Now who doubts that any person can be proven to be at the scene of the crime with enough manipulation behind the scenes?
And which were they holding - the gun, knife, or poison?
An excellent example of what can be done with enough effort. Well done.
Minimum focusing distance?
If this ever-widening trend continues, someday the photographer will have to hide his/her ears to keep them from becoming part of the picture.
spikey27: Very interesting.
Thanks for showcasing anything that is an improvement, as this does wrt reducing cost, adaptation of new uses of "off the shelf" equipment, and simplifying the system for underwater photography.
Although I don't get into water any deeper than my shower, I appreciate the beautiful photography, as well as expansion of knowledge of the world around us.
Followup: Although a go-pro was used herein, as several others pointed out there are several good alternatives, with each having its supporters.
I think the jist of this article shows that while many cameras are suitable, the folks at Monterrey Bay chose this for their basis. When you build something, it is best to stick with existing solutions wherever possible, otherwise costs will eat you up.
Unquestionably there will be "better" cameras down the pike, and there will be choices to be made.
But, for this instance, they chose to use the go-pro, and certain types of enclosures. It worked for them, and I consider their solution to be successful.
Who knows - maybe someone will develop a transparent gel, grease, or other material the camera can be enclosed in and dispense with any housing.
Please revisit this article sometime, say a year or two down the road, and let us know what else has sprung from this project.
Most people can afford one of these, or other models.
But I wonder how many of them have the good sense to use them properly and not to pester other people - such as has been reported by numerous real pilots when those glorified gnats interfere with commercial air space.
It's no wonder the FAA is cracking down on them. If they don't, statistically they will cause a crash someday, somewhere. Who wants to be on that flight?
So, before somebody complains about their first amendment rights, remember they can be held accountable for injuries and deaths caused by these things.
forpetessake: "12-45mm f/3.5-6.3" -- really? Making such a dim lens with such a small sensor makes no sense. It's f/12.6 FF equivalent! Even the old film days P&S Olympus soap boxes were brighter. This Chinese company is nuttier than a fruitcake.
Discussing the difference in usefulness of numerically high f/stops for anything except bright daylight shooting somehow reminds me of the 10-stop chart in the doctor's office that he points to and asks "What is your pain level?"
BTW, there's an excellent article elsewhere on this site regarding equivalent EVERYTHING.
Whew, you had me worried there for a moment.
At first I thought "Has Kodak - the into digital photography company with a great portfolio of useful patents that sold off everything and became NOT in the same business - now become an 'into' again?"
Because if they had reentered that market, and were likely paying for the use of what used to be their own patents, woe be unto them. And to anyone buying their cameras because of the uncertainty over whether they would go away again because of incompetence and mismanagement at the highest level.
Perhaps the greatest challenge the new guys will face is casting off the taint of the corporation's past.
Best wishes to them.
Screw WM. They don't own everything, but just like all big outfits, they think they are the only ones that matter.
Rocky Mtn Old Boy: Can someone with some method patent experience tell me how this would be enforceable? Unless someone was in your studio, and saw/videoed/photographed your setup, how could Amazon claim that their "method" was infringed upon?
"You've got no shadows! ...you must have used our patented methodology."
IMHO, if you are a studio shooter and you can't suss out how to effectively remove shadows from your background, you may want to consider a new vocation. So, what am I missing here? Granted, I do not live in the US, but I am a tad concerned that this madness could "leak out".
Or is this just because North America has too many lawyers and this is simply job creation?
The point is moot.
Regardless of who tries it, this is not a patentable idea because it has already been in use forever, and there have probably been dozens of articles or discussions related to it in photography magazines since the '30s.
Scales USA: So, can I patent using f/8 to take photos? How about all the other apertures?
I have my own product photography light table setup, maybe I'll file for a patent.
The precedent set is that we could have almost every aspect of photography lighting patented, since it does not seem to matter if its been done for 50 years, or 100, for that matter.
A certain patent examiner needs to find honest work.
No, the patent examiner should be strung up by his heels.
Does anybody need better proof that the patent office is a disaster?
How about somebody getting a patent on people breathing air?
This sounds like it is about the same size and weight as the earliest of cameras, which took a whole herd of people to carry.
I think this is a terrific idea, if it doesn't take too long to develop.
Best wishes on getting those criteria down to be competitive with other methods in the near future.
The only way to go out of business any quicker is turn off the lights and lock the door.
Gosh, I hope Adobe's SS won't affect my bootleg copy.
The gator's thoughts: Yummy.
Actually, a beautiful, interesting photo.
How does the phrase go: Deal with the devil and you wake up with fleas?
Woe be unto anyone that posts a photo of a person, train, or other scene that has anything in common to any other.
Infringing. No way.
It's obvious why they say "justice is blind."
The judge needs his head examined.
You mention built-in flash as though it is a plus for the Nikon or drawback for the Canon.
Perhaps, but mechanical interlocks have a downside, requiring more complicated controls and internal space, while making the camera slightly heavier and more expensive.
My 20D had problems because of the built-in flash, used for perhaps 2% of the shots taken. I consider those problems far outweigh the convenience.
Hence, on a camera with a high effective ISO there is little need for built-in interlocked flash.
Use the space, money, etc to improve something else.