Previous page Next page

Image quality

So now we come to the million dollar (or at least four hundred pound) question. When all is said and done, are the images the camera produces any good?

With the Autographer, this question becomes somewhat more multi-faceted than usual. Not only do we have to consider the technical image quality - sensor, lens, image processing - we also have to think a bit about the underlying concept. Does the fundamental idea of the wearable camera have any key shortcomings, and crucially, does all that sensor technology seem to work?

The Autographer's lens has a huge 136° diagonal angle of view, and is a semi-fisheye design, meaning that straight lines which don't pass through the centre of the frame end up curved.
This image tells you a fair bit about the camera's good light image quality. Colours are pretty attractive - strong and saturated - but highlight clipping is pretty obvious in the clouds and tree trunks. If you look at the image closely it's not especially sharp at the pixel level either - best results tend to be with much closer subjects (~1m / 3ft).

The lens's distortion characteristics mean that both the horizon and trees are decidedly bent.
With the sun directly in the frame - not an uncommon occurrence given its huge angle of view - the lens will flare spectacularly, giving large red dots and lots of radial streaking. Here it's especially pronounced due to the clear blue sky and bright midsummer sun - if the light is attenuated in any way, it's naturally less severe.

Flare like this isn't always a bad thing; sometimes it can add to an image.
In lower light levels - here overcast daylight - colour saturation holds up pretty well. But look a little closer and there's lots of chroma noise - the image processing doesn't seem to be doing much to reduce it at all.

This image does show one advantage of the semi-fisheye lens - despite its huge angle of view, the people towards the edge of the frame don't appear too dramatically out of proportion. The flipside is that subjects have to be really close not to look tiny in the frame.

These shots also show another key point about the camera - because you're not aiming it in any way, framing is very random. If you're wearing the camera, it's rarely going to be pointing straight and level, and if you're moving when it chooses to make an exposure, the image will often be heavily blurred due to camera movement. Just occasionally everything comes together and you get a really interesting shot, but this is essentially serendipitous.

Overall, then, as a wearable camera for shooting stills, the Autographer suffers from pretty much all the problems you might predict. Without any conscious composition, getting interesting pictures is essentially a matter of luck, and requires sorting through a lots of exposures to find them.

At the moment we're still far from sure what the camera's ambient sensor technology is really doing, either. From the timestamps on images it's clear that exposures aren't simply made at fixed intervals, so something is going on inside that little black box. But it's not clear exactly what, or indeed whether it's significantly more likely to trigger the capture of genuinely interesting images than a simple intervalometer would.

Stop-motion movies

The second string in the Autographer's bow, beyond simply making a series of exposures, is assembling them together into stop-motion movies. It's possible to do this from the iPhone app, but the desktop version gives more options and allows easy selection of the frames you're going to include (and exclusion of those you don't want). In our brief experience so far this is pretty crucial - making an even vaguely engaging stop-motion movie ideally requires pretty ruthless editing.

This example was recorded at Autographer's launch event launch, hosted by OMG Life at London Zoo. My initial selection consisted of 46 frames, which I whittled down to 17 in the final version. The movie was exported at 960x720 resolution, and a framerate of 2fps.

This movie certainly isn't helped by the heavily overcast conditions, which make the colours appear rather dull. It also illustrates another problem with the wearable camera - you exercise little conscious control over where it's pointing. So the images are all skewed at different angles, and the main subject can easily get cropped off the edge of the frame. It's up to you top decide whether this is art, or merely distracting.

Summary

What we like

  • Lightweight, unobtrusive design
  • Intuitive, easy-to-use software
  • Simple generation of stop-motion movies

What we don't like

  • Image quality isn't great
  • 'Hit rate' of interesting images is low (initially at least)

There's little doubt that the Autographer is a really interesting device - it's not often we see cameras that are genuinely innovative, and attempt to rethink the concept from scratch. But after a few days of trying one out, we're still trying to work out exactly what it's for, and whether it's a genuinely useful device. What is absolutely clear is that it has a completely different set of strengths and applications compared to a conventional camera, and therefore has to be assessed in a different way.

It's certainly easy to use, and light enough that you could wear it all day without really noticing. It's also pretty unobtrusive, so people don't necessarily react to it with the forced smiles often elicited by 'real' cameras. Because of this it may well provide unique images from family events, for example, that you wouldn't otherwise capture. But you'll have to dedicate yourself to picking out those special few from the thousands of ordinary shots it produces alongside.

In a way, we suspect Autographer may actually work best when not used as a wearable camera at all. Instead, it could be left in a fixed position to document a day or event. The advantage here is that it won't be affected so much by the randomness of framing that comes with a constantly-moving device, and this would also provide a better basis for producing stop-motion movies. Then again a conventional camera with an intervalometer might do practically the same job, cheaper.

We have no doubt that some users will love Autographer, and use it to produce hugely creative work. Others will enjoy using it to document and playback their day - although like any camera, it's probably best left for special occasions (if you use it to record your daily commute, chances are that you'll find it's just as dull and uneventful as you thought). It's certainly not to be dismissed out-of-hand, just because it's new and does things differently. In its current iteration we struggle to see it catching on as mainstream product, but we have to give credit for OMG Life for at least trying something new.

Samples Gallery

There are 30 images in the samples gallery. Please do not reproduce any of these images on a website or any newsletter / magazine without prior permission (see our copyright page). We make the originals available for private users to download to their own machines for personal examination or printing (in conjunction with this review), we do so in good faith, please don't abuse it.

Unless otherwise noted images taken with no particular settings at full resolution. Because our review images are now hosted on the 'galleries' section of dpreview.com, you can enjoy all of the new galleries functionality when browsing these samples.

OMG Life Autographer Review Samples - 2nd August 2013
Previous page Next page

Comments

Total comments: 123
12
photo perzon
By photo perzon (8 months ago)

nerdy product can i wear it on my head?

0 upvotes
Burbclaver
By Burbclaver (9 months ago)

There's an App for that.

0 upvotes
fishycomics
By fishycomics (10 months ago)

make it smaller size of a dice.

0 upvotes
tompabes2
By tompabes2 (11 months ago)

LOL at the price! :) With Google Glass coming for probably less who would buy this?

0 upvotes
Plastek
By Plastek (10 months ago)

Somehow I'm sure people you meet will be more concerned about spy-glasses with direct link to NSA than a black box (though that black box is far from ideal too)

1 upvote
CaseyComo
By CaseyComo (11 months ago)

Iz teh sok.

0 upvotes
budi0251
By budi0251 (11 months ago)

a long & very far relatives of Google glass.

0 upvotes
whawha
By whawha (11 months ago)

There is nothing stupid about it, its a tool that could be very useful for specific tasks. I'd definitely use one for street and documentary photography, but at £400 imho its priced way too dearly.

Comment edited 23 seconds after posting
4 upvotes
JDThomas
By JDThomas (11 months ago)

It's not really street photography or even documentary photography if you have absolutely no input as to what is being photographed or when.

Since the camera makes the decision when to shoot the "photographer" is an unnecessary part of the equation other than being a means of transport.

In that sense you could call surveillance camera images street photography too.

Comment edited 19 seconds after posting
5 upvotes
whawha
By whawha (11 months ago)

So deciding where you are going with the camera, what you are aiming it at and what situations you are getting in is not an input?
Is it just the act of physically pressing the shutter that makes a photograph? I would say that there is more artistic input in taking a conscious decision in using surveillance camera footage and organising that footage in a way that it tells a story to , say, taking pictures of cats and obsessing over their sharpness and colour , perhaps spending hours comparing them online with other pictures of cats taken with other cameras ;)

1 upvote
JDThomas
By JDThomas (11 months ago)

The act of composing a scene and pressing the shutter release button at the right moment is MAKING a photograph. Walking around hoping the camera shoots at the right moment is being a transportation device for a snapshot machine. Maybe I'm l'd old school, but I still believe the "decisive moment" should be up to the photographer to capture. Otherwise it's just luck. The old "Put enough monkeys in a room with a typewriter they'll produce Shakespeare" scenario.

That is truly a situation where one could say "dude, your camera sure takes nice pictures!".

As far as dissecting cat pictures (pun intended), well, every photographer needs to find his niche. If it weren't for those folks camera discussion forums would be lonely places (and probably much more pleasant). :)

4 upvotes
whawha
By whawha (10 months ago)

Yes, I think you're definitely very old school but nothing wrong with that. :)

1 upvote
Plastek
By Plastek (10 months ago)

I love how you can call everything photography these days.

What whawha does is kinda like calling a random string generator a "writer".

0 upvotes
Jon Ragnarsson
By Jon Ragnarsson (11 months ago)

Nice try, NSA.

3 upvotes
Plastek
By Plastek (10 months ago)

That's nothing. Just wait for Google Glass.

0 upvotes
canonalex
By canonalex (11 months ago)

I like it! It makes photography available to physically challenged people who cannot manipulate the complex menus and scroll buttons.

2 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (11 months ago)

Not to mention mentally challenged people, who will absolutely love it.

Comment edited 15 seconds after posting
5 upvotes
smorti
By smorti (11 months ago)

Nice derogatory comment there, Manuel.

0 upvotes
Pixnat2
By Pixnat2 (11 months ago)

Decadent? Perhaps... Stupid? Sure!

3 upvotes
Jim Evidon
By Jim Evidon (11 months ago)

Finally, a camera that is auto-everything; relieving the photographer even of the burden of actually having to take pictures. Ain't progress wonderful?

5 upvotes
CaseyComo
By CaseyComo (11 months ago)

All it needs to do now is auto-delete and we are golden.

1 upvote
dmanthree
By dmanthree (11 months ago)

Three words: get a life. This is really, really stupid.

1 upvote
Plastek
By Plastek (10 months ago)

is "a" really a word?

0 upvotes
doctor digi
By doctor digi (11 months ago)

Several points:

Whether you love or hate this (or Glass), it's coming and you may as well get used to it. This reminds me of early digicams - large, clunky, and with poor image quality. The next gen., or several after, will be cheap, very small, and take great pictures.

As for privacy - what privacy? (if in public). I get photographed by CCTV a zillion times a day - so if people on the street do it, who cares. What I DO have issue with is if someone did this without my knowledge in my home.

What will be even more interesting is when micro-UAVs the size of an insect are (eventually) produced. That's perhaps more a worry than what people can stick around their necks. And that too is coming - perhaps sooner than people realise.

As for this device - way too expensive, way too big. But as I said, this is early days. I'd wear one because I'd like to make a diary and I have no time to write one each day, but I'd only be interested if it was not intrusive (which this thing is).

4 upvotes
Trollshavethebestcandy
By Trollshavethebestcandy (11 months ago)

Who cares? I do. You may not care but plenty do. Don't take your own opinions as more than that. People don't want to feel like they are treated like criminals with CCTV's everywhere.

4 upvotes
sdribetahi
By sdribetahi (11 months ago)

Trollshave, tell it to the street shooter thread.

0 upvotes
Trollshavethebestcandy
By Trollshavethebestcandy (11 months ago)

CCTV's and the police state is not the same as street shooting.

1 upvote
doctor digi
By doctor digi (11 months ago)

Trollshave: it is you who are taking my opinions as "more than that". While I am partly stating "my opinion", I'm mostly just stating what is inevitable - personal always-on camera recording is here to stay, whether you (or I) like it or not. Now, unless you are so sure that there is a chance to legislate in every country in the world and remove the right to take street photography, then I'd say the chances of stopping this are close to zero. Don't forget - you'd have to legislate against street photography, because why should someone holding a camera have more rights than someone wearing a camera? And how will you define holding/wearing once the cameras become really small?

As for my *opinion*. I'm neither for nor against. I can see useful things and also misuse with this tool. My main concern is what happens in private. In the street (i.e.: in public) I still say "who cares".

1 upvote
Lenscraft
By Lenscraft (11 months ago)

I love the idea of CCTV everywhere, so long as the footage is available to everyone, and not just the State.

1 upvote
Plastek
By Plastek (10 months ago)

I think as soon as Google Glass comes out - everyone should aim themselves with high power laser pointers. These can damage DSLR sensors, so surely they can damage Google Glass as well, right?
#
BTW: I have no idea why they heck you compare CCTV to Street Photography, and that to Google Glass or any other spy camera. All of these are completely different things.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
SomebodyFamous
By SomebodyFamous (11 months ago)

I have a wristwatch that records video

2 upvotes
rowlandw
By rowlandw (11 months ago)

I already have a ballpoint pen that records (admittedly primitive) stills and video - and it looks like an ordinary pen.

0 upvotes
imsabbel
By imsabbel (11 months ago)

The sense of this thing aside (there are smaller cell phones with cameras around) - this thing disqualifies itself by its absolutely abyssmal image quality.

5MP is low to begin with, and the real resolution is far worse (I see no features less than 3-4 pixels in size, so those images could be reduces to at most something like 1280*720 if you want a sharp image).

The tiny sensor with a slow lens makes it almost useless except outside at sunshine... and there you got the crap flare resistance, and with such a wide fisheye the sun will be in the frame quite often.

But the last straw, and the worst part, is the price. If it was $50 from a chinese direct distributor, fine. but 400 pound? thats ridiculous!

2 upvotes
RichRMA
By RichRMA (11 months ago)

Real perverts will want one that fits in a shoe.

0 upvotes
Sebastian Firtman
By Sebastian Firtman (11 months ago)

Mmm, You need look : www.memoto.com :)

1 upvote
simmybear31
By simmybear31 (11 months ago)

Too bbbbbb expensive, at £100 or $148 I might just buy one on a whim but at $279 your having a laugh.

0 upvotes
smorti
By smorti (11 months ago)

And $9/month to use it after 1st year? No thanks...

0 upvotes
justmeMN
By justmeMN (11 months ago)

It's not stealthy enough. A small camera head and a box on the belt, connected by a wire, would be better.

0 upvotes
MMitchellorg
By MMitchellorg (11 months ago)

I'll wear my GOPRO around my neck instead.

3 upvotes
tinternaut
By tinternaut (11 months ago)

I call Epic Fail on this one. Then again, I also called Epic Fail on Instagram.

1 upvote
John Koch
By John Koch (11 months ago)

Wouldn't the device work better if part of a hat or eyeglasses? Hanging on a strap, it is bound to shift or dangle about, aligning with the person's line of sight only accidentally. The tortoise (or is that a Tory MP?) in the stop-action video gets cut off.

0 upvotes
ponyman
By ponyman (11 months ago)

Can't wait for a Hasselblad version ...

9 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (11 months ago)

It will have a hardwood handle bolted to it and will cost £2000.

4 upvotes
PCorvo
By PCorvo (11 months ago)

And dont forget the grip!!!

3 upvotes
backayonder
By backayonder (11 months ago)

Why WTF and Why followed by Why springs to mind

2 upvotes
Trollshavethebestcandy
By Trollshavethebestcandy (11 months ago)

FAIL! This will be horrible for taking pics of my nine cats...

3 upvotes
springsnow
By springsnow (11 months ago)

No image stabilization even at that price? I mean considering its usage, IMO some sort of image stabilization is a must.
I do like the concept. I've been thinking of wearing one of those Sony Cybershot TX cameras in a similar fashion. :D

1 upvote
huyzer
By huyzer (11 months ago)

OMG Life has the built-in OMG for pricing! Wow.

2 upvotes
Trollshavethebestcandy
By Trollshavethebestcandy (11 months ago)

Capture the moment people keep saying WTF is that and the horror reply when they understand what it is. Google glass -2.0

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Trollshavethebestcandy
By Trollshavethebestcandy (11 months ago)

Just make an app for your smart phone to do the same thing and wear it around your neck like a tech geek who can't get a date.

6 upvotes
SW Anderson
By SW Anderson (11 months ago)

Next up, a medicine cabinet which, at certain times of the day, will lob pills at you if you're standing in front of it with mouth open and then open its door. What? You don't get it? Why have to actually reach in, take out and open a bottle or two, then take your pills manually, when technology can do 98 percent of the work?

Eventually, the Chow Plower — speed and efficiency preparing and feeding you a meal, beyond anything you ever imagined. You won't even have to lift a fork!

Seriously, this OMG Life "innovation" comes across as an odd, redundant contrivance in this era when most of the population feels naked without a smartphone-with-camera, and all-weather mini cams are reasonably priced and plentiful.

2 upvotes
Trollshavethebestcandy
By Trollshavethebestcandy (11 months ago)

You won't meet the woman of your dreams looking like a creepy camera geek. That means no kids moments ect.

1 upvote
PicOne
By PicOne (11 months ago)

"what we don't like..
Image quality isn't great"

shocker. I love the understatement though. British humor I think

2 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (11 months ago)

We're probably looking at a Bronze award. Silver at most.

2 upvotes
Alternative Energy Photography

Fellas, try to see the possibilities. Like may creative types, I'm getting a vibe from you .. a lot of resistance to new ideas here. Yes, resistance from creatives. ?

2 upvotes
WellyNZ
By WellyNZ (11 months ago)

Sadly, that's DPReview readers in the main. Anything that isn't the latest/greatest DSLR or doesn't have a tack sharp lens or is slightly outside of their narrow vision gets knocked.

This isn't necessarily something I'd personally be interested in using but I can see the possibilities of devices like this.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
dylanbarnhart
By dylanbarnhart (11 months ago)

The concept is absurb for a forum full of photographers. But this is no joke. There is an emgerging flow of thought brought along by Google Glass called Timeline. In the timeline, the present is most important. Then unimportant things in the past slowly fade away. That's how human memory works. Our eyes observe everything constantly, then retain only remarkable things in the past.

A person can just wear this device, or Google Glass, everyday and it silently takes pictures whenever something new or interesting happens. These pictures are only stored for a short period of time. When something interesting happens, the person, or friends can later revisit the photos and make them sticky, meaning to save them permanently. The photos that are not looked at are eventually deleted.

You'd be surprised how many interesting things in life are missed because they didn't seem photo worthy at the time. Think about the interesting moments of your life and whether you have pictures for them.

1 upvote
dylanbarnhart
By dylanbarnhart (11 months ago)

Let me name a few of those moments that you could've missed:
. When you first met your spouse
. When your kid ran to greet you with open arms
. When the 8rd grade friend punched you in the face
. When you stood in a podium to receive your diploma, and looked over the crowd seeing your parents clapping for you.

1 upvote
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (11 months ago)

When I showed up late for work one time too many and had to go see the vice president of the company (and this was at Leitz, no less.) Alas, there are no photos of the event.

2 upvotes
Josh SZ
By Josh SZ (11 months ago)

Very interesting. I think you need two of it -ware one in front of you and one in back. Thus you wouldn't miss any actions.

0 upvotes
deleted-13120401
By deleted-13120401 (11 months ago)

It's great for photographers that inject art into their photography. Including landscape, portraiture, photojournalism (capturing a story rather than a moment). Because they will be further differentiated from the masses.

And this type of device, plus phones, glass etc. is great for photography where content wins and artistry comes second. E.g. The kind of photo we see in news these days captured from security cameras. Because nobody else and nothing better was there.

1 upvote
deleted-13120401
By deleted-13120401 (11 months ago)

It's great for photographers that inject art into their photography. Including landscape, portraiture, photojournalism (capturing a story rather than a moment). Because they will be further differentiated from the masses.

And this type of device, plus phones, glass etc. is great for photography where content wins and artistry comes second. E.g. The kind of photo we see in news these days captured from security cameras. Because nobody else and nothing better was there.

0 upvotes
deleted-13120401
By deleted-13120401 (11 months ago)

It's great for photographers that inject art into their photography. Including landscape, portraiture, photojournalism (capturing a story rather than a moment). Because they will be further differentiated from the masses.

And this type of device, plus phones, glass etc. is great for photography where content wins and artistry comes second. E.g. The kind of photo we see in news these days captured from security cameras. Because nobody else and nothing better was there.

0 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (11 months ago)

Hoosh, can you repeat that again, please?
Today something important happened and I didn't have a camera with me to register it: I got into a bus and the driver actually looked at me. What makes this memorable is that they never look at anyone. I wish I had this OMG thingie with me to capture that unique occasion. (The moment I bought my cigarettes was also memorable, but admittedly not so much as that bus driver looking at me.)
It is very important to capture all significant moments in our everyday lives. And there are so many.

2 upvotes
deleted-13120401
By deleted-13120401 (11 months ago)

Sorry for the repeats. I got an error every time I hit post, then went back and tried again twice because it said to try again later. Surprised to see it worked actually and now annoyed at looking like a noob. Login system seems to have changed to amazon web services which has problems with china, which is where I live.

0 upvotes
sdribetahi
By sdribetahi (11 months ago)

I thought it would be impossible to top the level of nerdiness seen in photog's that wear a camera with a neck strap or use a vest, but I stand corrected.

0 upvotes
John Koch
By John Koch (11 months ago)

Better a neck strap than a camera fallen to the ground or getting impregnated with lint in a pocket. Is today's fashion to balance one on the head or to carry it in a rolled-up shirt sleeve? Of course, most don't carry a camera at all, but only a phone.

1 upvote
PatMann
By PatMann (11 months ago)

Nerdy like Alfred Eisenstaedt, for example.

0 upvotes
ProfHankD
By ProfHankD (11 months ago)

It's a car camera for your body. Maybe good for police, etc., but really needs smarter software for searching the images. Gordon Bell at Microsoft was pushing this concept for quite a long time, and had some interesting stuff in MyLifeBits, etc. Links at his website: http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/gbell/

1 upvote
f64Craft
By f64Craft (11 months ago)

$609.59 US Dollars is alittle much for an iPhone accessory.

1 upvote
cfh25
By cfh25 (11 months ago)

Makes the GX7 at $1000 look a bargain

0 upvotes
Alternative Energy Photography

$610 is dirt cheap if it provides you with proof of having been brutalized by police. This just happened a week or so ago, and the police said that the people had no right to complain to the press. A picture is worth a thousand words.

0 upvotes
skysi
By skysi (11 months ago)

OMG! The Price!

0 upvotes
Bob Meyer
By Bob Meyer (11 months ago)

No doubt this is very useful for Alzheimer's patients, but there's a pretty big jump between that and normal everyday wear for everybody, which seems to be how it's being marketed.

0 upvotes
John Koch
By John Koch (11 months ago)

Would an Alzheimer's patient remember how to view the photos? Would the patient remember who or what were in the photos, or when or where they were taken?

1 upvote
Ted Williamson
By Ted Williamson (11 months ago)

Initially, this technology was created for Alzheimer's patients in the UK. http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/11/05/lifelogging.camera.memory.loss/

The research showed that these patients would forget significant amounts of their lives even in a few short days. With the cameras, they remembered as much as 85% when presented with photos of their day.

This technology has amazing potential for people who suffer from memory loss.

4 upvotes
Antzutd
By Antzutd (11 months ago)

@ 400 pounds, it's also for people who lost the concept of value of money.

seriously thou, i understand the concept for alzheimer patients, but the price has to be reduce significantly before making it viable for the average public to use

3 upvotes
John Koch
By John Koch (11 months ago)

Do the patients really "remember" what is in the photos? Or do they simply see images images and ponder, "Oh, that looks nice," and 5 minutes later not remember seeing the pictures or what they were about?

1 upvote
simmybear31
By simmybear31 (11 months ago)

As my dad has Alzheimer's I can say that in the very early stages it might be helpful but at the stage he is now he lacks comprehension to switch his TV on (he used to an aerospace engineer who worked on building Concord and Airbus) or to follow a newspaper - so a very small window of opportunity sadly, what I do for him is convert all his old slides to digital so I can show him things from 40 or 50 years ago in my youth and those he often does remember.

Comment edited 43 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
SeeRoy
By SeeRoy (11 months ago)

Interesting abuse of the word "intelligent".

3 upvotes
skysi
By skysi (11 months ago)

Could be something good for a wedding photog to sit down later and analyse your day. Maybe for some other professional.

0 upvotes
jmmgarza
By jmmgarza (11 months ago)

Not for me... privacy?

1 upvote
erichK
By erichK (11 months ago)

Yet another scheme to part the gullible from their money with the illusion of effortless recording of great images of great moments. There was the Brownie box camera, there was 110, and Polaroid and countless cheap plastic cameras. While with concentrated effort a skilled photographer could produce worthwhile images even from these, the main result was hundreds of millions of fading, worthless snapshots. This new toy promises to increase that by an order of magnitude...or two.

The making of images worth a second look almost always requires effort and concentration and disciplined skill. This new toy promises the opposite. But it may well sell.

1 upvote
makofoto
By makofoto (11 months ago)

As I suspected, the low light performance is not great ... and especially as a party camera ... that's important. Perhaps there should be an Infrared version with a IR flash that is invisible to our eyes. I use to shoot with an IR flash ... pretty neat getting full (IR) exposure in near darkness.

0 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (11 months ago)

I'd like to have one of these, smaller so I could hide it in my tie clip, to go with my Hai Karate aftershave. But if that's not to be, I still want one for the dog. He's not in a league with Garry Winogrand...yet.

1 upvote
D B Morris
By D B Morris (11 months ago)

Love the idea of one for the dog - especially if it's a dog big enough to deter thieves!

"A day in the life of my dog" - sounds great.

0 upvotes
makofoto
By makofoto (11 months ago)

For those of us who have missed being in the moment while we take photos for a big part of our lives, this could be great for certain social and sport functions. Of course there is software to removed distortion. Like anything ... there is a time and a place ...

0 upvotes
makofoto
By makofoto (11 months ago)

I would think the place to release this would be Japan

2 upvotes
justmeMN
By justmeMN (11 months ago)

This could pay for itself, as a party blackmailcam. (grin)

3 upvotes
Ferling
By Ferling (11 months ago)

Simple question: Would you feel comfortable around folks wearing these?

Thought so.

0 upvotes
Alternative Energy Photography

I might wear one. We'll see how all my friends who love red-light cameras feel about this.

0 upvotes
Total comments: 123
12