disposable digital camera

[Barbara Brundage]

<http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=711&ncid=711&e=2&u=/usatoday/20030728/tc_usatoday/11433646>

Actually, it's just a one-time use camera. But for $11, 2 megapixels isn't bad. Too bad you can't do your own file transfers, though.

[Leen Koper]

One of the most critical parts of a digital camera is the optics. Digital requires a better lens than film cameras.
How can anyone expect a $11 camera to have a decent piece of glass?
And how about correct exposure?

I'm afraid many consumers will be disappointed with the results. Bad colours because of chromatic abberation, burned out highlights etc.

Leen

[Barbara Brundage]

How can anyone expect a $11 camera to have a decent piece of glass?




I believe that is just the rental fee, Leen.

Ralph, that is supposedly the difference with these, which will not be available for a while, and then only in limited locations.

I agree that they are probably not going to give great photos, but then that sure hasn't stopped the market for film disposables.

[Joe Henry1000]

Ralph,

But users can delete their last shot if they think they missed it, and
they can get prints back within 15 minutes after taking the camera in
for processing, because no film has to be developed.




This is text from Barb's link. I thought that the only difference with digital disposables wast the CD as well, but it looks like this is an actual digital camera sans LCD screen.

Sounds kind of cool. If I ever forget my digital camera while on vacation, I'd certainly give this a try.

:-)
Joe

[Barbara Brundage]

Does kind of make you wonder how they're supposed to know they missed that shot if there's no LCD, though, doesn't it?