Optical viewfinder cameras see through a lens and force-align your eyes, so when you change the lens, what you see is different but highly aligned to what the sensor sees.
Here, depending on where you place the thing you see a different thing than the sensor does, the optical path is completely uncontrolled, unless they're doing eye tracking and post processing?
This seems somehow worse than a cell phone camera.
You're right on the principle, and this camera is purposefully aimed at a subpar viewfinder experience.
As a comparison point, many people shoot street photography "from the hip", aiming the camera at the rough spot they want to get with a forgiving aperture setting (around 8 or more). This help either for speed, or engage with the scene without having to stick a camera on one's face.
I think this camera is basically aimed at the same crowd, those who will want some idea of what the camera is pointed at, but want to stay "in the moment" and no fully focus on the capturing process. This is pretty close to a phone camera perhaps, but I'd assume it's a lot more fun and carefree.
The from-the-hip cameras typically have a waist-level viewfinder, which still is a good approximation of the optical path or you don't and you shoot completely blind. In that case any camera does the trick and so does a phone.
Usually the hip part is so you get a better, more candid, portrait due to being inconspicuous. There's some composition advantage due to the perspective difference too.
> The from-the-hip cameras typically have a waist-level viewfinder
That is the case with twin-lens reflex cameras, for example, which are not commonly used for street photography. What the GP meant was holding an SLR or rangefinder camera at hip level, forgoing the viewfinder completely and shooting blind.
This isn't about getting a good shot, it's about the vibes and the fun. The viewfinder is the gimmick that catches the eye but it technically doesn't do anything.
> As a comparison point, many people shoot street photography "from the hip", aiming the camera at the rough spot they want to get with a forgiving aperture setting (around 8 or more).
Interesting you say this as I have been on my photography journey these last 2 years and keep hearing the opposite opinion: People "cheating" by using a low aperture so they don't have to think about the entire composition as it gets blurred out.
Because street photography is very spontaneous it’s pretty common practice to set an aperture of 8 and just snap away - it’s a helpful trick for rangefinder cameras that often take some time to pull focus.
Its cheating because you don't have to think about focusing your lens. At f/8 you have a reasonable hyper-local distance, and so for instance everything from 2m to infinity is sufficiently sharp.
This kind of advice was given before the advent of good enough autofocus where indeed you've rely on the machine to focus your imagine. But at the same time you delegate the choice of the subject to the machine instead of spontaneously capturing "everything".
Given how cheap this is, I feel like this makes for a great camera to give to a kid. The camera gets out of the way (no built-in games like a lot of kiddy cameras have) and the focus is placed on framing and taking photos, then reviewing later.
I'll probably pick one up just for my kids to experiment with.
I literally cannot see the point to this thing. The transparent display is cool I guess. They don't state the camera specs on it though which seems odd for a camera.
Specs aren't important to what this is. Megapixels and burst speed matter less than actually having a camera that's with you. There's a big community intentionally stepping back from technology and focusing on the experience, the process of creation, and the community around it.
That might be an old film body. It might be a modern rangefinder with retro aesthetics and color profiles. It could be a Polaroid or Instax. Sometimes it's a toy that's simply fun and simple to shoot with. The C100 fits in great in this community and ethos. If the price is right I might grab one.
The target market for this camera does not care about specs. They're not the point. Anyone who goes away from the page because it doesn't list a certain number was never going to buy one of these.
I agree that resolution and burst speed don't matter a whole lot. But this page is missing the bare minimum specs that should be of interest to any photographer, such as: approximate field of view, fixed focus vs autofocus, output file formats. Even just some sample photos that aren't AI generated and are more than thumbnail-sized would be helpful.
This seems to be a Shenzhen ahem "fair-use" of Escura's much better looking (imho) 2025 camera. That was more obviously a self-referential "joke" on these disposables that you refer to.
It's probably not that different from rangefinder style cameras[1]. I don't think the problem with this one is with its transparent viewfinder, it's more that its output quality just aren't that great according to someone who tried it[2]. Seems like a neat toy at $45 though.
I think most rangefinder cameras are/were either fixed focal length or adjusted to the lens in use so there was only a tiny parallax error. This is going to be far, far worse.
Honestly, this is genius. It's dirt cheap, which was unexpected, and it gives you the excitement of shooting blind with the gorgeous feeling of looking through an optical "viewfinder". Of course the framing won't be perfect, but that's nothing new from TLRs and viewfinders cameras.
They could have made this like $100 to take advantage of curious enthusiasts and the instagram types, but I'm shocked they didn't
it'd be fun to have a version where a ToF sensor or some distance measure can help make sure you are holding it the right distance away.
i also think people are really going a bit too wild over the "hold it the right distance". sure it's not perfect! but hold your arm out away from you & look through a "viewfinder" box you create with thumb and finger, and move your hand forward and back half a foot. if you start with your hand close to you, yeah, it's going to make a big difference. but if your hand is away from you a good bit, that back and forth does not make that much difference.
and as others have pointed out, there's plenty of street photography where people really do try to shoot from the hip. not all picture taking needs to be precise. heck, i often shoot blind from my phone! hold it up, point, and shoot.
this feels like such a great device to get up the hackles of highly-constrained people. :)
Correct me if I am wrong here, but isn't this just a low-quality camera sensor attached to a gimmicky transparent LCD? This is an interesting novelty, but as others have mentioned already, the function of the viewfinder doesn't make a lot of sense.
Yep, but in fairness I paid more for a version of this in the mid-2010s. The Fujifilm X20 was a rangefinder-style camera with an optical viewfinder with embedded LCD. Based on the focal length of the integrated zoom lens, it would attempt to illustrate the parallax using the LCD.
Optical viewfinder cameras see through a lens and force-align your eyes, so when you change the lens, what you see is different but highly aligned to what the sensor sees.
Here, depending on where you place the thing you see a different thing than the sensor does, the optical path is completely uncontrolled, unless they're doing eye tracking and post processing?
This seems somehow worse than a cell phone camera.
You're right on the principle, and this camera is purposefully aimed at a subpar viewfinder experience.
As a comparison point, many people shoot street photography "from the hip", aiming the camera at the rough spot they want to get with a forgiving aperture setting (around 8 or more). This help either for speed, or engage with the scene without having to stick a camera on one's face.
I think this camera is basically aimed at the same crowd, those who will want some idea of what the camera is pointed at, but want to stay "in the moment" and no fully focus on the capturing process. This is pretty close to a phone camera perhaps, but I'd assume it's a lot more fun and carefree.
I'd totally love to play with one.
I still don buy it.
The from-the-hip cameras typically have a waist-level viewfinder, which still is a good approximation of the optical path or you don't and you shoot completely blind. In that case any camera does the trick and so does a phone.
Usually the hip part is so you get a better, more candid, portrait due to being inconspicuous. There's some composition advantage due to the perspective difference too.
> The from-the-hip cameras typically have a waist-level viewfinder
That is the case with twin-lens reflex cameras, for example, which are not commonly used for street photography. What the GP meant was holding an SLR or rangefinder camera at hip level, forgoing the viewfinder completely and shooting blind.
The website tells you what you need to know:
> Vibe Over Pixels
This isn't about getting a good shot, it's about the vibes and the fun. The viewfinder is the gimmick that catches the eye but it technically doesn't do anything.
> As a comparison point, many people shoot street photography "from the hip", aiming the camera at the rough spot they want to get with a forgiving aperture setting (around 8 or more).
Interesting you say this as I have been on my photography journey these last 2 years and keep hearing the opposite opinion: People "cheating" by using a low aperture so they don't have to think about the entire composition as it gets blurred out.
Because street photography is very spontaneous it’s pretty common practice to set an aperture of 8 and just snap away - it’s a helpful trick for rangefinder cameras that often take some time to pull focus.
For those who want to know the science behind : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field
Its cheating because you don't have to think about focusing your lens. At f/8 you have a reasonable hyper-local distance, and so for instance everything from 2m to infinity is sufficiently sharp.
This kind of advice was given before the advent of good enough autofocus where indeed you've rely on the machine to focus your imagine. But at the same time you delegate the choice of the subject to the machine instead of spontaneously capturing "everything".
Hyperfocal. Not hyper-local.
Indeed, my autocorrect and lack of rereading is to blame.
Small F/ number = high-aperture.
Well, it's a toy camera.
Given how cheap this is, I feel like this makes for a great camera to give to a kid. The camera gets out of the way (no built-in games like a lot of kiddy cameras have) and the focus is placed on framing and taking photos, then reviewing later.
I'll probably pick one up just for my kids to experiment with.
I literally cannot see the point to this thing. The transparent display is cool I guess. They don't state the camera specs on it though which seems odd for a camera.
Specs aren't important to what this is. Megapixels and burst speed matter less than actually having a camera that's with you. There's a big community intentionally stepping back from technology and focusing on the experience, the process of creation, and the community around it.
That might be an old film body. It might be a modern rangefinder with retro aesthetics and color profiles. It could be a Polaroid or Instax. Sometimes it's a toy that's simply fun and simple to shoot with. The C100 fits in great in this community and ethos. If the price is right I might grab one.
Its a product page for a camera, camera specs are the bare minimum expectation.
The target market for this camera does not care about specs. They're not the point. Anyone who goes away from the page because it doesn't list a certain number was never going to buy one of these.
I agree that resolution and burst speed don't matter a whole lot. But this page is missing the bare minimum specs that should be of interest to any photographer, such as: approximate field of view, fixed focus vs autofocus, output file formats. Even just some sample photos that aren't AI generated and are more than thumbnail-sized would be helpful.
Interesting choice to release a camera and show zero photos taken with it.
> The more an article would benefit from photos, the less likely it’ll have them.
-- Waterluvian's Law
Transparent viewfinder cameras aren't anything new. If you've ever used a disposable camera in the past--congratulations, that is it.
This seems to be a Shenzhen ahem "fair-use" of Escura's much better looking (imho) 2025 camera. That was more obviously a self-referential "joke" on these disposables that you refer to.
https://petapixel.com/2025/03/04/escuras-50-instantsnap-toy-...
It's skeuomorphism, too? Lol
Same Thai(-HK?) design shop has other hits, like
https://happeningandfriends.com/article-detail/136?lang=en
(Is that the same font as on Mastrena espresso machines at Starbucks? Which reminds of classic American cars of 1950s)
How it looks like in action https://youtube.com/shorts/kJ8xUSTcOaY
Waitasec...wouldn't you have to hold it at a very specific distance from your eye for the "viewfinder" to be accurate?
It's probably not that different from rangefinder style cameras[1]. I don't think the problem with this one is with its transparent viewfinder, it's more that its output quality just aren't that great according to someone who tried it[2]. Seems like a neat toy at $45 though.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rangefinder_camera
[2] https://www.reddit.com/r/Godox/comments/1urlp8u/first_test_s...
I think most rangefinder cameras are/were either fixed focal length or adjusted to the lens in use so there was only a tiny parallax error. This is going to be far, far worse.
The quality is much better than expected, a little too sharp but still passable for me.
I was expecting another "retro-like" throwaway toy camera.
Nitpick I guess. I feel none of the pics in that page is clicked using this camera.
Doesn't the picture I "see" depend on how close I get to the "frame"? Does the camera take this into account when making a photo?
Last discussion
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48779844
I tought: what an useless product. Than i searched for the price. Then i bought one.
it's 200 rmb and it looks super fun. perfect product.
Honestly, this is genius. It's dirt cheap, which was unexpected, and it gives you the excitement of shooting blind with the gorgeous feeling of looking through an optical "viewfinder". Of course the framing won't be perfect, but that's nothing new from TLRs and viewfinders cameras.
They could have made this like $100 to take advantage of curious enthusiasts and the instagram types, but I'm shocked they didn't
pretty much the worst of both worlds: a non-working viewfinder and a terrible camera.
What is that "TF card"?
TF stands for TransFlash, which was the name for microSD before it was renamed back in the mid 2000s.
Just an sd card.
[dead]
it'd be fun to have a version where a ToF sensor or some distance measure can help make sure you are holding it the right distance away.
i also think people are really going a bit too wild over the "hold it the right distance". sure it's not perfect! but hold your arm out away from you & look through a "viewfinder" box you create with thumb and finger, and move your hand forward and back half a foot. if you start with your hand close to you, yeah, it's going to make a big difference. but if your hand is away from you a good bit, that back and forth does not make that much difference.
and as others have pointed out, there's plenty of street photography where people really do try to shoot from the hip. not all picture taking needs to be precise. heck, i often shoot blind from my phone! hold it up, point, and shoot.
this feels like such a great device to get up the hackles of highly-constrained people. :)
Correct me if I am wrong here, but isn't this just a low-quality camera sensor attached to a gimmicky transparent LCD? This is an interesting novelty, but as others have mentioned already, the function of the viewfinder doesn't make a lot of sense.
Yep, but in fairness I paid more for a version of this in the mid-2010s. The Fujifilm X20 was a rangefinder-style camera with an optical viewfinder with embedded LCD. Based on the focal length of the integrated zoom lens, it would attempt to illustrate the parallax using the LCD.