To register for an Internet.com membership to receive newsletters and white papers, use the Register button ABOVE.
To participate in the message forums BELOW, click here
Any thoughts on the Camera quality? Granted it's only .3 mega pixel...but it seems the advertisements, it seems it much more enhanced than the pictures I've been able to take.
I am sure that they did something to make it look that nice. I have imported a few photos from other cameras with higher resolution and they look great on the palm. Maybe that is what they did? Any way, NO, I haven't gotten the same quality that they show in the ads, but I didn't expect to because I already knew the limitations of 0.3MP
Yeah, it is only a .3 megapixel, but the real question is 'So what?" The number of pixels is most important for determining how large you can blow up the picture before it pixilates too much for your needs.
(Note, this is the same thing as saying 'for how much detail it can capture', but obviously detail is less important in a small photo than in a large one!)
A .3Mp is fine for e-mail, wallet sized, and, depending on some other factors, up to about a 3x5 print.
Sure, if you intend to blow it up further, it will deteriorate, but 80% of ALL digital photos are used for short-term situations then discarded. 80% of the rest of them are used for web-related purposes of some sort.
Basically, if you are planning quick snaps of unique moments in your life- ANY camera is better than nothing, and a camera you have with you is far better than the one left at home because it was too awkward to carry around!
I totally agree. And what's even better about the camera is that it is easier to capture those candid shots because no-one expect to be having their photo taken by a PDA!
I have used the camera to take some pics at volleyball training, parties, around the office, etc... and it works great for those little embarrasing photos that you want to blackmail people with via email! :P
Cya,
Brett
Disclaimer: Author does not condone blackmail as a form of getting what you want...but it is a lot of fun!
I've found the built-in camera pretty good for the price/size. I'm an experienced digicam user. The quality when compared to self-standing digicams:
+ Its low-light performance is very good (see attached photo; it has been illuminated by a 40W standard (non-halogen) bulb from the righ-back; there were no other light sources in the room.
+ The chromatic aberration is very bad; this may be caused by the super-wide lens.
+ Shutter lag is average.
+ Auto white balance is pretty good.
+ Aperture control is painfully slow, much slower than even on low-end(ish) digicams (e.g. Nikon Coolpix 2000 or Canon A200).
+ Macro pics are of tolerable quality (see later examples)
Surely, don't except much from it (it has even worse pic quality than the Apitek digicams - they're known for being the worst digicams available). Still, it's good to have it always around.
A photo to show chromatic aberration and generic sharpness. Please note that it was taken on a rainy day. On a sunny one, chromatic aberration would have been even worse.
Another macro picture - back of an iPAQ. You can see that the Zire71's focus is fixed for portrait photoing - neither macro nor long-distance pictures will be pretty.
Camera - what is the quality?
Virgin label
Linear Mode
