SeanTech

Kodak’s New Camera Tech

Kodak held a swank event at the Top of the Rock club in Rockefeller Center yesterday to show off a bunch of new products and technologies. The new technologies are described in an article I wrote for Wired News.

But I want to say more about one item, the new 6.1-megapixel EasyShare V610 (pictured above). It’s a swank-looking cam with a few very interesting features. One, it continues the two-lens concept begun with the V570. Using two sets of lenses and sensors (it hands off half-way through zooming) it provides a 10X zoom: 38mm-380mm in 35 millimeter equivalent. These photos taken from atop Rockefeller Center illustrate the awesome zoom power. (Click for larger pics.)

The only competitor I know of is the new Panasonic TZ1, which has a single 10X zoom lens group that makes it a lot fatter: 1.5 inches with the lens retracted vs. a little over an inch for the Kodak. And the Kodak’s lenses don’t protrude: It remains just as skinny no matter how much you zoom. One odd thing, though, is the handoff from one set of lenses to the other. As you told down the zoom rocker, the lens seems to stop mid-way. You must then release and press it again to get it to shift over to the other lenses. But the image onscreen is never interrupted. Pretty slick!

Another cool thing on the V610 is Bluetooth. It’s Kodak’s first cam with the short-range wireless capability and maybe the first cam with it. (I’m not sure.) You can use it to send photos to a PC or printer that is Bluetooth enabled. Though I’m not sure how helpful this is. If you do it in lieu of using a USB cable, OK, I see the convenience. But I think it’s pretty easy to just pop out the SD memory card and slip it into a card reader on a PC or printer. (Many of both items now have card slots built in -- and certainly more than have Bluetooth built in).

A nice thing, though, is that you can also use it to send photos to a Bluetooth-enabled phone. From there, you can upload photos to the Web. But beware the caveats: Most phones can only accept tiny, thumbnail-size pics via Bluetooth, so the V610 gives you upload options: QVGA (for most phones), XGA (for 4x6 prints and the phones that accept them), or full-res (6.1MP) for the very few phones that don’t limit he size of photo uploads. A Kodak rep told me that a few Nokia phones can accept full-res pictures over Bluetooth.

Whatever phone you have, you’re out of luck if it’s from Verizon, since they cripple Bluetooth and won’t allow any uploads. (Yet another reason why I chose not to sign up with Verizon.)

But how do the photos look? Fine for small display, but don’t go ordering giant prints from Kodak Easy Share Gallery (nee oFoto). We’re talking lots of pixel noise here, even with the flash turned on. For a somewhat cruel comparison, click on the images to the left comparing the Kodak (left) and the very high-performing Panasonic TZ1. (Top one is in auto mode with flash; bottom is ISO 800, without flash. Click for larger pics.)

I think there is some justice in this, since the TZ1 is the only other 10X zoom compact model out there. (In addition to having less noise, the Panasonic also has optical image stabilization to provide crisper shots in low light.)

One really cool thing about the V610, though is the awesome macro capabilities. I shot this $20 bill from about 3 inches away. (Click for full-res.)

Would I buy the V610. Eh, no. But then, I’m an image snob. It’s definitely suitable for little online photos. And packing all the zoom into such a slim model is pretty darn cool.

Technology Hall of Fame

Another article that fell victim to the demise of Cargo magazine would have been their first annual Hall of Fame for great tech products. I wrote half of it, and here are the entries. I have spent time with these products, and they are all quite great.

Media Player: Apple iPod

So many people rave about the iPod, you have to wonder if they are just lemmings following the Apple marketing machine. But we say the praise is justified.

Not only is the current iPod a fantastically sleek, sonorous music player, it has also launched the portable video revolution. The new, wider LCD screen is impressively crisp and colorful -- making even a miniature video fully engrossing. And only Steve Jobs had a reality forcefieled strong enough to draw Hollywood into the portable download business.

Unfortunately, the included white earbuds don't match the new glossy black models. (See. We can be critical.)

30GB $299
60GB $399
www.apple.com/ipod

MP3 Sound System: Klipsch iFi

iPods aren't just for commuting. Many companies (including Apple) make boom-box style speakers with an iPod dock to boost the player's sound beyond headphone quality. But Klipsch went all out, building a full-on stereo system with enough big, clear sound to fill the room.

The iFi's dual-driver satellite speakers deliver buttery, distortion-free audio for any genre from acoustic to noise pop. (To get the most of this system, feed it high-quality MP3 or AAC tunes ripped at a data rate of 192kbps or higher.) The system performed equally well with the throbbing, ominous soundtrack from a Battlestar Galactica episode downloaded from the iTunes store. And despite its imposing dimensions, the subwoofer generates subtle, measured rumble that doesn’t overpower the finer notes.

Still, the iFi could do more. Treble control is a conspicuous omission. And while the tiny RF remote is cute, it's rather Spartan with just play/pause, forward, back, and volume controls. How about iPod menu navigation?

$399.99
www.klipsch.com

[Note: Including this item was my editors' idea. While this is a great product for what it does, I'm dubious about the need to spend so much money on an iPod speaker set. Better put that money toward a good audio system and plug the iPod into one of the audio inputs, or buy an AirPort Express for wireless streaming.]

Cell Phone: Motorola Razr V3c from Verizon

Motorola redefined cell phones with the Razr -- transforming them from necessities to objects of desire (for a wider audience than just uebergeeks). And unlike other fashion phones, the Razr actually works well --delivering solid audio quality for such a slim model.

But Verizon helped the Razr reach its full potential, with the upgrade from VGA to a one-megapixel camera, plus a needed software overhaul. (Now you can assign more than one phone number to each name in your address book.)

It also liberated the Razr from the GSM phone system -- which is painfully slow in the US --and brought it to Verizon's zippy EV-DO data network, making fast Web browsing and streaming video possible.

$199.99 with one-year contract
$149.99 with two-year contract
www.verizonwireless.com

Beginner Digital SLR: Nikon D50

Moving up from a point-and-shoot to an SLR doesn't just make you look cooler, it makes the photos better, too. SLR's have comparatively gargantuan image sensors that produce crisper, cleaner images. And because they take interchangeable lenses, SLRs can keep pace as your skills grow.

Canon and Nikon offer superb entry-level models, but Nikon's D50 wins out. At $760 (with an 18-55 millimeter zoom lens), it beats Canon's $999 Digital Rebel XT on price. And because it takes SD memory cards, which you may have lying around from your point and shoots, the Nikon could save you even more. The D50 is also easier to operate, with its bigger handgrip, more-intuitive menu and button layout, and larger LCD screen.

$760
www.nikonusa.com

Music Networking: Sonos Digital Music System

Music comes from nearly everywhere today: computers, CDs, iPods, Internet radio. And Sonos pulls it all together elegantly.

Similar to other music streamers like the Apple AirPort Express or Slim Devices Squeezebox, the Sonos ZonePlayers use wireless networking to bring music from your computer to other parts of the home. But Sonos goes far beyond the competition in both where it gets music and where it sends it. Using a special wireless network, Sonos can accommodate up to 32 zone players, spread around even the largest of homes. Any player can grab not only digital music from PCs and Macs, network hard drives, Internet radio stations, and Rhapsody's streaming music service, but also analog input from devices like iPods and CD players. A single remote -- with an iPod-esq scroll wheel and menu system -- lets you browse and cue up music from any source, then send it wirelessly to any or all ZonePlayers around the house. You can play different tunes on every device, or link any or all of them together to play in perfect synchronicity, without any echo or delay.

The new, $349 ZP80 players connect to self-powered audio systems, such a stereo or home theater. The ZP100 units ($499) include amps and require only basic, unpowered speakers (like a $179 pair by Sonos).

$349 for ZP80
$499 for ZP100
$399 for Controller CR100
$999 for Controller and two ZP80s
$1199 for Controller and two ZP100s
www.sonos.com

Technology Standard: The SD Card

You shouldn't have to care about memory card formats; and Secure Digital makes that possible. In the year 2000, Panasonic, Toshiba, and SanDisk introduced the SD format to a world of flash-memory anarchy and aggressively promoted it as a standard that today is endorsed by over 800 technology companies and accounts for about 50 percent of all memory cards. Resisting its archrivals Panasonic and Toshiba, Sony persists with the Memory Stick format. And camera makers Fujifilm and Olympus push the obscure xD card. But products from most other companies -- ranging from cameras to PDAs to laptops to televisions -- feature SD slots. Some portables even support SDIO, which powers SD-sized devices including GPS receivers or Wi-Fi radios. The memory format also scales down to miniSD and microSD for ultrathin cell phones.

www.sdcard.org

Budget Camera Picks

More leftovers from the would-have-been-great photography feature for the late Cargo magazine.

One of the many categories I was evaluating was budget cameras. I got through 4 new models before it all ended: The 4-megapixel Canon PowerShot A430 (about $160, street price) and Nikon CoolPix L4 ($130) and the 5-megapixel HP Photosmart M425 ($150) and Olympus FE-115 ($140).

For various reasons, I was unimpressed with the Canon and the Olympus. And for various other reasons, I'm quite fond of both the HP and the Nikon.

I have to admit, though, that my heart goes to the Nikon L4. This is the first truly attractive budget camera I have seen. It's quite slim for a model in this class - especially considering that it has to hold two AA batteries. And it looks so darn cute. Plus it fits quite nicely in the hand, or in a pants pocket. The latter is out of the question with the bloated Canon and Olympus models. That in itself is a huge strike against the Canon and Olympus. You can't take any good photos with a camera if its clunkiness causes you to leave it at home. Another nasty thing about he Canon: It gorges on batteries. I got through perhaps two-dozen shots before the included AAs were drained. Yikes!

Also in the Nikon L4's favor: It is the only one of the cameras with a respectable LCD. It's 2-inch screen, though not huge, looks like a plasma TV compared to the 1.8-incher on the Canon and the 1.5-inch LCDs on the HP and Olympus cameras. The little screen on the back of the camera is probably the most important place for displaying photos -- more important than prints or even online galleries. I am yet to see someone (myself included) who doesn’t regularly hold up the camera and show friends the image onscreen right after taking a shot. With a 2-inch LCD, viewers can at least get a decent idea of what you have photographed.

The Nikon is also pretty good on image quality. I found it quite capable for both indoor and outdoor shots. Here are some samples. (Click small image for a larger popup.)

The Canon and Olympus were about as good under bright light, but had trouble when things got dim. As with all point-and-shoot Canons, the A430 produced fine colors under flash and abundant natural light but stumbled in low-light situations, where images were marred by excessive pixel noise.

The Olympus produced pleasant images with flash but suffered a complete meltdown in low light - in which everything turned Pepto Bismal pink. See below for comparison images from the Olympus (left) and the Canon -- each shot without flash. (Click small image for a larger popup.)

The Nikon image got a little pink without flash (though less so than the Olympus's), and the HP performs amazingly well - with very accurate color and minimal pixel noise. (Remember, this is essentially a torture test -- so I don't expect any of the photos to come out looking beautiful.)

Oddly, the HP fairs rather poorly with flash -- having more trouble with colors than when it shot without flash. For details, see this comparison of shots from the Nikon (left), which shot about as well as the Canon and Olympus, vs. an image from the HP, which appears rather dreary.

Since people are more likely to shoot with flash than without, and since they are more likely to carry a camera that is compact and has a large LCD, I feel the Nikon is the best pick here.

But I want to say a few more nice things about the HP. First, like the Canon, it has a full complement of controls -- including light sensitivity (ISO), white balance, and exposure compensation. The Nikon and the Olympus both omit sensitivity, and the Olympus even fails to include white balance. The HP also has a handy Design Gallery menu, which lets you do basic photo tweaks -- including removing redeye, rotating images, and adjusting colors right in the camera -- without a PC. Also, the HP is faster at processing photos, allowing you to shoot more pictures in a row than the Nikon can. And the extra megapixel could come in handy for making largish prints (say 8.5 by 11 inches or larger).

So there is no clear winner between the HP and the Nikon -- each has strengths and glaring weaknesses. But given the Nikon's better performance under flash and far nicer physical design (plus it's ultra-low price), I'm inclined to name it the best of this bunch.

Cellular - Why I just signed up with Sprint

Note to self: It's the economy, stupid.

I have been agonizing about phone choices for months - even turning my personal foibles into a NY Times article and several online posts.

But finally, I made a decision -- I ended up renewing with the same company I had before: Sprint. Now a lot of things about Sprint annoy me -- especially the fact that one MUST sign up for a 2-year plan. But on balance, I find Sprint the best deal. Here's why:

I want high-speed data possibilities -- on my phone, on a laptop card, or on both. That immediately eliminates the GSM carriers T-Mobile and Cingular -- which are lagging on introducing so called "3G" high-speed data services. So, the choices are down to the two companies with EV-DO data rates: Sprint and Verizon.

(If none of these acronyms make any sense to you, just get T-Mobile. They are really cheap and make you sign only a 1-year contract. Plus, they rated quite high in Consumer Reports latest national survey.)

Sprint vs. Verizon was a tough choice. I was leaning heavily towards Verizon because, some day, they will have a very slim smart phone called the Motorola Q. But no one seems to know when someday will be. The phone has been delayed for months, and we keep hearing about more delays. Then I ask myself: If the Q ever arrives, how trouble-free can I expect a device that has had so many development glitches to be?

On the Sprint side, I'm waiting anxiously for the Palm Treo 700p. It's bulkier than the mythical Q, but it runs the Palm operating system, which I like far better than Microsoft Windows on the Q. The Treo is also delayed, but I have more faith in a company (Palm) that has been making this same basic phone for years than a company that is pretty new to the business (Motorola).

Plus, Sprint's running a great deal right now. In a blast from the cellular past -- nights (i.e. unlimited calling) start at 7PM, as they should. At Verizon, it's still 9PM. And dollar for dollar, Sprint is cheaper, anyway: for $59.99, I get 900 minutes with Verizon vs. 1000 with Sprint (plus the additional 2400 minutes because nights start at 7PM instead of 9PM). Yes, I know, Verizon has "In," giving me free calls to Verizon customers. But I can do the same thing with Sprint customers for just $5 extra per month.

So that's my choice, and I'm sticking with it -- at least for the duration of a 2-year contract.

Sony's Almost-perfect Slim Cam

A few weeks ago I gave my first impressions of Sony's new W50 pocket camera, based on using it for a few minutes at the PMA show. Well, I have now spent a week with it. In most ways, it's as good as I had initially suspected. But in one way, it fails quite conspicuously.

First the good. And the goodest of the good is how clean the photos come out. Sony has found, I believe, the ideal level of sharpening for a snapshot camera. Details are very distinct, without noticeable artifacts. And pixel noise is very low. Even blue skies - a very tricky subject mater -- look fairly smooth, not speckly.

Check these examples by clicking the thumbnail to reveal a larger image (Sony on left, Canon on right):

Color is also quite pleasing. I saw no difference in quality between the colors from the W50 and from Canon's new PowerShot sd600. While the PowerShot line has considerable problems with pixel noise, it is the gold standard for color. And Sony has now met that standard in the W50.

Check these examples from an indoor still life shot with flash by clicking the thumbnail to reveal a larger image (Sony on left, Canon on right):

Sony also matches Canon -- to an uncanny extent -- in design. The W50 is nearly the exact same dimensions as the sd600. They also share rugged metal construction and nearly identical shutter and zoom controls. I could criticize Sony for being a copycat. But fact is, the Canon design is simply superb. So I give Sony credit for recognizing the fact.

The W50 also has some great features that the Canon lacks. One is higher light sensitivity: up to ISO 1000, vs. Canon's ISO 800. The actual specs don't matter, but the end result does. Under the same conditions, the Sony produces images with smooth or virtually smooth surfaces, while the Canon's are mottled with pixel noise.

Check these close-ups of photos shot at ISO 400 by clicking the thumbnail to reveal a larger image (Sony on left, Canon on right):

Sony also, as always, includes the ability to adjust flash intensity-- a huge omission on Canon's PowerShot series cameras -- which live up to their name by blasting most subjects with far too much ugly white light.

So what's the catch? You're going to need the flash, because the Sony performs abysmally in low-light settings. The problem is not pixel noise as with the Canon, but rather color distortion that cause images to turn horribly pinkish - like washing your white T-shirts together with a red towel. Going pink is not an uncommon problem with digital cameras. But as such, it's one that Sony should have remedied before releasing this machine. Sadly, the color shift negates one of the W50's best features - the ability to shoot in low light with minimal pixel noise. Yes, the images come out clean, but the wrong color.

For a glaring example, click the thumbnail image below. Those tiles are supposed to be gray.

The W50 is far from useless. It produces lovely images in daylight or with its flash. But it lacks the ability to capture the true color of indoor settings. It's a better camera than the sd600 and most other slim cams, but still not as good as Sony should be able to do.