|
The Bad Cameras
Well, all is not roses in the garden of
digital photography. For every great camera that hits the market, there lemons, too.
We have finally reached the stage of
digital camera development this year, where nearly all of the newer models that
hit store shelves today are at least "ok" in terms of image
quality. Some will still be better than others, and some will have more
features than others, but overall, it's rare that you see a big name maker
cranking out a new model that could be called "junk", so this page
will probably be the least updated one on the site - unless someone brings a
really horrible camera to my attention (which you can do so, by emailing
me).
Regardless, on sites such as Ebay, Yahoo
Auctions, and similar sites, there are still tons of "junk" cameras
being sold. These are usually older 1st or 2nd generation models, or off
brand models which sell for very little money. Below are my bad camera
choices - most of them are no longer on retail store shelves, but are on the
auction and clearance sites. Still, it was worth making a page to warn
folks about them, so here they are...
|
DISCLAIMER |
| These reviews are based on my own personal opinions and
experience with these models of camera. The intent is not to tell
you "do not buy this camera", but it is to share information
that you may not find on the manufacturer's web sites or boxes for these
items. While I do not want to say that some makers deliberately make
false advertisements about their cameras, some simply do not stand up to
certain claims or suggestions, and the point of this page is to bring
these to your attention. Some of these models in some stores or
auctions can be had for very deep discounts, and may find a place for your
use at a good price. |
Canon Powershot G7
Normally, Canon is at the top when it
comes to making higher quality cameras, but no one is perfect and in the case of
the G7, they really pooped out a dud.
The G7 is a high-end consumer model that
offers 10 megapixels in resolution. The problem is, the sensor chip inside
is of the small consumer camera size, so, when you cram 10 million pixels onto a
chip that small, you get one big problem - noise (grain). They boast that
the camera can go up to iso 1600 for no flash low light photography, but you'd
be hard pressed to even tell the iso 1600 shots are even actual photographs and
not paintings they're so bad. Standard shots at low iso settings in good
light are fine overall, but highlights (sunny spots) are blown out more than
they should. It's a shame that for a camera that costs nearly $500.00 (!)
that you're limited like this. They also removed the swivel LCD screen
that was on earlier models - to us, taking features OFF of a camera is a big
time nono.
So while it's built well, has image
stabilization, and can take good shots in good lighting if you know what you're
doing, the overall noise issues and missing swivel LCD lead up to a
disappointing (and expensive) upgrade from previous models. Certainly not
the worst camera in the world, but if you're going to spend this much money,
spend just a few dollars more (literally) and get a digital SLR with MUCH better
image quality.
Sony Cybershot "DSC-M1"
Well, the award for "strangest"
camera goes to the new Sony Cybershot DSC-M1. This camera looks
much more like some of the newer flip-open type of cell phones than it does a
camera. It's actually about the same size and shape of many phones when
it's closed as well. Swivel the top half to the side, and you expose the
camera buttons and controls, while the 2.5" swivel LCD remains on the top
half.
Within the tiny body is a 3X optical zoom
lens, 5 megapixels of resolution, 640 x 480 movie mode, and enough features to
make you THINK you want it. But I had the chance to hold one and try it
out for a short time and I have to agree with most of the other reviews I've
seen on the internet in that this gizmo is so incredibly awkward to handle and
use, that I personally feel it does not justify the $499.00 asking price. There
simply is not a good way to grip it and take a photo. A good one for
gadget loving kids in say oh, ten years, when the price is $150 on Ebay.
For now? Nah.
"Che-ez Foxz2" Pocket Cam
Read the Review on this dud, by clicking HERE.
---------------------------------------------
Minolta Z1. "Oops".
The Minolta Z1 is hitting stores now for the 2003 holiday
season, and I had to wrestle with where to rank it. The evil in me came
out however, and I just HAD to put it on the bad camera page.
At first the camera seems to have SO much going for it. It
gives a respectable 3 megapixel image, has a super powerful flash (works up to
20 feet!), and has a huge honkin' 10X optical zoom lens to boot. Want
movies? It'll crank out 640x480 pixel sized movies at a fast 30 frames per
second, too! On top of it, it's a fast camera, taking photos with very
little shutter lag. So why is it here? Two words - "build
quality".
I took this camera out for a brief spin from a friend's camera
shop recently, and at times honestly thought I was holding a child's toy made
from very cheap plastic. The casing had a couple of gaps where area of the
camera are placed together, there was a clunking sound coming from the lens
assembly where it was not as tight as it could be within the camera, and the
buttons on the back felt again, like something from a child's toy. Very
plasticy and flimsy. Minolta also has incorporated a system in this unit
where an actual mirror is used, to redirect images from the color LCD into the
optical viewfinder when it's too bright to see the LCD that well. Sounds
interesting, as it yields a nice, bright image in the viewfinder. Alas, we
all know how things get banged and bumped around - who wants to place bets on
how long a moving mirror will last inside a plastic digital camera before it
gives out?
Minolta has recently merged with Konica. They are
beginning to have have, produced some incredibly nice digital cameras. This is
actually the first Minolta I really would personally give a thumbs-down to, but
I'm afraid I must. It's such a shame that so many wonderful features would
be placed into a camera, only to give it a body that feels so cheesy. Now,
should you find it on sale, and buy an EXTENDED WARRANTY with it, you may be
happy, and when parts of it just die, you can use that warranty to have it
repaired. For myself, I would look at Minolta's other offerings.
Sorry Minolta.
-------------------------------------------------
The "Spy Pen" Invasion
| The biggest maker of this "Spy Pen" type of
digital camera is a company named Aiptek. However, this is being sold with other
names stamped on it such as "Videoman", "Videopen",
"Spy pen", and many others. It's a multi-function device,
and can be used to take still photos, short video clips, and can be used
as a web cam. They all look the same however, and with the
exception of some having a little more storage capacity than others, they
are the same camera. This would actually not be a bad camera for a
very young child, but it is advertised by many as something that
"will replace your film camera" and "is great to take on
vacations, family get-togethers, and business meetings". The
highest true resolution of this "camera" is 352 pixels - about
half of today's cameras lowest resolution of 640 pixels. The tiny
pinhole-sized lens produces extremely grainy photos which exhibit a
swirling distortion around the image's edges. There is of course, no
flash or LCD. As a matter of fact, unless you have tons of sunlight
coming through a window, the Pen Cam refuses to take indoor photos
altogether. "Videos" are simply a series of still photos
stitched together and played back rapidly through software, also showing
this distortion around the edges. A newer version "Pencam
Plus" and "Pencam VGA" just produce larger grainy photos
with distortions. Woo hoo. I don't fault these sellers for the
product, as it does indeed take digital "images", but I might be
hard pressed to call them "photographs". My opinion would be
better if the advertising for them didn't lead you to think this could
replace your film cameras... for shame. Wanna see an example photo?
Just look below. Click the thumbnail for it's full size version, and
click "Back" on your brower to come back here. |
|
In case you can't figure it out... 
..this is a tree. So much for quality! |
Kodak - "Oops, They Did It
Again"
| The Kodak EZ-200 three-in-one device is very
similar to the Intel Pocket camera that I list on the "good
cameras" page, as a good camera for kids. Kodak told me that
they came out with their model first, and Intel says they did. Well,
that's corporate for you. I really hate to pick anything that Intel
makes over someone else, but in this case, I must. The EZ-200 as a
640 x 480 pixel digital camera, well, stinks; even for kids, it's a
disappointment. I luckily found one of these on a clearance table
for $40 (compared with it's usual $80-$110 price tag), so snagged
one. My neighbor's kid (12 years old) laughed at the photo quality,
so I know I wasn't being too picky. Photos understandably lack a bit
of detail for this price range and quality of "camera", but
they're a bit TOO much lacking in detail. Images all appear to be taken
with an out of focus camera, they lack color, and on bright days, light
from the sky causes a strange fog effect (via the lens no doubt) in the
center of photos. The software that included to download your photos
via the supplied USB cable from the camera to the computer, is also very
"buggy", and took a good while to get to work - and even then,
not as it should have. A new user would have been lost for days
trying to figure it out. The web cam feature works just a bit
better, but colors are still muted, and those who I spoke to in a video
chat room said I had "a pretty poor quality image" on their
end. This camera also allows you to take several 10 second
"video" clips, but they're simply small 160 pixel sized clips
with such poor clarity you hardly know what you're looking at. While
the Intel cam isn't much better than this one, the photos were slightly
better, and the software worked correctly - so Intel gets on the good
page, and the EZ-200 by Kodak gets the raspberry.
:-P The small thumbnail just below was taken of our town
square. Clicking it will show you the 640 x 480 image that
illustrates what I talked about regarding the fog effect, lack of clarity,
etc. |
|
|
I/O Magic - Magic, Or A Curse?
| The I/O Magic "Magic Image 500" digital camera is for the
most part, off of store shelves now. It is however, being hocked
online and on Ebay quite a bit, as is it's lower resolution "model 420"
cousin. The same camera is sold under different names as well, but
if you look closely at the photo on the box above, they will all look the
same. Prices go from $89 to $189. This camera's resolution is
approx. 1024 x 768 pixels, and poor quality ones at that. "Jaggies"
are very visible in the photos, as are areas in photos that are completely
washed out in sunlight. Customer service was the worse I had ever
experienced with any company, with reps being rude, and hold times
exceeding 45 minutes. There is no zoom, LCD, or a good flash
with this camera, as the existing flash washes out anything within range
just about. Again, this might have made it to the child's category
of cameras, had they been nicer to deal with, and if their booklet didn't
read that this camera, "had features professional photographers
demand". Woah boy. Save your dough on this dud unless you
can find it at a clearance price, for the kids. The
sample below is not an expandable thumbnail, but shows you the gorgeous
flash on this thing (yes, I'm being sarcastic). |
|
Uh... easy on the flash, folks! Yikes! |
Agfa's "ePhoto Smile" - More
Like A Frown
| The Agfa ePhoto Smile has been in stores for
some time now, and even though it's finally beginning to die a slow death
on shelves, it can still be found in some retail centers, as well as on
Ebay and other online sites for as high as $60. While very small and
cute with it's metallic blue body, the photo quality from this camera is
absolutely horrible. This is yet another example of something that
is not what it claims to be. It is a very low quality, very low
resolution 320 pixel camera that uses software to fake a higher resolution
of 640 x 480, and does a very poor job of it, as well. Photos lack
detail, color, and are very grainy. Auctioners will sometimes bill
it as a "great for web photos" camera, and this too, is
false. While I sometimes will say that cameras in this "bad
camera" category might be ok for young children, I wouldn't even give
this one to Rosemary's baby (just an opinion, do what you wish, of course). I had played with this some time ago
and left it out of my latest page updates, but after getting an email from
reader "Holter", I've decided to put it back in, along with the
sample image just below he sent with his email... ewwwwww. |
|
Yeah, it's a car (I think). Hmmm, well, the camera
does produce nice photos that look like tapestry, we could say. Not
something you make portraits of, I'm afraid.
|
Living On Reputation Rather Than Quality?
| The Hewlett Packard "Photosmart 215 and 315"
models of cameras are perhaps good examples of a company living more on it's
reputation, rather than quality of a product. This happens quite a
bit actually; a company with a good reputation for the most part, cranks
out a really mediocre product at best, but squeaks it by on store shelves
anyway. Model 215 is a 1.3 megapixel camera that puts
out 1280 by 960 images. There is an LCD and
flash for your $129, but no lens cap or way to protect the lens; and
here's the best part, the camera will not work correctly with rechargeable
batteries, making your over-time use cost rise since you must rely only on
disposable AAs at all times if you wish the battery indicator to give
correct readings as to how much power the camera has left. While H.P.
told me that NiMh batteries "should" work in this model, I've
heard from and read far too many complaints from users who say they do
not. Two of the camera's control buttons on the back are in the
exact spot where your thumb should be able to rest while holding the
camera, making picture taking awkward, as well. I suppose for under $200 you really
shouldn't expect a lot, but still, there are better cameras available for
just slightly more. If you find it at a clearance price under $100,
then it might make an ok starter camera for that price. The Photosmart
model 315 does add a lens cover and boasts
an auto focus lens and 2.1 megapixel image sizes, but it's photos lack critical
detail when viewed at full size... to me, photos of greenery almost look like a
pastel painting rather than an actual photograph. I've read many
users saying that it too, has problems with NiMh rechargeable batteries
and seems to work better with disposables. If
the 315 were $110, I'd say it would be an ok camera for the kiddies, but
for the $179 - $299 charged these days, you can probably do better these days for the same price. Many catalogs and stores
will feature one or both of these cameras as "the best selling
digital camera in the U.S.". Well, that was based on Christmas
sales for one year, and again, it was purchases based on company name
rather than camera reputation. I've had a couple of camera store
folks tell me these are the #1 and #2 returned cameras to them in the $150
to $400 price range, and I've known a couple of folks who have trotted
down to the stores to return their own models after buying them.
There are much worse cameras out there (like the models reviewed above
these) so I'm not "trashing" H.P. cameras. As a matter of
fact, their higher end cameras seem to do pretty well. I just
think they fell far short of the competition on these two. That says enough, I think. |
Olympus Lays an Egg, and "It 'aint A
Golden One"
| Anyone who has spoken to me knows that overall, Olympus is
one of my favorite brands of digital cameras. Still, everyone makes
a boo boo at some point, and the Olympus D-370 is the
Olympus boo boo. Fearing the ever growing number of digital camera
makers cranking out cheaper models, Olympus came out with the D-370 as a
scaled-down camera for the masses, at a cheap price of $169 to $199 or even a bit
less in some markets. On the plus side, it's cheap, it's small, and
offers a new type of circuit that allows it to take many dozens of photos
with simply 2 AA batteries, unlike most cameras which drain batteries like
crazy. Sounds good so far, until you note the FIXED focus lens,
which in my testing of a store model, cranked out unacceptably soft photos
that lacked detail and vibrant color. I have also received a couple
of emails from D-370 owners who were unhappy with this particular
model. Most Olympus cameras offer auto focus lenses which produce
much more detailed images (see the "basics"
page and "gallery" page for more
details on auto and fixed focus differences). This is certainly not
the worst camera in the world, and is better than the H.P. and other
models listed above - but for only a few dollar more, you could get the
Olympus Brio 100 (on the good camera page) or something much better.
Olympus overall makes great digital cameras, but it's a mistake for them
to "dumb themselves down" by cranking out an egg like the D-370. |
Casio-oh oh no!
| The Casio QV4000 was one of the first 4
megapixel cameras to hit the consumer market not terribly long ago.
A few chain outlets carry it, including Wal-mart. Casio's
models 3000 and 3500 were very nice 3 megapixel cameras that sold well, so
when the 4000 came out, many figured it could only be a step up in image
quality, right? Wrong! Casio decided in this model to include
a very strong "anti-noise" feature, that is supposed to reduce
noise in the photos (see "noise" on The
Basics page). The problem is, you cannot turn this anti-noise
feature OFF. As a result, you do get less noise, but you also get
less detail in the photos. In my tests, 8x10 prints from this camera
contained less detail than a 3 megapixel camera's print (Sony S75).
There were visible artifacts and distortions on the print, and detailed
areas looked "muddled". Note
** I'm placing this camera on the
"bad" page because it does not live up to it's claims, and does
not qualify as a "good 4 megapixel camera" to me. However,
if you absolutely do NOT need 8x10 prints, but only need good online
images, and prints no larger than 5x7, then you may wish to consider this
camera - why? As of this writing, it was found at some Wal-marts for
as little as $389.00; in the package, you get the camera, a set of 4 NiMh
rechargeable batteries and a charger (worth $60 on their own), as well as
a 32 meg memory card (most cameras only give you an 8 or 16 meg
card). So for the PRICE, you're getting a lot... a
camera with tons of options, manual controls, 3X zoom, ability to add
filters (via an optional filter adapter), batteries, a charger, and larger
memory card. For $389 it's a good deal! You simply
however, cannot get great larger prints from the QV4000, and that's the
point of having a 4 megapixel camera, hence, the reason it's on the bad
page. So if you can find it at that price, and again, do not need
larger prints from it, snag it up. If it's larger prints you want,
look elsewhere, as the QV4000 doesn't quite live up to it's expectations. |
Small Cam - Small Quality Photos
(The "Pocket Digital" from Logitech)
| Much hype has gone into the small size of the new Logitech
"Pocket Digital" camera in recent months since it was
announced. It's as small, and nearly as thin, as a credit card, and
while it uses a CMOS chip to take images (the same as in cheap web cams)
instead of a CCD (which most digital cameras use), image quality was
"suppose" to be enhanced in-camera. Well, from several
emails I've received from people just getting their cameras in, the hype
was just that. Two folks in particular, "Pat" and
"Brian" have sent me various sample images from their Pocket
Digitals and well, there's a bit to be desired. Basically,
it's a 640x480 pixel web cam type of camera that interpolates images to a
larger 1.3 megapixel size. I will say this up front however, that in
VERY good light (as in outdoors or a room completely full of windows) the
images were not all that horrible, and could be used easily for web/email
purposes. However, indoors, and in lower light, they really
stink. Obviously with no flash, you're very limited, but even in
medium light situations, the images I saw were pretty bad. The
camera does come with a small rechargeable battery that users tell me does
last a very long time per charge, and again, it's VERY small. It
could be considered a neat "toy". If this were $49.00, I'd say it would be an
ok deal for what you get, but for $100.00 store price (average), you can
add a few dollars and get a Fuji A101 or other bigger named starter cameras, which
offer much better
image quality. Just below are some samples sent in by "Pat and
Brian". Click the thumbnails to see a larger image. I'm tossing
in one good outdoor shot, along with two "typical" indoor shots.
 |
H.P. C912 - A Real Expensive Headache?
| The H.P. "C912" has been out
for well over a year, but is still sold in stores as H.P's
"flagship" camera. Originally being up to $1,000.00 or
more in some stores, it is now found for clearance sales as low as
$349.00. Seems like a deal. Though only 2 megapixels, it
handles much like a traditional 35mm film camera. Nice and solid,
good grip, and a twisting lens barrel used to control the 3X zoom.
However, like most H.P. cameras I've tried, it just doesn't make the grade
as far as quality images go. None of the photos I took with this
camera were "Razor sharp", though it boasts having a quality
Pentax lens. Much less expensive Olympus and Sony cameras I've used
produced sharper images. There was also an odd purplish haze on
several of the photos in varioud lighting conditions outdoors - most
likely caused by light leaking in the the optical viewfinder, and via
mirrors finding it's way to the imager. The LCD swivels for varied
viewing angles, but in outdoor lighting, is virtually useless as there is
seemingly no anti-glare coating on it. Boo. It's a shame,
really. Nice look. Nice feel. Nice overall features, but
somewhat soft images and a light issue causing purple haze on images to
boot? Sorry... D-. Summer school time! |
The short list you just saw was unfortunately
by no means a list of all of the cameras that you may want to "think
twice before
you buy". They
are however, the ones I've had a chance to use or test, and felt I just had to
warn folks about. The key rule here is of course, that you should research
reviews from various sources about any specific camera you may be considering
for purchase. I'll throw some more review links your way on the next
page.
If you've had a particular cruddy experience
with a camera that is more like junk, you can 
me and tell me about it. It helps to include as much information as you
can, and to attach a sample photo. If enough info and a good sample photo
is included, it may wind up on this page to share with others. Photos must
be in the .jpg format with no other attachments or additions to the image, or it
will be blocked by varied virus and firewall filters. You should enter
"camera review" in your subject line when sending.
[ On to some sample photos on the
"Gallery" page ]
[ Back to the top of this page ]
|
If
you're a return visitor, make sure and click on your browser's
"Refresh" button on each page to make sure you have the newest version
of this page loaded.
