Interesting little Digicam

John Hollister

John Hollister

Joined
Feb 3, 1999
Messages
3,180
Speaking of "gadgets", how about the Minox of Digicams. 007 would be proud!

About the size of a magic marker, pocket clip included.

Resolution is only 352x288, but hey, were talkin' gadget, not National Geographics. And you get 80 shots at this resolution. You get 320 shots at "Lo" resolution (176x144).

Plus it shots video and can be used as a web cam.

And it retails for $100

http://www.aiptek.com/PenCam%20Trio.htm

I gotta' get one of these!

John
 
Hey Costas, you could take some great "beach pics" there in the land of sunshine!
 
OK, so this year you went to Japan. Next year, you should come here to see for yourself!
 
I did some test scans on the same resolution as the camera. These are only simulations

View

Hi Res

View

Lo Res

Now to track one down.

John
 
Don't know yet. I'm trying to track one down for myself. Once I find some, I'll post it up here.

John
 
If you click through the "Where to buy" section, you'll see that it won't be available until the end of September. Looks real darn neat!

------------------
Regards,
Tim
Nor'east Knives
noreastknives@bigfoot.com

There are two rules for ultimate success in life.
Never tell everything you know.

[The other one is to please read the groundrules for the Auto forum at: http://www.bladeforums.com/ubb/Forum14/HTML/001211.html ]
 
John,

Thanks for the link to Radio Shack. I'm looking forward to your review, and to seeing an actual picture or two taken with it.


Mike
 
The scanner pictures just give you the size but not the quality. A camera has a tiny lens which makes a HUGHE difference in the image quality. I have seen pictures of digital cameras with quality lenses which outperformed those with average lenses but higher pixel count.

Another factor is the light. On a low price digicam you need good additional lighting for indoors.

In short, don't be surprised if the quality of the camera images are way below that of the samples shown here.
 
Ralf

Very good point.

Well guys, in a classic "Good News/Bad News" kind of posting . . . . the Camera is here, but . . . it came in broke. Not a good sign.

A buddy got his in the same package and I got to glance at a couple of his pictures on the way out the door. They didn't look that bad. It's not my regular digicam, but not bad.

I'll see if I can get him to email me a couple to post up here.

John
 
Too bad! Are you planning to get it replaced, or ar you going to wait until you get a closer look at the images.

Man, I would love to have something that size (and that price) but I think I may have been spoiled by my Olympus D-450. It isn't quite up to my OM-1 OM-2 35mm but it is pretty good.

Looking forward to seeing the pictures.


Mike
 
MNH

I am going to have it replaced.

I don't see this as a replacement for my regular Digicam, just one I can keep will me all the time. I am going to wear it in a knife carrier.

Right now, my main Digicam is a Panasonic PVSD4090, but they just released the new version called the PVSD5000 and I gotta have one.

The new version will bump my reolution to 3.3 Megapixels and add TIFF . . . and ya' gotta love that.

Here is an examples of shots from my PVSD4090:
Pic
Pic

[This message has been edited by John Hollister (edited 09-23-2000).]
 
I'd LOVE to see how this thing performs. At that size it could be soooooooooo much fun to play with it. Somebody PLEASE post a pic!
Brent...
 
John,

Somehow I knew what the sample pictures were going to be before I opened them.

That LCC DA is driving me to distraction!


Mike
 
Hello John H. I have seen you pics on several forums, and they are fantastic
eek.gif
Now, the 64 dollar question? What would be the best digital camera for a "beginner" to start off with. I say beginner, because I am not even sure if additional know how will be required to operate one of these things or is it a matter of point & shoot? I have heard that the more resolution the more $$$ the camera will cost is that correct?? Thanks for any info.... Larry C.

[This message has been edited by Tady45 (edited 09-23-2000).]
 
MNH

Sorry guy. Something else then . . . Pic Pic Pic
smile.gif


Tady45

The digicam I am currently using is only a 1.3 Megapixel. As you can see in the shots above, it does a fair job. Now making prints of these pictures may be another subject entirely.

My suggestion is that you choose a camera that will fit your needs. I made a list of my priorities and chose accordingly. As an example, the ability to use floppies as memory was a priority to me. Memory is expensive and the higher the pixel count, the more memory you need. A 4 Mb memory card isn't going to get you a bunch of pictures on a trip to the Grand Canyon. Using floppies meant that I can pay pennies for extra memory at any computer store or "mart".

The camera I chose also uses "Super Floppies". Meaning I can take 1500+ pictures on one ($10) floppy. Or only 450 on high resolution.

The prices are dropping on older (year old) models. Figure out what camera meets your needs and buy slightly less then cutting edge and you'd be surprised at what you can find half way reasonable.

Good luck

John
 
OK I got the pictures from my buddy. They came out pretty damn well for a $99 camera.

Photopoint however is not being cooperative.

I will attempt to get the pictures up tonight. Barring that, I will do a mass emailing of the pictures to anyone interested. If interested in seeing them, let me know here on the forum to give my poor inbox a rest.
smile.gif


John
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top