Lidl Digital Camera (4 Megapixels) €129

embraer170

http://www.lidl.ie/ie/index.nsf/pages/c.o.oow.20031211.p.CAM

Probably not too great quality but seems good for the price.

Digital camera with video clip function!
Max. resolution: 4 Megapixel
PC Camera
CMOS Sensor 3 Megapixel
Internal memory: 32MB SD RAM
External memory: Compact Flash
1.5 TFT LCD Monitor
4x digital zoom with Auto focus lense
Distance 10cm to endless
With integrated microphone
Auto flash, flash On/Off and red-eye reduction
Automatic exposure and automatic white balance with various settings: sunny, cloudy, artificial lights, dark surroundings, classic style, b/w, self-timer 10 seconds
Camera switches off automatically if not used after 1 minute
Connection: USB 1.1 TV Out (NTSC and PAL)
Power supply: 2 x AA batteries
Compatible systems Win 98SE/2000/ME/XP

embraer170

I now realise the paper advertisement claims it is a 3 Megapixel camera.

carbsy

At a guess I'd say 3 Megapixels is it's optical resolution (CMOS) and it prob achieve's 4 by software interpopulation.

carb.

[nicK]

Lidl Digital Camera (4 Megapixels) €129

..thinking of getting this as a present for someone... i don't know much about digital camera standards, but i do know 3/4megapixels is pretty good for 130euro. is there anything dodgy about this camera? good buy?

Gibs

This post might be out of date by now (-busy week), but I got one of these cameras and they are well worth the money - extremely easy to use and full of good features. They are not for anyone wanting a top of the range product, but if you want to get into digital photography then this is an ideal place to start. Good software bundle is also included and you can do video clips.

embraer170

I bought one and find the quality to be totally abysmal. Inferior to this webcam which can also be used as a traditional digicam which I bought 18 months ago.

skipn_easy

I bought the last camera they had on offer and have found it absolutely great. Its not fantastic quality but as reasonably cheap camera which takes adequate pictures its great. The video feature and timer feature that it has are handy too.

embraer170

Could anyone upload a sample picture?

Surely I must be doing something wrong/there is a problem with my camera?

ando

I dont know what 4megapixels means, but when you download it to your machine, whats the resolution of the pic? 800*600?

also, the video feature, does it record sounds?

skipn_easy

Don't know about the new one but the older version (from June) doesn't do sound.

You can see two samples here:
http://www.matrix.netsoc.tcd.ie/~abedford/London1/IMG_0010.jpg
http://www.matrix.netsoc.tcd.ie/~abedford/CCs/muireann%20and%20lorraine.jpg

RicardoSmith

Originally posted by ando
I dont know what 4megapixels means, but when you download it to your machine, whats the resolution of the pic? 800*600?

also, the video feature, does it record sounds?

It would be over 2000x2000 pixels I don't know the exact figure. The big draw back on these cameras is the lense and the CCD which create the image aren't great. A cheap 35mm camera would be light years better in terms of quality. In the long run you'd be better buying a better 2mp camera than a poor quality 3mp or 4mp one. All the extra mp give you is a bigger poor quality picture.

Gibs

Could anyone upload a sample picture?

embraer, I think a sample pic would be too big to attach here (about 910K). I will try to send one to you as an attachment in an email if you pm me with your email address.

You may either have higher expectations than me (I'm not a photography buff), a dud camera, or maybe you have your resolution set too low. (The manual explains how to change this). The photos I've taken seem to be good (in terms of technical stuff like pixel resolution, not artistic merit!!).

I dont know what 4megapixels means, but when you download it to your machine, whats the resolution of the pic? 800*600?

Resolution is the same on your computer as on the camera (max is 2272x1704 = 3.87 MP).
(AFAIK).

It does record sound but the sound quality is not great (more a document of what happened than a dolby version). All the same, I think its the price that is most attractive to me at least.

Also, I am happy to be corrected on this but my understanding is that higher pixel res means better quality pix rather than just bigger pix? Doesn't a 4meg pic have more information per square cm?

peckerhead

Technically that's right, but what Ricardo said earlier also holds true. It doesn't matter how many megapixels the image file stores if the image itself is delivered through a crappy quality lens system. Not saying this Aiptek camera is crap, in fact looking at the spec I'd say it was a pretty good deal for €129. But if you want a reasonable quality digital camera for under €200 you're probably better off ordering — online, or better still through a friend in the States, if that's an option... —from a manafacturer with some kind of track record in producing good quality cameras. Personally I find Fuji pretty competitive compared to Kodak/Sony, etc.

Bear in mind that if you go digital you're likely to be saving mucho € on an ongoing basis, simply by not having to pay D&P for every 24 exp. roll just to get the avge 3-4 'good' shots. I have a (Fuji!) digicam for snapshots but still use my good ol' (Canon) SLR 35mm system if I want real quality enlargements...

peckerhead

RicardoSmith

Its not giving you better quality, but its giving you the same picture but using more pixels. So it allows you to print a bigger picture, say A4 or A3 with out the image becoming pixelated. Where you can see the individual pixels that make up the picture. So you have to ask. Do you print many A4/A3 photos?

Image quality is determined by the electronics the CCD (the bit that converts from an image to digital data) and the quality of the lense of the camera.

Generally cameras that can capture more pixels were the more expensive models so the rest of the camera was also better quality. But now they are selling cameras that can capture more pixels with poor quality lenses and electronics, since these are the expensive bits. So it sounds great but in fact usually isn't.

RicardoSmith

I bought a cheapo 3mp camera myself. It can take a decent picture but you need to fiddle with all the settings and have a few attempts before you get a decent picture from it. Whereas with a decent 2mp camera I can be pretty sure that the first one I took is going to be ok. Now I know you can delete the rubbish ones, but that doesn't help if the moment you wanted to capture is gone.

I might take a few digital shots for snaps but if its something I want a really good picture then I'll use a standard 35mm automatic, or my 35mm SLR aswell.

I have seen the results of a quite a few digital camera from a 99 3mp one to a 5mp profession SLR and the difference is huge.

Gibs

Thanks for the explanation ricardo. I have duly updated my bluffer's guide to photography.....

RicardoSmith

I guess at the end of the day if you are happy with the pictures then it doesn't really matter. I'm kinda fussy about my pictures so I've put off buying a digital camera myself till I can get one that is as good as my 35mm automatic. They are getting close now. I've been fortunate to be able to borrow a few cameras to play with them and see how good they are. My experience so far is that its harder to get a decent photo with a digital than with a normal camera. Theres a lot of lag with the shutter speeds and lots of people get a lot of blurred photos. A lot of them don't enable redeye by default and as the flash is so close to the lense you see a lot of red eye in people photos. Finally the flash cheaper cameras is very harsh and you see a lot of poorly lit photos aswell.

I think its worth people doing an evening course on basic photography. In the long run they will get a lot of value out of it even if all they take is snapshots.