Anyone Know Of A Cf Camera?

Wayfinder · 03-08-03, 12:56 AM

Does anyone know of a CF camera out there with at least a 1.3 megapixel range?

It would also be nice if it had a built-in flash, but just the camera would be nice.

Just to state up front... I already know about the VEO 640 camera... that's not 1.3 megapixel.

I'm looking for something more like is on the new Sony Clie (what a sweet camera).

I'd love to put a nice, tiny 1.3 megapixel camera on my Ax. 2 megapixel like the Sony would be even better.

d_harrison · 03-08-03, 07:49 AM

Animation Technologies is about to release a 1.3 Megapixel CF camera.

There is a website with a description, etc. here:
http://www.peregrine.com.my/product.cfm?prodid=341

David

d_harrison · 03-08-03, 07:53 AM

Here's another candidate (still in the "coming soon" category however) - The IA Style CF.

This one proports to have greater resolution than the one above - but again - not availble as yet.

Link to info is here:
http://www.iastyle.com/iacfcamera/features.asp

David

wereteddy · 03-09-03, 09:41 PM

Both of these product look interesting. I too, am looking for a CF camera solution with decent resolution. I've seen a few 320x240 useless cams. I've got a few questions for anyone who may have used products like this.

What do you think is the average LCD resolution of those bult into digital cameras today? I can't imagine them being much better than the Axim, if at all.

How much does the flash on some of these integrated models affect the battery life on PDA's?

Has anyone seen this type of product with an optical zoom? I consider digital zooms (read: very poor interpolation) to be a devious marketing trick.

What kind of ISO equivalency can one acheive using these CF units? Between 200 and 400 would be nice.

Thanks in advance to anyone who can answer any or all of these questions.

TTYL.

Wayfinder · 03-09-03, 10:14 PM

[Originally posted by wereteddy [/i]
What do you think is the average LCD resolution of those bult into digital cameras today? I can't imagine them being much better than the Axim, if at all. ]

Well, aside from the VAPOR CAMS not on the market today... the max I've seen is VGA... 640x480.

[How much does the flash on some of these integrated models affect the battery life on PDA's? ]

The only one I've ever seen that had a flash was the unit built into the new $800 Sony Clie. Not available as a CF cam.

[Has anyone seen this type of product with an optical zoom?]

To my knowledge, no such critter in existence..

[What kind of ISO equivalency can one acheive using these CF units? Between 200 and 400 would be nice. ]

Depends on the model. I've seen some that were so poor they couldn't be used indoors, others that were tolerable. All of them can get blurred focus if you don't have nerves of steel.

From what I've seen, and considering no one has answered this post in the positive... ALL of the so-called 1.3 megapixel cams out there are total vapor cams. They don't exist... likely won't exist for some time and by the time they do get to market... someone will have already invented something better. My guess is that decent CF cams are still 6 mo to a year away.

I don't know why it hasn't occurred to some manufacturer to build a 2 megapixel CF cam with flash (optical zoom would be nice... but highly unlikely with something small enough to fit on a PDA).

Sony has one on their high-end Clie... seems to me someone could do it for CF slots. Sony is always megabucks and only moderate features.

Wayfinder · 03-09-03, 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by d_harrison
Animation Technologies is about to release a 1.3 Megapixel CF camera.

There is a website with a description, etc. here:
http://www.peregrine.com.my/product.cfm?prodid=341

David

I went to the website and read the specs. Way down at the bottom of the list, it shows max "still resolution" of 640 x 480... which indicates that rather than a true 1.3 megapixel... it's interpolated. Don't you hate it when people do that? Interpolated is worthless.

Über~PhLuBB · 03-09-03, 11:05 PM

Don't expect good pictures from ANY of these addon devices. If you want good pictures and large storage capacity, get yourself a real digicam, from a respectable manufacturer like Fuji or Nikon.

1.3 MP or not, the image QUALITY is what matters, not ammount of pixels. What good is a 1600 x 1200 PDA camera picture that is too grainy to read text on? Digicams only take pictures, so they do it much better, not to mention the features (flash, apeture, shutter, macro, manual/auto focus, etc).

Edit: Don't take my post count at face value. ;)

I have experiance with digicams, and I've seen the results of CF cameras (as well as those cellphone cameras). They just don't compare at all.

Wayfinder · 03-10-03, 12:02 AM

Yah, I have to agree to an extent. My most recent thought on this is... no-flash CF camera for $150... or the Sony micro 1.3 meg digital camera with flash for the same amount. No doubt the digital camera, which is very tiny, will do a better job... unless one of these companies surprises us and actually produces a decent CF cam... NOT!

**Chris Leckness** · 03-10-03, 12:17 AM

Quote:

Just to state up front... I already know about the VEO 640 camera... that's not 1.3 megapixel.

If this was said to avoid flames - DON'T ... there will be no flaming here... If you are a victim of a flame here, let me know....
I encourage all to search 1st, then ask = But flaming is not what we are all about here.....

As for cameras = For all theWeb Design stuff I do, a 2.1 mp is all I need. ( the avatar of my boy was shot with it ) I upgraded from a Sony Mavica FD73 and it was 640x480 and I loved it - but it sucks for todays standard. My little bity $.02....

Wayfinder · 03-10-03, 12:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by AximSiteAdmin
If this was said to avoid flames - DON'T ... there will be no flaming here... If you are a victim of a flame here, let me know....
I encourage all to search 1st, then ask = But flaming is not what we are all about here.....

Nope, wasn't to avoid flames. It was to save the time of all the people who would respond with information on 640 cameras, when I'm looking for a 1.3. I'd seen such happen on other forums, so was stating up front I'm definitely not interested in a 640.

Thanks for the concern though. Nice thought.

Über~PhLuBB · 03-10-03, 01:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by AximSiteAdmin

As for cameras = For all theWeb Design stuff I do, a 2.1 mp is all I need. ( the avatar of my boy was shot with it ) I upgraded from a Sony Mavica FD73 and it was 640x480 and I loved it - but it sucks for todays standard. My little bity $.02....

I agree. For the average user, 2MP or therabouts is ideal. It gives lots of working room, and decent resolution.

If you don't need optical zoom, you can pick up a camera even cheaper--optical zoom costs alot more significantly more.

Fix · 03-10-03, 05:44 AM

Quote:

I already know about the VEO 640 camera

I don't want to take pictures for a web site. I just want to take a few snaps, print them (small) on my Epson photo printer, and I don't want to spend big bucks on a camera. I also don't want to carry another large piece of hardware around with me. The Veo is $99, and is available. Has anyone tried it?

Wayfinder · 03-10-03, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Fix
I don't want to take pictures for a web site. I just want to take a few snaps, print them (small) on my Epson photo printer, and I don't want to spend big bucks on a camera. I also don't want to carry another large piece of hardware around with me. The Veo is $99, and is available. Has anyone tried it?

From your description of purpose, the Veo would likely be what you don't want, because at 640 resolution, it's fit only for web work.

At 640, when you print out pictures on your Epson they will be grainy and unless the camera has exceptionally good compaction software, the colors will be blotchy.

I haven't used the Veo... I just have a bit of experience with different digital cameras. You would be better off to go down to your local Walmart (or other such store) and buy a cheap $100 2.0 megapixel camera with built-in flash. Or, right now the Sony micro-camera (1.3 megapixel) is available for $150.

Fix · 03-10-03, 01:33 PM

Thanks WayFinder. Guess I'll just wait until I can get at least a 2.0 megapixel unit for the CF slot.

Wayfinder · 03-10-03, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Fix
Thanks WayFinder. Guess I'll just wait until I can get at least a 2.0 megapixel unit for the CF slot.

yeah, even a 1.3 megapixel unit (if it's true 1.3 and not interpolated) is reasonably acceptable. You can get some decent (if slightly grainy) pictures from that. But it sure makes sense to me that someone would figure out that a 2 megapixel unit can be inexpensively made and produced. I mean, I can buy a full 2 megapixel digital camera with LCD display and flash for $99. Surely they can come up with a 2 mp CF card for that or less!