Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Disposable digital... what? why?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
June 12, 2005 9:27:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I've never seen a disposable digital camera, and here's what I don't
get about them; why are they disposable? With film, that's easy,
because you have a use-once film that needs processing, but what's
disposable about a digital camera, and why can't it be used again?

More about : disposable digital

Anonymous
June 12, 2005 9:39:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Disposable" digicams CAN be used again. They really are "rented" by
drugstore chains - to which you have to return the digicam to have the
photos in it downloaded onto a CD-ROM or printed.
They have been hacked, however - and instructions are all over the Web
for how to build cables for downloading them at home, so you can keep
reusing the same "disposable" digicam.

No $4 to park! No $6 admission!
http://stores.ebay.com/INTERNET-GUN-SHOW
Anonymous
June 12, 2005 11:30:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Jer wrote:
> Mike Henley wrote:
> > I've never seen a disposable digital camera, and here's what I don't
> > get about them; why are they disposable? With film, that's easy,
> > because you have a use-once film that needs processing, but what's
> > disposable about a digital camera, and why can't it be used again?
> >
>
> As other posters have intimated, the 'disposable' word is really a
> misnomer. Images are extracted, the camera body is refurbished, and put
> right back on the shelf. It's actually a spiffy idea because they don't
> end up pilluting a landfill as much as one that's really disposable.
>

What advantages do they have over disposable film cameras for the
consumer?

> --
> jer
> email reply - I am not a 'ten'
Related resources
June 12, 2005 12:40:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mike Henley wrote:
> I've never seen a disposable digital camera, and here's what I don't
> get about them; why are they disposable? With film, that's easy,
> because you have a use-once film that needs processing, but what's
> disposable about a digital camera, and why can't it be used again?
>

As other posters have intimated, the 'disposable' word is really a
misnomer. Images are extracted, the camera body is refurbished, and put
right back on the shelf. It's actually a spiffy idea because they don't
end up pilluting a landfill as much as one that's really disposable.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
Anonymous
June 12, 2005 1:00:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mike wrote:
>What advantages do they have over disposable film cameras for the
>consumer?

Images you can email, images you can edit, images you can put on the
Web...

Shop the http://stores.ebay.com/INTERNET-GUN-SHOW
June 12, 2005 1:00:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 12 Jun 2005 05:27:35 -0700, "Mike Henley" <casioculture@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>I've never seen a disposable digital camera, and here's what I don't
>get about them; why are they disposable? With film, that's easy,
>because you have a use-once film that needs processing, but what's
>disposable about a digital camera, and why can't it be used again?

It's called marketing (aka how to separate you from your money for no
good reason).

At first you couldn't use them again. They've long since been hacked
so that you can mod them and use them over.

Of course grandma still believes that you'll loose your hair or go
blind or something if you do stuff like that because you "aren't
supposed to do that". <grin>.


Drifter
"I've been here, I've been there..."
Anonymous
June 12, 2005 1:47:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

editor@netpath.net wrote:
> Mike wrote:
> >What advantages do they have over disposable film cameras for the
> >consumer?
>
> Images you can email, images you can edit, images you can put on the
> Web...

You can have your photos on a CD with disposable film cameras. Most
processing labs do that now.

I can't imagine the cheapo disposable digital cameras to approach the
quality of film, which is inherently cheap, though I've never tried
either disposable cameras.

>
> Shop the http://stores.ebay.com/INTERNET-GUN-SHOW
Anonymous
June 12, 2005 2:10:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mike wrote:
>You can have your photos on a CD with disposable film cameras. Most
>processing labs do that now.

Emphasize your phrase "processing labs!" That means costs a digicam
just doesn't have for the user - especially as even the non-disposable
low-end digicams keep sharply dropping in price. Digicam users never
see processing labs - or their costs.

Save on gas! Shop the http://stores.ebay.com/INTERNET-GUN-SHOW
Anonymous
June 12, 2005 6:51:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Jer" <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote in message
news:11aoeq7jm8imp74@corp.supernews.com...
> Mike Henley wrote:
>> I've never seen a disposable digital camera, and here's what I don't
>> get about them; why are they disposable? With film, that's easy,
>> because you have a use-once film that needs processing, but what's
>> disposable about a digital camera, and why can't it be used again?
>>
>
> As other posters have intimated, the 'disposable' word is really a
> misnomer. Images are extracted, the camera body is refurbished, and put
> right back on the shelf. It's actually a spiffy idea because they don't
> end up pilluting a landfill as much as one that's really disposable.
>
> --
> jer
> email reply - I am not a 'ten'

I wonder how decent the image quality of these things are. Disposable film
cameras can be pretty bad. 2 or even 1.3 megapixels from a good camera can
be better.
John
Anonymous
June 12, 2005 7:30:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mike Henley" <casioculture@gmail.com> writes:

> I've never seen a disposable digital camera, and here's what I don't
> get about them; why are they disposable? With film, that's easy,
> because you have a use-once film that needs processing, but what's
> disposable about a digital camera, and why can't it be used again?

They're sold as "single use" cameras in both case. In both cases,
they're refurbished and sent back out for another sale; they're not
actually disposable. I heard on NPR the other day that the company
that brought out the first digital single use camera expects to get 5
uses out of them before retiring each one.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Anonymous
June 12, 2005 7:57:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mike Henley wrote:
> I've never seen a disposable digital camera, and here's what I don't
> get about them; why are they disposable? With film, that's easy,
> because you have a use-once film that needs processing, but what's
> disposable about a digital camera, and why can't it be used again?
>

Good question. I rather suspect that they are 'recycled', rather then
'disposed'. Much like Kodak's original marketing plan.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
June 12, 2005 7:58:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mike Henley wrote:
>
> Jer wrote:
>
>>Mike Henley wrote:
>>
>>>I've never seen a disposable digital camera, and here's what I don't
>>>get about them; why are they disposable? With film, that's easy,
>>>because you have a use-once film that needs processing, but what's
>>>disposable about a digital camera, and why can't it be used again?
>>>
>>
>>As other posters have intimated, the 'disposable' word is really a
>>misnomer. Images are extracted, the camera body is refurbished, and put
>>right back on the shelf. It's actually a spiffy idea because they don't
>>end up pilluting a landfill as much as one that's really disposable.
>>
>
>
> What advantages do they have over disposable film cameras for the
> consumer?
>
>
>>--
>>jer
>>email reply - I am not a 'ten'
>
>
I can't see any.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
June 12, 2005 7:59:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mike Henley wrote:
>
> editor@netpath.net wrote:
>
>>Mike wrote:
>>
>>>What advantages do they have over disposable film cameras for the
>>>consumer?
>>
>> Images you can email, images you can edit, images you can put on the
>>Web...
>
>
> You can have your photos on a CD with disposable film cameras. Most
> processing labs do that now.
>
> I can't imagine the cheapo disposable digital cameras to approach the
> quality of film, which is inherently cheap, though I've never tried
> either disposable cameras.
>
>
>>Shop the http://stores.ebay.com/INTERNET-GUN-SHOW
>
>
From the pictures I have seen from disposables, they could hardly be WORSE.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
June 12, 2005 10:30:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

JohnR66 wrote:
> "Jer" <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote in message
> news:11aoeq7jm8imp74@corp.supernews.com...
>
>>Mike Henley wrote:
>>
>>>I've never seen a disposable digital camera, and here's what I don't
>>>get about them; why are they disposable? With film, that's easy,
>>>because you have a use-once film that needs processing, but what's
>>>disposable about a digital camera, and why can't it be used again?
>>>
>>
>>As other posters have intimated, the 'disposable' word is really a
>>misnomer. Images are extracted, the camera body is refurbished, and put
>>right back on the shelf. It's actually a spiffy idea because they don't
>>end up pilluting a landfill as much as one that's really disposable.
>>
>>--
>>jer
>>email reply - I am not a 'ten'
>
>
> I wonder how decent the image quality of these things are. Disposable film
> cameras can be pretty bad. 2 or even 1.3 megapixels from a good camera can
> be better.
> John
>
>


The only time I've been witness to a 'disposable' result was after I was
witness to a car wreck. Not having my own camera with me, I ducked into
the corner Stop n' Rob to grab one for capturing the evidence. Quality?
Don't go there. Sufficient for that purpose? You bet. By the time
the cops arrived, one car had been moved, and one insurance agent was
glad to know where the car had been. And since I never had access to
the processed images (film prints), court was a no-brainer.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
June 13, 2005 3:51:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"JohnR66" <nospam@att.net> wrote in
news:zZXqe.940486$w62.625642@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:

> "Jer" <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote in message
> news:11aoeq7jm8imp74@corp.supernews.com...
>> Mike Henley wrote:
>>> I've never seen a disposable digital camera, and here's what I don't
>>> get about them; why are they disposable? With film, that's easy,
>>> because you have a use-once film that needs processing, but what's
>>> disposable about a digital camera, and why can't it be used again?
>>>
>>
>> As other posters have intimated, the 'disposable' word is really a
>> misnomer. Images are extracted, the camera body is refurbished, and
>> put right back on the shelf. It's actually a spiffy idea because
>> they don't end up pilluting a landfill as much as one that's really
>> disposable.
>>
> I wonder how decent the image quality of these things are. Disposable
> film cameras can be pretty bad. 2 or even 1.3 megapixels from a good
> camera can be better.
> John

I have never heard of these one-use digital cameras before, but it occurs
to me that this can be easily done. A 2MPix or even 3MPix sensor can be
made very cheaply. A camera with no zoom and no LCD could be manufactured
for stuff all. If the camera has no external connectors at all and a
couple of security measures to make it difficult to open without a special
tool (and possibly impossible to close again without replacing some cheap
lugs designed to break when the camera is opened). Maybe power the camera
by a coin battery inside it (wouldn't take much power with no LCD).

Simply take the price of a disposable film camera, add the price of
processing - charge that for the use of the cheap digital or twice that for
the use of the cheap digital that has enough memory to take 2 rolls worth
of pictures. It could be done so cheaply that buy the time the camera has
been leased out a couple of times, it has already paid for itself.

Once film is not needed for cheap disposable cameras then digital can
completely rule the world *evil insane laugh*.


--
Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz (last updated 3-May-05)
"There are 10 types of people, those that
understand binary and those that don't"
Anonymous
June 13, 2005 3:51:59 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 23:51:58 GMT, MarkH wrote:

> I have never heard of these one-use digital cameras before, but it occurs
> to me that this can be easily done. A 2MPix or even 3MPix sensor can be
> made very cheaply. A camera with no zoom and no LCD could be
> manufactured for stuff all.

The first time I saw disposable digital cameras hanging on a rack
(very recently), there were two versions. One had only a
viewfinder, and for a little more money, the other included an LCD
display.
Anonymous
June 13, 2005 4:20:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ron Hunter wrote:
> Mike Henley wrote:
>
>> I've never seen a disposable digital camera, and here's what I don't
>> get about them; why are they disposable? With film, that's easy,
>> because you have a use-once film that needs processing, but what's
>> disposable about a digital camera, and why can't it be used again?
>>
>

The only dis/dig icam I've seen promoted its ability to review and
dispose of unwanted photos, thus saving space for better shots. Since
the average photographer gets only a small percentage of "keepers" from
a roll of film, this would be a big advantage.

Dis/dig icam also feeds the mind with skeptical ideas about
"disposability" vs. "rentability". My own skepticism saw it as an scheme
to keep the consumer buying something on a regular basis, whether they
need it or not. Who of us (more than 12 yrs of age) doesn't have boxes
of photos and negatives acquired over years of feeding Kodak, Fuji, etc?
And how many of those photos are really worth saving?

On a recent trip to Cairo I took 500 photos with my digicam...as well as
a few video clips of my granddaughter :-) How much would I have spent on
processing those had I used my SLR film camera? How much have I spent
burning them onto CD's, emailing them, and sharing them with relatives
via the internet and even via snail mail?

'Disposable? Digital? Does that mean I can be digicool too, Uncle Geek?
And it's only 20 bucks?' ...And thus we get another lemming feeding the
gravy train of the dig/dis icam maker.

BTW, I wonder if Kodak or other film manufacturer has a hand in these?


--
****************Ken Browne*********************
clacking the keys in olde Sturbridge village, MA
*** ***


send moneySUBLIMINALsend moneyTAGLINEsend money
!