Hey i've got an idea, lets make a camera attachment that will have worse image and video quality than the camera it attaches to... but it'll have 10x zoom? Great lets do it!
Seems like a good idea that doesn't deliver. You can get a lot of camera for $300, so this "solution" needed to do much better than this, or it needs to cost a lot less. I can see an application for this type of product, like when going on trips where a zoom is needed, but it completely under delivers for the price. They would have been better off increasing bulk for better results. What this product ideally could do is eliminate the need for taking a secondary camera for those that would consider carting around a dedicated point and shoot. It would never replace a good camera, but this just costs too much for the results it gives.
This is probably an issue with building a module phone. Sure things can be snap on but to produce the module is so pricy that is it not worth the extra feature it can offer.
It is better to spend less than 300 to get a point and shoot camera. Or they integrated a very powerful zoomed lens into a phone.
Can't really integrate a zoom lens into a phone. Not without making the phone much thicker. And thin is currently the ultimate master of all things phone.
Tangentally, when Sony did it with the QX10 camera module, they connected over WiFi to any phone. It'd be interesting to see a shootout between the QX10 and the True Zoom, since they are pretty much the only two devices in their class.
I got a Sony camera with an APS-C sensor for $400, but it's a little bulky. When I was doing research to find my preferred device, I was looking at the Panasonic Lumix CM1, which has a 1" sensor, but was $1000.
Good idea, terrible product, good article. Any reason why this is in Pipeline and not among the real articles, length and quality wise it should be there, imo. :)
Why doesn't the final words section mention the fact that you also have to factor in the base price for the phone to use the module? If I buy a $500 point and shoot, my only other expense may be a SD card.
But the camera doesn't cost only $300, it also costs between $400-700 to use depending on what model Moto you get. Unless you're able to take photos without the module attached to anything,
I don't see the point of buying this mod. You're getting slightly more lowlight photos but with bad software optimization, for $250. If this was to be no more than $150 then this will be an okay purchase. Otherwise... stay stock my friends.
How upsetting. A dedicated camera module with such a beautifully simple connector (magnets only and simple metal contacts) should have made this a winner. Too bad Moto and Hasselblad didn't take this project seriously. It seems like you'd actually have to _try_ to make a full size camera like this produce worse photos and support so few video options. Bummer.
I guess it's early days on the module front. Nothing to tempt thus far.
What I'd like to see is the establishment of standards for module attachment/data transfer across different manufacturers, so that I can convert my work mobile into something that I can use for much more. That would be an encouragement for 3rd party development and for the creation of specalist tools e.g. laser distance measures, bat detectors, damp sensors (make up your own) etc that can make use of the processing and data recording/analysis capabilities of modern phones and enable this to be transmitted to wherever.
Camera modules? It would seem better to improve interactions between mobiles and cameras (and to make it easier to plonk better lenses/converters on the backside of phones).
Failing that, perhaps carriers might be persuaded to let us have accounts to permit switching of active devices so I might use a skinny phone in the office and one with better battery life, other capabilities and all the storage I need for use out in the hills without needing to keep switching the SIM around. Technology, eh?
Not keen that by 10x 250mm equivalent its sitting at f6.5. That's just too slow. I have a Fuji F550EXR, 15x, from Jan 2011. Five and a half years ago. Len is 28-360 f3.5-f5.3 lens. So at 360mm it's at f5.3. It also shoots RAW, 1080p video, and weighs 225 grams. Has GPS. I'd rather carry that with an Eye-Fi card inside.
Why a whole add-on? Seems a MFG Like samsung could standardize on say a removable lens assembly that's on the back of all of their phones that allows a variable zoom lens to lock on if wanted? Apple's solution is no better -- adding a 2nd 2x cam? We don't need thinner phones, or bigger screens. Stick to a 4.9" max screen, thicken the thing up, give us features, a decent battery, etc....
May I know how we can view each photo side by side by opening them in new tabs? I tried opening a Z Play photo in a new tab, followed by Z Force photo of the same scene and both loaded the same image.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
26 Comments
Back to Article
osxandwindows - Saturday, September 10, 2016 - link
I gess we're never seeing that review.O well.
shabby - Saturday, September 10, 2016 - link
Hey i've got an idea, lets make a camera attachment that will have worse image and video quality than the camera it attaches to... but it'll have 10x zoom?Great lets do it!
WaitingForNehalem - Saturday, September 10, 2016 - link
lol you do have to wonder what they were thinking in the design phaseddriver - Saturday, September 10, 2016 - link
I don't. They were thinking "people are idiots, let's sell them garbage by telling them how cool it is". Same old...benzosaurus - Saturday, September 10, 2016 - link
Actually, it really looks like they did a pretty good job with the hardware, it's just the RAW processing in software that cripples it.BedfordTim - Sunday, September 11, 2016 - link
To me it sounds more like it is a cheap sensor that spoils it.I would also like to have seen a comparison with the compact cameras this is intended to replace.
MonkeyPaw - Saturday, September 10, 2016 - link
Seems like a good idea that doesn't deliver. You can get a lot of camera for $300, so this "solution" needed to do much better than this, or it needs to cost a lot less. I can see an application for this type of product, like when going on trips where a zoom is needed, but it completely under delivers for the price. They would have been better off increasing bulk for better results. What this product ideally could do is eliminate the need for taking a secondary camera for those that would consider carting around a dedicated point and shoot. It would never replace a good camera, but this just costs too much for the results it gives.Cliff34 - Sunday, September 11, 2016 - link
This is probably an issue with building a module phone. Sure things can be snap on but to produce the module is so pricy that is it not worth the extra feature it can offer.It is better to spend less than 300 to get a point and shoot camera. Or they integrated a very powerful zoomed lens into a phone.
LordOfTheBoired - Sunday, September 11, 2016 - link
Can't really integrate a zoom lens into a phone. Not without making the phone much thicker. And thin is currently the ultimate master of all things phone.Tangentally, when Sony did it with the QX10 camera module, they connected over WiFi to any phone. It'd be interesting to see a shootout between the QX10 and the True Zoom, since they are pretty much the only two devices in their class.
mkozakewich - Monday, September 12, 2016 - link
I got a Sony camera with an APS-C sensor for $400, but it's a little bulky. When I was doing research to find my preferred device, I was looking at the Panasonic Lumix CM1, which has a 1" sensor, but was $1000.I'm waiting for something like this with a 1".
bigboxes - Saturday, September 10, 2016 - link
I got a Nikon ultrazoom for ~$260. This looks cute, but if it's not as portable and picture quality is less, costs more then it's more of a novelty.PipelineBubble - Saturday, September 10, 2016 - link
So basically you are better off with the internal sensor and clip-on optics? Alright then.Sam Snead - Saturday, September 10, 2016 - link
I remember when a Hasselblad 2 1/4"x2 1/4" was the Ferrari of film cameras. I guess now it's a Fiat...Death666Angel - Saturday, September 10, 2016 - link
Good idea, terrible product, good article. Any reason why this is in Pipeline and not among the real articles, length and quality wise it should be there, imo. :)krazyfrog - Saturday, September 10, 2016 - link
Why is there no xenon flash sample? Literally everyone who has reviewed this so far has completely ignored the xenon flash for some reason.Ultraman1966 - Sunday, September 11, 2016 - link
To be fair, most people prefer not to take smartphone pics with a flash.hemedans - Sunday, September 11, 2016 - link
they dont use flash because led flash suck, xenon is another monsterMeteor2 - Sunday, September 11, 2016 - link
The S7 has a cracking camera, doesn't it?Wish we would see the HTC 10 review.
mortimerr - Sunday, September 11, 2016 - link
Why doesn't the final words section mention the fact that you also have to factor in the base price for the phone to use the module?If I buy a $500 point and shoot, my only other expense may be a SD card.
But the camera doesn't cost only $300, it also costs between $400-700 to use depending on what model Moto you get. Unless you're able to take photos without the module attached to anything,
zeeBomb - Sunday, September 11, 2016 - link
I don't see the point of buying this mod. You're getting slightly more lowlight photos but with bad software optimization, for $250. If this was to be no more than $150 then this will be an okay purchase. Otherwise... stay stock my friends.alfredska - Monday, September 12, 2016 - link
How upsetting. A dedicated camera module with such a beautifully simple connector (magnets only and simple metal contacts) should have made this a winner. Too bad Moto and Hasselblad didn't take this project seriously. It seems like you'd actually have to _try_ to make a full size camera like this produce worse photos and support so few video options. Bummer.AnotherRegistrationEyeRoll - Monday, September 19, 2016 - link
I guess it's early days on the module front. Nothing to tempt thus far.What I'd like to see is the establishment of standards for module attachment/data transfer across different manufacturers, so that I can convert my work mobile into something that I can use for much more. That would be an encouragement for 3rd party development and for the creation of specalist tools e.g. laser distance measures, bat detectors, damp sensors (make up your own) etc that can make use of the processing and data recording/analysis capabilities of modern phones and enable this to be transmitted to wherever.
Camera modules? It would seem better to improve interactions between mobiles and cameras (and to make it easier to plonk better lenses/converters on the backside of phones).
Failing that, perhaps carriers might be persuaded to let us have accounts to permit switching of active devices so I might use a skinny phone in the office and one with better battery life, other capabilities and all the storage I need for use out in the hills without needing to keep switching the SIM around. Technology, eh?
darwiniandude - Tuesday, September 13, 2016 - link
Not keen that by 10x 250mm equivalent its sitting at f6.5. That's just too slow. I have a Fuji F550EXR, 15x, from Jan 2011. Five and a half years ago. Len is 28-360 f3.5-f5.3 lens. So at 360mm it's at f5.3.It also shoots RAW, 1080p video, and weighs 225 grams. Has GPS. I'd rather carry that with an Eye-Fi card inside.
darwiniandude - Tuesday, September 13, 2016 - link
Do you folks have access to a 7 Plus? Would be keen to see how it's 10x digital based on 2x optical compares to the others in the group.NoSoMo - Saturday, September 17, 2016 - link
Why a whole add-on? Seems a MFG Like samsung could standardize on say a removable lens assembly that's on the back of all of their phones that allows a variable zoom lens to lock on if wanted? Apple's solution is no better -- adding a 2nd 2x cam? We don't need thinner phones, or bigger screens. Stick to a 4.9" max screen, thicken the thing up, give us features, a decent battery, etc....gupidechouxiaozi - Friday, January 13, 2017 - link
May I know how we can view each photo side by side by opening them in new tabs? I tried opening a Z Play photo in a new tab, followed by Z Force photo of the same scene and both loaded the same image.