Cheap Digital Cameras
Cheap Digital Cameras
What if Lewis and Clark had had a digital camera? Imagine what their moblog would have looked like. I can just see the photos of Sacagawea’s baby, and the first shots of dawn breaking over the Continental Divide.
Alas, digital cameras (let alone inexpensive ones rugged enough to handle the rigors of their trip) wouldn’t emerge for nearly 200 years. But today, technological advances and market pressure have upended the high-cost world of digital photography, resulting in amazingly cheap digital cameras. Even free cell phones have built-in cameras, and standalone cameras start at well under $100.
But are they any good? I did some exploring of my own and discovered a range of cameras available for as little as $25. I picked up four low-cost digital cameras, to see if you really could get good photos for less.
I felt like Lewis and Clark as I unwrapped the cameras — I was traversing a vast uncharted prairie, populated by unfamiliar products from Digital Concepts, FlatFoto, and Gemini. Even the one brand I recognized — Concord — called for a mental adjustment: I’ve been underwhelmed by that company’s offerings, even denouncing its 5062AF as one of the ten worst products of 2004.
The sharpest-looking of the lot, the red, credit card-size FlatFoto from RadioShack, claims 3 megapixels, and even includes a 1.5-inch LCD screen — the only image display here. But for $80, the highest price in the test, the FlatFoto camera was disappointing. Its 16MB of internal memory hold a paltry seven pictures — expandable via the SD slot, but you’ll have to buy a separate card. The built-in flash was weak, and though rechargeable via USB, battery life was short.
I picked up the Concord 1500 at Target for 48 bucks. It delivers 1.3MP resolution and includes a puny built-in flash as well. Its 8MB of internal storage hold around 20 pictures, expandable via a built-in SD slot. It runs on double-A batteries — a plus when you’re stalking the wild cucumber — and even shoots short AVI movies. But if Lewis and Clark had outfitted their party with Concord products, they wouldn’t have made it beyond the outskirts of St. Louis. After shooting one set of photos and exhausting a set of batteries, the camera refused to come back to life. Even with fresh batteries, its tiny status screen would simply flash ON, and then OFF. What a waste.
The other two entrants, a $25 Digital Concepts camera from Fry’s, and a $30 Gemini Micro Slim model obtained from Walgreens, had few redeeming features. Each topped out at just 640-by-480, included a tiny LCD screen for status info only, and lacked even a dim flash. Both were made of cheap plastic, operated on disposable batteries, and lacked an expandable memory slot.
The proof of any camera, though, is in the snapshots. I sent indoor and outdoor shots from each camera to Snapfish to see if the photos would partially make up for the physical frailties. Sadly, that was not the case.
None of the 4-by-6 images were worth sharing. Even the slightest hand motion while snapping a picture resulted in noticeable blurring — both indoors and out. The color representation and detail were sorely lacking — even in images from the 3MP FlatFoto. Low-light performance was terrible, color streaking abundant, and pixelation rampant. I’ve seen better results from mobile phones.
Bad design, bad results, anemic storage, and flimsy construction were only a few of the deficiencies of these products. I cannot recommend a single one of these sub-$100 digital cameras, unless you need to placate a whiny toddler.
Searching for a cheap camera? Spend a little bit more and pick up the Canon PowerShot 510. At around $170, it’ll deliver much nicer images and last a lot longer than these ticky-tacky products.
For More about Cheap Digital Cameras Compare you can find, compare and buy your cheapest digital cameras here.
Cheap Digital Cameras / Author: Thavorn