DISPOSABLE DIGITAL CAMERAS: THE WORST OF BOTH WORLDS by Patty Hankins & Bill Lawrence
If you have been reading our previous newsletters, you know
that most of our photography is digital. Digital cameras
have been getting more and more market share, and most
consumer photography labs can now handle digital media.
Despite the increasing popularity of digital cameras, we
were amazed to read several months ago on Steve's Digicams
website ( www.stevesdigicams.com ) that someone was coming
up with a "disposable" digital camera. Given the cost of all
the components such as an imaging sensor and processor,
storage media, LCD screen to review the photos, etc. needed
for a digital camera, we wondered how in the world are they
going to produce a usable disposable digital camera for a
reasonable price.
The other day we saw them on display in our local Ritz
Camera, and we had to give one a try. We knew the
disposable couldn't equal the quality of photography from
our Canon SLRs - that wouldn't be reasonable for a
disposable camera. There were, however, two things we did
want to know. First whether the disposable digitals would be
a good solution for people wanting to try digital
photography before buying a digital camera. Secondly,
whether the disposable digitals would be a better option for
people who currently use the film-based digital cameras.
We realized the only way to know for sure - was to test the
cameras. So, we bought one of the disposable digital cameras
($10.99 plus tax). To have something to compare it to, we
also purchased a Kodak FunSaver 35 camera (400 ASA film with
flash, $7.99 plus tax). The third camera we used for our
test was our Nikon Coolpix 775, a two-year-old 2 Megapixel
compact digital camera (available used for $75 - 150).
The Disposable Digital Camera:
The Disposable digital camera we purchased was made by
Dakota Digital. The camera body is plastic, and feels like
it will hold up to some abuse. As photographers - we looked
for basic information that might help us take better photos
- however we couldn't find any technical specs for the
camera. It is a fixed focus camera, with what appears to be
a fixed aperture. It has some light metering capabilities
(no information provided on what they are) and a flash. The
flash is completely automatic, the user has no way to
control whether or not the flash fires. We assume the way
the camera varies exposure (using the light meter) is by
shutter speed. The lens looks to be the equivalent of a 50
mm lens for a 35 mm camera. You can take 25 pictures with
the camera.
One of the advantages of digital photography over film is
the ability to review your photo - to see if you got the
shot you wanted. If you did, great. If not, you know it
immediately and you can delete the bad image, and take
another one. With the disposable digital, this is not
possible since there is no LCD that displays images. The
lack of an LCD is not surprising for an $11 camera. In
addition to there being no LCD, there are no external
connections that allow you to connect the camera to a
computer or to a television to preview your photos.
One of the selling points for the camera is that now you can
delete unwanted photos. However, without an LCD or external
connections - how can you delete bad shots if there is no
way to see them? It will let you delete the most recent
photo taken - but how often do you know when you snap the
shutter that the photo isn't what you wanted. The only time
we used the delete function was to test it after we
accidentally pressed the shutter down.
There is good news for anyone concerned about filling more
landfills with disposable items. The cameras aren't really
"disposable". Ritz's recycling pledge promised that 100% of
the camera (excepting the batteries) will be recycled or
reused after you turn it back in. In many ways, you're
renting a camera, not buying something that will be thrown
away when you're done using it.
The competitor camera was the Kodak FunSaver 35 camera - it
has a fixed focus lens (looks to be 35mm) , fixed shutter
speed, and a manually activated flash. The FunSaver is
constructed mainly of cardboard, with a little plastic
thrown in. You can take 27 pictures with a FunSaver.
As a digital comparison, we used our Nikon Coolpix 775. This
is a two-year old digital camera, 2 Mega-pixel, has a zoom
lens, flash (user can control whether the flash fires), and
several modes for taking pictures under specific conditions.
It is a modest consumer digital camera. Currently, you can
buy a used Nikon 775 on Ebay for between 75 and 150 dollars.
It's successor, the Nikon Coolpix 2100 retails for $199.
Shooting:
We'll focus here on the digital.
The camera shoots like a typical disposable film camera,
with the exception that you turn on the power switch before
every picture. Basically, you point, look through the
viewfinder and shoot . For those used to digital cameras or
autofocus film cameras, you need to be aware of when the
disposable digital snaps the picture. We're used pushing
the shutter button halfway, getting a beep when it is
focused, and pushing it the rest of the way when you
activate the shutter. This camera simply beeps when it
takes the photo, and since it is fixed focus, there is no
"halfway" on the shutter button. It was a little hard at
first to realize that we had actually taken the photo.
However, from a shooting standpoint, the only difference
between this and the film disposable is that you get a
"beep" instead of a "click" when you push the shutter. The
LCD counter on the back show you how many photos you have
left. To delete the most recent picture, you press the
delete button on the back of the camera, then press it a
second time to confirm the deletion. The camera also has a
self-timer - where you push the button and then several
seconds later the shutter activates.
One other thing to be aware of - be careful where you put
your fingers. It's a small camera, and it's pretty easy to
cover the lens with your figure (Patty has a lovely photo of
her fingers - haven't done that in a very long time )
The Photos:
We took the cameras to the National Zoo on a sunny day this
weekend to try them out. Patty did most of the shooting.
She did get some very strange looks - after all how often do
you see a person pull camera after camera out of her
pockets, snapping what appears to the be the same photo with
each camera. After the Zoo, we took some photos indoors.
Finally, we tried using the cameras for night photography.
We got both the disposables "processed" at Ritz Camera. We
did get a few more strange looks when we brought in one film
and one digital disposable for processing. The photos were
done by the one-hour-photo place in only one-and-a-half
hours, and came back on 4x6 bordered prints on Fuji Crystal
Archive paper in both cases. With the digital, you get a
"free" photoCD and index print with your prints - total cost
(pretax) for processing was $16.74 for the 25 photos the
camera gives you, or $0.67 a photo. With the Kodak
FunSaver, the cost was $10.39 for 27 prints, plus $6.99 for
the photoCD (we asked for one to compare the photos) - Total
(pretax): $17.38, or $0.64 per photo. Granted, we declined
the ($0.99) index print with the film camera, but the "free"
photoCD with processing worked out more expensive per print
than the film processing plus buying a photoCD.
Using a loupe to examine the photos, we decided that both
sets of photos appear to be low to medium grade digital
prints. If either set are silver halide prints, then Ritz's
developing solution is way off. Comparing the two sets of
prints, we found the white balance was not particularly good
on the digital. Photos had a consistent blue-green cast,
while the film prints were warmer with more accurate colors.
The film camera prints also appeared to handle high contrast
situations (bright sunlight) better. The resolution
appeared about the same between the digital and film camera
prints.
The photoCDs had software for displaying the photos, for
those who need it, and a set of jpeg files of the photos we
took. File size was 700 to 1300 KB for the film camera, and
500 to 1300 KB for the digital camera. We don't know what
resolution the camera actually supports, but you get a 1280
by 854 pixel (1 Megapixel) photo with the digital camera,
and a 1536 by 1002 pixel (1.5 Megapixel) image with the film
camera. With the Nikon 775, you get a 1600 by 1200 (1.9
Megapixel) photo. Interestingly, we found the files made
from the film to be quite "grainy" and noisy. This could be
cleaned up well in programs such as NeatImage, but it was
annoying. The digital camera files were overly sharpened,
making some annoying halos, and the color balance was off
(too blue, but this is easily correctable). There was what
appears to be noticeable jpeg artifacting on close
inspection. That being said, for either camera's photos,
you could make a perfectly adequate 4x6 print (especially if
you clean them up a bit in a photo editing program), or have
a nice file to put on the web. Compared to the two
photoCDs, the Nikon 775 gives a smoother image with less
artifacts, in addition to a larger image.
Cost:
Between the digital and film (includes PhotoCD, so that you
have a disk of Jpeg files):
Digital: Camera $10.99 Film: Camera $ 7.99
Processing $16.74
Processing $17.38
Total $27.73 Total
$25.37
Per photo $ 1.11 Per
photo $ 0.94
Add an extra dollar to the total on the film camera if you
want an index print - we have not found them useful.
We can't calculate a per photo cost for the Nikon 775. Once
you have the camera and a compact flash card, you don't need
to buy them every time you want to take pictures. The Nikon
came with cables that let you download your pictures to your
computer, or you can use a compact flash reader (about $30).
If you have a photo printer, you can print the photos you
want at home. Or if you don't have a photo printer, you can
take the compact flash or a CD with edited photos into
almost any camera store and they can make prints for about
50 cents a print.
Conclusions:
Our title sums it up. The disposable digital has the
disadvantages of some digital cameras, including reduced
dynamic range resulting in poor ability to handle high
contrast situations, a small and overly sharpened image
file, and increased expense. Unfortunately, it loses the
main advantage - the ability to review your photo
immediately, to see if you captured what you wanted to
capture.
If you are trying to decide if digital photography is for
you - we would recommend taking some pictures with your
current film camera or getting a disposable film camera.
Then when you get the film processed, have a photoCD made
or have someone scan your negatives for you. You can send
the images by email, post the web, and try a bit of editing.
Or if you're ready to go digital - then invest in a consumer
level digital camera such as the Canon Elph or the Nikon
2100. With the cost of processing, you don't have to take
very many pictures with the digital camera before the cost
of the camera is offset by the cost of processing your film.
Perhaps someday someone will develop a viable single use
digital camera. In our opinion, the Dakota Digital isn't
one. Compared to a disposable film camera, you end up
spending more money for photos that aren't as good, and
smaller digital files.
Please stop by our website ( www.hankinslawrenceimages.com )
for the online version of this article, which has photos of
the cameras in this comparison, and sample images from the
cameras.
------------------------
Patty Hankins & Bill Lawrence are the co-owners of Hankins-
Lawrence Images, LLC, a digital photography company based in
Maryland. HLI Photonotes, their monthly ezine, provides
information and tips for photographers. To subscribe email
hl_images@earthlink.net with subscribe in the subject or
visit www.hankinslawrenceimages.com.
More articles on HOBBY
Tips for Taking Better Photos of Holiday
Disposable Digital Cameras: The Worst of Both Worlds
Accessorize Your Digital Camera
217
|
|
|
|
