I don't understand how this works. If it's a transparent display that just passes through light and adds some overlay information (like a viewfinder on d/SLR cameras of the old), then doesn't the frame change completely depending on the distance you're holding the device at in relation to your face?
It can't be meant to be used with your arm fully outstretched, because that would be an impractically narrow field of view. So how do you "calibrate" your stance to make the capture match the FOV of the glass rectangle you're looking through?
For a near flat $29 MSRP camera I'm not sure I could come up with better way to have an overlaid viewfinder. The screen itself even looks to be a cheap segmented display, not a grid of pixels.
If you care those things mess up your framing of the shot then you probably don't want a flat $29 camera.
I think the idea is that the display kinda represents the shot, but not well, but if you cared you wouldn’t be shooting with a $29 camera. I mean, it takes 1920x1080 pics, don’t get too picky there, Ansley Adams. :-)
But I agree with you, I don’t see how the “viewfinder” is all that useful, other than “nifty!”.
Could you not develop the same sense by just looking in front of you without the viewfinder? I don’t see how a frame that doesn’t actually have any relation to what the camera is capturing helps you at all
It's $29, this is a fun gimmick to take pictures of your friends doing bullshit this summer. It's obviously far worse than your phone, the point is that it's fun.
Not only that, but slight changes to the angle you're holding it will result in dramatically different photo angles, even though you're always seeing the same thing.
This also functions as a light meter for analog photographing. There are light meter apps on smart phones, but it is fun to measure through a lighter/simpler equipment.
I had the most fun taking pictures with a cheap, low-quality camera that I only owned for a few months before it died. This one might fit the bill nicely. The skill or unknowns of the viewfinder might be part of the charm.
I want one, but they don’t seem to be available yet.
For those struggling to find tech specs: Apparently [1] it has a 2MP CMOS sensor, F2.4 aperture, 24mm equivalent wide-angle lens, and shoots a resolution of 1920x1080.
When I use a camera with an optical viewfinder, I feel more connected to my subject. Sure all the modern pro cameras are using EVFs now, and their performance is excellent, but I do think it’s a more disconnected shooting experience.
Think about the optical chain.
EVF: Subject —-> real time digital processor —-> screen —-> shooters eye
OVF: subject —-> mirror/glass —-> shooters eye
My hipster take is that makes shooting with an OVF a more “pure” experience. Not that it matters from the subjects POV though..
Seems like a cool camera. I think I will pick one up for my daughter.
I wonder if you could sandwich two polarized lenses in a way that would make it only transparent when your eye is in the correct position. Would make for an elegant & simple WYSIWYG viewfinder.
Going on ten years ago I saw an early transparent OLED screen (TV-sized). It didn’t need a strong light source behind it. Could be those got cheap enough in a small size to put in a $29 camera.
If it was not very affordable, it would not be interesting as a light meter, because it would make no sense to spend any more money on a very basic light meter. Light meters on amazon start at about $15-30 (and go to ~$700), so at it's current price point, it's not much more expensive then a basic light meter without the camera.
I don't understand how this works. If it's a transparent display that just passes through light and adds some overlay information (like a viewfinder on d/SLR cameras of the old), then doesn't the frame change completely depending on the distance you're holding the device at in relation to your face?
It can't be meant to be used with your arm fully outstretched, because that would be an impractically narrow field of view. So how do you "calibrate" your stance to make the capture match the FOV of the glass rectangle you're looking through?
It likely comes with instructions like "hold directly in front of you, at exactly 15cm distance, with your left eye closed".
For a near flat $29 MSRP camera I'm not sure I could come up with better way to have an overlaid viewfinder. The screen itself even looks to be a cheap segmented display, not a grid of pixels.
If you care those things mess up your framing of the shot then you probably don't want a flat $29 camera.
I think the idea is that the display kinda represents the shot, but not well, but if you cared you wouldn’t be shooting with a $29 camera. I mean, it takes 1920x1080 pics, don’t get too picky there, Ansley Adams. :-)
But I agree with you, I don’t see how the “viewfinder” is all that useful, other than “nifty!”.
But if it’s giving you no information about what will actually be in frame you might as well just look in front of you and guess
Or develop thesense & skill of using it. It clearly has a fixed FOV that's being cropped based on what's on the display.
Humans can learn this stuff, cameras with crude viewfinders have appeared in the past.
Could you not develop the same sense by just looking in front of you without the viewfinder? I don’t see how a frame that doesn’t actually have any relation to what the camera is capturing helps you at all
Is Ansley Adams this generations David Bailey?
I think OP meant ansel adams. The guy died even before most of the crowd in HN was born.
It's $29, this is a fun gimmick to take pictures of your friends doing bullshit this summer. It's obviously far worse than your phone, the point is that it's fun.
Not only that, but slight changes to the angle you're holding it will result in dramatically different photo angles, even though you're always seeing the same thing.
Maybe it does measure the distance to your face to work out where to show the viewfinder rectangle...
This also functions as a light meter for analog photographing. There are light meter apps on smart phones, but it is fun to measure through a lighter/simpler equipment.
I had the most fun taking pictures with a cheap, low-quality camera that I only owned for a few months before it died. This one might fit the bill nicely. The skill or unknowns of the viewfinder might be part of the charm.
I want one, but they don’t seem to be available yet.
For those struggling to find tech specs: Apparently [1] it has a 2MP CMOS sensor, F2.4 aperture, 24mm equivalent wide-angle lens, and shoots a resolution of 1920x1080.
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/toycameras/comments/1ukcl55/godox_c...
When I use a camera with an optical viewfinder, I feel more connected to my subject. Sure all the modern pro cameras are using EVFs now, and their performance is excellent, but I do think it’s a more disconnected shooting experience.
Think about the optical chain.
EVF: Subject —-> real time digital processor —-> screen —-> shooters eye
OVF: subject —-> mirror/glass —-> shooters eye
My hipster take is that makes shooting with an OVF a more “pure” experience. Not that it matters from the subjects POV though..
Seems like a cool camera. I think I will pick one up for my daughter.
"shooters eye" is doing a lot of work there, since that's where the most pre-processing happens, by far
I wonder if you could sandwich two polarized lenses in a way that would make it only transparent when your eye is in the correct position. Would make for an elegant & simple WYSIWYG viewfinder.
This is probably an LCD panel with the polarizer removed, so the UI will require a bright/strong source of light behind it.
Going on ten years ago I saw an early transparent OLED screen (TV-sized). It didn’t need a strong light source behind it. Could be those got cheap enough in a small size to put in a $29 camera.
> Thanks to its very affordable price, the camera is also an attractive option as a light meter.
Tell me you're writing AI slop without telling me you're writing AI slop.
Why is this news outlet with some low-quality post even on Hacker News?
Product site: https://www.godox.com/product-e/C100.html
Why does that sentence strike you? This product seems to be a light meter with a camera attached.
Sure, but that is despite of / or not because it's very affordable. Not thanks to it. Or am I being too picky?
If it was not very affordable, it would not be interesting as a light meter, because it would make no sense to spend any more money on a very basic light meter. Light meters on amazon start at about $15-30 (and go to ~$700), so at it's current price point, it's not much more expensive then a basic light meter without the camera.