Stupidest, most overpriced, most poorly executed camera in the last two years

J. Clarke wrote:
In article , ozcvgtt02
J. Clarke wrote:
In article , ozcvgtt02
Paul Ciszek wrote:

I wonder why, though, since the image is provided via wire rather than
optical path, they don't make the detatchable viewfinder a separate thing
like a jeweler's loupe

Because you're likely going to be seasick.

so you don't need to mash the body of the camera
against your face.

And hold the camera even more unstably? 2 arms
extended-stand?

Ever see a Steadicam?

How much does one weight? Doesn't it need to be adjusted
exactly for the wearer and camera (at least it's weight?

Depends on the version. The professional Steadicam is quite large and
heavy (in one of the Alien movies you see one being used as a weapon
mount) but the "Junior" model and the homebrews weigh under 10 pounds
and aren't really "worn".

Still a lot of weight. OK, if you need it, you need it.

But, if you want, go buy a camera that allows proper output
(say via HDMI) of what they see and connect that to Google Glass
or something like that. And place that camera on a Steadicam
and have fun.

I don't just see most users doing this.

Don't the usual users of Steadycams have rather large displays
to see what they're filming, and not some jeveler's loupe
type viewer?

They don't use eye-level finders if that's what you mean but the flip
out display on a consumer camcorder works fine--so does the display on
the back of most digital still cameras.

For some values of 'fine'.

The point is that there are
ways to stabilize a camera that don't involve pressing it against your
body.

It's called a tripod. ;-

-Wolfgang

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 22 May 2013 15:18:53 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg

--- snip ----

and I doubt if you know the
intimate details of the D300s' focussing program. That's why I asked
Savageduck who almost certainly will know what it does.

Savageduck has the sourcecode of the D300s' focussing program?

Savageduck has a D300s and uses it in a fashion where he almost
certainly will know what it does,

.... what it does, usually, at least.

even if he doesn't quite know how it
does it.

Not even the original programmers will know how it behaves in
every situation. There *are* bugs, and not all of them are
known.

-Wolfgang