Polaroid 14MP Digital Camera with 5x Optical Zoom & 2.7" LCD Screen

Two days ago we had people complaining Woot had gone high end products and they were thinking of removing Woot from their bookmarks.
This was after 3 days of TV’s and $700 knives, and a $900 Laptop.
Then they put on cedar cooking planks and a meat thermometer and shish kabob wires. And now a $90 Camera and a $60 Camcorder on sellout.
Did this restore the unsatisfied customers, or do we need $4 earbuds and $5 MP3’s to bring back the people who said they missed out on cheap deals?
Personally I bought 2 items in the past 5 days. Including a TV and this Camera. I think it will make a good birthday gift for my Nephew. The TV will go good in my Mom’s guest room.
I like the option of Woot over Costco and WallyWorld.
So keep it up Woot.

Are you serious? You have to be joking…a camera that only lasts 2 flashes before the batteries need replaced?

Which model goes in this camera? I just bought one for my nephews birthday.

Sounds kind of funny to me too.

You got a 14MP camera from Polaroid a few years ago? Are you sure? 14MP cameras (especially with HD video) were very rare a few years ago, and were limited to real camera manufacturers, i.e. Canon, Nikon, etc. Polaroid hasn’t been a camera manufacturer for many many years.

The video specs are confusing. In the Features section, it states, “Shoot video at up to 720 x 400 pixels with audio at 30 fps” (400? That’s very nonstandard). Then the Specs section states, “Resolution (Movie): 1280 x 720 (16:9)-Supported only by a Class 6 SDHC; 640 x 480; 320 x 240; 640 x 480 (Web).”

So does it do HD video? And wassup with “720x400”? Where did the 400 come from?

Every time I see something from Polaroid, I immediately think, “I wonder who the real manufacturer is…?” Then I think, “Probably some generic company in China.” Polaroid has been on the brink of bankruptcy for many many years, and they haven’t designed nor manufactured consumer electronics for over a decade. At best, they stamp their name on generic equipment, which generally means inferior optics, buggy firmware, poorly translated instructions, virtually no support, etc. I speak from experience, i.e. an electronic photo viewer from Woot. Even when they made instant cameras (which were done in by digital cameras), the equipment was known more for technical wizardry than optical quality. Polaroid photos were lo-res, blurry and look worse than a VGA photo from the worst modern inkjet.

The real jump-the-shark moment came when Polaroid made a camera that featured the voice of the comedian, Sinbad. His quips were supposed to make subjects smile but I don’t know anyone who found the “jokes” funny, and after hearing them once, they became positively annoying to the photographer.

I’d love a spatula that recorded in 720p

It does 720p quality HD with a class 6 SDHC only. As far as I can tell the 720x400 is specifically for 30fps which means the 1280x720 is probably 15-20fps (HD resolution but not framerate).

As for the 400…it’s probably due to the CCD size itself. 720x405 would be 16:9 but the CCD is probably not big enough in one direction to handle the extra the way their using it so it ends up being slightly off.

I wonder if my mom would like this…

It’s possible. I’ve used generic digital cameras that drained alkalines with less than 10 photos. Heck, one 10MP camera even used 4 AAs but only lasted around 10 flash photos. These cameras were sometimes branded by second-rate American companies, i.e. Vivitar, Bell & Howell, Emerson, etc. Polaroid is now also in their league. Even older Kodaks didn’t fare too well. Alkalines lasted for less than 20-30 photos, and 2300 mAh NiMH batteries made it to about 40 photos, if conditions were good. And if you did videos, battery life was even shorter.

Yes but this uses a proprietary rechargable lithium ion battery

I’m looking for a camera to capture my golf swing. How does the video look on this?

This cameras too new to get any reviews. No one owns one that I have read, there are no reviews. No comparison. But if you’re looking for a cheap video camcorder, take a look at the $60 camcorder on sellout.woot.

Here’s a test video from the same camcorder on the freeway. If it captures at 60 mph. I’m sure it will do great on a golf swing

Not true if he wants to see the club. The head will be moving faster than the oncoming cars in the video. There are huge gaps between the frames in the vid and it’s not even showing a perpendicular shot. Not to mention the parallax issue that can be seen in the rear view mirror if you pause with a vehicle in view (i.e. the cars look skewed). And that is a camera designed to take videos…a cam designed to take stills will be inherently worse. The cam’s actual shutter speed is the problem.

So, you think this camera would give a better video than the camcorder?
Just curious. Not looking for an argument.

Not bad advice to consider. Both cameras have been around long enough to establish a good cross section of reviews and most of them are favorable (i.e. Canon A495 - Fujifilm JV100)

True, but I was replying to a post that asked, “camera that only lasts 2 flashes before the batteries need replaced?” (note the plural, “batteries”) I was merely pointing out that yes, such digital cameras exists, and wasn’t talking about this model.

Go for something like the tiny Casio Exilim EX-FS10. It has ultra high speed modes for motion analysis and variable slo-mo playback. At its lowest resolution, it can capture at an astonishing 1000 fps (that’s one THOUSAND) frame rate. The resolution is very low though at 224x64. More reasonable resolutions (VGA-ish) can capture at 30fps-210fps. And of course, it can capture HD movies. It can also capture stills at 30 fps.

The most amazing thing is its price. You can find it for about $79, brand new. The worst thing about it is that it you go above ISO200, you can see some noise.

Amazon reviews

Digital camera reviews


Albeit a tad sparse, let it be known that I still Frooooooogled!