Reading mode: Light Dark

News Reviews Articles Buying Guide Sample Images Videos Cameras Lenses Phones Printers Forums Galleries Challenges

Now reading: Sakar shows QX-style, Vivitar-branded modular smart camera 78 comments

Sakar shows QX-style, Vivitar-branded modular smart camera

Published Jan 14, 2014 | dpreview staff

One of the stands we didn't get a chance to visit at CES 2014 was that of Sakar International. Its Vivicam IU680 (as seen by digitalcamera.jp) at first looks like a competitor to Sony's QX models and JK Imaging's Kodak Smart Lenses. However, a closer look reveals that the lens module is interchangeable. We say lens module, rather than lens because it appears to be the same 10-30mm lens/sensor combination shown by Sakar at last year's CES under the Polaroid brand.

The Vivitar-branded 'Vivicam IU680' extends the 'smart lens' concept of Sony's QX cameras by moving to a modular camera. (Image from digitalcamera.jp)

The 10-30mm module appears to be the same one that Sakar was offering with the Polaroid iM1836 before it was forced to take that camera off the market. Details of that camera were hard to find (but the oft-quoted 27-80mm equivalent range would give it a 1"-type sensor). The flashgun awkwardly mounted on top of the Vivicam has also previously appeared with the Polaroid brand name. Pricing and availability have yet to be released.

Look familiar? Sakar first showed these camera modules under the Polaroid brand at 2013's CES. (Image from digitalcamera.jp)

Via: PetaPixel, Source: digitalcamera.jp

Tags: camera-news, polaroid, sakar-international, vivitar

Comments

All (78)

Most popular (8)

Editors' picks (0)

DPR staff (0)

Oldest first

panpen

Hideous. One camera I'd use if Vivitar paid me to do it.

Jan 21, 2014permalink

CaseyComo

Solution in search of a problem.

Jan 19, 2014permalink

sean000

The geek in me really likes stuff like this, but the photographer in me loves cameras. A dedicated camera is sometimes an elegant work of art that represents an ideal combination of form and function. This? Not so much.

Jan 18, 2014permalink

qwertyasdf

ViVicam....
I feel awkward saying that name...

Nonetheless, the fanboys would say this particular camera has that "Zeiss" 3D rendering.

Jan 15, 2014permalink

Kipplemaster

That really is astonishingly bad! Especially the comedy flashgun which looks like they have recycled a design from 1982 intended for a Kodak disc camera . Good luck to them in making the software work properly, something Sony had certainly not achieved when I tried the QX10.

Jan 15, 2014permalink

Spectro

no body interchangeable lens system. with an adapter you can stick a telephoto zoom to your cellphone.

Jan 15, 2014permalink

naththo

LOL is all I can say. Can't stand those tiny thing invention that is not a real camera. Get a grip people if you don't like some comment here we have different opinion. If you don't like it, go somewhere to read than here. I prefer real camera than that gimmick phone camera with tiny lens that get dirty/smear and look hazy every time picture is taken.

Jan 15, 2014permalink

iae aa eia

I don't understand why some guys here don't like the idea of a modular camera. They offer lens interchangeability, the sensor is not ridiculously small, you can have them mounted on your phone (whenever you want), you can achieve far better image quality, can have easier software updates/upgrades, and even pay a lower price. Some guys are even complaining this news should be anywhere else! What is wrong with you, guys?

I love the idea! I have a Nokia 701. Imagine they have its software compatible with Symbian OS and I could buy a mount for, let's say, 200-300 bucks, and then a lens. Awesome! They can even offer handgrips!

The only problem I see with this kind of product is if they ask the same price as an equivalent camera.

Jan 15, 2014*permalink

Revenant

It's not necessarily the modularity that people don't like, but the fact that it's a smartphone add-on, rather than a dedicated camera with more photography-friendly ergonomics and controls. The Ricoh GXR, for example, could have been really interesting, if Ricoh had made more lens mount modules for it, rather than "lensor" modules.

Jan 15, 2014permalink

iae aa eia

It seems to me you are comparing it with a regular camera when you talk about being dedicated and more photography-firendly ergonomics and controls when it is, actually, a category of its own. Let's say, modular phone camera. What's wrong? 'phone' in there? Think about the better IQ it can produce for less money and the fact you are already saving the images to where some people prefer to have them stored, and not still having to transfer anything.

I've read some reviews on Sony's attemps and some folks saying there's not this port nor that button nor adequate ergonomics, etc, but they forget the purpose of the product, and buy it expecting it to become a transformer and turn itself into a heck of a camera. Not at all! Someone even complained there was no HDMI port. What?!

Jan 15, 2014permalink

neo_nights

I'm all for modularity. But, as someone else stated above, there's good modularity and bad modularity. As is now, things are just too kludgey.

A 'smartcamera' like Samsung's offerings makes much more sense to me as a camera-attached-to-a-phone than those current clip-ons lens-cameras.

Jan 15, 2014permalink

Marty4650

How well did that modular thing work out for Ricoh with their GXR?

If the big advantage of cell phone cameras is "they are compact, and always with you" then carrying around a lens/senor unit to strap on to it sort of defeats the whole purpose.

This is a Rube Golberg kludge device if every there was one.

Jan 17, 2014permalink

Flying Snail

I'd rather ducktape my phone to my DSLR then use this monstrosity.

BTW: Why is this not on connect? It's phone accessory, not a camera.

Jan 14, 2014permalink

Eric Hensel

I believe you're only allowed one snark per comment?

Jan 14, 2014permalink

neo_nights

When those things go to Connect, people there complain "This is not smartphone/tablet, put this back to DPReview".

Also it seems people at Connect are on a vacation. Last update was one week ago.

Jan 14, 2014permalink

DaveE1

These "things" need a site of their own :-) They don't fit in any existing category.

Jan 14, 2014permalink

kayone

What is 'duck'tape?

Jan 15, 2014permalink

Daedbird

While this one does not interest me as much as the Kodak models announced last week, I can really see a great use for these style of lenses....

.....as remote cameras.

Look, I have to cover court cases, and getting the best angle is very difficult, and you are locked into one spot once the case begins. With these lenses, I could place the 'lens' on the judge's bench, and control the camera remotely.

Or for sports, you could place this anywhere - attached to a backboard, or in a dugout, or if made waterproof-at the bottom of the pool. Less obtrusive than P&S with wireless capabilities, I think this style of camera will have many uses.

There are just a few things I would want to see:
1. Tripod mount - needed to put this camera anywhere.
2. Universal size/shape - not only for adapters, but also cases, say for putting underwater
3. Strong wifi - This really not work if the connection fails after three feet. I don't know what the sweet spot is but I think at least 30 feet.

Jan 14, 2014permalink

neo_nights

I may be wrong but as leaving the camera somewhere and controlling it remotely..... don't sports photographers do that already? On many event courts it's easy to see "unmanned" cameras around.

But, on a Judge's bench, a smaller 'lens-camera' would be better fitting (pun-intended) than a big and chunky dSLR.

You're not wrong in your line of thought, but as connectivity isn't SO great currently (just see many of the QX10's reviews and you'll a lot of examples of the lens-smartphone connection been cut off) that could be a problem as well.

Jan 14, 2014permalink

philflashes

I think these so called 'smart lenses' are just ridiculous! Smartphones are ok if you don't have a camera with you, but if you're planning on carrying this kind of weight, why not buy a mirrorless camera instead? That'll give you better IQ and is often even less bulky and lighter!

Jan 14, 2014permalink

neo_nights

THIS!

I swear I'm not one of those photosnobs that think that taking pictures with smartphones is "OMG! HOW DREADFUL!". I don't carry my cameras with me all the time. Because I don't always go out with the sole purpose of shooting something/someone.

When I simply go out for the sake of it, I'm pretty satisfied with my smartphone. Or even when I want a quick snap at home.

BUT if smartphone users are willing to carry an extra BULKY thing (c'mon the QX10 is bulkier than an RX100 itself!), why not take a "real" camera?

Looks at this Sakar thing. It YELLS "kludge" all over! Old looking lens, cheap external flash...

It's like taping a phone to a camera and saying 'now I have a camera phone'.

Jan 14, 2014permalink

Eleson

If you want to take pictures on a sports event and share them over Facebook as you take them, what's the alternative?
And what is the cost for that alternative?
Replace sports event with place of choice.

With these, you can choose 'share picture' in the Facebook app, the camera app starts up, you take the pic, and share it.

Jan 14, 2014permalink

dyoon153

@Eleson - get one of those wi-fi enabled sd cards (like Eye-Fi), transfer to tablet / smartphone. Pretty simple choice if you already own a decent camera that's compatible.
I got one around $100 (Eyefi pro x2 16gb) and it's probably cheaper than investing in those system, IF you already own a camera or invested in decent system.

Jan 14, 2014permalink

Eleson

Yeah, if you already have a smartphone or a iPad with 3G. And if you have a camera!
Also, you have think that this is not cumbersome:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtXxejw3GeU
Going to a webpage and configure it so that all the videos ( or pictures) I take from now on should be shared on facebook.

Yeah, that'll probably work, and if you have a great camera you will upload som great quality videos.

But if you don't have the camera things change, doesn't it?

Also, if you connect over your router to the phone at home, that won't work in he zoo right, so there quite some more to this to be transparent and fluent.

Jan 15, 2014permalink

Jogger

Sony is already making the 1/2.3-type sensor standard across their mid-tier and flagship devices; this is a far more sensible approach then these half-phones.

Jan 14, 2014permalink

Thoughts

A micro 3/4 mount would be very interesting to mount those pancake lenses.

Jan 14, 2014permalink

Eleson

I'm a bit surprised by the lack of imagination from many posters here, " not understanding the product".
For many (actually most) taking pictures is not about having them, it is about sharing them. Something 95% of current cameras suck at.
And for most, a lower quality image that gets shared is worth a helluva lot more than a great picture that noone sees.
Simple as that.

Jan 14, 2014permalink

nekrosoft13

i would never consider a phone a photography tool... and as far as sharing most people share and like to share photos, I personally share with family and friends and email works just fine. All this social media bs is annoying.

Jan 14, 2014permalink

AlanJones

@ nekrosoft13 You say social media is annoying yet you share your opinion using a form of social media. That's annoying!

Jan 14, 2014permalink

Eleson

"i would never consider a phone a photography tool"
And that's fine. It is your choice. But other choices are also okay.

Jan 14, 2014permalink

philflashes

I'd consider a smartphone a photography tool if I forgot my camera! But if I was planning on taking images, i'd bring one of my cameras. And if I wanted to share those images, i would use an eye-fi (or similar) memory card. What's the difference? Yep, better IQ!

Jan 14, 2014permalink

Marty4650

Eleson....

It may be a cultural or generational thing. Or one of priorities.

Many of us old timers think photography should be deliberate. You should plan the shot, execute it well, then post process carefully. Then... decide whether to share it or not.

Many of the younger shooters think photography must be instantaneous. You see something interesting, whip out your cell phone, and within 5 seconds you have posted it on facebook. So everyone can see what you ate for lunch.

Sometimes these two methods come in conflict, and some of us will sacrifice the ability to "share with lighting speed" for better quality results. While others will sacrifice better quality results so they can share everything they see, immediately after they see it.

Jan 14, 2014permalink

everiman

"I told Wilbur and I told Orville, it'll never leave the ground"

Like or not this may be the future. A digital camera is optics, a sensor and a dedicated computer. A smart phone is an increasingly more powerful and capable fully programmable computer. When camera makers are freed from having to develop the computer part, they can concentrate on just optics and sensors. Think beyond the awkward strapping of a phone to a lens, that is no longer necessary with wireless connections, This stuff is still in its infancy.

Jan 14, 2014permalink

Eleson

@Marty ....
Unfortunately, I'm pushing 50 at a higher speed than i think i necessary :-)
Bur then again, I would never buy this. I think ...
But as a gearhead it just might happen.

I don't think eye-Fi solves the 'need' for some to share a cool pic from the Zoo, amusement park or a sports event on Facebook.

Jan 14, 2014permalink

Mario G

What's difficult with sharing by popping out the SD card from your camera and plugging it into your computer a few hours later? Most photos don't really need real-time sharing, photo sharing existed also before smartphones... and having a proper look at them on a big screen can only be beneficial to actually see what sort of photos you've taken.

And if you really need this sharing to be real-time, as suggested above you can use an eye-Fi card, or even better a camera with native Wi-Fi support... how is this "smart lens" going to be any better than a GX7 remotely controlled by your phone using the Panasonic Image App? At least with the GX7 once you realise how tedious it is to use a proper camera through an app you can always shut the app, grab the camera, and use it properly...

Jan 14, 2014*permalink

samfan

No, I don't like this concept either. Because I don't do um, 'photography' with a smartphone.

However people seem to in fact DO um, 'photography' with a smartphone and can't imagine doing it any other way. This is for those people who just want to take photos in the usual smartphone style but with some extra stuff like zoom.

In a recent interview with Sony's execs, they said their QX sell like hotcakes.

And honestly I'd rather have people using this stuff than just the smartphone itself. I'm so incredibly tired of all the 35mm shots of food, feet and whatnot. Maybe at least they'll try other motives with these addons. Probably will still run it through Instagram to get a 512*512 lomo crap but we're getting somewhere slowly.

Jan 14, 2014permalink

Hugo808

i was surprised how big the QX was, but I don't have a smartphone so the concept is wasted on me.

I know people who do have them though and love the ease of picture taking, it's all they want, add on a gadget like this and you can do more and have the large screen and familiar interface of your phone. It's a win win.

I'm glad if Sony and co are selling them it will only get more people into photography. My facebook friends love my pics but I tell them they need a raw shooter and lightroom to achieve my look. And the seed is sown....

Jan 14, 2014*permalink

DaveE1

How exactly is this thing more convenient than a camera?

At least Sony can be applauded for trying something different; and there is hope for their version, as they are the masters of miniaturisation.

It seems that some companies have a basic "what the others are doing with a few extra buttons" attitude to R&D.

Jan 14, 2014permalink

Andy Crowe

In theory using your phone (always have that with you, right?) as a screen for your camera means your camera can be smaller. In this case though the camera is still quite big despite not having a screen...

Jan 14, 2014permalink

TFD

Why not just get Canon or Nikon to make cameras with a built in cell phone.

Jan 14, 2014permalink

Eleson

... but until they do it ... ?

Jan 14, 2014permalink

quiquae

These days, the only people who make money selling cell phones are named Apple and Samsung. Canon and Nikon do not know how to make cell phones, and will be crushed like a bug if they try. The best they can hope for would be a Carl Zeiss business model, but neither companies are pushed far enough against the wall to want to put their logos on someone else's product.

Jan 14, 2014permalink

viking79

Agree, Samsung already has a large sensor interchangeable lens camera that could double as a phone. It is called the Galaxy NX. It doesn't technically have voice phone app, but it has 4G and can always use VOIP.

Eric

Jan 14, 2014permalink

Marty4650

Many cellphone users today hardly ever make phone calls. They use their smartphones as gaming devices, GPS units, cameras, ereaders, web surfers and everything else except making phone calls.

It has come to the point where some cell phone providers are giving away unlimited free minutes to get you to buy a larger data plan.

Jan 14, 2014permalink

Roland Karlsson

It is not so easy as it first seems to make a multi device. It is hard enough to make one functionality in a device and make it user friendly, but the problem is squared when trying to do two.

BTW - just a thought - why do not Nikon and Canon do mobile phones already? Why do not every company do mobile phones? Maybe because there are some few manufacturers that already have that market.

Sony do make phones though. And they make cameras. That is a good start.

Samsung also make phones and cameras ... and they do have some Android cameras. That is an even better start.

Jan 14, 2014permalink

bloodycape

You also forget Sony is making some money off cell phones seeing as they are supplying the optics to Apple, others(I know LG is one of them).

Jan 14, 2014permalink

Michael Ma

Canon and Nikon moves too slow. The likelihood of Samsung taking over Canon or Nikon in the semi-professional photography market is greater than Canon or Nikon establishing themselves in the smartphone market.

Jan 15, 2014permalink

Alexander Tolchinskiy

In my opinion, this is not serious ... How much is this "toy"?

Jan 14, 2014permalink

Michael Ma

Whenever you see a forward firing flash, take it as a sign that the manufacturer has more interest in making a quick buck and less interest in you taking a good photograph.

Jan 14, 2014permalink

Andy Crowe

You mean like all those DSLRs with built in flashes?

Jan 14, 2014permalink

rpm40

The manufacturer doesn't take your photos for you, but regardless, there plenty of situations where "forward firing flashes" (a/k/a 99% of all built in flashes ever) are useful.

Jan 14, 2014permalink

Resom

There is now a good chance for low end p&s cameras to survive, because they are smaller, cheaper and looking better.

btw - waiting for a 500mm lens, connected to a iPhone, called "the iBazooka"

Jan 14, 2014permalink

Kuppenbender

Here's an 82mm lens (which gives a 600mm 35mm equiv.)
http://dckina.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=4_16_154&products_id=1525
It's not called an iBazooka, but I'm sure the manufacturers would appreciate the suggestion.

An actual 500mm lens for an iPhone would be into astrophotography territory.

Jan 14, 2014permalink

avicenanw

Hard to believe someone got paid to come up with this.

Jan 14, 2014permalink

Digitall

Wait till you see the version of Hasselblad of this "thing".

Jan 14, 2014permalink

yabokkie

the designer of the mount should have a vision of 300x zoom lens.

Jan 14, 2014permalink

SergioMO

Make it rectangle , flat and thinner !

Jan 14, 2014permalink

zodiacfml

Put a small lcd at the back so I could verify framing then I would be interested...with an Rx100 sensor, at least.

Jan 14, 2014permalink

Zeisschen

And a grip maybe? Oh wait...

Jan 14, 2014permalink

rpm40

It was a stupid idea the first time, when Sony did it. The third time around, the idea hasn't gotten any better...

Jan 14, 2014permalink

Zeisschen

I'll put a canikon badge onto the lens and squash in a flipping mirror and suddenly it becomes a very good idea for many ;)

Jan 14, 2014permalink

Provia_fan

Yup, I have come to accept the fact that many Nikon and Canon users can't accept the fact that others are innovating while their cherished manufacturers are standing still in the water.

Jan 14, 2014permalink

photo perzon

Ugly

Jan 14, 2014permalink

springsnow

LOL @ the Zeiss iPhone case.

Jan 14, 2014permalink

dark goob

Yeah way to sneak the Zeiss logo in there :/

Jan 14, 2014permalink

Samuel Dilworth

Too weird. Surely Zeiss doesn’t make iPhone cases. And if Zeiss did, it wouldn’t want to be associated with this Sakar business. I have a feeling Sakar hasn’t seen the last of a courtroom.

Jan 15, 2014permalink

Bruce McL

I don't know what Sekar's game is, but I do know that they do not, can not, and will not make innovative cameras. They make innovative press releases, and then somehow try to turn that into making money. Maybe they are trying to scam potential investors.

Jan 14, 2014permalink

samfan

And you're judging that by... What exactly? Because they look somewhat similar to existing products?

Is anyone else making an interchangeable lens addon for a smartphone with a flash?

Jan 14, 2014permalink

Roland Karlsson

@Bruce. Go back some few years and all Japanese companies could do was ugly, lousy, cheap copies of European and American cameras. And ... look what they can do now!

Jan 14, 2014permalink

Bruce McL

@samfan I judge by paying attention over a long period of time, not just reading one article. Sakar makes it's money from putting other brands, both living and dead, on generic cameras. Once in a while they put out a wacky press release to get attention.

@Roland have you checked out Sakar's website? The japanese companies did not go from Hello Kitty and Gummi Bears to the RX100 in one year. Also, I don't see in house design or manufacturing expertise in any shipping Sakar camera. They are all white label cameras bought from mid level manufacturers.

Jan 15, 2014permalink

nyer82

Kludgy yes, but this is definitely where the future is headed. Eventually, the phone will snap onto the lens/sensor assembly with a pre-fit standard that will allow this.

Next up will be an unfoldable or unfurlable electronic screen (10,000p resolution of course) that will pop out of the lens/sensor assembly. And all of this will be electronically linked to whatever iphone20, or Android v 20 we are using by then.

When the networks are fast enough to allow for it, I also forsee a new web standard like JPG but that allows lockable raw files to be uploaded straight onto the web that can be dynamically resized and adjusted on one's super facebook/flickr/tumblr/blog/website.

Jan 14, 2014*permalink

neo_nights

Oh! C'mon! Buy a frig**n' camera already! One lens attached to a smartphone seemed clumsy enough. Now you're adding a flash unity?

Can it get any MORE "cludgey"????

Jan 14, 2014permalink

completelyrandomstuff

Wanna bet a lawsuit from sony?

Jan 14, 2014permalink

Provia_fan

Well, unless it was somewhat licensed ala Sony licensing Apple with the design of a rectangular phone with a single button in the front. *Fact*

But watch this post now start a massive flame war too :D

Fanboys....when will they ever learn?

Jan 14, 2014*permalink

Andy Crowe

And Nikon, looks like they're still using the ripped-off lens styling that got them in trouble with the Polaroid iM1836

Jan 14, 2014permalink

mick232

Do they also come in pretty?

Jan 14, 2014permalink

gerard boulanger

Read my lips: this stuff to be connected with Wifi then to the "cloud" will be a big deal for casual photography.
It could even be more with a prime lens or a more modest but good IQ zoom, like a 28-60 equivalent

Jan 14, 2014permalink

WT21

This is a placeholder. Cameras in glasses, watches, etc. will kill this off quick.

Jan 14, 2014permalink


Polaroid puts Snap Touch digital instant camera on display Sep 20, 2016	Snapchat unveils Spectacles, a pair of sunglasses with an integrated camera Sep 26, 2016	Phase One introduces 'no frills' IQ1 100MP back, 45mm F3.5 and 150mm F2.8 Blue Ring lenses Sep 20, 2016	GoPro unveils HERO5 Black and HERO 5 Session cameras and GoPro Plus subscription service Sep 19, 2016


Johan Willem Friso by I am Legend from Macro - Money	The Gateway of India - Mumbai by AKHS from departures.india	Perth. Australia by Nilesh Trivedi from Your City - Through a Window	Macro fly by dbwelds from A bugs life	Hovering by anisah from My Best Photo of the Week

62	Why so few member galleries ???
46	[Equiv] A different take on equivalence
46	Panasonic or Olympus - and why?
45	16-50 kit vs 24mm 1.8
44	Ozray's post on MF has maxed out
40	How often do you upgrade your camera body?
36	PART 3 This Week Through your m4/3 2016.09.24
35	The strategy and technology behind the Sony A99 II
34	SDQ and SDQ H
34	Need To Step My Game Up...
33	Testing the Sigma sd Quattro
33	24mp - In need of a little reassuranceI
32	I need some help ...
32	MINI CHALLENGE # 435- THE BEACH
31	Equivalency: Things We Can Agree On
31	New E-M1 mk II for 2.000.00 Euros...
31	FF snobbishness takes a hit now MF accessible
29	The mirror-less pickle...
29	The Sony A7RII - A Year Later
29	Focusing speed question