On 4/17/2011 3:44 AM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> Tomorrow's camera?
> <http://technabob.com/blog/2011/04/15/wvil-camera-concept/>
> <http://www.artefactgroup.com/wvil/>
>
> Yes, it's full frame as well as:
> "Compatibility to Nikon F mount, Canon EF mount, Micro Four Thirds and
> Leica M mount via adapter."
They can say anything they like about sensor size, lens compatibility, and so
on, as it's just a concept camera mock-up.
I've been waiting for wireless viewing for a long time. I've even experimented
with wired remote viewing using LCD
displays designed for other purposes. I don't see why the electronic display
should be attached to the camera.
The ideal might be a heads up display on glasses. Articulated LCDs make a huge
difference in my ability to get shots at
angles and in places I couldn't otherwise manage. Complete disconnection from
camera body would do even more.
The first shot, rose, in the little gallery I posted yesterday would not have
been possible with a conventional camera.
I stuffed the camera between the flower and the garden gate. The articulated
LCD allowed me to see what I was going to get.
I think the concept camera has gone farther than necessary, in a silly and
overly complex way. Simply remoting the
display and a few controls, while leaving the lens and sensor together in the
body is a much technically simpler
solution. Also a lot more practical. Did you notice how in the video she placed
the "lens" on a table - and it didn't
roll away?
How long before that happens in real life, and breaks the camera? A cylindrical
form factor for what is really the guts
of the camera, lens, sensor and electronics to process the sensor data, is
pretty impractical. Lenses were and are
generally cylindrical because the glass is cylindrical and we use rotating
controls on the lens body.
Their design is clearly completely remotely controlled, so it has no controls
on the "lens" How about a cube, or some
such, that won't roll around and can have a tripod socket (or sockets?). And if
most of the processing power is in the
"lens", why is the camera "body" so thick?
I don't see where the large, protruding lens mount is necessary or useful. It's
more an artists' futuristic take on
something the camera design makes redundant. all it does is make the body piece
impossible to pocket.
And so on. Flashy silliness.
Still waiting on the remote LCD G1x, though. :-)
A. Critical Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|