Technology Gone Wrong

long range scope, now it just need scope rings for a rifle.
 
Ugh, the photo processor in a cell phone can't even take advantage of that.
 
Limited use maybe, but not totally stupid. A 300mm Zoom with a 2.8 aperture is crazy amazing. For a DSLR you would pay 5 to 6 grand for a lens like that. I'd rather have one for a DSLR, but there are advantages to being able to use it on a connected device like an iPhone.
 
griffinhart said:
Limited use maybe, but not totally stupid. A 300mm Zoom with a 2.8 aperture is crazy amazing. For a DSLR you would pay 5 to 6 grand for a lens like that. I'd rather have one for a DSLR, but there are advantages to being able to use it on a connected device like an iPhone.
Click to expand...

No, it's stupid. Ever notice how a phone camera image is never anywhere close to its digital camera counterpart? Even a point n shoot is going to produce vastly superior images at the same resolution. The reason is simple, the chips on a dedicated camera are leagues better. There is no cellphone on the market that would be able to justify this. This is more than a gimmick money grab by Olympus to take advantage of the terminally stupid.
 
Meant to add, for the cost of this thing you can get a good entry level DSLR that will weigh less, give you more options and take pictures this thing never will.
 
Dekoth-E- said:
Meant to add, for the cost of this thing you can get a good entry level DSLR that will weigh less, give you more options and take pictures this thing never will.
Click to expand...

But cell phone. I don't want to carry around a large DSLR camera. I always end up leaving it at home.
 
He is not using the phone to take pictures, he is using the phone's screen only as a viewfinder, and on the back of the lens there is a camera striped of almost all its interfaces, like the screen and most of its buttons, but still uses a full sensor.

Here is the Sony version, would i use it with that lens hell no, but for smaller lenses it could be real handy, to have the screen and the lens separated, and use it like this or this
 
player-x said:
He is not using the phone to take pictures, he is using the phone's screen only as a viewfinder, and on the back of the lens there is a camera striped of almost all its interfaces, like the screen and most of its buttons, but still uses a full sensor.
Click to expand...

Was just about to post this. It's not a "full" sensor, but micro 4/3, but definitely much closer to a "real" camera than a smartphone camera.
 
player-x said:
He is not using the phone to take pictures, he is using the phone's screen only as a viewfinder, and on the back of the lens there is a camera striped of almost all its interfaces, like the screen and most of its buttons, but still uses a full sensor.

Here is the Sony version, would i use it with that lens hell no, but for smaller lenses it could be real handy, to have the screen and the lens separated, and use it like this or this
Click to expand...

QX1 is actually pretty darn good for its price and usage.

Especially for portrait / selfie shots. The picture quality is amazing, since its essentially a RX100 without camera screen.
 
As stated the phone is just a viewfinder communicating via wifi to the image capture unit at the end of the huge lense.

Its actually a great idea
 
Steve said:
I don't need a translator to tell me that strapping a 35lb camera lens to your smartphone is just plain stupid.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but it solves a problem that an SLR doesn't solve: taking a picture with that lens and uploading it to the web without going home or first transferring it from your camera to the phone (or laptop).

Honestly, I wouldn't want to haul a 35 pound lens anywhere (and a phone is unlikely to take full advantage of the optics in the lens, but this type of thing exists, because Canon and Nikon don't have a work flow to easily move pics from the camera to web.
 
Bwahaah the most comical part about this posting is the complete misunderstanding and then it gets repeated by other people who can't read.
If you can't figure out that the smartphone isn't the sensor for the actual shoot, don't post.
 
Dekoth-E- said:
No, it's stupid. Ever notice how a phone camera image is never anywhere close to its digital camera counterpart? Even a point n shoot is going to produce vastly superior images at the same resolution. The reason is simple, the chips on a dedicated camera are leagues better. There is no cellphone on the market that would be able to justify this. This is more than a gimmick money grab by Olympus to take advantage of the terminally stupid.
Click to expand...


Hence why I still prefer to use my Canon S110 over my cell phone camera. Just doesn't feel right to use the phone.
 
Dekoth-E- said:
No, it's stupid. Ever notice how a phone camera image is never anywhere close to its digital camera counterpart? Even a point n shoot is going to produce vastly superior images at the same resolution. The reason is simple, the chips on a dedicated camera are leagues better. There is no cellphone on the market that would be able to justify this. This is more than a gimmick money grab by Olympus to take advantage of the terminally stupid.
Click to expand...

The primary reason phone images aren't typically as good as a dedicated camera is due to the glass in use. A cell phone lens just doesn't cut it. The sensor is a part of the equation, but the difference between quality "fast" glass and what is on phones and even point and shoot cameras is massive.
 
Dekoth-E- said:
Meant to add, for the cost of this thing you can get a good entry level DSLR that will weigh less, give you more options and take pictures this thing never will.
Click to expand...

And a Nikon 300mm 2.8 prime lens weights 13 pounds by itself. A Kit 4.something lens will do nothing like a 300mm 2.8.
 
I get that the phone is the viewfinder (via wifi/bluetooth or whatever) and possibly the storage for the actual camera, but please tell me that they at least provide a better camera app than the built in one.

I also find this insanely silly to use with any device (be it apple or android) that doesn't have expandable storage such as an SD card. You may have 4G on the cell phone, but uploading those photos is still going to be a pain through a cell connection. Maybe the 4G in Japan isn't as shitty as it is in the USA, so it might make a difference.

In the end though, I do have to question the relevance of this product. A full fledged camera would be able to process the image better, have a better viewfinder, and have expandable storage. I'm surprised they didn't just add a 4G radio to a full camera and get the same results.
 
griffinhart said:
The primary reason phone images aren't typically as good as a dedicated camera is due to the glass in use. A cell phone lens just doesn't cut it. The sensor is a part of the equation, but the difference between quality "fast" glass and what is on phones and even point and shoot cameras is massive.
Click to expand...

Actually not quite, a typical phone camera lens can achieve the same amount of focus as a typical camera lens due to the aspheric surfaces used. A phone camera lens these days uses all aspheric lenses (the aspheric surfaces are actually very powerful for focusing light properly, much better than spheric surfaces), where as a typical camera lens uses either all spheric or a mix of spheric and aspheric, but mostly spheric due to the limitation of plastic itself or the cost of molded glass lenses. Just for comparison, a typical cell phone camera lens, when scaled to the same sensor spec as a equivalent quality camera lens, requires half as many lenses and no glass lenses required to achieve the same kind of focusing.

However the advantage of a still camera over a cell phone is that for the same resolution, still camera's sensor is much larger than a typical cell phone, leading to a better quality sensor, inducing less noise, and thus requiring less (if any) post processing.

Another advantage is zoom and aperture size, both of which are completely or almost completely fixed in a cell phone camera, far far less so in a still camera.
 
Wha... What? Where am I? I could have sworn I was in [H]ardForum, but here I am seeing people hate on something that is quintessentially [H]ard :confused:

I feel so lost.

Anyway, here's an article with some actual info courtesy of PetaPixel.

Also, now I want to see that thing with the Sigma 200-500mm f/2.8 APO EX DG attached.

juza-600x400.jpg
 
haha It looks like a small missile launcher. Don't shoot me bro, I'm just a tourist!! lol.
 
I think the whole point of that camera set up is that with a traditional camera body and ultra-telephoto lens you have to either support the entire weight of the lens with your left hand (see the photo in the post above) or use a tripod. With the setup in the article, the weight of the lens is supported by the shoulder allowing steady shots without a tripod.

The fact that it uses an iphone as a controller/viewfinder is just the mechanism to relocate the viewfinder to the front of the assembly.
 
nilepez said:
Honestly, I wouldn't want to haul a 35 pound lens anywhere...
Click to expand...

Well, the lens only weighs a little over 7lbs, but hey, we don't want to let facts get in the way of a sensationalist story now, do we?
 
Parja said:
Was just about to post this. It's not a "full" sensor, but micro 4/3, but definitely much closer to a "real" camera than a smartphone camera.
Click to expand...

M4/3rds cameras are REAL cameras. They are used throughout the world for all sorts of professional photography, including high end fashion photography. The Panasonic GH4, like the GH3 before it, is used to shoot TV shows and movies, and can do almost as much as a 100k+ professional camera for under 2k.

Also, "Full" means nothing when it comes to sensors. I will see you a 36x24mm "Full" size sensor and raise you a 54x40mm Phase One IQ160 sensor. And that isn't even the largest commercially available digital sensor.
 
Ok so it appears I was wrong and this thing has the sensors in it. So it isn't a total rip off. I would still rather have a dslr and the flexibility that platform offers vs being able to use my phone as a view finder.
 
griffinhart said:
The primary reason phone images aren't typically as good as a dedicated camera is due to the glass in use. A cell phone lens just doesn't cut it. The sensor is a part of the equation, but the difference between quality "fast" glass and what is on phones and even point and shoot cameras is massive.
Click to expand...

Ummm.. no, the sensor on a phone is waaaaaaayyyyy too small to produce a good quality image. The pixels are too small and too close together.

The glass is part of it, but you take a phone sensor vs a dslr sensor at the same megapixel rating and use the same exact glass, the dslr sensor is going to put out a much, much, much, much, much higher quality image.
 
arentol said:
M4/3rds cameras are REAL cameras. They are used throughout the world for all sorts of professional photography, including high end fashion photography. The Panasonic GH4, like the GH3 before it, is used to shoot TV shows and movies, and can do almost as much as a 100k+ professional camera for under 2k.

Also, "Full" means nothing when it comes to sensors. I will see you a 36x24mm "Full" size sensor and raise you a 54x40mm Phase One IQ160 sensor. And that isn't even the largest commercially available digital sensor.
Click to expand...

A "full frame" sensor is the same or really close to what a 35mm camera would take on film.

Bigger than that and you are getting into medium and then large format cameras.
 
Personally I couldn't see myself going that far but the smaller lenses would be awesome especially with a small stand or such. Set up the shot, walk over, check the phone in your hand, and you have a great family photo ready to be shared with everyone there that has a cellphone and/or uploaded to the net. I still think I'd prefer a real camera for use with the huge lenses though, if nothing else I'm used to carrying a camera with a big lens on it. ;)
 
griffinhart said:
The primary reason phone images aren't typically as good as a dedicated camera is due to the glass in use. A cell phone lens just doesn't cut it. The sensor is a part of the equation, but the difference between quality "fast" glass and what is on phones and even point and shoot cameras is massive.
Click to expand...

The sensors on cell phones are good enough as long as you have light. Where they suffer is in low light. In that scenario, they're just awful. I haven' bought a point and shoot in 4 years, but the one I had was also awful. The only advantage it has over a phone is the optical zoom an Image Stabilization. But again, in low light, it's barely useable. I haven't used it in at least a year.
 
cyclone3d said:
Ummm.. no, the sensor on a phone is waaaaaaayyyyy too small to produce a good quality image. The pixels are too small and too close together.

The glass is part of it, but you take a phone sensor vs a dslr sensor at the same megapixel rating and use the same exact glass, the dslr sensor is going to put out a much, much, much, much, much higher quality image.
Click to expand...

It's good enough. most people aren't printing large prints. I've printed d90 images that were 16x20 and they're fine. Given that most people that print (and most don't print) are printing a 4x6 to 14x11, I think they're OK with a phone, so long as it's in good light.

But ultimately, most images get sent in emails and posted on Instagram or Facebook. I'm not a super fan of phone images, but for most they're beyond what's acceptable, which is why stand alone camera sales are falling (and have been for some time).
 
You'd get arrested in a hot second pointing that thing anywhere near a govt. office :D
 
cameras like that make it into a warzone and your going to have alot of dead reporters
 
player-x said:
He is not using the phone to take pictures, he is using the phone's screen only as a viewfinder, and on the back of the lens there is a camera striped of almost all its interfaces, like the screen and most of its buttons, but still uses a full sensor.

Here is the Sony version, would i use it with that lens hell no, but for smaller lenses it could be real handy, to have the screen and the lens separated, and use it like this or this
Click to expand...
Exactly. The Cell is a View Finder Only.
Its an idea that many dont know about.
He has simply extended it to a super telephoto lens.
He wanted to use the lens without a tripod and it works great in his opinion.
Try reading a rough translation and decide for yourself.
https://translate.google.com/transl...s/review/labo/20150402_695796.html&edit-text=

Most common example -reposted
http://www.fototv.hu/images/gallery...x1_2014-09-09/Sony_ilce_qx1_shot_fototvhu.jpg
 
I hope this guy never covers areas of war or conflict with that thing. At long range that guy would look like an insurgent with an RPG.
 
Call down everyone, look at the article. It's only using the phone as a view finder. there is a capture unit on the back. (Olympus AIR-A01)
http://www.olympus-global.com/en/news/2015a/nr150205opce.jsp

The lens on it is serious! Also the capture unit seems to be pretty awesome it's self. While it may seem impractical using a phone as a viewfinder on such extreme lenses, allowing you to use your shoulder might provide some benefit but there are drawbacks. I'd have to let a professional give mroe insight on it.
 
fdiaz78 said:
I hope this guy never covers areas of war or conflict with that thing. At long range that guy would look like an insurgent with an RPG.
Click to expand...

I think I've seen video of such a thing happening and ending badly.

I actually almost bought a QX-1, but instead opted for the a5100, which can also connect to a smart device for control & viewing. I'm glad I went with the a5100 because it has extra capabilities that I would have missed since I like to use it on my telescope.

In addition the QX-1 body is actually ideally shaped for use in a 'hyperstar' configuration on an SCT, or on Celestrons new RASA. That said, the controls are not yet there for this use case last I checked.
 
Looks like a scary weapon. Obama will try to Ban it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top