"spy lens" attachment?

I'm curious if such a device/attachment exists: A wire/cable which on
one side plugs into the digital camera, and on the other side a small
lens. This "lens on a wire" could be concealed in a pair of glasses or
button on a shirt. Since video doesn't require flash, the camera
itself could be concealed.

Anyone heard of anything like this? Seems simple enough..

On 11 Dec 2005 07:23:22 -0800, wrote:

I'm curious if such a device/attachment exists: A wire/cable which on
one side plugs into the digital camera, and on the other side a small
lens. This "lens on a wire" could be concealed in a pair of glasses or
button on a shirt. Since video doesn't require flash, the camera
itself could be concealed.

Anyone heard of anything like this? Seems simple enough..

Already done, and they are so good the camera has been done away with!
Sort of. Google on "lipstick camera" (sans quotes) to see the myriad
of such devices where the lens and camera are so small the name fits.

The problem with the way you put it (a remote lens) is the inteface
between the lens and camera. These small cameras simply reduce the
size of the camera to the point that they can be hidden in small
places (like a clock face, cigarette pack, etc.).

--
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com

Bill Funk writes:

On 11 Dec 2005 07:23:22 -0800, wrote:

I'm curious if such a device/attachment exists: A wire/cable which on
one side plugs into the digital camera, and on the other side a small
lens. This "lens on a wire" could be concealed in a pair of glasses or
button on a shirt. Since video doesn't require flash, the camera
itself could be concealed.

Anyone heard of anything like this? Seems simple enough..

Already done, and they are so good the camera has been done away with!
Sort of. Google on "lipstick camera" (sans quotes) to see the myriad
of such devices where the lens and camera are so small the name fits.

The problem with the way you put it (a remote lens) is the inteface
between the lens and camera. These small cameras simply reduce the
size of the camera to the point that they can be hidden in small
places (like a clock face, cigarette pack, etc.).

There's a cheap one out there that looks very much like a zippo
lighter. I doubt the image quality deserves it the name camera
though.

--
Måns Rullgård

I had a camera in a martini olive but my wife drank it and the pictures were
really gross!

Bill Funk wrote:
On 11 Dec 2005 07:23:22 -0800, wrote:

I'm curious if such a device/attachment exists: A wire/cable which on
one side plugs into the digital camera, and on the other side a small
lens. This "lens on a wire" could be concealed in a pair of glasses or
button on a shirt. Since video doesn't require flash, the camera
itself could be concealed.

Anyone heard of anything like this? Seems simple enough..

Already done, and they are so good the camera has been done away with!
Sort of. Google on "lipstick camera" (sans quotes) to see the myriad
of such devices where the lens and camera are so small the name fits.

The problem with the way you put it (a remote lens) is the inteface
between the lens and camera. These small cameras simply reduce the
size of the camera to the point that they can be hidden in small
places (like a clock face, cigarette pack, etc.).

Do the small "lipstick camera" devices do video though? I'm looking
for video, which is why I thought it made more sense to use my existing
camera all hidden away. Also, using the existing camera might provide
better quality.

On 11 Dec 2005 17:02:54 -0800, wrote:

Do the small "lipstick camera" devices do video though? I'm looking
for video, which is why I thought it made more sense to use my existing
camera all hidden away. Also, using the existing camera might provide
better quality.

What kind of quality do you think you'd get from a tiny lens
feeding its output through a lossy glass fiber light pipe to what
would probably be another converter lens near the sensor? It might
also only work (if poorly) outdoors or in very well illuminated
indoor areas. It might be cheaper and yield better results if you
bought a separate "spy cam" and forget about trying to attach a
gimmick to your existing camera. If you must use your camera, hang
it from a strap around your neck as a diversion.

On 11 Dec 2005 17:02:54 -0800, wrote:


Bill Funk wrote:
On 11 Dec 2005 07:23:22 -0800, wrote:

I'm curious if such a device/attachment exists: A wire/cable which on
one side plugs into the digital camera, and on the other side a small
lens. This "lens on a wire" could be concealed in a pair of glasses or
button on a shirt. Since video doesn't require flash, the camera
itself could be concealed.

Anyone heard of anything like this? Seems simple enough..

Already done, and they are so good the camera has been done away with!
Sort of. Google on "lipstick camera" (sans quotes) to see the myriad
of such devices where the lens and camera are so small the name fits.

The problem with the way you put it (a remote lens) is the inteface
between the lens and camera. These small cameras simply reduce the
size of the camera to the point that they can be hidden in small
places (like a clock face, cigarette pack, etc.).

Do the small "lipstick camera" devices do video though? I'm looking
for video, which is why I thought it made more sense to use my existing
camera all hidden away. Also, using the existing camera might provide
better quality.

Yes, they do.
Remember the suggestion to use Google? It's a good one. Really.
Expand it some by usng "spy camera" (sans quotes) for more.

--
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com

Charles Schuler wrote:
I had a camera in a martini olive but my wife drank it and the pictures were
really gross!


http://www.supercircuits.com/index.asp

I doubt it would be feasable to make a device as you describe it. As
mentioned earlier, a fiber optic cable could be used and is used in medical
devices which are inserted into places we need not discuss here. There are
also devices you swallow but I don't know the details.
Dave Cohen

"jst" wrote in message
news:8V1nf.10158$fz5.6825@dukeread04...
Charles Schuler wrote:
I had a camera in a martini olive but my wife drank it and the pictures
were really gross! http://www.supercircuits.com/index.asp