Would You Buy a Camera with an In Built Projector?

Would You Buy a Camera with an In Built Projector?


projector-camera.jpgEarlier in the week Nikon released the world’s first compact camera with a built in projector – the Nikon Coolpix S1000pj (see it here on Amazon).

“Take pictures during the day and share them with friends wherever you are that night” is the sales pitch.

On Twitter I asked whether people thought it was a good idea or not – the reactions were quite mixed.

So I thought it’d make an interesting discussion – does the idea of a projector built into your digital camera appeal to you?

Do you think you’d use the feature?

Read more from our category

Darren Rowse is the editor and founder of Digital Photography School and SnapnDeals. He lives in Melbourne Australia and is also the editor of the ProBlogger Blog Tips. Follow him on Instagram, on Twitter at @digitalPS or on Google+.

Some Older Comments

  • Alan Hyatt September 30, 2009 06:20 pm

    Adding built-in projector in Camera is an excellent idea. By right, they should have done it 5 years ago.
    I believe this feature will be available in mobile phone, laptop, game console very soon!
    However, the downside, it will kill the existing lucractive projector market.

  • Somone August 31, 2009 05:37 pm

    We need to be more open minded.. i think this is a great idea

  • plumb August 22, 2009 01:54 am

    I agree with ignas, cameras are so sophisticated ,the more gadgets in it the more to go wrong

  • Mike August 17, 2009 10:08 pm

    If the quality is good, then YES I would buy it!

  • Ignas August 17, 2009 09:45 pm

    This is my first comment on this site. I would like to make a general statement with regards to Cameras having added devices. I strongly believe that camera manufacturers should divide the types of cameras into three categories.
    The first category should be all high end cameras -which should only focus on picture taking and develop machines that only specialist on picture improvements and noting else.
    The second category should be mid-end cameras that focus on picture and video taking. and lastly
    The third category should be those mid end and below cameras with other added facilities like with a projector. This will meet the interest of various customers with various needs.
    As we can note: machines with added on facilities do not produce better results. Only machines that focus on one or minimal facilities produce better results.

  • Vince Stephens August 15, 2009 07:43 pm

    However,as a fun thing when out and about socially,I can see there being a market for it,but for the seriouse photographer I would think its a definite no no.

  • Wilfried August 15, 2009 07:58 am

    Whatever quality they provide, it will be half cooked, not for me.

  • Luschka August 14, 2009 06:49 pm

    I would consider it - I think it's handy on long trips when you don't have a laptop with you (i.e. we backpacked Europe for a month last year and would have been great to thin out photos on a larger screen than the LCD), however I would only consider it if it didn't affect the quality of the CAMERA elements.

  • adrian sensible August 14, 2009 06:46 pm

    The concept is useful - but full of dire results. Get on almost any bus, and some dope will have their music machine on so loud that the leakage round the earplug is annoying. I can't imagine listening to nearly 100% of the garbage teenies seem to let seep round the plugs, but at least the sound is tiny, compared to a visual image, in fairly good definition, assaulting the eye.

    The dirty pix lot tittering round smutty phone images are another bio-hazard I would gladly be rid of. Imagining a college campus, a cinema, or a bus/train/city centre at night, with dirty-minded idiots shining some vile image they think is funny onto walls, bus interiors, cafes, pubs, clubs, and so forth gives me the creeps.

    Take any technology, and evil uses are found for it almost immediately. In the current climate of moronic binge drinking by some stupid people, loud drunken shouting, crass laddettes out on some pub crawl, where the general quality of mind tends to be taking a nosedive, and give them projectors, and there is likely to be a public equivalent of visual sewage sprayed around for all to be sickened by.

    I don't like mixing with that sort of people, and tend to avoid pubs, clubs, and places they gather. It's not too bad when they are quiet, as their polluted thinking is not always on display, so there is a measure of protection, but if their polluted lives are sprayed around like some live rerun of tacky excess, then it is going to make having a good internal mind - life a real problem when forced to view crass pix from some low-life's personal image files.

    Myself, I look forward to having such a thing as a DSLR camera with a projector in it, which will be bright enough to just put my camera down when I get home from a day's pix, point it at the wall, and see something at least as bright as my TV, and preferably about four times as big, so about 80 inches wide, with all 12 megapixels clearly on view. The light output of the most efficient LED is much improved, but maybe some sort of laser-based illumination would give the brightness needed. I wonder what would happen at cinemas though, if this became common - we get unhelpful people using mobile phones in the dark - what happens if 30 dopes are shining their junk images on the screen too I shudder to think

    Hopefully, this will not be around so bright for about 2 years or so, so we have a breathing space.

    Personally, I would like to see a 4 inch monitor screen on DSLR's, much brighter than now, for viewing in full sunshine, as I mainly use mine to check and review pix I have just taken, but use it for about a half hour at a time, so this would be of more use to me.

    I am impressed though, that Nikon have been able to do this at the £350 or so which it costs - more power to them I feel, or at least light to their projector - cams!

  • fiona August 14, 2009 01:37 pm

    it sounds cool. but i think it will be useless feature, or at least feature-only-for-fun.

  • Jim August 14, 2009 10:45 am

    NO! Just another excuse to market second rate watered down products.

  • Judex August 14, 2009 10:31 am

    no, I won't... I dont even need it on my cam.

  • Jonathan August 14, 2009 09:29 am

    Hell yes! Kinda gimicky but how cool! But I agree with debbie, please keep it away from DSLRs...

  • Emmanuel Díaz August 14, 2009 06:24 am

    I think that it's a good idea. We have to keep in mind the resolution won't be good, but... who cares? This kind of cameras (point & shot) are more oriented to have fun instead to have a good quality. No one in 10 years ago could imagine a cell phone and now, we can have all in one (computer, phone, camera etc). This is a great technology and the important here is not to have the people around to see the picts...

  • Debbie August 14, 2009 05:18 am

    No, No, No! And Nikon please keep this feature away from your DSLRs....you've already added the unwanted video.

  • Fred Haider August 14, 2009 05:12 am

    If the image is sharpe it would be a good business tool.

  • Marilyn August 14, 2009 04:50 am

    I would definitely use it. I am an art teacher and always taking photos of things to show my students. Being able to project the images on the wall would eliminate the need to cart a projector around with me from room to room. It would be very helpful to me.

  • Lisa August 14, 2009 04:46 am

    Looking at it from an artist's perspective, the projector could be useful for transferring images to drawings. At school I use a traditional projector (acetate copy of picture lit up from below) to transfer images, but have yet to find a compact and cost effective enough solution to continue my work at home. I would have to try it out before buying it.

  • Marty August 14, 2009 03:36 am

    Every see someone (Aunt Mary or the guy in the next cubicle))pull their digital camera out and show people pictures on the built in screen? It's small and not a very effiient way to show pics to a small group. I see that this camera, is for those people. And for them, it is a pretty good tool to show pics of their kids or recent vacation. It is not for a polished slide show of prepared pictures.

  • Simo August 14, 2009 03:13 am

    No, I wouldn't have any use for it. Nice innovation from Nikon though, certain kind of teenagers will surely like it.

  • Dick Kane August 14, 2009 03:11 am


  • Dick Kane August 14, 2009 03:10 am


  • Alex Guest August 14, 2009 02:54 am

    While the question of the quality of the projector is big for most of the responders I've read, I was having a different though. I've never liked the idea of all-in-one. Convenience seems to always compete with capability. Having said that, I never thought I would use the crappy camera on a cell phone. But I do. All the time. I capture book titles I wanna remember and evidence that my coworkers aren't cleaning up after their shift and... So if the camera is good enough and the projector is free (and good enough), then I would probably use it eventually (like to make spooky double exposures or...). But would I pay extra or compromise my needs in a camra for this? No way.

  • Fredshome August 14, 2009 02:29 am

    I still haven't figured what the purpose of those camera to TV cables was.

    When you take pictures, you have to process them (similar to the old lab step) and then you can either get them printed or you can display them somewhere online.

    Looking at images straight from the camera doesn't make much sense to me. Maybe for vacation shots but I've never been able to take "vacation" shots. Any images I take of humans turn out terrible anyway.

  • Jack August 14, 2009 02:26 am

    If they are using microvisions pico p laser engine as the projector, then I think it would be a cool feature. The laser engine provides around twice the color gamut as led projectors, always in focus, has a much brighter picture, and isn't a power hog. It would be handy for previewing pics in the field without a computer (less stuff to carry). Although the downside at this moment is the 840 x 480 resolution. (720p)
    Still a 12-20 inch projected display will at least give a better idea of what you shot than a 2-3in screen if you want to check your shots.

    Now that video is becoming a much bigger player with cameras this would definitely be helpful to not only share what you have shot with family and friends, but also for reviewing footage before leaving the area your shooting in.

  • Bruce August 14, 2009 01:52 am

    I think that it is a great idea - sure you would have to get the quality bit right, but thats a given. good thinking batman

  • Buckmiester August 12, 2009 11:04 am

    Would only get it as a novelty and only if I had all the other equipment I needed.

  • dale August 12, 2009 06:27 am

    INTERESTING! GIVE IT A YEAR. IT WILL SURELY TAKE OFF. peeps are usually apprehensive of new and shiny things.

    maybe it can pop popcorns to hehe.

  • Georg August 11, 2009 07:55 am

    So now we can put photographs into presentations, then take a real "screen shot" and project it onto a wooden table - no, wait the wooden table was supposed to be included from the beginning!... *me liky*

    Seriously, as many have stated before me, I would be worried about quality, brightness(!) and battery life time at this point in history. But it might be useful
    for the casual and entertaining photo viewing session after a hiking day when
    everybody in the crammed cottage wants to have a look at the days yield at
    the same time.
    It would help to have a means to preselect photos to be shown (similar to
    today's direct-print selections) and of course some kind of remote would
    be mandatory so you don't get seasick every time somebody touches a button.

    Kudos to Nikon and may the concept survive it's infancy (and our poor economic times) so that it may (literally) shine one day :-)

    P.S: Would I like to see it in a SLR? Probably not, as they are heavy (and complex, I imagine) enough already (although arguably the glass is repurposed so it may not add that much weight, actually)

  • JM August 11, 2009 05:57 am

    More Crap. They don't know what else to do to a camera. So, I guess this was their best take? Unbelievable. Something else to go wrong. :)

  • deuts August 11, 2009 03:01 am

    when you're in a vacation, you do your best to preserve your camera's battery. Now you want to show off your pictures and lose more battery time with this projector thing? Silly.

  • Anita August 10, 2009 11:41 pm

    No, thanks.

    I'm still waiting with bated breath for a camera that will make me breakfast, though.

  • Brian August 10, 2009 11:24 pm

    I can see where some consumers would maybe want this. However first of all I really doubt that the resolution is anything above 1024x768. Secondly it would eat batteries. Thirdly I edit all of my photos before showing. Most of us here are either professional photographers or advanced amateurs with digital slr's.. We are sorta a biest crowd..

  • Hondaeg05 August 10, 2009 09:34 pm

    I work for Best Buy as a technician. We repair all kinds of product categories in our service center, one thing we receive alot of are projectors. The lamps are fragile, demand a lot of power, and are not great with picture quality to begin with. The amount of these being damaged I am sure will be higher than the average camera. This is more of a WOW feature than a useful one, people will buy this in amazement and never use it.

    Bad idea.

  • Jacek August 10, 2009 03:42 pm

    it's great idea! Everytime I go out with friends/family, in the evening we end with loots of pictures to see, but only 2 ppl at time can view camera built-in lcd. Projector sounds great idea - imagine viewing pics together in the tent :-)
    Image quality is not that important, because in the evening you still have fresh memories of what you shot and it's more about laughing about it with friends. (think cell cameras - avg quality, but lot of fun)

  • Eric W August 10, 2009 02:22 pm

    After thinking 'bout this: I'd love to have an in-camera projector (I'm thinking PICO projector, with connections for external items to show through it). It definitely wouldn't be a selling point for me, though. I'd still go for camera quality over that feature.

    Wouldn't most people on a forum like this, though?

  • Prajwal August 10, 2009 01:17 pm

    I'd rather prefer a built in photoshop in camera over the VGA projector, but it'd be a nice addition..

  • RavenCDR August 10, 2009 12:14 pm

    Um, NO.

  • Ambuj August 10, 2009 12:02 pm

    If ;
    - the projected image is at least 15 times bigger than the size of its LCD display
    - the price is not more than 1.5 times the price of other cameras with similar features (minus the projection feature)
    Then YES
    Else NO

  • Stock Photos August 10, 2009 12:14 am

    Not me, I like a camera for photos, a video projector for videos ;-)

  • FriedChicken August 9, 2009 09:37 pm

    Maybe they'd also like to make a camera that will clean up for me after I use the toilet?

    ... in short, no.

  • Uncle_IS August 9, 2009 08:43 pm

    COOLPIX S1000pj specifications

    No way! One of the points that matter in such cameras is their battery life time, and it seems to me that the "feature" is going to be rather battery-hungry (one hour with a fully charged battery as it is stated by Nikon) :) . Then it goes VGA resolution of the projector: why have 12.1 Mpx (4000x3000 px) if you are going to "show off" with only 640x480 px? And personally I don't believe that 10 lm is bright enough to show anything at even a mid-thin light...

  • photokenetic August 9, 2009 08:42 pm

    Off hand is sounds like an unnecessary gimmick, however the same was thought about the telephone. It's nice, but not necessary. Then the cellphone was thought of as being good for emergencies. We all know how that evolved into a multi-talented phone, camera, browser, calendar, music and video player.

    The built-in projector sounds like a nice addition to a camera and marginally useful, but let's see where it goes.

  • IonBuck August 9, 2009 06:19 pm

    I still do not find this to be useful. Maybe when we can do much more while projecting the image like image editing, connect a laptop and project the screen with the camera projector, etc... but as of now, no.

  • Pascal Parent August 9, 2009 04:48 pm

    No thanks

  • Carol Hansen-Dix August 9, 2009 02:30 pm

    Yes, for sure if the price and quality are there. I think it is a GREAT idea and Nikon is a GREAT company and the perfect company to be the pioneer for this idea. I am glad it is happenening now and with Nikon..

  • yasky August 9, 2009 01:38 pm

    It's cool, but projector is not a reason that I choose camera.

  • Rolling Stone August 9, 2009 12:08 pm

    I'll pass.

  • Brian Miller August 9, 2009 11:56 am

    If the projector were good enough to do a decent job of projecting the images, the camera function would likely suffer. I think projectors have a long way to go before they are portable enough and bright enough to do a decent job in a configuration such as this. I can only surmise that this device is a really crappy (single IC and bad lens) point and shoot camera with bad optics, stuck in the same case as a totally worthless, very dim, low resolution projector. There aren't LEDs or other light sources bright enough and cool enough yet to make such a device worth the cost.

  • Cornell August 9, 2009 08:11 am


  • fawltyfoto August 9, 2009 07:03 am

    Definitely not. As with the inclusion of the video feature I would rather Nikon brought down the price of their basic camera products instead of including these gimmicky features.

  • dotlizard August 9, 2009 06:57 am

    NO. i love over-the-top gadgetry as much as the next over-the-top-gadgetry loving geek, but, in a case like this where there's no way to fit a worthwhile projector into a camera, it just becomes a 'why bother'. I can take the SD card out of my little TZ5 and put it in my Panasonic blu-ray player and play my images in HD on an HDTV, and that's plenty of convenience for me.

  • Joel August 9, 2009 05:24 am

    The idea makes sense but I wouldn't go for a camera will a built-in projector. I would rather have one with a larger and better quality LCD screen. I could use this to share my pictures with friends.

  • Mike August 9, 2009 05:20 am

    Would I use it, no. Do I think it will have good image quality, no. Do I think it is a good move by Nikon, yes. It will probably help sell more cameras (teens will probably like it, even with low brightness and image quality). Also, I'm glad to see a company trying to sell point & shoots based on something other than megapixels.

  • Phil August 9, 2009 05:19 am


  • Ned August 9, 2009 03:52 am

    Like many, I agree that it depends.

    1. The projector portion of the camera would have to have enough quality that it would be enjoyable to use it.
    2. Having the projector as part of the camera can't compromise the quality of the camera, which is the primary reason to purchase the camera in the first place.
    3. The price of the camera/projector has to make sense for what you get.

  • rob s August 9, 2009 03:25 am

    im into gadgets so i think its cool but not nessery

  • Ron Cornelison August 9, 2009 01:56 am

    I would prefere a small guality point and shoot camera size projector with a simple cable interface, why clutter up my DSLR with any thing else.

  • michael August 9, 2009 01:50 am

    Thinking of it as camera with a projector, no. I can see the use for a projector that could take pictures and that could have images loaded onto a card for later display.

  • Dennis August 9, 2009 01:48 am

    I doubt very much that I would buy something like this now. Maybe when it has been around for a few years and is prefected. Of course I just now got a cell phone and I am still trying to figure out how to make a call. Kind of tells you where I'm at.

  • Joshua Rogers August 9, 2009 01:33 am

    Not only would I not use it, it doesn't make sense! It would kill battery life (if it produced sufficient light to even be viewable.) Also, the colors in the image would all be (unpredictably) effected by the surface used to project onto.

    At best it's a pointless gimmick.

  • 3afsa August 9, 2009 01:16 am

    well it seems to be a great new technologie, but still see it as a lux feature not more.

  • Raja August 9, 2009 01:03 am

    This would be ground breaking.

    Of course, the first few products would have crappy projectors, but that will soon change as with all things..

    The projector is in the camera now...soon it would be on the handphone...and then with advance in 3g and data transmission...

    Can anyone say Star War's like holoprojector? Lead the way!!!!!!

  • David Thomas August 9, 2009 12:50 am

    While I agree with Brian's sentiments about convergence, I probably would get one, providing that:

    1. It is built into a DSLR body compatible with my lenses and of a decent quality
    2. The qualilty is good. Doesnt have to be full HD or anything, though.
    3. I am actually looking for a replacement camera (which I'm not at the moment) and the price difference to a comparable model isn't too much.

    But if it came down to, say, a projector vs camera-only that is one model better, than I'd go for the camera anyday.

  • Shula August 9, 2009 12:34 am

    I must have it! such a great idea! Now, just add this feature to all PDA's and phones

  • Sara August 8, 2009 11:45 pm

    It could be a n interesting device... not for a avid photogrpaher per say, but if I think of the other uses. I often have to take a small compact projector and a small digital camera with me on business trips. What if you could take pitcure with it and also hook it up to notebook to project your presentation? For work, I don't need tons of mega pixels, etc. I don't know, just thinking out of the box. I commend Nikon for experimenting and exploring!

  • greg r August 8, 2009 11:29 pm

    Probably a convenient choice for the business traveler who needs to display images from field work at a meeting. Other than that, I don't see a need for it. I like simplicity and quality... and usually the more features added to any electronic device, the lower the quality of the individual components.

  • Rosa August 8, 2009 11:14 pm

    Yes, if the quality was excellent

  • hitori August 8, 2009 11:13 pm

    I wouldn't. My 13" Macbook Pro is already a handy companion for showing pictures when I would not be at home. If a larger screen is needed, I just connect my camera to the TV or for vacation pictures, burn it with iPhoto/iDVD on a DVD, thus rendering such a build-in projector pretty useless to me. It is a nice wanna-have gadget, but nothing more than that in my opinion.
    I also agree on what ghkdsa and zoli said ( -> perfect for another market segment and DSRL are meant to shoot photos with, not projecting)

  • Brian Lunergan August 8, 2009 11:07 pm

    Short answer is no. I'm growing weary of this fascination with convergence where we try to pack more and more tool functions into one space. They've discovered the truth behind that fiction with humans and their mania for multitasking. None of the functions taken on get full attention or are done well.

    Call me old fashioned if you wish, but I prefer a tool that does one job and does it well. If I want a video camera I'll buy one, and if I want others to see my pictures I'll buy a proper projector (assuming they even still make such a creature) or take the steps to show them on the family TV.

  • phs August 8, 2009 11:07 pm

    Ok, from a photographer's POV, i say no, waste of space, money and power on the camera.

    From a student's POV, i would find this cool, especially on CAMPS!!! you can just flash your projector and see your photos. Better yet, load up a movie on your 32gb card and watch it with your friends.

  • Anthony August 8, 2009 10:52 pm

    Yes, depending on the quality of the output and the price of the camera. An added bonus would be if I could save a PowerPoint presentation onto the media card and use the camera to project that. If the quality is good enough and that capability exists within the camera, this will become one of the must have gadgets for business depending on the price. Nothing like having a projector in your pocket. Need a remote too though.

  • David August 8, 2009 08:27 pm

    Can be useful at times. I am a minimalist but love to travel with my DSLR and all my lenses . I have reduced my laptop to a ultra mobile PC so to add a second camera with a projector feature is good.

  • Silverzz August 8, 2009 08:06 pm

    Not a feature I would regularly make use of once the initial novelty had worn off.
    Also I can't imagine the picture quality bieng great or the price reasonable.

    Probably more suited for showing off a few snapshots after a night out.

  • Sister Edith August 8, 2009 06:43 pm

    I cannot imagine a projector with enough "oomph" that would not drain the batteries almost instantly.

    Even if that problem were solved, there are few situations in which I want to show my work before I've edited, cropped, and deleted files, leaving only the god ones. By then, I'm on the computer - and even a laptop monitor is likely to give a better representation than a build-in projector.

  • Tommy August 8, 2009 03:40 pm

    Well, I would prefer to use a HDMI cable to connect onto a plasma TV. It's clearer and bigger

  • carlos August 8, 2009 03:07 pm

    if the camera can project more than only its photos yes because it would be a nice gadget to use in presentations on my University clases

  • Kurt August 8, 2009 02:37 pm

    No, I wouldn't use it. I'd hang out on a photograph forum and mock it. :D

  • Ashok Soni August 8, 2009 02:12 pm

    I would love to have a projector on my N96 mobile rather then on a camera as then I would be able to see the movies and all on that projector instead of just photos .. :D

  • Dusey August 8, 2009 01:47 pm

    Absolutely. Not when I'm on a shoot, but for a casual point and shoot camera. I don't think the public is ready for it yet, but I once saw a tiny projector on a cell phone (super low rez) and realized that some day in the in the future, when projectors are much much smaller and still high quality and bright, this is an easy and ideal way to share imagery. It's a big screen without carrying around a big screen.

    But it's not going to take off any time soon, at all.

  • Ash August 8, 2009 01:22 pm

    I don't see myself using it either. However, I could see some use for it if people want to view standard definition (480p) video clips. It doesn't make sense to me to view 12MP photos on the projector.

    I don't know if thats even possible with this particular model.

  • Jim August 8, 2009 12:27 pm


  • Ken August 8, 2009 11:48 am

    It would be a second or third camera that I would use it differently than I use my current camera. I could see using it for quick turnaround things such as a meeting or a party where the participants would want to see results as part of the process.

  • Kenneth Fretz August 8, 2009 11:09 am

    Everyone is viewing this the wrong way. For the first time since the 1970's Nikon is producing a projector. To help it sell better this time they include a camera in the projector. After all if it telephones can have cameras...

  • Julie August 8, 2009 11:03 am


  • yasky August 8, 2009 10:49 am

    What about battery life? I think most people would buy camera because quality images it produce not the projector.

  • scott webb August 8, 2009 10:47 am

    This inspired me to make a blog post about cool uses and reasons for it. Tried to do some thinking and reasons it could play a role in making photography a little less boring.

  • Zoli August 8, 2009 10:43 am

    I think this is totally unnecessary like the built in video. I hope it wont be a trend to f*ck up the DSLR cameras also. Its like mobilephones...they can almost cook breakfast but what are we them using for? For calling and sending SMS,no more no less.

  • MeiTeng August 8, 2009 10:41 am

    I won't purchase a camera just because it has an in-built projector.

  • sp August 8, 2009 10:27 am

    If a device that's at once a phone, camera, GPS, music player, photo viewer, game player, internet browser, etc. can be hugely successful, then why not a projector in a camera ...

  • Zim August 8, 2009 10:05 am

    As I said previously, I don't find it useful. It's a cool feature. But I don't see myself using it every day...

  • RussHeath August 8, 2009 09:38 am

    This actually appeals more to me in my SLR, as it would save on equipment to review pictures at the hotel on vacation. I usually have plenty of memory to avoid needing a laptop, but I miss having a decently sized screen to review the day's shots.

  • Lester August 8, 2009 09:22 am

    This could solve some "Mac/PC issues" and "what version of PowerPoint do you have?" (been there, done that several times).
    For me, 'no' I wouldn't buy one. It would have to be a high end P/S (i.e., Canon G10) for me to consider it.

  • Ham Hock August 8, 2009 09:04 am

    I would never consider something like this. Chances are it will neither be a good camera, nor a good projector.

    Displaying images quickly is what HDMI ports are for...

  • Samantha Decker August 8, 2009 09:00 am

    I wouldn't pay extra for the projector. I always post-process my photos before showing them off so then I can't even be sure if the camera would accept the new files. It's a neat concept though.

  • Peter August 8, 2009 08:49 am

    it does not seem natural... a projector on a still photography camera? a little too radical for my taste...lets keep projectors projecting... cameras photographing... video cameras recording... you get the point...

    ps. i like the idea of cannon putting a coffee machine on it's next new model... lol

  • scott webb August 8, 2009 08:47 am

    There is a video of a talk on TED.com about the 6th Sense. It's a cell phone/camera/projector/computer device that hangs around the neck in the video. It looked pretty nerdy but it was one of the coolest things and while I might not buy this digital camera with the projector, it excites me as to what's coming.

    I can see some cool uses for it but I don't have the pure desire for it yet. maybe has i brainstorm a bit more.

  • Xiao August 8, 2009 08:36 am

    this appeals to me greatly because it is just one less thing to carry and one less hassle to deal with when i'm on business trips

    the quality of the projectors in the camera can only get better as time goes on

  • archshrk August 8, 2009 08:35 am

    I can't see the quality being good enough to be worth using. it may have a certain cool factor but it won't do much to improve the user experience. I'd rather see the camera get smaller or more practical features taking up that space.

  • George F August 8, 2009 08:35 am

    Maybe I'm old but a still camera is for still photography, not to be projectors now to be video cameras

  • mdw August 8, 2009 08:28 am


  • skykid August 8, 2009 08:26 am

    I would love to have a projector integrated into my camera - but this is not going to be the main reason for me to buy it. Yet such camera would be perfect for birthday parties and creative projects

  • Kathy A. August 8, 2009 08:15 am

    Doesn't appeal to me at all. If I was that concerned about showing the pictures, I'd bring my laptop.

  • mike August 8, 2009 08:14 am

    i can't imagine buying it just for the projector, but if the price were right (i haven't looked at how much they are) i think it would be fun to play with the projector... like maybe onto photo paper or to do illustrations like in elementary school.

  • marcus August 8, 2009 08:11 am

    It's definitely not something that would have any influence on my buying decisions.

  • Yonatan August 8, 2009 08:11 am

    If the price tag is right, the image quality is satisfactory, and it doesn't completely kill the battery life, I think it's an interesting way to show off your days work. It would sure beat having to plug into a TV. With that said, I'm skeptical that any of my above conditions will be met for quite some time.

  • David August 8, 2009 08:01 am

    Depends on the quality!
    Generally new features like this are tried out on compacts and then introduced on DSLR cameras. The Nikon D90 has HD movie, maybe down the line a home cinema in a camera? What about suround sound.

  • ghkdsa August 8, 2009 07:57 am

    on-camera projector ... lol, no way, it will be a small cheap projector so it will display a low-quality projection, therefore all those megapixels that you thought will make your camera better will be rendered useless :)
    ... but anyway most ppl here have dslr's, which means they care abt quality so this camera is addresed to a rather diferent market segment, so I expect a pretty negative feedback

    ... just my 2 cents ...

  • Sam S. August 8, 2009 07:51 am

    Personally I don't think that I would. I view most of my pics on my computer which I usually have with me. I think it's a cool feature, but don't see it taking off quite yet.

  • matejMM August 8, 2009 07:49 am

    I hope Canon will reply to this with adding coffee machine into new EOS...

  • rian August 8, 2009 07:44 am

    if the image projected is good enough and if the price is good enough then.. maybe.. :D