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.
A perhaps similar sort of finder existed on a number of older (eg, first half of the 20th century) cameras, usually as a secondary option or an accessory, for quick shots. They tend to be common additions built into waist level finders because WLFs are slow to use and adding them is cheap; there’s one on the 1939 Praktiflex, as a random example, an early 35mm SLR with a pretty tiny WLF as its primary viewfinder.
Those usually work by having two square windows, the back larger than the front: you know you are looking at them the right way when they line up. They’re very approximate, but they’re meant to be.
Here, the camera has a thickness that is obscured by the face-on photos of it, so I expect it works by a similar principle: if you see the sides of the inside of the screen, you’re misaligned.
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!”.
Most people (even pros) even with expensive cameras and great viewfinders still take mostly garbage shots and only some are good by luck. Same will be true here
Often switching from using your eye to looking through the viewfinder and fiddle with composition is how you ruin a genuine shot and miss the moment.
Also I used a camera without a viewfinder for some years, I guarantee if it's a fixed lens you learn what you get quickly.
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
The frame is a compositional aid, and it does have quite a strict relation to what the camera is capturing.
The best version of your complaint is that the viewfinder does not have accurate frame lines that account for parallax at various distances, which is true, but there are still ways of using the viewfinder to assist in composition.
If you take two or three shots at two meters, and look at what the camera captured versus where your composition was in the frame, you can immediately intuit a baseline for where the frame lines 'should be' on the viewfinder at two meters. "Occupies the bottom right two thirds of the viewfinder" for example.
Without a reference frame, these intuitions (and your aiming of the camera!) are going to be far less accurate.
Seems a lot easier to learn "it's accurate when it's about 8 inches from my face; it's this much off when it is 12 inches away" than to project out a virtual FOV from the camera at an arbitrary position onto the world.
tbh I would probably enjoy a dirt-cheap viewfinder-and-display-less camera, like an even-cheaper charmera. it'd also make a great party-favor thing: hand them out before an event, and optionally gather photos from people at the end.
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.
I don’t know but it’s either completely vibes driven or, maybe, it uses a TOF sensor to know how far from your face it is . It has framing cues that seem to adjust, so it’s plausible that it gives you an approximate framing based on the distance from your face. Even multizone TOF sensors are less than $2 these days, so it’s at least plausible.
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.
Cheap point and shoot have a prism that if you could take further from the eye would retain the aspect ration. If this camera has a glass that is used to frame the photo it would change the frame based on how close you keep it to your eyes
Maybe they're using an accelerometer to detect the angle (and possibly even distance from the user, if they can, like if you turn the camera on close to you then move it away) to crop into a sensor that's otherwise exactly like a point and shoot. The image in the site appears to show a transparent classic reflective LCD panel as the viewfinder (like the type you'd see in a basic calculator, without the reflective background), and the camera is ever so slightly above the panel. The math probably isn't that hard for someone trained in how all this works.
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.
Great for kids to get started.
Saves to SD so you don't fill your mobile storage with 12,000 beach photos from last holiday.
Cheaper to lose/replace than ifone.
I still have a LUMIX camera 10+ years for instant pics when travelling. Smaller than my wallet.
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.
Or even just using a plain old light meter. I use a Gossen Luna Pro (with 'spot' attachment) with my meterless cameras (which is most of them). It's reliable.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
A perhaps similar sort of finder existed on a number of older (eg, first half of the 20th century) cameras, usually as a secondary option or an accessory, for quick shots. They tend to be common additions built into waist level finders because WLFs are slow to use and adding them is cheap; there’s one on the 1939 Praktiflex, as a random example, an early 35mm SLR with a pretty tiny WLF as its primary viewfinder.
Those usually work by having two square windows, the back larger than the front: you know you are looking at them the right way when they line up. They’re very approximate, but they’re meant to be.
Here, the camera has a thickness that is obscured by the face-on photos of it, so I expect it works by a similar principle: if you see the sides of the inside of the screen, you’re misaligned.
It's nowhere near thick enough to handle the huge variety of ranges shown in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duKNwA96J5Y (thickness clearly visible at ~10s)
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
Most people (even pros) even with expensive cameras and great viewfinders still take mostly garbage shots and only some are good by luck. Same will be true here
Often switching from using your eye to looking through the viewfinder and fiddle with composition is how you ruin a genuine shot and miss the moment.
Also I used a camera without a viewfinder for some years, I guarantee if it's a fixed lens you learn what you get quickly.
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
The frame is a compositional aid, and it does have quite a strict relation to what the camera is capturing.
The best version of your complaint is that the viewfinder does not have accurate frame lines that account for parallax at various distances, which is true, but there are still ways of using the viewfinder to assist in composition.
If you take two or three shots at two meters, and look at what the camera captured versus where your composition was in the frame, you can immediately intuit a baseline for where the frame lines 'should be' on the viewfinder at two meters. "Occupies the bottom right two thirds of the viewfinder" for example.
Without a reference frame, these intuitions (and your aiming of the camera!) are going to be far less accurate.
Seems a lot easier to learn "it's accurate when it's about 8 inches from my face; it's this much off when it is 12 inches away" than to project out a virtual FOV from the camera at an arbitrary position onto the world.
tbh I would probably enjoy a dirt-cheap viewfinder-and-display-less camera, like an even-cheaper charmera. it'd also make a great party-favor thing: hand them out before an event, and optionally gather photos from people at the end.
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.
I blame autocorrect, though it could have just been my fat fingers. Sibling has it right: “Ansel Adams”.
(“Ansely Adam’s”, WTF, autocorrect?)
Let me guess, you have an iPhone?
Check out Nostradamus over here. ;-) You have guessed correctly, as I add to the cries of “this used to work, Apple!”
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.
It likely comes with instructions like "hold directly in front of you, at exactly 15cm distance, with your left eye closed".
I don’t know but it’s either completely vibes driven or, maybe, it uses a TOF sensor to know how far from your face it is . It has framing cues that seem to adjust, so it’s plausible that it gives you an approximate framing based on the distance from your face. Even multizone TOF sensors are less than $2 these days, so it’s at least plausible.
if you have a 2 dollar budget to make a viewfinder work, just throw in a ten cent plastic lens and be done with it.
That’d be cool if it does that but for this price I doubt it has it even if TOF sensor is cheap.
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.
I imagine the same way cheap point-and-shoot film cameras did.
Cheap point and shoot have a prism that if you could take further from the eye would retain the aspect ration. If this camera has a glass that is used to frame the photo it would change the frame based on how close you keep it to your eyes
Those had a viewfinder that restricted your viewing angles and location to enough of a degree that it mostly didn't matter.
Maybe they're using an accelerometer to detect the angle (and possibly even distance from the user, if they can, like if you turn the camera on close to you then move it away) to crop into a sensor that's otherwise exactly like a point and shoot. The image in the site appears to show a transparent classic reflective LCD panel as the viewfinder (like the type you'd see in a basic calculator, without the reflective background), and the camera is ever so slightly above the panel. The math probably isn't that hard for someone trained in how all this works.
Maybe it does measure the distance to your face to work out where to show the viewfinder rectangle...
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
The largest source of delay too
Great for kids to get started. Saves to SD so you don't fill your mobile storage with 12,000 beach photos from last holiday. Cheaper to lose/replace than ifone.
I still have a LUMIX camera 10+ years for instant pics when travelling. Smaller than my wallet.
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.
Or even just using a plain old light meter. I use a Gossen Luna Pro (with 'spot' attachment) with my meterless cameras (which is most of them). It's reliable.
> Godox has apparently omitted Wi-Fi and Bluetooth for cost reasons.
Seem like a questionable claim given that many microcontrollers support both of those.
It's not just the cost of the antennas. This device barely has a screen and has like four buttons total. How are you going to type in a wifi password?
Put it in the file wpa_supplicant.conf on the root of the sd card of course.
Point taken, although I suspect the sibling comment about the cost of certification might be the correct answer.
More likely omitted for cost associated with regulatory reasons, so they don't have to submit it for emitter approval.
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.
Without the polarizer, you wouldn't be able to see anything. Unless wearing polarizing sunglasses.
But yea, you'd need light on the subject you're looking at it through to take pictures too.
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.
It seems that you hold the camera vertically to take a landscape photo, and horizontally to take a portrait photo. That’s going to confuse people.
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.
I would argue for some form of head tracking to always display the appropriate frame.
It would be nice if you could use hud display tech so it would automatically track, but I don't think it's possible in this form factor
Maybe even an off-the-shelf microlouver privacy screen protector?
when are we going to get a fully transparent phone
> 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.
I believe that Notebookcheck is natively written in German and translated.