RealPIX point-and-shoot aims at realtors, fails to impress

Ah, there's nothing like an over-hyped pile of steaming rubbish, and that's precisely what you'll get if you somehow pull the trigger on the forthcoming RealPIX digicam. The fixed-lens P&S sports an utter lack of beneficial features, but boasts about its "awe-inspiring" 22-millimeter f2.0 lens, "full 90-degree field of view," built-in flash, USB recharging ability, and the laughable 640 x 480 maximum resolution. Furthermore, you won't be seeing any flash card slots, rear LCD monitor, or video mode on this sucka, as the ginormous red button atop this dreadfully designed camera supposedly makes it all worthwhile. The most unbelievable aspect, however, isn't the complete absence of niceties we'd expect on even a low-end shooter, but the expectation that "real estate professionals" will actually drop $299 on this pimped out disposable. Good luck closing on this one.

[Via Wired]

[Tom @ Apr 12th 2007 10:22AM]

This camera sounds like a good idea for a realtor. What do they need to do: take pictures inside in low light and post them on the web - f2.0 @ 22mm is pretty uncommon in a P&S. Flash looks like a decent size too.

[Andy @ Apr 13th 2007 12:47PM]

It doesn't matter, the 640x480 resolution is crappy enough that an f/4 lens on a normal P&S of, say, 6 MP at 2 stops higher ISO, will yield a much more detailed picture even after extensive noise reduction.

[Eric @ Apr 12th 2007 10:35AM]

A decent wide angle lens will often cost twice as much as this PoS and will often cost more than the camera that it's attached to. Though the utter lack of features makes this a hard price to swallow.

[McGinley @ Apr 12th 2007 10:38AM]

I just died a little inside...

[ScOObyDoo @ Apr 12th 2007 10:49AM]

Given the current quality of most realtor photos on real estate websites I'm convinced that this thing is perfect for them.

Most realtors couldn't take a decent photo if their lives depended on it.

I actually think that RealPIX may be onto something.

[Ryan Smith @ Apr 12th 2007 11:11AM]

I've noticed many times Engadget likes to post reactions to news without an understanding of the facts, or really thinking about it first. (Of course I still read them every day) I don't know real estate needs in general. But you can tell this camera has an unusual flash system, and as mentioned a very wide angle f2.0 lens. It's likely specially desgined to light up a home interior room evenly, and a normal cheap camera flash will not do this. You can't compare a camera designed to a special purpose to general consumer products. The Engadget poster could really hurt this company, without even understanding why.

[Ryan Smith @ Apr 12th 2007 11:16AM]

Whoops, OK the original stupidity comes from Wired, Engadget was just repeating it. This so ticks me off, a $10 Walgreen's special! These people have no idea what they are talking about. Come on Engadget, do better.

[Cupajo @ Apr 12th 2007 11:16AM]

"Ah, there's nothing like an over-hyped pile of steaming rubbish,"

The very definition of every single product Apple has ever released.

[Senor Pantalones @ Apr 12th 2007 11:28AM]

Awww...did sumwun bweak their wittle ipod and now makes grandiose wittle comments on webwogs?

A post about a digital camera? Time to dig my claws into Apple!!!

[Mike @ Apr 12th 2007 11:21AM]

This is a great camera for realtors. Have you met most realtors? W/O the big red button on top they probably would have no idea how to work it...

[TVGenius @ Apr 12th 2007 11:22AM]

But why no LCD? Where is the $299 going on this thing?

[Chrisboff @ Apr 12th 2007 5:32PM]

The lens and flash.

[JonV @ Apr 12th 2007 11:28AM]

This sounds like a good idea to me. Like Tom says above, this camera is intended to take exactly one type of picture, the sort of picture that benefits from a very wide angle and a large aperture stop. This product offers that in a cheap and handy package.

Especially the wide angle is very hard to find in a compact camera - some very few models have started showing up with a 28mm equivalent, but 22mm is almost unheard of in such a small package. The only way to get similar specs would be to get a digital SLR and a 22mm-equivalent lens for it, which would be hard to do for less than $1000, and of course that solution would end up much more bulky.

Of course one would hope that the lens is of relatively high quality - cheap wide angle lenses sometimes have serious problems with distortion.

[Lee Roy Brandon III @ Apr 12th 2007 3:06PM]

A cheaper solution is to set your shutter speed for a few seconds, and let the camera take advantage of a long exposure. I find my point-and-shoot takes great photos in dark shadow with no flash when I do this. I'm not a realtor, but as a preservationist I take lots of photos inside houses (and attics and basements) that usually have no artificial illumination. Using a bright, hot flash is about the worst thing you can do when trying to show an interior. I think RealPIX is just marketing to RA's who don't want to bother actually learning to use a normal camera, or for some reason can't write off a semi-pro DSLR as a business expense.

[Owen V @ Apr 12th 2007 11:44AM]

I agree with engadget on this one. There is no reason for any camera released in 2007 (webcam, cellphone cam, stand alone digital camera, anything) to have a maximum resolution of only 640x480. The the thing probably only has about 16mb of flash memory inside and can't even review its photos. for $100 I'd say its a good idea. for $300 no way

[The Turtle @ Apr 12th 2007 11:51AM]

Actually, "USB charging" is a feature every camera ought to have now, provided they use a NORMAL mini-B connector. I am sick and tired of digital cameras using some bizarre proprietary connector for data and another one for charging, when just about every phone, handheld and BT headset out there can charge AND connect over a normal USB plug.

[Todd @ Apr 12th 2007 11:59AM]

Hilarious - I clicked through to the RealPIX website, read the descriptive text...

http://www.realpixcamera.com/why.html

They are politely saying that real estate agents are stupid. Yes I want to trust the most expensive thing I own, my house, to someone who cannot work a digital camera.

[MarkG @ Apr 12th 2007 12:00PM]

Whether this camera is good enough for realtors (estate agents in the UK) depends on their standards. My brother is one, and uses an EOS 30D. Average house prices round here are about 1M USD, and both buyers and sellers expect quality, especially in printed brochures. His camera is an essential business tool, so I expect he would view the RealPIX digicam with disgust.

[Will Mayall @ Apr 12th 2007 12:07PM]

The camera is appears to be intended for creating photos for digital display and not print. My wife uses a professional for most printed material.

[Will Mayall @ Apr 12th 2007 12:01PM]

I suggest that the writer of this article does not understand the needs of realtors. I'm married to a realtor and this camera looks to be designed to do exactly what realtors need.

Currently, my wife uses a Canon S2 with a wide angle lens and an external flash. The cost was about $600. All she uses is wide angle, no other features, and reduces the photo resolution on the computer. But the setup is cumbersome and using it is complex.

As a generalization, realtors are not technical and would prefer simple effective tools. This camera seems targeted to be just what they need for the majority of their professional photographs.

[TIMMAH! @ Apr 12th 2007 12:09PM]

I'd say this hits their target market pretty well, but lack of LCD is pretty stupid. I would have at least allowed a Save/Delete option after preview, or else you're going to waste time/effort having to retake shots.

[Electromodo @ Apr 12th 2007 12:26PM]

I could obviously justify the wide lens and a big red button, but the absence of LCD is painful even for the non-technical shooter. Not seeing the resulting picture is extremely dangerous. Especially with such an "auto-everything" camera.

Imagine you returned to the office, uploaded your pictures to the computer and see that half of them is taken with your finger covering the lens, another - with clipped highlights or sun reflection artifacts that mess up the whole glorious house view... If I was such a realtor, I would immediately switch to the "extremely technical" consumer/prosumer camera.

And please, don't tell me there are no options for wide lenses in consumer camera market. For under a $100 you can get 21mm equivalent lens. Example: WL-FXE01 Wide-angle Lens (21mm equivalent) for Fuji Finepix E500, E510 & E550 cameras cost $60-$100. The camera itself costs $150. You might say those lenses are crap, but I don't think RealPIX lenses are better.

So I am still not convinced RealPIX is such a good deal even for dummy non-technical realtors ;)

[Austin @ Apr 12th 2007 12:59PM]

Gosh, I guess nobody actually reads press releases anymore!
"RealPIX is a rugged, simple, digital camera with a huge wide angle lens and massive flash. No camera under $1,000 has a wide angle lens that comes close to the wide angle goodness of the RealPIX lens. Frankly, fully 80% of our cost to build this camera is invested into the lens and the flash system. You need a no-distortion, massively wide angle lens, and matching hugely powerful built-in flash for your indoor and outdoor house shots."

[Zwieke @ Apr 12th 2007 1:03PM]

Looking through the perspective of an Industrial Designer I think this actually is a good product. What does the user want? Take a quality picture in low-light wide-angle conditions, with the least amount of trouble and know-how.
I think they succeeded in this,Assuming that the lens quality is what makes the camera to cost 299. Picture quality is dominantly determined by the quality of the glass.

However I do think a small LCD screen for reviewing would have made it a better product, and make it seem less 'limited'.

[Chris @ Apr 12th 2007 1:06PM]

It says it outputs a 640x480 file but it's likely that it captures at a higher resolution and downscales as a convenience feature. That's about all you need for an online listing. I was agreeing with the engadget writer at first but the more I consider it, this camera looks like a winner for a Realtor. Yes, you can buy a wide angle SLR but using it is more trouble than using a digicam like this. A Realtor would appreciate something that is pocketable. It also looks fairly sturdy from the photo.

[Chris @ Apr 12th 2007 1:11PM]

"In other words, we spent our money on the lens, and it beats the wide-angle specs of any point and shoot camera in the world at any price."

I believe I was wrong about the camera downscaling a larger image to 640x480. However, assuming what they say is true and the camera has a professional grade lens, you can capture a very sharp and high quality 640x480 image. Again, any size larger than this would be wasted. Look at listings online or in catalogs or newspapers.

[Ron Hands @ Apr 12th 2007 1:18PM]

Thank you to scoobydoo and Mike for you kind comments about Realtors. I find them extremely offensive. I am a Realtor and sell about $20 Million/year in residential real estate and take great care photographing my clients homes. I use a Canon S70 which has a built-in wide angle lens but also takes high resolution pictures. These are needed to produce the brochure, virtual tour and websites photos. The camera in the article is a pos and any Realtor worth their weight would realize this.

Ron

[Chris @ Apr 12th 2007 1:25PM]

terapr0,

Who ruffled your feathers? I happen to have a 24-70 F2.8L Canon lens. It costs over $1200. You can buy a similar consumer grade lens for under $300. They look similar on the surface but the images produced by the L quality lens are superior in every mesurable way. Also, if you know anything about photography, you should know that wide angle lenses cost more to make. Personally, I can easily see a quality small wide angle lens costing $200. Also, try shopping for F2.0 lenses. They cost more than smaller aperature lenses. You act like you understand photography equipment but it doesn't show. Also, Realtors don't have time to set up tripods.

I agree with you that this should have an LCD for review but I can't agree with any of your other points.

[gm @ Apr 12th 2007 2:11PM]

You know, the lens sounds great...it may actually be a great camera. But these people know they have to convince their customers this is a good deal, they spend most of their site trying to talk you into the idea...SO WHERE ARE THE EXAMPLE PHOTOS?

[christopherbrosz @ Apr 12th 2007 3:10PM]

Looking through it at first I thought it was a joke but then they do have a point, the drawbacks are not really draw backs. Ex. Low Res, People are complaining that that is to low, however most realtors take 30 pictures at least of a house to go in some small ad or online and it would save them time just to have the picture small instead of altering it. However having a setting for a larger picture is nice. As for lack of LCD well it takes 400 (I think that was the number) of pictures not to mention I think most realtors have a laptop with them anyways so they can easily upload them and take a look, or worst case take 400 pics of a place and pick the good ones out. Lastly the site says the lens has no distortion... thats the only thing I am skeptical about because for that price I would think its not the highest quality of lenses.

Anyway thats my two cents worth.

[Philippe Van Lieu @ Apr 12th 2007 3:50PM]

At first I too though this camera was a piece of junk. But then I got to thinking how megapixels don't count for much; a cheap $150 seven megapixel camera will still take worse pictures than a D200. If this camera exports 640x480 images, for $300 they'd better be some really high quality images, better than that of anyone's cheapo celphone camera. I suppose I'm gonna want to see some example pictures before I say anything more about the cost.

[Will Mayall @ Apr 12th 2007 3:54PM]

If RealPIX would post some photos taken with the camera, many of the issues that people are discussing here would be resolved.

[terapr0 @ Apr 12th 2007 4:14PM]

That is pretty obscene....While I certainly understand the reasons why a product like this might exist, the design and execution of that idea is absolutely insane. Sure....having a semi-wide angle lens like that is a good idea, but there is NO conceivable scenario that would validate such a high price tag for such a woefully inadequate feature set. F2.0 with a big flash is alright for very low-light scenario's...but if I had the choice, I'd much rather shoot at f29 with a tripod and have everything in perfect, crisp focus.....I have a few f1.8 lenses for my DSLR, and, as much as I love them for macro or dramatic portrait photography, I’d never dream of shooting any type of detailed scene or architectural photography at 1.8, or 2.0 for that matter…its just stupid….. also, 640x480 is completely unacceptable...you might as well just use your cell phone to take the pictures....what if you ever want to get the photos printed or displayed on just about any other medium than a shitty thumbnail real-estate website? And the omission of an integrated LCD is especially unforgivable...It doesn’t have to include buttons or complex menus....just let people see the pictures they took...otherwise, why the hell do they even want to shoot digitally? Might as well just go back to film and start wasting money and time developing pictures you don’t even want...
If this were $100 it MIGHT be considered only a moderately reprehensible markup for an especially niche product, but $300 is just criminal…unrestrained profiteering at its worst....I see nothing that would justify this price....their only hope in the world is that there just might be enough stupid-assed, overpaid, clueless, luddite real-estate agents out there willing to shell out for this steaming pile of deuce..

[LeiAtLarge @ Apr 12th 2007 4:17PM]

What makes this camera so useful is really the flash that's able to cover a wide angle properly. I can't think of a single DSLR or digital point and shoot that can light a 22mm scene corner to corner with it's on camera flash. A new SB-600 or 430-EX is about $200 and you'll probably want a softener, an extra $10-20. However, the whole f2 thing seems more like a gimmick. f2 is really not useful for indoor architecture shots because of the depth of field. When shooting a scene where there are objects at .5m - 5m away and you want them all to be in focus, you'll probably want to shoot at f11-22. The site says the lens is a 22mm f2 fix focus lens. Which means it's probably focused at close to infinity and anything within 2m of the camera will be blurred. There's also no way to turn the flash off from the looks of it, so if the real estate agent wants to capture the ambient lighting in a kitchen the flash will over power it and the scene will look bland and boring.

This camera is targeting the real estate agents that do not take into account the aesthetics of the home they're selling and looking to cut corner on hiring a professional to do the indoor shots. There are tons of terrible pictures taken by agents on MLS and I'm sure there's a market for this produce for those agent who don't value the quality of their pictures.

[terapr0 @ Apr 12th 2007 7:47PM]

Chris,

Do you mind elaborating on exactly which facet of photography I seem to be negligent in...
I said it would be more beneficial to use a higher aperature like f22 or f29 with longer exposure to utilize a greater depth of field, resulting in substantially more detailed images than can be captured at f2.0....AM I crazy or have I just misunderstood the principals of optical science and photography for the past 15 years? Its nice to have a lens that goes down to f2.0 for a variety of reasons I mentioned earlier....macro photography, portraits, action / sports photography....highly detailed arcitechtural photography is most definetely not one of those reasons...or at least its certainly not a feature I'd want to brag about when trying to sell something without an LCD screen for $300....

Also...your assertion that your canon wideangle lens cost $1200 is a testament to the shittiness of this camera...you CANNOT buy a good (in nearly every conceivable sense of the word) "wide angle" lens for $300...probably not even if it was stolen...if they "spent their money on the lens" then its still going to be nothing more than a crappy camera with no major features, no expansion slots, no LCD, no adjustable aperture or exposure, no adjustable ISO....Im sure the pictures DO look better than ones taken from a comparable 640x480 camera phone or webcam, but Im sure the differences are negligable, and I still wouldnt wish this $300 abomination on my worst enemy....You cant make a wideangle lens for $300 without it experiencing distortion and chromatic abberation - if it were possible you and I wouldnt be forced to shell out $1000+ for our lenses, as I'm sure you already know...
I'd like to see some examples of pictures taken with this camera...

[J. R. Thomas @ Apr 12th 2007 11:03PM]

I handle press relations for the investment group behind the RealPIX camera (all real estate pros, as a matter of interest). Despite not shipping product until mid-July, we put up a placeholder web site now and sent out one limited distribution press release as an early market gauge. Since there's major discussion here, I'll add a few replies/tidbits to the mix.

First, the marketing material on the site is not overblown smoke and mirrors. We really did custom-create a high quality all-glass true rectilinear 22mm (effective 35mm equivalent) lens for this product, and a matching ultra wide angle flash. Those two items and the all-original exposure control sensor/control system basically ate up all of the build cost for the camera. But, the absence of supposed fatures is not a result of budget constraints. We would have happily added any feature and just raised the price, had some other feature been important within our test pool of working Realtors® who helped guide our design work.

So, some tidbits:

1. No LCD because we found cameras with an LCD tend to get used with the LCD acting as the viewfinder, which places the camera several inches in front of the shooter's face, cutting the width of the actual shot. Using a real viewfinder puts the camera against the eye, moving the camera deeper into the corner where the shooter is standing, plus, it yields a clearer, sharper preview of the shot being taken... remember, this is a fixed focal length camera, where we're able to tune the viewfinder optics to precisely show the actual image size, not like on zoom cameras where an optical viewfinder image is not a reliable indicator of image field.

2. Previewing images on the LCD: No reason. Just shoot several shots and dump the bad ones when on the PC.

3. Flash: Big, big deal. Getting 20+ foot flash depth without overblowing the image, and getting balanced edge to edge coverage at this wide angle is a true Engineering Challenge.

4. f2.0 lens. Our exposure control system adjusts the aperture, as needed. Having a max f of 2.0 lets the flash back off automatically as needed in brighter areas (or for outoor shots at dusk). Typically, shots are made with an adjusted f11 to f22 to yield maximum depth of field. The software handles this calculation, favoring depth of field.

5. Yes. mini-USB port. Yes. Tripod socket. No plethora of pointless adjustments/settings. It's a specific hammer to drive a very specific nail.

6. Demo/test images on the site: Coming soon. We're waiting for actual camera production samples, so the posted images are honest/accurate representations... not "simulated."

7. Price: We're at $299 only because we're direct selling from the web only. We would need to be at $449 to hit resale channel discount requirements, and we decided that was not a good value for our real estate customers.

Thanks for the interest!

[J. R. Thomas @ Apr 12th 2007 11:28PM]

A couple of otehr tidbits:

8. There are actually challenges to getting great "low resolution" digital images. Anyone not knowing this should Google the topic, so you'll see review after review of megapixel cameras used at their lowest resolution settings and producing truly awful pictures. Although our CMOS sensor is higher resolution than 640x480, we actually do just shoot into the center 640x480, so no image scaling is done inside the camera. Every facet is optimized to create the best native 640x480 image possible.

9. Real estate photography is an odd thing. 90% of the images are used only on the web at 72dpi, or in local newsprint at 100 lines per inch screen. Most Realtors® shoot their own images for these applications. If they want more for a certain property, they'll bring in a pro to shoot for high rez print or virtual tour or 360-degree VR. We don't aspire to replace pros or supplant the way a few photography savvy Realtors® who use pro level gear and techniques do their work. We just want to help the 80% of real estate folks who do not fall into these categories.

10. In today's feature-focused technology market, it is odd how sometimes some people get obsessed by the number of buttons and doodads on the gadgets, and forget that there are people not so obsessed, but with real tasks to get done, and who long for a reliable fully automated solution. We designed RealPIX for those buyers, not for technology addicts.

11. Finally, many technology people forget how hard it is to approach a multi-variable task (like photography) and successfully automate it. It took us two years of R&D to get this product ready for production. Many times, simplifying a task is perversely complex.

Thanks, again!

[Elliott @ Apr 13th 2007 10:12AM]

Whatever you do, if you google RealPix, make sure you type it all out as one word... assuming you're at work.

[Davemon @ Apr 13th 2007 4:50PM]

Are you sure the price isn't supposed to be $29.90?

[Andy Cunningham @ Apr 16th 2007 1:20PM]

This is not a bad idea. They have concentrated on the optics which is pretty rare nowadays. Point and shoot cameras are awful for taking a photo of a room because they can't do wide angle.

This is a specialized camera that avoids the need for a big and even more expensive SLR. Non-zoom lenses are much faster than zoom lenses so are the obvious choice. f2 speed is pretty decent for a fixed length SLR lens and is incredible in a compact camera.

I think it does need a little LCD to check the pictures are good, and ideally a bit higher resolution - 2 megapixels would be fine. The idea is spot on though.