Comments on: Faulty Business Model

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 13 Nov 2003 23:53:34 +0000

in case you hadn’t heard, you can crack the camera open, solder a connector into it and download the images onto your pc.

sucks for them. ;)

http://cexx.org/dakota/

By: Jonathan

Jonathan — Thu, 21 Aug 2003 13:16:59 +0000

I prefer the old-fashioned rangefinder interface because 1) it lets you focus precisely in dim light, 2) with manual focus the shutter operates instantaneously when you press the button (and the camera itself is always instantly ready for use), and 3) it’s discrete. However, the LCD window is obviously a great innovation that people are still learning how to exploit. Camera design seems to be evolving rapidly and manufacturers haven’t yet figured out which mix of old and new features works best. Precise focusing is of marginal value with current fixed-lens digicams that have tiny sensors and short focal-length lenses with great depth of field, but focusing may become more of an issue as larger sensors become cheaper. The old UI from mechanical cameras evolved over a long period and has many advantages in this regard.

By: Sylvain Galineau

Sylvain Galineau — Thu, 21 Aug 2003 10:47:02 +0000

Jonathan. It can do manual focus but, like many digital cameras, with the wrong interface : through dials instead of using the lens. The feature looks spectacular on the screen : a portion of the image is magnified and you scroll up and down a metric distance scale until the little PIP looks clear. Totally inefficient though; turning a lens dial is the right tool here.

I also wish I could change the lens. But once you want that, the price jumps by almost half.

For now, I am very happy with it.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 20 Aug 2003 05:40:18 +0000

Sorry Jonathan, my response wasn’t quite as reasoned and articulate as it could have been = ) Gut reaction sometimes leap out…

By: Jonathan

Jonathan — Tue, 19 Aug 2003 20:39:22 +0000

Jeff,

The CNBC guy was openly scornful of the concept. He pointed out that over the weekend he had used his conventional digicam to photograph his guests, then made multiple prints, all without having to go to a store and at higher quality and about 1/2 of the marginal cost per photo of the disposable.

Sylvain,

That is a very nice camera. I am holding out for something thinner, with a larger sensor, and if possible with manual focus. I think I may have to wait a few more years.

By: Kevin Brancato

Kevin Brancato — Tue, 19 Aug 2003 20:16:18 +0000

I agree that Ritz is poorly managed–a search for “Dakota Digital” on their website doesn’t return any information–but they’re not risking my money, so I say let them fail (or even perhaps succeed).

Also, I disagree with Jonathan’s overall assessment, and think that Ritz can make money off of this…

By: Jeff

Jeff — Tue, 19 Aug 2003 19:08:10 +0000

Great essay on Zapmail indeed. I’m using VOIP to call home from Russia through ICQphone. Sometimes the quality ain’t that great, but it gets the job done.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Tue, 19 Aug 2003 18:42:20 +0000

LOL, what a stupid f*@#ing idea… Who were the geniuses that VC’d their dumbasses…

Thanks for the good laugh Jonathan. Favorite quote: “Unfortunately, Pure Digital has managed to roll the most annoying aspects of digital and film photography into one simple product.”

On paper this has limited potential, but their execution really sucks… They should have waited until the preview/delete function was built in. Anyone who wanted to experience digital can also do it easier/cheaper through a friend’s camera or the local Bestbuys. I like also how they’re managing to piss off everyone on the photo food chain.

Another sign that they’re badly managed is that their address is in the heart of SF’s financial district. (I use to work down the street on 2nd and mission in fact) You’d think they could have picked a cheaper location…

By: Sylvain Galineau

Sylvain Galineau — Tue, 19 Aug 2003 18:27:27 +0000

I recently got an Olympus C-5050 and am very happy with it so far. Feature-rich, beautiful pictures, high-res and relatively affordable for this quality and level of performance.

By: Jonathan

Jonathan — Tue, 19 Aug 2003 14:43:01 +0000

I'm waiting for a digicam that has a big enough sensor to allow control of depth of field, but is pocketable and doesn't cost an arm and a leg -- IOW, the digital equivalent of this. The technology isn't there yet but I assume it's a matter of time.

By: Val

Val — Tue, 19 Aug 2003 14:22:53 +0000

I know little about digital photography, but if I can't have this or this, I can get by with this.