Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I wanted a camera that doesn't exist, so I built it

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 145 posts

Re: I wanted a camera that doesn't exist, so I built it

#101

Post by eloisius »

Nextgrid wrote: post #95
Glyptodon wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think people really underestimate how nice it is for the lenses to be smaller and not just for the camera to be.

I wonder if there's a marketing reason for not shrinking the lenses. A big lens screams "better" more than a smaller lens at a casual glance for the uninitiated user.

I doubt it. I don’t think anyone is spending $2k on Canon L-series (red ring) lenses based on the size. On the high end, photographers are pretty discerning about equipment’s capabilities. If they made my Canon EF 35mm f1.4L USM II half the size and weight I’d be thrilled.

Re: I wanted a camera that doesn't exist, so I built it

#102

Post by davidjytang »

Zak wrote: post #15

The Panasonic GX series of cameras was very similar to what we see here, and prices for them remain elevated years past their discontinuation. I'm a little surprised they haven't introduced a new model in that lineup. The Fuji X-E5 also seems similar to this, though obviously with a different lens mount.

Still using GX1 here.

Re: I wanted a camera that doesn't exist, so I built it

#103

Post by buildbot »

aaronbrethorst wrote: post #91
buildbot wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks! It was surprisingly challenging to get right, in fact that body is slightly misaligned somewhere (possibly the lens…).

Does the Phase One back have a preview screen on it, or are you just sort of eyeballing what's in the frame? Also, I noticed a lot of photos of the olympics on your flickr page. Are you in West Seattle, too, by any chance?

Most of the modern ones do - anything from the IQ1-IQ4 has a good preview screen, for live view specifically you need a CMOS sensor based one like the IQ3 100 or the IQ4 150. The CCD ones technically do live view but it's really not good. So this only works for backs that are fairly expensive still...

Close to West Seattle! I'm in the North Seattle area and walk around near the water there a lot.

Re: I wanted a camera that doesn't exist, so I built it

#104

Post by Glyptodon »

Nextgrid wrote: post #95
Glyptodon wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think people really underestimate how nice it is for the lenses to be smaller and not just for the camera to be.

I wonder if there's a marketing reason for not shrinking the lenses. A big lens screams "better" more than a smaller lens at a casual glance for the uninitiated user.

I think it's directly related to sensor size and given the shape of lenses (cylinders) that means bigger sensors should probably have a non linear relationship to lens size.Though it is probably not quite that simple. In any case, bigger lenses allow for smaller f stops with a given focal length, and people really do love bokeh...

Re: I wanted a camera that doesn't exist, so I built it

#106

Post by aaronbrethorst »

buildbot wrote: post #103
aaronbrethorst wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does the Phase One back have a preview screen on it, or are you just sort of eyeballing what's in the frame? Also, I noticed a lot of photos of the olympics on your flickr page. Are you in West Seattle, too, by any chance?

Most of the modern ones do - anything from the IQ1-IQ4 has a good preview screen, for live view specifically you need a CMOS sensor based one like the IQ3 100 or the IQ4 150. The CCD ones technically do live view but it's really not good. So this only works for backs that are fairly expensive still... Close to West Seattle! I'm in the North Seattle area and walk around near the water there a lot.

ah right on, thanks for the info

Re: I wanted a camera that doesn't exist, so I built it

#107

Post by ngcc_hk »

tormeh wrote: post #41

I have to say I'm a bit unimpressed with the efforts of the MFT consumer system camera manufacturers. Panasonic creates excellent cameras, they're so big it lessens the appeal of the smaller mount. OM makes cameras of the right size, but it's releasing new models really really slowly, with mediocre sensors. The OM-5 mark II is a lame rehash. Only the OM-3 is somewhat exciting, but it sacrifices too much in terms of e…

Olympus is one of the few camera (I literally have hundreds as this is my side hobby) I love to use. Until every time I want to change anything. As a guy who can do 8x10, gfx, 907x, z9 etc I still find the menu system totally confusing.

It is not the hardware, it is the software …

Re: I wanted a camera that doesn't exist, so I built it

#108

Post by ngcc_hk »

bigstrat2003 wrote: post #100
SchemaLoad wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The volume for physical cameras is low and shrinking. The companies can't justify putting nearly the same investment as smartphone companies selling 100x the units can.

The volume for cameras like this was always low. Even in the days before you had a camera on your smartphone, people were buying Polaroids, compact cameras with a small lens built in, or disposable cameras. They weren't buying something more complicated unless they were hobbyist photographers.

Not hobby. Taking photo is always key to life for many.

Before phone for major event like graduation, wedding and baby birth people do buy one camera with one lens for the occasion and keep it as a family heirloom like. And even students gala and performances. Whilst a lot of point and shot, slr and later dslr are common. The key it is not a hobby to them but a life even to record.

Unlike people like us canon and nikon found it hard to sell the second lens or even second body.

Re: I wanted a camera that doesn't exist, so I built it

#109

Post by alansaber »

s1mon wrote: post #13

As someone who's been doing mechanical product engineering for 30+ years, doing this as a first project is way more than jumping off the deep end. Impressive.

Agreed, both the pcb and 3d design was very well done. I'd love to do something similar (on a smaller camera lol)

Re: I wanted a camera that doesn't exist, so I built it

#110

Post by 6gvONxR4sf7o »

yabones wrote: post #31
Zak wrote: post #15

The Panasonic GX series of cameras was very similar to what we see here, and prices for them remain elevated years past their discontinuation. I'm a little surprised they haven't introduced a new model in that lineup. The Fuji X-E5 also seems similar to this, though obviously with a different lens mount.

GM-5 is probably the greatest pocket-size mirrorless, and maybe the last. The GX-85 is also great, but it does have a larger grip and more of a shoulder at the top. The G-100D is also quite small, but the faux pentaprism at the top makes it just a bit too big to justify being MFT. https://petapixel.com/2025/06/28/the-panasonic-lumix-gm-5-is...

If they just remade it with modern AF software, I'd probably carry mine around most every I went. Not to mention what they could do by updating hardware.
Post reply on HN