7 comments

  • zerobees 2 hours ago
    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?

    • zamadatix 1 hour ago
      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.

    • mikestew 1 hour ago
      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!”.

      • circuit10 1 hour ago
        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
        • daniel_reetz 7 minutes ago
          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.

      • benj111 1 hour ago
        Is Ansley Adams this generations David Bailey?
        • anukin 48 minutes ago
          I think OP meant ansel adams. The guy died even before most of the crowd in HN was born.
    • nickcw 33 minutes ago
      Maybe it does measure the distance to your face to work out where to show the viewfinder rectangle...
    • thot_experiment 47 minutes ago
      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.
    • stavros 1 hour ago
      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.
  • atombender 4 days ago
    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...

  • neon_diogenes 4 days ago
    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.

    • unsupp0rted 1 hour ago
      "shooters eye" is doing a lot of work there, since that's where the most pre-processing happens, by far
  • henvic 34 minutes ago
    > 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

    • ThrowawayTestr 30 minutes ago
      Why does that sentence strike you? This product seems to be a light meter with a camera attached.
      • henvic 16 minutes ago
        Sure, but that is despite of / or not because it's very affordable. Not thanks to it. Or am I being too picky?
  • ortusdux 1 hour ago
    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.
  • tencentshill 2 hours ago
    This is probably an LCD panel with the polarizer removed, so the UI will require a bright/strong source of light behind it.
    • mikestew 1 hour ago
      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.