Disposable Digital Cameras

[Legacy Posts]

Hey, heads up. Soon you won't have to buy a $300 digital camera to take pictures of your beloved fiberglass trailer to post on www.fiberglassrv.com.

Kodak has announced it's single-use disposable digital camera .... here's the announcement:
----------------------------

(March 2, 2003) — Consumers will be able to enjoy the convenience of a single-use camera and the flexibility of digital imaging with one of Eastman Kodak Co.’s newest ideas.

Kodak today will introduce ‘’Kodak Plus Digital,’’ a program that delivers pictures both on photographic paper and CD-ROM for one price upfront.

That price, probably between $10 and $12, will pay for the single-use camera and the costs to copy images to and produce the Picture CD. Consumers will also have to pay the regular fee to develop their film and print pictures.

The idea behind Kodak Plus Digital is to attract consumers into the burgeoning world of digital imaging while still allowing them to retain their tried and true photographic habits, said Dan Palumbo, president of the company’s digital imaging division.

The new program is one of a slew of new products being introduced today in Las Vegas, site of the Photo Marketing Association International trade show, the industry’s largest annual convention. An estimated 25,000 industry professionals are expected to attend the show, which runs through Wednesday.

Kodak Plus Digital also reflects the push by Kodak to offer consumers more photographic choices than just a roll of film and an envelope of pictures. Palumbo likens the idea to the ‘’value meal’’ now common on fast-food restaurant menus.

’’The goal is to give the mass consumer who likes the 35mm experience the benefits of digital,’’ Palumbo said.

[Legacy Posts]

My question is, "Why?" I have two digital cameras - a cheapy, and a good Canon. There are several advantages to a digital camera, but the major one I've found (and that is different between my two cameras), is that a good camera has an LCD display where you can preview your pictures, and retake them if needed, so you never get home only to find that the most memorable pictures didn't turn out.

The other major advantage of digital is that the original purchase is really the only expense. No more film or processing to pay, and you only have the printing costs for those pictures that you really want to print (which, in my experience, is about 1-2% of the pictures I take). The Kodak approach still nails you with the processing costs, and printing for throw-away pictures.

It really doesn't even work well as a "get your feet wet" approach, since it doesn't fairly represent the advantages of digital photography.

I think there will be a niche market, for people who need a picture or two for a specific purpose, or for a birthday party, but I doubt they'll find broad appeal. At $12.00 plus $12.00 processing, it wouldn't take long to pay for a halfway decent digital camera.

[Legacy Posts]

You buy one or 2 as you need em! You can get an el cheapo 48 dollar reusable one wich work great for outside sunny day Pictures.
The True value in the kodak will be if it takes a good picture indoors or out. BTW have you checked out prices on just getting your flim on disc 12 bucks is not that far out of line . Walmart wanted 20 at Christmass but that was for next (2day) day service.
Just looked it is a still a flim camera. with free pictures on disc when you order premire printing service .

[Legacy Posts]

Orginally posted by Al V
BTW have you checked out prices on just getting your flim on disc 12 bucks is not that far out of line .

Hmmm...:r It costs me about 35 cents to put my digital picts on disk (the cost of a blank CD):)

[Legacy Posts]

35 cents to process a roll of film and transfer to a disc. you wont last long in business.

[Legacy Posts]

Orginally posted by Al V
35 cents to process a roll of film and transfer to a disc. you wont last long in business.

Well Al, I don't have to process anything as I use a digital camera and I'm not in business to do it for others. I'm talking about disks that I make for myself and my friends. Didn't know that made me a 'wise guy' though.:m

[Legacy Posts]

My pet peeve with the digital cameras, though, is the shutter delay. It's okay if you're photographing an inanimate object, but forget about wildlife... I don't expect these disposables would even come close to being acceptable in that department.

I know, I know. I'm being too critical. I'm sure they have their niche. I'm just not their target ''audience.''

:r

[Legacy Posts]

Orginally posted by Mary F


My pet peeve with the digital cameras, though, is the [b]shutter delay. It's okay if you're photographing an inanimate object, but forget about wildlife... I don't expect these disposables would even come close to being acceptable in that department.

I know, I know. I'm being too critical. I'm sure they have their niche. I'm just not their target ''audience.''

:r

Mary F,

This photo shows what one can do with a decent digital camera when photographing wildlife (if hummingbirds count).

<img src=http://www.fiberglassrv.com/board/uploads/3ecb520c9ce26dracula.jpg/>

I call this one Dracula. :)

[Legacy Posts]

Orginally posted by Mary F


My pet peeve with the digital cameras, though, is the [b]shutter delay. It's okay if you're photographing an inanimate object, but forget about wildlife... I don't expect these disposables would even come close to being acceptable in that department.

I know, I know. I'm being too critical. I'm sure they have their niche. I'm just not their target ''audience.''

:r

The [b]shutter delay is actually focusing delay. My camera has a two step button. The first step focuses, the second step snaps the shutter.

In the photo above, I focused on the feeder then snapped the shutter when a hummingbird appeared in the frame. Sometimes I missed, sometimes serendipity ruled and I got a great shot. I [b]wasted a lot of digital film, but my memory card holds over two-hundred 1600x1200 photos.

Try it, you'll like it. :wub

[Legacy Posts]

Another example of wildlife; Mountain Bighorn.

<img src=http://www.fiberglassrv.com/board/uploads/3ecb559165928ram sized.jpg/>

[Legacy Posts]

I wonder about the resolution of these digital cameras. You may be better off using the regular Kodak Max disposable and paying the extra 5 dollars for a CD as well as prints. The Max cameras do a very good job.

[Legacy Posts]

My digital camera is a 2.1 megapixel. At the high quality setting I get perfect clear as a bell 8x10 photos. Usually about 130 pics on the 64 mg card. I never need to use the Super High quality setting as I can't print bigger anyways but if needed the SHQ pictures could be printed larger at a photo shop.

I can edit my photos and print only those that are good and I can get rid of red-eye, glowing eyes of pets, pimples, etc and I know instantly if the picture is good or if I need to retake.

Mary
Morgan is right about the shutter delay actually being a focus delay. All our 35mm and the digital have it. Press half way to focus, then all the way to take the picture. Our digital is as quick or quicker to focus and shot than any of the 35's (we have 4 35's). I actually had to return 2 Canon 35's because after focusing it took forever for it to snap the picture. Thought the first one was just a fluke, but the second was just as slow.

Our digital is now considered low end in resolution but is all anyone really needs for normal photography. Priced now at around $199. Cdn they are about equal in price to a decent 35mm.

Since getting the digital we haven't taken one 35mm picture. Even the kids prefer the digital. We find with the digital we take far more pictures and end up with many more good ones than the 35. And the best by far is the price. Free to view on the computer or TV.

Nancy

[Legacy Posts]

Morgan, I think the key word is ''decent.'' (Here's an interesting read.)

I do know the difference in focus delay and shutter delay, I think...

My camera's not high end. I just got it so I could play with it and learn more about digitals in general, knowing that we don't need high resolution to post pics on the website.

I was very happy with it until I tried to photograph musicians at the New Orleans Jazz Festival last month... Serendipity's the only reason I got anything at all... it was frustrating.

I was just betting a disposable digital wouldn't have a decent shutter either. Of course I'll admit I could be wrong about that...

:sunny

[Legacy Posts]

Like Nancy D's, mine is 2.1 Mpixels and it cost about US$250 three years ago. Fuji no longer makes this model, but all the Fuji Finepix are fine cameras.

My last born bought one recently with 3 Mpixels and a 6X lens (mine is 3X). Guess I'll have to upgrade; keep up with the offspring, eh? :r

I'll probably keep the 2400Zoom until it breaks, dang!

I didn't mean to disparage your camera, Mary F, I read your post to mean you didn't even want to try one. :wave

[Legacy Posts]

Odds are the single-use digital will be fixed focus, so delay won't be an issue. But, that severely compromises the quality of the pic. You won't duplicate that hummingbird pic on a fixed-focus camera. It will most likely also be 640x480 resolution -- fine for viewing on a PC or TV, or for posting to the web, but too low for good prints.

I also use a 2.1mp camera (Canon S10) and love it. I, too, get great 8x10s, but rarely print more than a 5x7. I found that we rarely took pictures with our 35mm cameras, because we didn't have film on hand, or didn't have the money to buy film at the time, or whatever. Film and processing is EXPENSIVE. With the digital, we "blow" pics right and left, and are creating a much more complete "memory album". I'm thrilled with it. Plus, my memory card holds the equivalent of 8-10 rolls of 35mm film!

[Legacy Posts]

Around the turn of the century a company called Eastman Kodak had an idea: They provided a single use 'box' camera and film for free. All the customer had to do was pay to have it processed.

Hmmm.... (March 2, 2003) — Consumers will be able to enjoy the convenience of a single-use camera and the flexibility of digital imaging with one of Eastman Kodak Co.’s newest ideas.

Sorry Kodak but you're full of it!:o

There are many fine digital and 35mm products to choose from today. Cost is the only limiting factor.

Image capturing as a hobby, art or a profession is wonderful and we shouldn't allow ourselves to get side tracked by marketing.

[Legacy Posts]

I meant the 20th century! ....my oh my, how time flies.

[Legacy Posts]

Originally posted by Morgan Bulger

I didn't mean to disparage your camera, Mary F

Aw, heck, Morgan. I don't care if you disparage my camera (although I am worried that you didn't think I knew the difference between focus and shutter delay)!

I probably did sound like a big ol' party pooper. I'm sure the disposable digitals will be just the thing for some situations...

The good thing is, my whining got you to post one of your (fabulous) hummer pics again!

I always really liked those pics... :wub

[Legacy Posts]

I worked on a Centennial of the Snapshot exhibition in 1988. It commemorated the introduction of the first KODAK camera, which came already loaded with a roll of film.

After exposure, the entire camera was mailed to Eastman Co., for processing. A new roll of film was loaded into the camera and the whole kit & kaboodle was returned to the (amateur) photographer. $25 for 100 exposures (according to the George Eastman House website).

Not a single use camera, but I agree with you, Mike: if it's their ''newest'' idea, they haven't come up with much in 115 years!! :laugh