It was a bit fiddly to get it up and running on the Windows2K machine at work, requiring some plugging and unplugging, along with some button pushing, before windows spotted it and loaded the camera drivers themselves. After some more fiddling around it was all up and running. Things were a little smoother when I plugged it into my WinXP box at home but neither system was too keen on any hot-plugging shenanigans. Once things were all settled the camera pops up as a removable drive for easy picture transference, and Windows recognised it as both a camera device and a video device. Placing the PC-CAM 880 into its little cradle and setting it up on top of monitor I noticed how well it will stay in place. The whole base of the cradle is covered in a rubbery-type material, giving it a solid grip on any surface.

Now it came time to use it as a webcam. Enlisting the help of one of my buddies, the first thing I noticed was just how poor the exposure is under dim lighting conditions. With the sun set below my northern horizon hours ago, and a solitary light bulb emitting away from the ceiling, all that could be seen on the screen was an orangey/brown smudge. So began a hunt for another light WITH a light bulb in it. After some fruitless searching I dug out my halogen lamp. This lit me up just fine but brought howls of protest from my Counterstrike playing flatmates. After informing them of important nature of my work, then falling back and telling them to shut up and lump it, the image on the screen was now most recognisably me. Then another problem cropped up. No matter how high I set the capture rate in both the proprietary software and the webcam settings within Messenger the frame rate was abysmal. My movements looked like a flip-book animation yet not as fluid. Outside of Messenger all was fine though, it just seems like it doesn't like the premier IM client. Oh well.

Now, the digicam side of things. I'll be straight to the point here. The PC-CAM 880 is a terrible digital camera, just dreadful. In poor lighting conditions the pictures come out looking like they've been dipped in melted chocolate. However, if I were to use the flash any close-ups came out so whitewashed I thought I'd died and was on the way up the white tunnel to the afterlife. Outside, or in ample lighting conditions, the pictures came out better. Better as in I could tell what they were supposed to be of. But not better as in 'those are lovely pictures, look how the detail comes out so nicely'. No, all the colours were more saturated than the blood of a recovery diver on the Kursk. The blues were so blue I expected them to advocate national service and the complete privatisation of the NHS. Skin tones were from the same stable as 'flesh' tone Crayolas; horribly pink. I could go on, but then I might run out of patience to continue with the faults. Such as the poor focusing. Set the slider to close-up and you have to jam the camera in someone's face to get the correct definition, and landscape photos weren't much better. Although with the general blurriness evident in all the photos I took I reckon this camera may just be a faulty example. Surely Creative wouldn't release a dual-function device when one of those functions was well beyond the technical capabilities of the camera. Let your own eyes discover the story and check out the pictures. On the plus side there is a little hole on the bottom of the cam for screwing in a tripod. I reckon that most people who are into taking pictures enough to invest in a tripod are going to steer well clear of this little 'beauty'.

In summary, the PC-CAM 880 is a feature-packed, well built, well designed near total disaster. I haven't mentioned that when the camera is guzzling down batteries it does so like a ravenous bear just new out of hibernation. Nor the compete lack of a lens-cap, not a smart omission. Nor the fact the camera is quite heavy in comparison to its diminutive size. It seems like two completely different teams were involved in the production of this camera. On the one side we have the designers in charge of the physical body of the camera, smart and talented people every one of them. Then there's the team that built the innards. The descriptive words I can think of to apply to this shower are those that used to get me in trouble back on the playground, so I'll just give you the accompanying sound effects, 'Mmmuuuhhh', 'Unggghh', etc. Unless I have been shipped a damaged sample and all the other cameras that came off the assembly line take great, clear, solid and well saturated pictures, I can unequivocally say that the PC-CAM 880 is the worst way to spend £130 to get yourself into the digital picture world. Avoid like a ravenous bear just new out of hibernation.

Design - 80%
Execution - 30%

By Sam Gibson