After reading about the Pilips KEY010 "wearable" digital cameara in a few places, I decided to get one. My experience is pretty much on par with the Engadget review:
This little camera doesn’t have an LCD screen or a flash, and the pictures aren’t that great compared to full featured digital cameras., but that’s not the point of this camera. The Philips Wearable Digital Camera is all about having a tiny instant-on digital camera that’s always with you and is always ready for some quick shots.
However, Nelson got one and is very unhappy about the image quality. In his review, he says:
I bought this after reading a review on Engadget. The gadget factor is good: USB interface, simple UI. But the photo quality is just useless.
He also points at the Digital Home review of the camera too, which is fairly negative.
I've only had mine since Friday, but I've managed to snap a few pictures with it. Here a are a few of the better ones:
I'm reasonably happy with it, due in large part to the low expectations I had going into this. For a camera that small, I expected pictures worse than a camera phone. Instead, I'm getting decent (not good, but decent) pictures at 1600x1200 from a device I can wear around my neck with a battery I never have to change.
I'm trying to upload everything I shoot on purpose to my Flickr photstream (which has an RSS feed).
I bought the 128MB version from Amazon.com for about $124 (using super saver shipping and the A9 discount).
Posted by jzawodn at October 09, 2004 06:34 PM
I have the older 64MB VGA version. The photos are pretty horrible unless the lighting conditions are ideal, but it's still a fun camera to have around to take quick pictures of stuff where you don't care about the quality.
But I can't wait to throw it away once I get my Treo 650...
What does this get you that a camera phone doesn't? Not criticizing, just trying to understand, other than the ease of uploading onto a PC. Is that the thing?
It gives me larger and better pictures than *my* camera phone does. My camera phone is 640x480 but this device is 1600x1200. And it has 128MB of RAM so I can store lots of pics or use it as a USB "drive" if I want.
I like it. the colors are a bit off which gives them a bit of Lomo quality.
I think I'd rather just have a cell phone with a digital camera. Not much difference in image quality. And you can moblog and other stuff.
I wouldn't recommend a camera without a flash to anybody. My Treo 600 doesn't have a flash, and although it takes decent pictures, it typically takes a while for it to adjust to lighting and take a decent picture. I also have one of those VGA flash-less junk cameras that ThinkGeek use to pimp out. I think it was a Sipix Blink or something like that. The thing is tiny, but takes pictures that are total junk. I wound up using it as a webcam, but it seemed to overheat after more than 10 minutes use. So yeah, I would just get a camera phone that has a flash built in if you really wanted a tiny portable camera (ie one that is already in a device you carry around).
help? mine wont take pictures. i just bought it the other day, charged it, but the power light wont even turn on. =[
I have this Wearable Digital Camera with 64MB, I realy love this but unfortunately it was not working anymore because I put it in my Jacket pocket and my wife put this in washing machine and Dryer. How can I have this one again. Please somebody help me I'm here now in Kuwait.
Please e-mail me I you have still a stock here in Kuwait.
Thanks God Bless you all
This is amazing. But we can see the result for a while.
But it can be use for small trip at somewhere where we must take a good scenery or moment at that time.
I like to try it. Not too expensive. It's rational price i thought.
This is not type of sport and action camera and for people want to show off their action instantly due to no LCD screen.
For me this is more for "hidden cam".