DId anybody buy the CL50 yet ? Any feedback ?

-- Giamma Clerici (digital@giamma.com), March 30, 1999

Answers

No answer here, because I'm wondering the same thing. I've narrowed it down to my either the AGFA 1680, AGFA CL50... which one would YOU choose?

-- Xeulas (xeulas@geocities.com), May 15, 1999.

My 2 cents:

The Agfa's looked interesting to me last fall, I nearly bought a 1280 mostly for the 3X zoom and the price, but bought a Toshiba PDR-M1 instead. I'm not down on them, but I think you should research them fully before you buy one. There are a few things I'd give serious thought to before buying one: Some reviews (of the 1280) noted that they really ate batteries(this may have been alkalines, not NiMH's - I don't recall.) A few reviews said the zooms were clunky, and the main reason I skipped them was that they claim higher resolution than they are capable of capturing, by using an interpolation program to generate the extra pixels. These shortcomings may have been fixed before the 1680 came out. I'd take a serious look at some of the other cameras that actually capture more pixels before I bought one, or get a good look at some sample pics by other owners, although Dave said he found the the 1600x1200 interpolated pictures taken with the 1680 to be very good in his review.

I'm just saying, "don't be swayed by the 1600x1200 pixel resolution claimed through interpolation, when there are a number of cameras on the market capable of actually capturing images at that resolution."

-- Gerald M. Payne (gmp@francorp.francomm.com), May 16, 1999.

Thanks for taking the time to answer. AGFA -SWEARS- they do not use "interpolation" but another scheme of their own design. As an exremely amateur photographer (I'm creating website panoramas), I wonder if the 1680 is now "old" technology and I would be better off with the CL50... though it lacks "swivel" (not sure if that really matters in day to day use). Other than that... not sure how they compare when it comes down to the final proof, the picture itself.

Personally, I thought 90% of the outdoor photos (using the imaging resources COMPARATOR) SUCKED. To my sight, the winners were the 1680 and the Toshiba PDR that you mention (though on CNET, they say the opposite... but what do THEY know about cameras anyway?). Coolpix was a close second.

I'd love to see a picture from, and get feedback on, the CL50! I'm ready to buy a camera, ASAP!

-- Xeulas (xeulas@geocities.com), May 16, 1999.

Well, they may not use a "simple" form of interpolation, but it's hard to concieve of any mathematical construct that doesn't at least resemble interpolation that allows you to create more pixels. No matter how sophisticated the algorithm(s) is(are), I can't see how it can be better than actually capturing more detail. I can see the advantages of carefully enhancing edges and smoothing curves by adding in/or modifying pixels with interpolated color values, but have to think that you could do the same with a raw image with a higher pixel count and get a superior result.

I wish the Photogenie app. was sold separately or that someone who had it would try enhancing pictures captured on a lower res. mode by a 1600x1200 res. camera and then compare them to a raw 1600x1200 image from the same camera or at least a raw 1600x1200 that had been tweaked the conventional way for brightness, contrast, etc. That would be *very* interesting!

You'd think Agfa would be selling this marvelous technology as an enhancement for us older 1.3Megapixel owners, unless there is also some difference in the 1280 mode images the Agfa models capture? Maybe a particular form of jpeg compression is needed to get the optimum results? Truthfully, since I first saw the PhotoGenie info, I've been left with nothing but question marks...

-- Gerald M. Payne (gmp@francorp.francomm.com), May 16, 1999.