[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Digital Camera

On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 8:34 PM, s. keeling <keeling@nucleus.com> wrote:

>  I've one seriously cheapo Concord Eye-Q 1000 (1.3 Mpx res.).  This
>  model is not listed in gtkam's database.  Does digiKam handle it?

There's no exact match in digikam (current lenny) but there are some
other close models to that Concord model. You might try one of those.
Does that camera mount as a USB device or PTP?

On the subject of cheap cameras, my first foray was a $10 key chain
camera that really sucked but I managed to get it working in Linux,
but I had to use gphoto2 to do it. And if the USB manufacturer ID
isn't there, chances are it's not supported. The little I checked on
Google for this camera, I didn't manage to see anything that said it
was supported. But it has a better chance of being supported possibly
because there are free "open" (so called) drivers on the Net for it.
Which of course, could mean anything, like a binary wrapper claiming
they gave you source code when they really didn't.

>From 'gphoto2" on my system - it seems that these are the same models
that digikam supports, presumably because digikam uses gphoto2 as a a
backend (not sure about this).

dfox@m206-157:~$ gphoto2 --list-cameras | grep Concord
        "Concord Eye-Q Duo" (EXPERIMENTAL)
        "Concord Eye-Q Easy" (EXPERIMENTAL)
        "Concord EyeQ 4330" (EXPERIMENTAL)
        "Concord EyeQMini_1" (EXPERIMENTAL)
        "Concord EyeQMini_2" (EXPERIMENTAL)

Again, not the exact model, but this is a good starting point. Another
possibility (should this not be helpful) would be to inquire on the
gphoto2 mailing list. I did that before to get feedback and to help
test various ways to use that cheap camera before I saw reason and got
a Kodak C310 :).

All this is moot IF your camera supports a removable SD card (which it
seems to) since it is far easier to just get a cheap SD card reader
USB attachment, and take the card out when you want to download the

Reply to: