came in yesterday. The shop owner ordered another one just to see if it might be worth stocking and sold it as soon as it hit the shelf.
Everything works as billed on the Logitech site. This is going to be a very handy little item and I have ordered a 2nd one.
640x480 res shot of vegetable vendor truck at 100 yards
Now, if it just had a 10x zoom....
| 5:07 pm on Jul 5, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Not bad at all... esp. for online work! Odd though, the tree leaves almost look like someone applied a photoshop 'median' or 'crystallize' filter to them.
| 5:19 pm on Jul 5, 2002 (gmt 0)|
>the tree leaves
That effect was even more noticeable in the 1.3 Mpixel shot of the same scene:
Also, the camera doesn't focus well on shots closer than 6 or 7 feet. But, yes, I see the 640x480 pix (particularly when tweaked with Lview) as being useable for web work. Again, I'd rather have the Mavica but I expect there will be plenty of times I'll carry this camera in my shirt pocket "just in case" and leave the Mavica in the car.
| This 36 message thread spans 2 pages: 36 (  2 ) > > |