[HN Gopher] Samsung's abandoned NX cameras can be brought online...
___________________________________________________________________
Samsung's abandoned NX cameras can be brought online with a $20 LTE
stick
Author : ge0rg
Score : 135 points
Date : 2024-07-10 12:08 UTC (5 days ago)
(HTM) web link (op-co.de)
(TXT) w3m dump (op-co.de)
| ge0rg wrote:
| Original blog post: https://op-
| co.de/blog/posts/samsung_nx_mastodon/
| dang wrote:
| Thanks! We've changed the URL to that from
| https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/07/samsungs-abandoned-n...
| above.
|
| Submitters: " _Please submit the original source. If a post
| reports on something found on another site, submit the latter._
| " - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| scohesc wrote:
| I'm not a camera enthusiast - but are these cameras still "worth
| it" to go through all the effort for their qualities, or is this
| closer to a vintage computer enthusiast just cracking away at
| something because it's a challenge?
|
| Very interesting route to go through to get the camera working
| again!
| steve_adams_86 wrote:
| The hashtag on one of the original author's tweets is
| "ShittyCameraChallenge" and the photos don't look great, so I
| think it's mostly about reviving dead tech and learning.
| RobotToaster wrote:
| Vintage digital cameras, especially the sony ones that use
| floppy disks, are now "retro" and in fashion with zoomers,
| apparently.
|
| edit: Many of these aren't that old, the last NX was 2015, I
| still use a pentax APS-C DSLR around that age and it's fine.
| netsharc wrote:
| I've seen kids using 2010 era cameras, but I doubt they'd be
| using ones with floppies. Those are 90's tech and probably
| have 1024x768 resolution at most, plus can you even buy USB
| floppy disk drives, or plug it into your phone? (E.g. I have
| a Micro-SD card reader that I can plug into my phone using
| USB-C, and I can plug the card into my camera using an Micro-
| SD-to-SD-adapter).
|
| Then there are the geeks taking pictures using the B&W
| 320x200 Gameboy cameras, my feeling is even the Gen-Z would
| view these people as nerds...
| ge0rg wrote:
| The compact models are probably not competitive to modern
| smartphones, except if you need optical zoom.
|
| The NX series interchangeable lens cameras however don't fare
| too badly compared to today's models, and have a good price-
| point on the used market, if you are ready to do some bargain
| hunting.
|
| In the last decade, the improvements were largely in sensor
| resolutions (from 20MP to 40MP, not relevant for most practical
| uses) and in "smart" auto-focus, with better tracking of eyes,
| animals or objects.
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| In-body image stabilization is another area that has had huge
| improvements in pro/pro-amateur cameras in the last 10 years.
| ge0rg wrote:
| Right, that's something that I'm actually sometimes missing
| on my NX500 when using vintage lenses, but I'm not sure how
| relevant it is for pro amateurs in general.
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| It's super useful, esp if you're going after longer focal
| lengths and snapping birds, and if you're... like me...
| into manual focus or vintage lenses. My little Olympus
| M43 camera has an older IBIS system and it's very useful
| and I can _definitely_ tell when it 's off or not
| configured. Newer cameras have made huge improvements in
| this, and, yeah, autofocus ...
| wongarsu wrote:
| Just having exchangeable lenses is a huge boon. The sensor is
| probably worse than what you can find in a modern smart phone,
| but phones simply don't have the space for deep lenses and thus
| have to emulate effects like zoom and depth-of-field. On this
| camera you can have the "real" thing without paying $1000+ for
| a DSLR and $300+ for a lens.
|
| And of course there's the effect where for every sufficiently
| popular camera their technical deficiencies become a desirable
| vintage look, given enough time. Kind of like people preferring
| vinyl records for their sound
| Marsymars wrote:
| > The sensor is probably worse than what you can find in a
| modern smart phone, but phones simply don't have the space
| for deep lenses
|
| Phones don't have space for big sensors either, other than
| some gimmicky big-sensor phones (808 PureView, Lumia 1020).
| The iPhone 15 Pro main camera sensor is 9.8x7.3mm, compared
| to say, the Ricoh GR III with a 23.5x15.6mm sensor, about 5x
| larger. The GR III is actually less tall/wide than an iPhone,
| but about 4x the thickness.
| ianburrell wrote:
| The big problem with the NX cameras is that they are no longer
| supported and won't ever get more lenses. If happy with kit
| lens or adapting manual lenses, then they are probably cheaper
| than other mirrorless.
| jdfellow wrote:
| I have an NX Mini (which isn't exactly the same as the regular
| NX line) which has a "1 inch" sensor and a 3-lens
| interchangeable system. With the 9mm fixed lens it's as
| pocketable as a phone, but with a flip-out screen, a real flash
| and otherwise much better quality. With the 9-27mm zoom lens
| it's even a reasonable portrait camera. I haven't found one of
| the 17mm f/1.8 lenses, they're pretty rare.
|
| Anyway, I really like that little thing. With a C-mount lens
| adapter I can use surveillance camera lenses which is pretty
| fun.
| ge0rg wrote:
| I'm a huge fan of the NX mini and they are fully supported by
| the SNS API bridge.
|
| I have a bunch of them, one converted to infrared. Usually I
| have the mini with me when the NX500 is too bulky. It's a
| pity that the lenses are so rare on the used market. The
| image quality is just awesome for the form factor!
| freeAgent wrote:
| This is definitely not "worth it" given that NX is a dead
| platform, but I can totally see it being a passion project for
| someone who wants to improve the system. The NX cameras were
| pretty darn good. The NX1, which was the final flagship of the
| range, was an amazing camera IMO, and of course these cameras
| can produce excellent images (better than modern smartphones)
| with their APS-C sensors. Photography is all about light, so
| smartphones with tiny sensors will always be disadvantaged.
| Computational photography tries to work around the physical
| limitations, but it also yields some very unnatural results.
| Personally, I prefer traditional cameras where the bokeh is
| real and there's no built-in adjustment to the image.
| samcat116 wrote:
| Its crazy to me that there isn't a modern version of this kind of
| camera. Sony and Cannon could be doing a lot to take away from
| the smartphone share if they made cameras more usable and modern:
|
| - Built in GPS for location tagging in photos(a few cameras have
| this but for many you need an external dongle attached to the
| camera)
|
| - Automatic backup of photos to cloud/network storage locations
|
| - built in flash storage for redundancy
|
| - Wifi that isn't trash so you could transfer photos at a
| meaningful speed
|
| - LTE for the same reason when on location
|
| - Run apps for upload to a variety of services
|
| - More computational photography features
| brokensegue wrote:
| If you have all that why not also make it a phone?
| glial wrote:
| Phones have relatively terrible lenses and sensors.
| delecti wrote:
| That isn't an inevitability. The modem doesn't negatively
| affect the lenses and sensors, choices by people in
| companies are what result in worse sensors/lenses in
| phones.
| samcat116 wrote:
| It largely is due to physics. There's a reason a Canon
| 24-70 f2.8 lens is the size that it is.
| hef19898 wrote:
| My Pixel takes reasonably good images, even printed some
| in A4, at A3 they suffer. That is for the camera
| generated JPEGs, the RAW files are all but unusable.
|
| It shows that smartphones use small, and crappy, sensors
| behind even smaller, and crappier, lenses. Phone got a
| long way, and there is a reason they replaced point-and-
| shoots. They are still a far cry from "real" cameras.
| Zambyte wrote:
| I think you may have missed the "also" in their comment.
| jsheard wrote:
| Because the thinness of a phone and the optics of a real
| camera are mutually exclusive. Anything with proper optics is
| going to be way too chunky to use as a daily driver.
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| Not always. See ricoh gr. Chunkier than a smartphone with
| no case? yes. but still fits in the pocket, and probably
| not much fatter than that same phone after the user has
| slapped a case and a wallet or a pop socket onto it.
| 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote:
| Is that strictly true? If you want it as thin as today's
| flagship phones, sure, but if you just go for
| pocketability, it might not be. There are some
| fantastically compact, perfectly good prime lenses out
| there. The top end point-and-shoot lines haven't been
| updated in ages, but even the old ones were are a pretty
| damned good compromise.
| pphysch wrote:
| It sounds like you are describing a smartphone with a
| traditional camera form factor?
| samcat116 wrote:
| Thats basically what the Galaxy NX was.
| ge0rg wrote:
| It seems like the consumer market was completely destroyed by
| smartphones, used by people who don't particularly care about
| image quality, and the professional market is people who do RAW
| shooting with image file sizes of 40..90MB, with post-
| processing on a PC.
|
| Seems like the niche between those markets never was large
| enough to warrant this functionality, given that both mobile
| standards and cloud service APIs change multiple times over the
| lifetime of a camera.
| BobaFloutist wrote:
| Also given that phone cameras have absurdly high image
| quality at this point.
| ge0rg wrote:
| They only have absurdly high resolution. The optical
| quality is rather mediocre if you need to zoom or shoot in
| low light.
| chillfox wrote:
| I can pull out my decade old Sony and it absolutely beats a
| new iPhone on image quality. Zero contest. Phone images
| only look ok because they are mostly viewed on a small
| screen.
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| As sibling says... they have high resolution, but terrible
| optics. Fixed aperture, bad in low light, and all the
| photos get a similar.. flat... quality to them that they
| then alter heavily in software with various computational
| photography / "AI" techniques that ... well, they're fine,
| and good for the market they're after, but it's limiting.
|
| Even a 15 year old interchangeable lens camera with a lower
| MP sensor can produce better pictures than a phone, esp if
| you want to do things like background blur / bokeh which is
| not possible at all with a phone (though they emulate it in
| software).
|
| Hell lately I've dug up an old Canon Powershot 12MP CCD
| digicam out of a box, and put a hacked firmware on it (that
| can shoot RAW and let you do proper manual control of the
| lens), and gotten really interesting results. That thing
| has a tiny sensor, but having actual aperture control makes
| a big diff.
| estebank wrote:
| The niche between those two market segments is currently
| catered to by the used market of older pro gear.
| giobox wrote:
| The used ILC market is insanely good over the past few
| years, I'd strongly argue most interchangeable lens cameras
| passed the "good enough" point for most types of
| photography circa 2013. This has meant there is basically a
| decades worth of "good enough" used gear out there to buy.
| It's a similar story for video folks; lots of old Black
| Magic m43 cams available for ridiculous prices on eBay etc
| etc.
|
| The gains from 2013 to today in the ILC market are much
| less interesting than 2003-2013 was, where we saw a pretty
| wild rate of improvement from the Canon 300D/Nikon D70
| beginnings of a consumer market through to the modern era
| of digital SLRs.
|
| My "daily driver" camera (olympus EM-1 MK II) dates from
| 2013, as one example of this, and still produces great
| results. The latest iteration of this model is not a
| quantum leap for most types of photography.
| spike021 wrote:
| I think the RAW photo size is the constraint here.
|
| If I'm out shooting an event or something it's not uncommon
| for me to get 500-1000 frames. Multiply that by say 50MB each
| and that's a huge chunk of data at least for some cell plans.
|
| I'm an amateur photographer though so it's not a requirement
| for me. Maybe a professional wouldn't mind writing the
| expense of mobile data off as a cost of business.
| glial wrote:
| +1 I would absolutely buy this.
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| Many of us would. I love my little Olympus PEN EPL8 camera,
| the form factor beats the crap out of phones, the quality of
| the pictures way better (despite "only" 16MP), etc. But the
| ... software experience is awful. I could come up with dozens
| of ways to improve the experience that would have been
| possible even in 2016 when it was made... (In fact I wasted a
| couple days writing my own custom WiFi remote control program
| for it a few days ago, hoping to snap birds at the feeder
| while I sit at my desk, cuz the "OI Share" Olympus/OM Systems
| one is terrible)
|
| But there's not enough of a market at all to make it
| justifiable. Software developers are expensive. The
| interchangeable lens camera market is _tiny_ , and the
| professional people who spend _serious_ money care less about
| things like that and more about stellar optics and sensors.
|
| The consumer (and even "pro-sumer") level tier of the camera
| market has almost disappeared. Even in Japan, which is camera
| crazy, it's in free-fall still.
|
| Take Panasonic's new GH7, for example, a new rather nice
| Micro Four Thirds camera with a bunch of advanced features,
| but kind of targeted towards the video segment (so great for
| YouTubers, etc)... They announced the production numbers and
| it's only 4000 a month. That's... basically nothing... in the
| consumer hardware segment.
|
| That said, I think this segment will come back in a bit. The
| digicam craze is evidence at least that young people (like my
| teenage daughter's age) can see the value in the camera form
| factor over using a phone. The ergonomics are way better. And
| Fujifilm can't keep the X100V series in stock, it keeps
| flying off the shelves. Phones themselves are becoming less
| "cool."
| ge0rg wrote:
| Samsung actually released multiple Android-based cameras: the
| Galaxy Camera range with built-in zoom lenses
| (https://www.zisman.ca/blog/2013-01-05.html) and the Galaxy NX
| with interchangeable lenses: https://op-
| co.de/blog/posts/galaxy_nx/
|
| They all suffered from running Android 4.x with no major
| upgrades from Samsung.
| hef19898 wrote:
| If I want a camera running a smartphone OS, I use a phone. A
| camera should be by definition running on dedicated camera
| firmware, and nothing else.
| roblabla wrote:
| > A camera should be by definition running on dedicated
| camera firmware, and nothing else.
|
| Says who? There's no intrinsic reason a camera couldn't run
| with an Android OS. In fact, there's a lot of good reasons
| why you would want that - simpler development platform,
| reusing existing drivers, etc...
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| Take a look at the Alice camera:
| https://www.alice.camera/
|
| Basically an add-on for your phone that adds a serious
| interchangeable lens sensor.
| account42 wrote:
| > There's no intrinsic reason a camera couldn't run with
| an Android OS.
|
| There is: battery life and startup time.
|
| DLSRs have no problem being being on standby for weeks if
| not months with minimal battery drain and then springing
| to life within a second at the press of a button. Android
| phones do no even come remotely close to that level of
| efficiency.
| tracker1 wrote:
| A lot of that comes down to the always-on radio on the
| phone... When I've done road trips, I've used my phone
| mostly as an mp3/podcast player and had it in airplane
| mode, and it lasted _much_ longer than when it was just
| in normal operation. Standby for several days.
|
| My M1 air is in standby for weeks at a time on a single
| charge. There's no reason you can't do similar with a
| phone. Maybe not months, but definitely for extended
| periods of time.
| estebank wrote:
| A DSLR has the added benefit of not needing a screen to
| be on for it to work (this is why they still have better
| battery life than mirror less as well). Then again, SLRs
| have even better battery life (it's only used for the
| light meter and on newer models autofocus motor and film
| advance).
| spondylosaurus wrote:
| E-readers running Android can last forever on a single
| charge, too. The biggest drain on most phones' battery
| are the wireless radio (like you described) and those
| big, beautiful screens :) But certainly not the OS
| itself!
| hef19898 wrote:
| Sure, a camera is a specialized tool doing a limited set
| of functions. It does not need the vast majority of
| functions Android offers: phone, 5g, internet, app
| stores... No nerd for that on a camera.
|
| What camera needs: fast "boot", stability, reliability,
| ability to run offline for decades.
|
| And no, I don't want all software being developed the way
| a social.media app for a phone is.
| batch12 wrote:
| But how else will you get ads on your viewfinder?
| jauntywundrkind wrote:
| Sony used to have a whole Android subsystem on their Alpha
| cameras. It kind of surprised me more 3rd party stuff didn't
| come out that took advantage of this programmability.
| https://github.com/ma1co/Sony-PMCA-RE
| morsch wrote:
| It's incredibly slow and clunky. They're just bad at
| software. Even if the third party app was good, just getting
| to it through the camera interface would make it agonizing to
| use.
| thih9 wrote:
| Stating the obvious, the market decided that the opposite would
| happen, i.e. that the smartphones would take away the market
| share of camera manufacturers instead. Smartphone camera
| experience is good enough for most people and smartphones offer
| other features as well.
| samcat116 wrote:
| I don't know if there was ever really a shot at the form
| factor I'm describing in the market, but you are likely
| right.
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| It's not dissimilar to back in the pre-digital camera era...
| most people were fine with having a crappy point&shoot or
| disposable camera, and then we all had that nerdy uncle or
| friend who was really into cameras and willing to spend the
| money on a real 35mm SLR or rangefinder or whatever.
|
| Phones have taken the place of the old point and shoots.
|
| That doesn't mean that manufacturers of pro-sumer
| interchangeable lens cameras couldn't do a better job with
| software, though...
| kwhitefoot wrote:
| > most people were fine with having a crappy point&shoot or
| disposable camera,
|
| No they weren't. There just weren't any other options that
| were as affordable or convenient.
|
| A kilo of SLR does not compete in the same space as a Kodak
| Instamatic.
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| You just repeated my point. It's a different market
| segment and always was.
|
| Phones are now sitting in that segment of casual
| photography. And are "affordable" and convenient.
|
| Those of us who are nerdy about pictures, go and buy a
| mirrorless. But that's always going to be a small and
| different segment.
|
| This may not last forever. Phones are becoming less
| "cool" to people. They might come around again to
| carrying multiple specialized devices.
| schrijver wrote:
| I'd say there are three groups: A) casual photography for
| capturing memories B) casual but with a desire to take
| better quality pictures C) enthusiastic amateurs and
| pros.
|
| Now only C will buy a dedicated camera. But in the late
| 0's and the 2010's, segment B did too--lots of people
| bought DSLRs to get better quality pictures -- often
| sticking to the kit lens and not getting all geeky about
| photography... just putting everything on automatic would
| still offer much better quality than a compact camera or
| a phone camera.
|
| As phone cameras got better, people in this market
| segment switched to phones -- they might just care more
| about the type of camera on the phone than the most
| casual of users do.
|
| Consequently camera sales have plummeted:
| https://www.statista.com/statistics/799526/shipments-of-
| digi...
| hef19898 wrote:
| What software exactly are modern DSLRs or mirrorless
| cameras missing? I know, picking at software is a favorite
| past time on HN, but most of the time it is missing the
| point. Examples for this include: ERP systems, embeded and
| or safety relevant software, software in highly regulated
| markets or sectors. And, it seems, cameras. Computational
| photography is all fine, on an iPhone.
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| The most glaring is just good integration with phones and
| cloud services. From what I've seen, none of the systems
| that offer WiFi/Bluetooth integration are actually any
| good.
|
| In terms of computational photography... I think they're
| fine... a lot of things can be done in post-processing,
| which is fine, and there's been amazing advances in
| autofocus and stabilization.
| vel0city wrote:
| Eh. Shuffling pictures from my G9x MkII to my Android
| phone is pretty simple enough. I do wish the data
| transfer speeds were faster, but it is still stupid
| simple to pair to the phone. From there I can see the
| photos and choose which to download. Or I can select them
| on my camera and send them to my phone or laptop. I've
| often taken the camera with me on a trip with some
| friends and shuffled the photos into group chats the next
| time I had a few minutes of downtime.
|
| The camera which is several years old at this point
| already has some good video stabilization. The AF is
| backed with good hardware, its pretty good and can even
| do face detection. Its far faster and more accurate than
| my much newer Pixel.
|
| I wouldn't really care to do much post processing on the
| camera itself other than the basic filters and affects it
| can already do, as the interface is pretty small so it is
| hard to get details. If I'm really going to do some post-
| processing I'll be pushing it to my desktop with a large
| monitor so I can really see what I'm doing. But honestly
| if I'm going to work at it on my desktop I'll more likely
| just pull out the SD card and stick it in the computer
| and get far faster transfer speeds.
|
| About the only feature I'd personally like would just be
| some kind of direct camera integration with Google
| Photos/OneDrive/iCloud/OwnCloud/whatever, have it just
| start syncing photos the moment it detects its online.
| That and good built-in GPS support. Apart from that I
| don't really know what else I'd do with more "smart"
| connectivity. I bought a camera like this _because_ I
| wanted to manually adjust things instead of having some
| AI model twist and warp the photo into whatever the
| training data suggests looks good.
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| Interesting. I posted on the micro four thirds subreddit
| recently asking if the Panasonic app integration was any
| better than Olympus' (which ... isn't good) and
| commenters seemed to agree it was not.
|
| I'll consider a switch to a Panasonic for my next camera,
| since OM Systems seems mostly moribund.
| vel0city wrote:
| The G9x MkII is a Canon camera.
|
| FWIW I don't know if they'll make another G9x. The most
| recent similar camera would probably be the G7x Mk III. I
| think that's probably the camera I'd get if I were to
| replace my G9x tomorrow. I'm a huge fan of the small size
| of this G9x though.
|
| https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-
| powershot-g9-x-mark-i...
|
| https://www.usa.canon.com/shop/p/powershot-g7-x-mark-iii
|
| I've heard positive things about Panasonic's devices in
| this market and strongly considered going with one years
| ago.
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| Ah, sorry, I thought you meant the Panasonic DC-G9 MKII.
| vel0city wrote:
| I can see the confusion! Those are some incredibly
| similar names.
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| Pro photos are too large to be any good with syncing to a
| cloud service while you are on the go. My 16mp camera is
| considered old at this point but still makes 34mb raw
| files. 15 photo burst is a half a gb in other words. now
| measure your lte upload speed.
| xp84 wrote:
| Agree. If I were Canon, I'd try backing a truck full of
| money up to Apple in order to secure an API connection
| through which their cameras could have the user
| authenticate securely with Apple and throw photos into a
| black box, which would spit them into the user's iCloud
| Photo Library exactly like an iPhone pic. It may be too
| late though if Apple thinks people might delay iPhone
| upgrades (since those are so often camera-quality-driven)
| if they had a better-quality way to take pictures.
| account42 wrote:
| Did the market decide that or were there simply never any
| good options from the big camera makers?
| tracker1 wrote:
| The market definitely decided this... Even before internet
| access was common on phones, or phone cameras were decent,
| the requests were for better cameras on phones. Because the
| camera you're more likely to use is the one you have with
| you. You're more likely to have your phone than a separate
| camera, and photos are often a matter of opportunity.
| jrflowers wrote:
| This makes sense because "the market" rather than a
| handful of cellular companies decided that people want
| LTE connectivity to be expensive and relegated to phones
| awad wrote:
| Cell companies will sell connectivity to whoever will buy
| it though. Cars, watches, and anything IoT they can get
| their signal to.
| jrflowers wrote:
| For ~$30/mo in the US per device, hence why most people
| cannot justify owning multiple LTE-connected devices.
| londons_explore wrote:
| I think they would happily negotiate that price down to
| nil per month, _if_ they could be absolutely sure a
| 'device' on your account wasn't actually your cousin
| 'sharing' your cellular account to save a bit of money.
| Suppafly wrote:
| What the market wants and what manufacturers provide isn't
| 100% aligned though. You make a good point about people
| wanting better cameras on their phones, but that doesn't
| totally eliminate the market for better portable cameras.
| Even if manufacturers would rather put their r&d money in
| areas that would be more profitable, that doesn't necessarily
| mean that there is no profit in other areas.
| afavour wrote:
| I think it's a scale thing. The market for those devices
| exists but it's not big enough to justify the investment.
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| Its really a physics thing at a certain point.
| Smartphones are always worse than their contemporary
| purpose built camera counterparts because smartphone
| cameras have to be so small. Meanwhile a pro camera could
| weigh 10 pounds with a lens the size of your thigh. We
| simply don't know enough about optics to take that
| package and put it into a smartphone without compromising
| quality in some way.
| wlesieutre wrote:
| The optics and sensors might be a physics thing, but
| everything else about standalone cameras really could've
| done much better at staying competitive.
|
| As others have mentioned, lack of geotagging, wireless
| connectivity, and other convenience features made them
| poor competitors to smartphones. And it wasn't just
| wireless connectivity being behind the times, Canon's T7i
| (aka 800D) launched in 2017 still made you find a _mini_
| USB cable. They were good at optics, but dropped the ball
| on the rest of the product.
|
| Even though the phone had worse quality pictures, it
| brought many other things to the table.
| solardev wrote:
| I don't think any of the camera manufacturers have good
| UX people. They sell engineering, not usability. Even
| Sony, who makes a bunch of laptops and phones and such,
| sucks at this compared to the West. Maybe it's just not a
| strong part of Japanese corporate culture?
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| They sell tools not toys. Of course the ux is different
| than what most developers designing for the consumer
| might be used to. Its brilliant for what it is on a pro
| camera. Lots of physical buttons, informationally dense
| displays, instant startup and off, able to use the device
| without the screen on at all (in the case of a dslr at
| least). Does exactly what it says on the tin for you and
| its not going to rearrange how all the menus work every 3
| years when a new PM wants to make a name for themselves.
| solardev wrote:
| Well, the overall UX isn't just the UI (getting photos
| geotagged or edited or off the camera, for example, are
| pain points others have pointed out that they still don't
| address well). Of course form factor is a (big) part of
| it too.
|
| Even when discussing just the on-camera UI, there's
| nothing about "tools for professionals" that says they
| must never change the UI, or that every setting must be
| immediately accessible in a flat hierarchy, or that you
| must use a one-axis scroll wheel to change a 2D focus
| point, etc.
|
| Yes, it's a great thing that there are features of a
| standalone camera (like instant on, or physical buttons)
| that smartphones don't have. However, that doesn't mean
| the cameras have to disregard all the UX and UI changes
| other electronics have gone through over the last 10-20
| years (some good, some bad, but over the long term
| they've become more approachable to more people).
| Meanwhile cameras remained largely unchanged and as a
| result DSLRs are pretty much a dead segment now. (I too
| loved the viewfinder and ability to use them without an
| screen, especially when optical... but not the rest of
| the experience).
|
| As a former amateur photographer, I eventually sold all
| my bodies and lenses because it was just such a pain to
| use them compared to the smartphones and prosumer prime
| compacts of the day, which were all iterating much faster
| than the "proper" DSLRs. Back in those days, even just
| getting the photos off the camera wirelessly was a pain,
| requiring the use of 3rd-party WiFi SD cards or really
| old USB cables. I think these days mirrorless is once
| again trying new things, but I'm out of the hobby now and
| can't afford to reinvest into it :(
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| Do people really feel like its geotagging and wifi thats
| holding the market back? To me its just a lack of
| exposure (no pun intended) to what a camera can do for
| you among the general class of consumers. knowledge of
| shutter speed, aperture, metering the scene used to be
| required to take a photo at all, now its a black box
| where even if you know what this means your phone doesn't
| let you at the controls. On top of that consider a
| prosumer camera. Mine from 10 years ago takes 34mb raws.
| new ones probably double or triple that. SD card
| transfers to your workstation make quick work of that,
| much faster than piddly old wifi or the backing up to
| cloud services I see mentioned elsewhere in this thread.
| Imagine uploading 16gb to dropbox while out and about,
| the camera would never shut off.
| bsder wrote:
| But then why hasn't open source stepped into the breach?
|
| This seems like the kind of thing that a single,
| dedicated hacker could crack wide open.
|
| The pieces are all commodity, no? People can buy lenses
| independently, so you don't have to design those.
| Everything else should be COTS--processor,
| networking/cellular, display, etc.
|
| It might not be super cheap, but it shouldn't exceed $500
| on the BOM. And then people can iterate on it over time.
| blagie wrote:
| "The market" didn't decide. There are maybe five major camera
| companies (Nikon, Canon, Sony, Olympus, and Panasonic), and a
| few minor ones (Fuji, Pentax, Casio, Sigma).
|
| No one tried.
|
| Everyone wants proprietary lock-in. No one wants to open up.
|
| It's very much like the pre-iPhone phone market. It's not
| that no one wanted an iPhone, but that before Apple, no one
| was willing to try making one.
|
| As a result, the camera market is all but dead:
|
| https://www.canonwatch.com/here-is-what-happened-to-the-
| came...
|
| My phone works better for most purposes (holistically) than
| my full-frame camera. At this point, no one has money to make
| the kind of investment needed to revive it, and an open model
| is unlikely to see the light of day. 2024 models aren't much
| better than 2014 models. My main camera is from 2012, and not
| worth upgrading.
|
| Curiously, lenses keep progressing at a slow but steady clip.
| Sigma just announced an f/1.8 full frame 28-45mm zoom lens.
| thih9 wrote:
| > No one tried.
|
| There were many attempts, some listed in other
| comments[1][2].
|
| > 2024 models aren't much better than 2014 models.
|
| Depending on the type of photography that you do, there
| were significant improvements[3]. Not to mention mirrorless
| replacing DSLRs.
|
| [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40970059
|
| [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40970490
|
| [3]: https://fstoppers.com/gear/decade-evolution-cameras-
| now-vers...
| cyberax wrote:
| No, there really were not. NX was the only one, Yongnuo
| is not available globally and Sony made only one half-
| assed attempt.
|
| Even the basic GPS tagging is not available on most
| cameras. You have to run some crapp on your phone and
| hope that Bluetooth works.
| thih9 wrote:
| I also recall Zeiss ZX1. There was a Nikon Coolpix S800c.
| Another comment mentioned RED cameras. With what you
| listed, that's already a handful of products that flopped
| - I'm not surprised manufacturers aren't eager to
| continue this way.
|
| Interestingly, Android was originally meant to be a
| camera OS, until they pivoted because mobile phones were
| a larger market[1].
|
| [1]: https://www.androidauthority.com/android-history-
| digital-cam...
| cyberax wrote:
| > Zeiss ZX1
|
| For a cool $10k? Not going to be popular in any case, as
| are the RED cameras. These are all pro-level cameras.
|
| > Nikon Coolpix S800c
|
| A useless toy, that happened to have a just barely better
| image quality than built-in phone cameras at that time.
|
| If you try to find mirrorless cameras with Android, with
| a reasonable price ($1k-$3k), then there's only NX.
| Nobody else even tried that seriously.
|
| NX was great, I had it for a while (it was stolen). It
| suffered from Gen1 diseases, that could have been fixed.
| But _nothing_ comes close in usability ever since. I have
| Sony Alpha, and it's UI/UX is just shit. I don't use it
| at all anymore, I don't want to spend time categorizing
| and manually geotagging its photos.
| high_priest wrote:
| And now GPS Telemetry is also being removed from GoPro's
| for some reason.
| akira2501 wrote:
| > no one was willing to try making one.
|
| Yea and the abysmal experience with the iPhone 1, 2 and 3
| showed precisely why.
|
| > No one wants to open up.
|
| The first iPhone was only available on a single cellular
| carrier in the US.
|
| > no one has money to make the kind of investment needed to
| revive it,
|
| It's not the lack of money. It's the lack of expected ROI.
| mananaysiempre wrote:
| Olympus exited the business, sadly. I don't know if they
| were slimming down after the "accounting scandal" aka
| exposed corporate fraud or something else, but I'm a bit
| disappointed, what with my almost ten-year-old Olympus m4/3
| body (that _was_ an attempt at an open standard, by the
| way, and IIRC even Fuji participated before they decided to
| go it alone). On the other hand, as you say, sensor-wise
| it's not really significantly worse than what I can buy
| today.
| yial wrote:
| So, a lot of what you list is missing. But the canon 6d mkii
| has WiFi, and GPS. Allowing some of those features if tethered
| / connected to another device.
| samcat116 wrote:
| I own the 6D MKI and am sad that I didn't wait for the MKII!
| chillfox wrote:
| Their cameras weren't actually all that good at being cameras.
| Having used one it was a frustrating experience of constantly
| missing shots because of how slow it was to turn on. In
| comparison Sony was near instant.
| TechDebtDevin wrote:
| Uh sir. I already have a phone that does this.
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| While it doesn't tick all the boxes you're talking about, you
| might be interested in the Pixii rangefinder cameras.
|
| Damn expensive though.
| brk wrote:
| I used to do a lot of shooting with my Canon 5D. I had
| thousands of dollars in various lenses, plus some specialized
| flashes, etc. It took great pictures, but all that gear was
| bulky and heavy.
|
| 99% of the time I wasn't taking pictures with the intent of
| blowing them up to poster-size prints, or selling them to major
| publications. I was just taking pictures to document and share
| elements of day to day life.
|
| (You probably see where this is going).
|
| Smartphone cameras have kept up well enough with most consumer
| needs that it would be really hard to justify carrying a
| dedicated camera. Further, that camera would need to have all
| of the features of a smart phone camera (eg: filters,
| touchscreen, lightweight editing, etc. As you also pointed out)
| that it makes it unlikely to exist in a practical manner.
|
| I will say I'm slightly surprised we haven't see an external
| "lens and sensor only" gadget that pairs with a phone. Use this
| gadget to capture a better raw image, and then use the phone to
| do everything else. Could be a USB/cable tether, or even some
| form of wireless (bluetooth is probably too slow though?).
|
| tl;dr - I'm not carrying a dedicated camera around, no matter
| how much better the images might be.
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| _" I will say I'm slightly surprised we haven't see an
| external "lens and sensor only" gadget that pairs with a
| phone."_
|
| We have. They've all failed.
|
| Olympus tried (2016):
|
| https://www.pcmag.com/reviews/olympus-air-a01
|
| Alice Camera is a kickstarter thing that _might_ be about to
| ship now finally?
|
| https://www.alice.camera/
|
| And there's another recent one, SwitchLens:
|
| https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/halohub/switchlens-
| powe...
|
| There's others that have been tried too I think?
| vel0city wrote:
| Sony also had a product line of these kinds of devices a
| decade ago. You know its an old review when one of the cons
| listed is "No support for Windows Phone."
|
| https://www.pcmag.com/reviews/sony-cyber-shot-dsc-qx10
| dingaling wrote:
| Yongnuo offered the YN450, an Android camera with enormous
| Canon EF mount:
|
| https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/news/yongnuo-
| yn450-androi...
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| Mind boggling they put an EF mount over a 4/3rds sensor!
| M43 lenses are smaller and cheaper and the mount spec is
| an open standard and license free I believe.
|
| Personally I like analog dials and like to have them
| configured to control ISO and shutter speed, so would
| have a hard time using a touch-screen only system like
| this. Same problem I have with the Sigma camera.
| ChainOfFools wrote:
| I looked at the Alice camera, and immediately had to
| suppress the urge to sign up for the kickstarter while I
| took a step back to consider that this will end up in the
| tech junk drawer after a few novelty outings.
|
| It fails the same 'one extra thing to carry around and keep
| protected while not in use, which is most of the time' test
| as small mirrorless point and shoots and micro four thirds
| interchangeable lens cameras ( speaking as a long time OM-D
| user and enthusiast)
|
| And if it's possible to affix it to my phone it will also
| get left home sooner rather than later, because now all of
| my phone accessories, mag safe chargers, car mounts, cases,
| etc no longer fit, which makes it cumbersome to carry
| around and use as a phone.
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| Funny I forget about my phone and barely use it, while my
| Olympus PEN E-PL8 goes with me everywhere :-) My phone
| gets used for Android Auto and 2FA and that's about it.
|
| But to me the Alice thing is the worst of both worlds.
| Still need to use the stupid touchscreen LCD (which sucks
| for my aging eyes), doesn't have analog controls. But is
| still a bulkyish object. Hang anything other than a
| pancake lens on that, and the ergonomics are going to
| blow, too.
| seltzered_ wrote:
| Sony QX series, as mentioned in my other comment:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40970490
| Suppafly wrote:
| >I will say I'm slightly surprised we haven't see an external
| "lens and sensor only" gadget that pairs with a phone.
|
| This, camera tech on phones is great, but it's never better
| than a dedicated device. Plus, the models with best cameras
| aren't always the best phone experience. An external camera
| device that you could attach lenses and such to, but could
| dump the data on to your phone, and get GPS and such from
| your phone, would be a great middle ground.
| hef19898 wrote:
| Camera tech on a phone is automated post-processing.
| Nothing else.
| GJim wrote:
| > Its crazy to me that there isn't a modern version of this
| kind of camera
|
| You can bluetooth-pair (most) modern 'pocket' cameras with your
| phone to get this functionality.
|
| (And for the uninitiated; such cameras will have infinitely
| better picture quality than can be provided by lenses than fit
| in a phone. I always take such a camera where carrying a full-
| blown SLR would be a pain the in the arse).
| tgsovlerkhgsel wrote:
| Almost everyone already has a camera that has all of these
| features in their smartphone that they already carry with them.
|
| That limits the market for a second device that is a better
| camera with all those features but not a smartphone.
|
| Of course, computational photography combined with a proper
| lens and better sensor would be amazing, but it'd be a niche
| product and expensive (since it would be made in small numbers,
| and require expensive compute and much more RAM than current
| phones tend to have).
| tqi wrote:
| Battery, space, and startup time limitations probably. As it is
| mirrorless cameras can only get like 350 frames per charge, so
| adding more power hungry features like GPS or LTE would only
| make thay worse. Camera bodies are packed as is, so having a
| limited amount of fixed storage (when there is perfectly good
| removable options) take up valuable space is not an especially
| appealing trade off. And lastly / most importantly, I need a
| camera to be ready to go as soon as I turn it on, I don't have
| time to wait for a full OS to boot up. Standby mode could
| mitigate that but see previous concerns about battery life.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > And lastly / most importantly, I need a camera to be ready
| to go as soon as I turn it on, I don't have time to wait for
| a full OS to boot up. Standby mode could mitigate that but
| see previous concerns about battery life.
|
| Sony's Alpha series all run Linux, with standby.
| out_of_protocol wrote:
| Just imagine taping cheap $100 android phone together
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > - Built in GPS for location tagging in photos(a few cameras
| have this but for many you need an external dongle attached to
| the camera)
|
| Sony's lineup actually _has_ support for precisely that in the
| pinout of the MI Shoe which all their cameras since over a
| decade use [1].
|
| Unfortunately, the <insert swear word of choice> at Sony never
| released a GPS dongle, and while there has been root available
| for all Sony Alpha models up until the A7S2 via the integrated
| (fossil and cut-down...) Android subsystem and they all run
| Linux, to my knowledge no one has reverse engineered the MI
| shoe comms interface, how to get that ruddy thing into being a
| wifi _client_ instead of that temporary hotspot crap, or how to
| make it behave like a goddamn normal UVC webcam over USB
| instead of needing their brutally unstable client app.
|
| Sony makes truly best-in-class hardware (no one else has a
| competitor for the S series in a low-light scenario) at the
| best possible price point... but damn no matter what hardware
| they're dealing with, they're the typical Japanese company that
| cannot get software right.
|
| Rant over.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi_Interface_Shoe
| petepete wrote:
| My Nikon D5300 had GPS back in 2013.
|
| It's the only thing I miss having upgraded to a D500 some
| years later.
| Symbiote wrote:
| I had a Sony Alpha 55 worth it in 2010.
|
| Long ago I read it's no longer built-in to simplify sales
| in places like China, which forbid personal GPS.
| Lammy wrote:
| > Its crazy to me that there isn't a modern version of this
| kind of camera.
|
| There is, I own one, and it has every feature in your list!
| YONGNUO YN455, Android-10-powered 20MP Micro Four Thirds
| camera: https://www.hkyongnuo.com/productinfo/660161.html
|
| LTE band compatibility would be an issue for many, but I have
| it working successfully on T-Mobile US. I don't prefer using it
| for stills over my Panasonic/Olympus bodies, but I _love_ it
| for video.
|
| Here's what it looks like: https://i.imgur.com/3mdBWXt.jpeg (my
| photo, with Laowa 6mm Cinema lens)
|
| And here's what it sees:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzlBA2wSU7w
| zokier wrote:
| At least Sony cameras can do automatic uploads either directly
| from camera, or tethered to phone. Afaik its primarily aimed at
| (sports) photojournalists who need to get photos out as quickly
| as possible, basically you can have editor pick up photos in
| near real-time. At least the couple models I checked advertise
| 2.4/5GHz 802.11ac wifi, so that seems like it should be decent
| enough. For geotagging, it should work fine if you have
| tethered to your phone.
| seltzered_ wrote:
| - Sony briefly had a 'screenless' series of 'smart lens'
| cameras around 2014 - the Sony QX1 (
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_ILCE-QX1 ), QX10, QX30 and
| QX100 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSC-QX100 ) where you
| brought your smartphone to act as the screen. I think the
| concept at the time was just too abstract and clunky since it
| meant clamping on the camera to a phone, and probably had
| latency issues. They've also tried to make some high-end
| smartphones with better camera apps but it was a niche
| audience.
|
| - RED also had some smartphones with a connector interface to
| supposedly add cameras, but the product line flopped pretty
| quickly.
| madeofpalk wrote:
| Samsung had a point-and-shoot with an android phone stuck to
| the back about 10 years ago as well.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_Galaxy_Camera
| ge0rg wrote:
| And even one with interchangeable lenses: https://op-
| co.de/blog/posts/galaxy_nx/
| DHPersonal wrote:
| Nikon had an Android camera, too:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBL_FKY4Qzo
| petepete wrote:
| I think the Zeiss ZX1 has most of this, LTE aside (which
| shouldn't be a problem seeing as it runs Android)
|
| https://www.zeiss.co.uk/consumer-products/photography/zx1.ht...
| lytfyre wrote:
| unfortunately discontinued.
|
| The 6000$USD price tag unfortunately made it hard to justify
| at the time.
| beAbU wrote:
| Add the ability to make calls and you are really on to
| something here!
| darknavi wrote:
| Don't forget to put an iPod in there!
| kmfrk wrote:
| Rather than going by camera, wifi SD cards were a lot of fun
| back in the day. I wonder how much you can do with the modern
| smaller form factor of modern SD cards. Could pair it up with
| an app on your phone via Bluetooth etc to retrofit more
| features on. Much like an Apple Shortcuts/CloudKit.
|
| Would be a fun retrofuturist experiment to backport fun newer
| things to old tech with big SD cards.
|
| Sounds like things haven't improved much in the past twenty
| years based on links like these:
|
| https://nerdtechy.com/best-wifi-sd-card
|
| https://old.reddit.com/r/photography/comments/12ocr4u/the_wi...
| samcat116 wrote:
| I remember those! Yeah they were never that great.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| Cloud connection, wifi, flash storage, apps, computational
| photography, and I assume some sort of display screen ... You
| basically want a phone that does everything except make calls?
| to11mtm wrote:
| It's not Crazy because you outlined all the ways it breaks or
| goes obsolete without a lot of maintanence...
|
| - GPS doesn't count, although 'corrections' can be interesting.
|
| - IDK you can totally do a workflow with a Sony camera to send
| to a phone/etc, may not be full-auto but I've done it.
|
| - As a 'shooter' I'd rather get proper SD card redundancy on
| less-high end models than see a flash buffer for that isn't
| already present in how things work
|
| - My a6000 had decent wifi speeds at the start, but it's hard
| to keep up with standards, also it's hard to get around the
| 'noise' of other wifi devices without making the camera larger
| or complicating the design for the sake of a wifi antenna.
|
| - LTE is a continually moving target, adds cost for a marginal
| set of users that will bother to set it up.
|
| - Everyone who's tried even a small amount of this never got
| far.
|
| - Moving target. You're better off using DxO PhotoLab or
| Lightroom and keeping that up to date.
|
| Mind you, this viewpoint is coming from the 'minmaxer'. Aside
| from my a6700 (and before that my a6000) I keep one 'main'
| camera as well as one or more 'cheap bodies' (i.e. store floor
| models or previous camera).
|
| This makes it easier to do shots with different focal ranges
| without a lens change...
|
| Pros will often have multiple bodies (but will be more
| discerning than 'oh hey 150$ with a lens lets goooooooo') and
| thus will have similar concerns...
| Scene_Cast2 wrote:
| It's a bit weird that there aren't any great ultraportable high
| quality cameras anymore. Some interesting ones I've found are the
| Yongnuo YN450M and the Switchlens.
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| There's a lot of hand-wringing in the micro-four-thirds camera
| community about why Panasonic and OM Systems haven't released
| any updates to their older small/portable cameras (which the
| M43 system was great for, the lenses being much smaller than
| APS-C and full-frame). It's likely there's just no money in it
| and so they're focusing on more $$ niche tiers instead, with
| larger bodies. (Panasonic on video, OM Systems on bird/nature
| photography).
|
| Fujifilm is having great success with their fixed-lens X100V,
| though.
| Zambyte wrote:
| I don't know if "ultra portable" is referring to a specific
| kind of camera type, but I got a Sony ZV-1 on black friday last
| year, and since then it has been my go-to camera over both my
| DSLR and smart phone. I usually just carry it in my pocket
| instead of my phone these days, but I also can fit it in my
| pocket with my phone if I want to.
| madeofpalk wrote:
| Sony RX100 line is very portable...
| zokier wrote:
| People who want separate non-ilc camera are already niche.
| People who want to compromise image quality and ergonomics for
| ultracompactness is small niche within that niche. Its not like
| something Fujis X100, Sonys ZV, or Ricohs are _huge_ cameras
| tomatocracy wrote:
| Not sure about the Sony ZV or Ricohs but the X100 series are
| _excellent_ cameras - the compromise of going for a prime
| lens works very well for this format in my view (Sony used to
| have the RX1 series but it was probably too expensive and a
| bit too big to work). I 've used them since the X100s.
|
| They also seem to be rising in popularity recently amongst
| people who don't also own a pile of DSLRs or MILCs - I think
| this is mostly due to the retro styling.
| roblh wrote:
| Rise in popularity is an understatement. People who ordered
| the X100vi on launch day 6 months ago are still months away
| from actually getting them. The demand is just insane, they
| can't make them fast enough, even after moving production
| to China (which is kind of unfortunate).
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| The market has changed, its not too surprising. That said you
| can get your ricoh gr still.
| gruturo wrote:
| Partially off topic:
|
| What happened to the "non-flat" CCD / CMOS sensors which were
| going to enable awesome smartphone cameras, by allowing lens
| assemblies with far fewer elements and virtually no chromatic
| aberration? Thanks to the fewer elements whey could be way
| thinner (or much wider in the same thickness, collecting way more
| light) and still fit in a smartphone body. This was supposed to
| especially benefit smartphones due to their fixed lenses (while
| for a variable zoom lens you would need different sensor
| curvature depending on the zoom level which is trickier....).
|
| A couple relevant links (just a few search results):
|
| https://optics.org/news/12/5/4
|
| https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/news/sonys-new-curved-ima...
|
| https://www.dpreview.com/news/7542036825/french-startup-is-p...
|
| Also, the quickly deformable (with an electric field) "liquid"
| lenses which would revolutionize the lens aspect, similarly
| appearing in a lot of news and then never seemingly materialize.
|
| https://opg.optica.org/oe/fulltext.cfm?uri=oe-31-26-43416&id...
|
| https://www.nextpit.com/liquid-lens-technology-smartphones
| picture wrote:
| As someone with mild knowledge of semiconductor fabrication and
| optics, I honestly think these technology are not that
| meaningful to justify their cost of development and
| implementation, compared to the winning solution of arbitrarily
| complex plastic lens assemblies.
|
| Chromatic aberration can be good enough with doublet lens
| design and Petzval is largely solved by the final field
| flattener usually with multiple concave and convex sections,
| and you can still easily fit a large number of lenses in a
| small formfactor.
|
| Additionally being able to adjust the power of a lens is not a
| huge gamechanger, as a lot of the complexity with modern optic
| design is to counter various defects and distortion like
| aforementioned Petzval.
|
| Rather, the fundamental limit is the sensor size. It's just not
| practical to achieve much better image quality with a
| physically small system
| gruturo wrote:
| Thanks for the information! But my understanding was exactly
| in the direction of the issue you point out - the fundamental
| limit being the sensor size.
|
| A curved sensor would, by allowing a relatively thinner (due
| to fewer elements) lens assembly, could have a larger area,
| and still remain within the allowed overall "thickness
| budget" of the smartphone. Hence my surprise that they seem
| to have gone nowhere.
| petabyt wrote:
| The Fuji cameras I'm working on include similar functionality.
| Basically the camera can connect to any AP, then it will find a
| client. From there the client can do liveview/automatic photo
| importing/change settings.
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| My older Olympus camera does the opposite. Becomes an AP and
| then the phone app switches WiFi networks and connects that
| way. It's an interesting approach but the problem is that
| Android and iOS get up to wonky unpredictable action when
| dealing with private ad-hoc wifi networks, so the situ becomes
| unreliable. (this was a vexing problem when I worked on the
| Google WiFi some years ago). That and the wifi range is
| terrible, and it's a drain on the camera's batteries.
| petabyt wrote:
| Yep, that's a pretty with a lot of IoT products in general.
| amadeusw wrote:
| petabyt I'm interested in this capability, is this available
| out of the box? What's the client API/contract? Or is Fujihack
| [0] required? (I just found it on your website.)
|
| [0] https://fujihack.org/
| ge0rg wrote:
| So I've used the discussion here and the inspiration by
| @samcat116 to finally publish my review of the Samsung Galaxy NX
| - half smartphone, half "professional" camera: https://op-
| co.de/blog/posts/galaxy_nx/
| Bloating wrote:
| But its much more convenient for me to live stream what I'm
| eating for lunch using my phone. Please like & subscribe, so I
| can eat
| bloqs wrote:
| I think I may be missing the point of a lot of the comments, but
| could someone explain what this does that a smartphone does not?
| ponorin wrote:
| They are proper cameras, with proper camera-sized sensors, and
| some model had interchangable lenses. One of them, for better
| or for worse, even came with Android. https://op-
| co.de/blog/posts/galaxy_nx/
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-07-15 23:00 UTC)