Will this über-tiny digital camera work with Mac OSX?

[Chef Ramen]

http://www.thinkgeek.com/gadgets/electronic/5c79/


this may seem like a silly quesiton to some. this camera has a severe lack of features and a low resolution...but it measures 2.36" x 2.36." when was the last time you saw such a small camera?

i like the idea of being able to stick a camera in my pocket. are there any other small cameras like this that might be better?

[janey]

logitech has a 2 megapixel digital camera that's the size of a business card and is slightly thicker than two quarters i think...

[dotcomlarry]

I don't see why it wouldn't work with OS X...

[rundevilrun]

Check out the Canon S200, S230, & S400 cameras, they are a bit bigger at 3.4"x2.2"x1.1" but are full blown digital cameras and way way better. Of course a lot pricer too though.

[Mr. Anderson]

I hadn't ever seent that logitech camera - but its quite nice

http://www.logitech.com/index.cfm?page=products/details&CRID=4&CONTENTID=5038&countryid=19&languageid=1

at 1.3 megapixels not to shabby either.

D

[Chef Ramen]

that logitech camera looks great! their website claims that it is PC only but now that i think about it, theres no reason why any usb device like that couldnt be used with osx.

[rainman::|:|]

Originally posted by dukestreet
I hadn't ever seent that logitech camera - but its quite nice

http://www.logitech.com/index.cfm?page=products/details&CRID=4&CONTENTID=5038&countryid=19&languageid=1

at 1.3 megapixels not to shabby either.

D

very nice... i wonder if anyone's made one work with X yet? perhaps it recognizes it natively as a disk or something... if i can get it to work, i'm getting two ;)

pnw

[Glossybear]

http://electronics.cnet.com/electronics/0-6613935-1304-20435293.html?tag=pdtl-list

2MP and smaller than a pack of smokes. I've heard good things about it too.

[DreaminDirector]

I have the Sony DSC-U20 and it is really small! It's 2.0 M.P. and it rocks. It come with rechargable batteries too, which IMHO, rocks! I got mine at Fry's for little under 300 bucks.

For anyone who love to take pictures, I HIGHLY recommend it.

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by DreaminDirector
I have the Sony DSC-U20 and it is really small! It's 2.0 M.P. and it rocks. It come with rechargable batteries too, which IMHO, rocks! I got mine at Fry's for little under 300 bucks.

For anyone who love to take pictures, I HIGHLY recommend it.

The Canon S230 and S400 are very close the same size as this camera but are 3.2MP and 4.0MP respectively. Also because they take Compact Flash memory you can get cards up to 1GB for $200 instead of $450. Also the viewfinder is 1/2inch bigger at 1.5inches. They have an excellent CCD in them with very good color accuracy and the camera is fast. It will also allow you to shoot video at up to 640x480 for 30secs or 320x240 for 3 minutes.. 640x480 is higher resolution than any normal video camera and is even higher then a standard tv can display. Though you are stuck to 16FPS which seems to be fine except for fast movements.

The S230 can be had for under $350 and the S400 for under $450.

If you want to see the results from this camera check out my homepage.

http://homepage.mac.com/louiskst

[MacQuest]

Both of these are VERY light, small, full featured, and reasonably priced at $249 [2.0Mp - 8x10 prints] & $349 [3.2Mp - 11x14 prints].

No where near the $40 for the camera that you originally posted, but I hope you don't get what you pay for at that low a price.:( And on that note...Yuck. Just noticed the MONOCHROME LCD DISPLAY...


New Nikons

http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/70507/wo/Zy121P7kum5O3JcSZ1jtk0MInJ6/1.3.0.3.27.8.3.11.13.0

http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/70603/wo/Jy1tuvqw3isb2jeGVqse4R9qWgC/1.3.0.3.27.8.3.12.13.0

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by MacQuest
Both of these are VERY light, small, full featured, and reasonably priced at $249 [2.0Mp - 8x10 prints] & $349 [3.2Mp - 11x14 prints].

No where near the $40 for the camera that you originally posted, but I hope you don't get what you pay for at that low a price.:( And on that note...Yuck. Just noticed the MONOCHROME LCD DISPLAY...


New Nikons

http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/70507/wo/Zy121P7kum5O3JcSZ1jtk0MInJ6/1.3.0.3.27.8.3.11.13.0

http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/70603/wo/Jy1tuvqw3isb2jeGVqse4R9qWgC/1.3.0.3.27.8.3.12.13.0

Both of your links are dead.

I realize that printing is a subjective matter but my personal feelings is that a 3.2-4.0MP camera is the bare minimum for an 8x10 photo print. Anything less then that get's quite grainy.

[MacQuest]

Originally posted by MacBandit
Both of your links are dead.

DOH!! They were just links to the online Apple Store. From there, just select the "Cameras & Scanners" link then scroll down to the Nikons


Originally posted by MacBandit
I realize that printing is a subjective matter but my personal feelings is that a 3.2-4.0MP camera is the bare minimum for an 8x10 photo print.

That has always been my belief as well, and I've always passed along that same information to everyone.

However, Nikon itself and the site on the Apple Store both claim the following specs:

Nikon Coolpix 2100 Digital Camera - 2.0 Megapixel Digital Camera:

...2.0 effective megapixel CCD for high definition 1,600 x 1,200 images and incredible prints up to 8" x 10"...


Nikon Coolpix 3100 Digital Camera - 3.2 Megapixel Digital Camera:

...High-resolution 3.2 effective Megapixel CCD. Record images with a maximum resolution of 2,048 x 1,536 pixels for beautiful prints as large as 11" x 14"...


You are correct though MacBandit that printing is subjective, and I have yet to see the quality produced by these cameras for myself.

I hope that these specs are correct and truthful because this new line is REALLY nice and extremely compact IMO.

[makkystyle]

it all depends on the priniter. 3.2 can achieve photo quality at 11x14 but not on a consumer inkjet printer. You would need to have them professionally printed to truly achieve "photo quality".

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by makkystyle
it all depends on the priniter. 3.2 can achieve photo quality at 11x14 but not on a consumer inkjet printer. You would need to have them professionally printed to truly achieve "photo quality".

That is true but it's not the standard situation. Also it is not relatively cheap and also a 4.0MP or better will still turn out better prints on the hardware in reference at a comparable size.

I do know that my 3.2MP Canon S230 turns out fantastic 8x10s photo prints on my HP printer. Yes you can get better from a higher end camera but they are more then adequate and the differences are not noticeable if you are more then a foot or two away which is typically the minimun viewing distance for a picture hung on the wall.