_______ __ _______
| | |.---.-..----.| |--..-----..----. | | |.-----..--.--.--..-----.
| || _ || __|| < | -__|| _| | || -__|| | | ||__ --|
|___|___||___._||____||__|__||_____||__| |__|____||_____||________||_____|
on Gopher (inofficial)
URI Visit Hacker News on the Web
COMMENT PAGE FOR:
URI I wanted a camera that doesn't exist, so I built it
theodric wrote 6 hours 37 min ago:
It's a nice build, but there is a baffling discordance between putting
all this time and money into making a CNC body and ripping the ports
off a $1900 camera's motherboard with pliers when the soldering iron
didn't do the job rather than waiting until you could get a hot air
rig, which could easily have destroyed the motherboard by peeling a
trace or cracking layers. I guess at a certain point you just have too
much money to behave rationally.
mrb wrote 7 hours 34 min ago:
Very impressive build! It's amazing what one can do thanks to CNC and
FLPCB manufacturing services readily available to any motivated hacker.
One tip for the author who noticed the camera being warm: measure its
power consumption, and compare to an unmodified G9ii. Especially
because you noticed it drains the battery relatively quickly(!) This is
a glaring "connect the dots" situation to me. The root cause might be
something very stupid. For example when you removed the microphone
jack, the camera thought a microphone was connected, so it activated a
microphone nenu. But given the extensive number of mods you made, it's
possible you are making the firmware think some accessory is
connectedâcould be anything: (light) flash, external screen, USB
gadget, JTAG reader, SD card, etc. So it's taking a code path to
initialize the device, but it fails because the device is not present,
and it retries repeatedly, thus entering a retry loop that's causing
excessive CPU usage... That wouldn't surprise me. You are running a
G9ii that's unique therefore a rare software code path like this would
not happen on a standard G9ii and would never have been fixed by the
developers.
Edit: I see the author measured power here: [1] and to my eyes, these
seem really high numbers. For example in video playback mode he
measures 340mA, so 2.45W (battery is 7.2V nominal). The standard G9ii
battery is 16Wh that means it would last only 6.5 hours playing back
video. Compare this to a Pixel 9 phone: 18.3Wh battery and can playback
video for 15 hours (I believe these are benchmark numbers reported
playing back 4k H264 video, probably in a similar-ish format to the
G9ii in terms of bitrate, etc). Plus the phone is at a disadvantage as
it has a bigger, more power-hungry display. So it seems to me his G9ii
consumes twice as much power as it should, if not more... If anything a
pro camera should be more optimized than a general-purpose consumer
device when playing video!
URI [1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/Lumix/comments/1oif3jp/how_much_does_...
q-base wrote 7 hours 35 min ago:
I do not know if the author/creator is a user here on HN. But if you
are, then absolutely amazing work. I love everything about it! You
really did create a much more aesthetically pleasing camera and must
have learned a ton along the way. I applaud your courage and/or
naïveté to even undertake a project like this for no other reason
than because you want it to exist.
alexpotato wrote 8 hours 9 min ago:
This post, where someone from one field decides to do something they
love but in another field, reminds me of the below:
At my kids' elementary school there is a yearly "Dad's Night" show
where the dads get up and do skits, dance, sing and/or make funny
videos.
You get to see dads who sell insurance or are lawyers do dance numbers
that look professionally choreographed or make music videos that look
like they could have been on MTV.
It's a reminder that "The Sort" pulls people very strongly into certain
fields but there is always that question, from the movie Up In The Air
and asked by George Clooney, "How much did they pay you to give up your
dream?" [0]
Part of me is VERY excited to see AI/LLMs help facilitate this for the
people who always thought "I have always wanted to write a piece of
software but didn't know how and now I can!"
0 -
URI [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkX-TPaodoM
DoctorOW wrote 9 hours 48 min ago:
> So what else qualifies me to do this camera?
I understand the urge to say this to potential blog readers. But you're
not actually selling us anything. Who cares if you're qualified or not?
You built it and you're telling us what you learned.
flerchin wrote 6 hours 38 min ago:
I appreciated the context.
m463 wrote 20 hours 57 min ago:
> I still donât have the camera I imagined,
lol. Sounds like every passion project, ever.
I have friends who have worked on their car project, their bathroom
project, their workshop project, their custom pc build, even the home
they built.
I wonder if anyone has ever built something and said... "It is perfect,
I am satisfied!"
Maybe just from the outside. Like the casio f91w, the ak47, the
porsche 959 or the hersheys bar.
NooneAtAll3 wrote 20 hours 57 min ago:
reminded me of camera-from-a-scanner project I saw not so long ago
URI [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSvjJGbFCws
analog31 wrote 21 hours 22 min ago:
>>> â¦them myself with a manual tapping tool. Well, that didnât go
well, it was hard to keep the tool straight, the threads were loose,
and broke few taps rendering the holes useless.
Cheap taps from Amazon?
mjb wrote 21 hours 15 min ago:
The haters will hate, but tap guides are great (e.g. [1] , but even a
block of hard wood with a clearance hole drilled in it works fine).
Unless you're tapping something super tough (306?), Amazon taps are
fine for hand tapping. Go in straight, use a good lubricant.
URI [1]: https://biggatortools.com/v-tapguide-faqs
analog31 wrote 17 hours 46 min ago:
I've got two of those tap guides, one for US and one for metric.
They're great. Also for drilling since I don't have a drill press
at home.
I've examined cheap taps under a microscope. Maybe they are of
varying quality, but the ones I got had burrs all along the cutting
edges. A tap that I borrowed from a machine shop was flawless in
comparison. So maybe the middle ground is caveat emptor.
Another trick for tapping is to use something pointy in the drill
chuck to center the tap after drilling, assuming you've clamped
down your workpiece in a drill press or mill. This works for really
big taps when you don't have a guide for them. Likewise the
tailstock of a lathe can be used for this purpose.
XCSme wrote 22 hours 4 min ago:
Off topic: why do people keep posting on medium?
twic wrote 22 hours 5 min ago:
> the Lumix lenses are crippled on Olympus bodies
Are they?
goochwart wrote 21 hours 53 min ago:
A lot of the Leica-branded lenses have an aperture ring that doesn't
work on Olympus bodies. Besides that, both brands have proprietary
lens + body stabilization that only work if the lenses and bodies
match.
rdlw wrote 21 hours 56 min ago:
As mentioned in the next clause of that sentence, the aperture ring
does not work on Olympus bodies.
KaiserPro wrote 1 day ago:
This is batshit insane, and I fully fully endorse this person's madness
to do such things. This is what the internet is _for_
Going straight into making a camera is very much a bold move.
my next comment isn't for the author, as they have strong enough
opinions on cameras to do this. But for everyone else, I have greatly
enjoyed fujifilms line of cameras.
I borrowed a gfx100s from work, and my word is a wonderful machine. (it
should be for the price) for more normal budgets, the x series is
great. Unlike a canon what you see is what you get, and the autofocus
works on objects rather than the closest fucking thing it sees.
flakiness wrote 1 day ago:
No picture from the camera. Stoic.
Kon5ole wrote 23 hours 54 min ago:
The hobby of caring about cameras sometimes overtakes the hobby of
taking pictures.
Nextgrid wrote 17 hours 23 min ago:
There's a saying about how typical people use their audio system to
listen to music, but audiophiles use music to listen to their audio
system. An equivalent should be made for photography.
mcdeltat wrote 18 hours 51 min ago:
It's kind of a meme within the photography community though. People
will spend many thousands of dollars on a camera that's supposedly
"the best" (pick your fave reasons, ideally as obscure as possible)
and then not actually shoot with it. Looking at yall, Leica fans.
mjb wrote 21 hours 14 min ago:
Indeed. Collecting cameras, and talking about cameras, is a very
different hobby from photography. That's OK! Both can be fun.
Inspired me to write this blog post:
URI [1]: https://brooker.co.za/blog/2023/04/20/hobbies.html
ebbi wrote 1 day ago:
Amazing work, and so inspiring! The size difference compared to the
G9ii made it all worth it!
Lately I've been converting a few old 5k iMac's to work as external
displays, and I had a thought about making my own housing for the
display instead of using the iMac chassis. This gives me some
motivation to look into it further!
Yaggo wrote 13 hours 8 min ago:
Care to share what driver board you have used?
ebbi wrote 1 hour 19 min ago:
Sure. The exact seller I purchased from doesn't have the product,
but in AliExpress if you search...
"For iMac A1419 A2115 5K LCD Screen Driver Board LM270QQ1 LM270QQ2
Retinal Control Motherboard 5120*2880 QQHD HDMI DP Type-c"
...it will come up with what I have used in the last few
conversions.
Though I have seen Quinn Nelson (Snazzy Labs on YouTube) released a
video recently that shows his process which is a bit more involved,
but better. Apparently his method is better to remove risks of
power surges from the controller board (I haven't experienced it
yet...!), but his method also retains the speakers, and relocates
the I/O inputs to be more accessible.
erghjunk wrote 1 day ago:
incredible project but unless I'm misunderstanding what he is comparing
it to, this is only a few hundred dollars/euros less than a used leica
m digital body per a quick ebay search.
cristi_baluta wrote 11 hours 30 min ago:
Thanks! I'm comparing with the latest Ms, I'm not gonna buy old tech.
I want also autofocus which this cameras don't have. It might be fun
to manual focus with their lenses (also expensive) but I don't see
myself doing this all the time.
criddell wrote 20 hours 55 min ago:
Maybe, but that camera isnât what they wanted either (other than
the body shell).
tristor wrote 1 day ago:
The camera they want is also the camera I want. I say this as someone
who still regularly shoots with an Olympus Pen-F and also has a Fuji
X100VI, and primarily shoots a Nikon Z8 but wishes there was a more
compact entry into FF. I actually really like the m4/3/MFT format,
especially for travel photography, but it's a struggle because the best
lenses are Pana/Leica and the best bodies are OM/Oly, and neither has
done much to really develop the technology in the last 10 years. MFT
feels dead, but even as a dead format, nothing compares to the
size/weight flexibility it gives you.
relaxing wrote 1 day ago:
Title is misleading â if you read to the end, he did not end up with
a usable camera.
ted_dunning wrote 19 hours 12 min ago:
Yet.
tormeh wrote 1 day ago:
I have to say I'm a bit unimpressed with the efforts of the MFT
consumer system camera manufacturers. Panasonic creates excellent
cameras, they're so big it lessens the appeal of the smaller mount. OM
makes cameras of the right size, but it's releasing new models really
really slowly, with mediocre sensors. The OM-5 mark II is a lame
rehash. Only the OM-3 is somewhat exciting, but it sacrifices too much
in terms of ergonomics to achieve an aesthetic I don't care about.
On the other hand there's no other class of camera that really works on
vacation/travel and is meaningfully better than a smartphone. Oh, well.
Zababa wrote 7 hours 47 min ago:
>On the other hand there's no other class of camera that really works
on vacation/travel and is meaningfully better than a smartphone.
My a6500 is serving me well, though I guess it depends what you mean
by "meaningfully better than a smartphone". I do end up with a lot
more photos that I like when I go on vacation with a camera than with
just a smartphone
Edit: also applies to commuting, but I'm always a bit uneasy about
having my camera with me when comutting.
vladvasiliu wrote 9 hours 11 min ago:
> Only the OM-3 is somewhat exciting, but it sacrifices too much in
terms of ergonomics to achieve an aesthetic I don't care about.
I was very disappointed with the om3. I love the aesthetic, but I
feel it's half-assed. The faux-pentaprism bump is the specific point
I hate. If it had the body of a pen-f, I would have been all over it.
As it is, it's just a prettier om-1 with worse ergonomics.
I should note that I already have a pen-f, and don't have any issue
with its ergonomics (I used it yesterday on -5ºC with big gloves, it
was fine). Since I don't lug around foot-long lenses, the lack of
grip isn't a problem.
ngcc_hk wrote 14 hours 29 min ago:
Olympus is one of the few camera (I literally have hundreds as this
is my side hobby) I love to use. Until every time I want to change
anything. As a guy who can do 8x10, gfx, 907x, z9 etc I still find
the menu system totally confusing.
It is not the hardware, it is the software â¦
hypercube33 wrote 8 hours 22 min ago:
I had to think about this a while since my Olympus is my go to
camera just because I love using it but I agree some of the menus
are mildly confusing....though leaps ahead of sony
vladvasiliu wrote 9 hours 3 min ago:
I don't know, man. They're very customizable, and some models have
memory banks. I never need to go in the menus of my pen-f. And The
OM-1 has a much improved menu system, with a customizable "my menu"
page, which opens directly, on which you can stick your most used
menu items (but, sadly, it's not included in the saved memory
banks).
Furthermore, I find the physical buttons on the om1 are so
customizable and can do so many things, that I never go in the
menu, either. I haven't tried new models from the other makers, but
the olympus models I have are much nicer to use than my old canon
40d and nikon d80.
SchemaLoad wrote 17 hours 32 min ago:
The volume for physical cameras is low and shrinking. The companies
can't justify putting nearly the same investment as smartphone
companies selling 100x the units can.
bigstrat2003 wrote 16 hours 21 min ago:
The volume for cameras like this was always low. Even in the days
before you had a camera on your smartphone, people were buying
Polaroids, compact cameras with a small lens built in, or
disposable cameras. They weren't buying something more complicated
unless they were hobbyist photographers.
ngcc_hk wrote 14 hours 12 min ago:
Not hobby. Taking photo is always key to life for many.
Before phone for major event like graduation, wedding and baby
birth people do buy one camera with one lens for the occasion and
keep it as a family heirloom like. And even students gala and
performances. Whilst a lot of point and shot, slr and later dslr
are common. The key it is not a hobby to them but a life even
to record.
Unlike people like us canon and nikon found it hard to sell the
second lens or even second body.
Glyptodon wrote 19 hours 36 min ago:
I think people really underestimate how nice it is for the lenses to
be smaller and not just for the camera to be.
Nextgrid wrote 17 hours 25 min ago:
I wonder if there's a marketing reason for not shrinking the
lenses. A big lens screams "better" more than a smaller lens at a
casual glance for the uninitiated user.
xhkkffbf wrote 4 hours 44 min ago:
Bigger lenses tend to gather more light and that means better
images in darker moments.
bjt12345 wrote 11 hours 17 min ago:
It's an engineering reason really, the entire reason why MFTs
were so popular when they came out was because people were tired
of lugging around their Full-Frame camera's zoom lens, and were
sick of missing moments when using a prime lens.
The marketing gimmick for awhile was ultra-zooms which allow for
smaller lenses via fixing distortion using DSP, but this degrades
the image quality, and so never became a solution for RAW
shooters.
Glyptodon wrote 15 hours 0 min ago:
I think it's directly related to sensor size and given the shape
of lenses (cylinders) that means bigger sensors should probably
have a non linear relationship to lens size.Though it is probably
not quite that simple. In any case, bigger lenses allow for
smaller f stops with a given focal length, and people really do
love bokeh...
eloisius wrote 16 hours 17 min ago:
I doubt it. I donât think anyone is spending $2k on Canon
L-series (red ring) lenses based on the size. On the high end,
photographers are pretty discerning about equipmentâs
capabilities. If they made my Canon EF 35mm f1.4L USM II half the
size and weight Iâd be thrilled.
bzzzt wrote 9 hours 49 min ago:
The RF version of that lens is a bit lighter.
Retr0id wrote 1 day ago:
I'm very happy with my thoroughly behind-the-curve E-M10, and I'm
secretly glad the newer ones aren't all that great because I don't
have to spend money on upgrading.
james_in_the_uk wrote 1 day ago:
The OM-3 is fine ergonomically, for me at least. The thumb pad on the
back is very comfortable and balances the body very well. I held off
buying one for a while because of ergonomic concerns but in practice
itâs been great.
hypercube33 wrote 8 hours 24 min ago:
I'm super happy with my OM10 mark3 and z9. the first is super fun
to use and gives a really satisfying shitter kachunk when you shoot
and the z9 though a chonker makes adjusting stuff easy having a
billion buttons
poppafuze wrote 1 day ago:
Gives a sense of how infuriating the G9ii update was to G9 users. The
guts are ergonomically better off in a rangefinder body than what Panny
shipped.
the_arun wrote 1 day ago:
This is an incredible project! Thanks for sharing. Love to see some
photos taken in this camera!
buildbot wrote 1 day ago:
This is an amazing project and level of effort, and I empathize deeply
with this photographers desire for a clean, simple, beautiful camera.
I so deeply want a modern EVF camera, doesnât even have to be a
rangefinder, with a mechanically wound shutter so the film advance
lever has a reason to exist.
Iâm aware of the Epson R1 but 6MP is too low.
alistairSH wrote 1 day ago:
The Fuji X-Half has a wind lever.
URI [1]: https://shopusa.fujifilm-x.com/x-half-x-half/
buildbot wrote 1 day ago:
Yes it does - I have one - itâs simply a button basically. Not
the same feel as something like a Leica
nancyminusone wrote 1 day ago:
Pretty neat that you can do this nowadays and it only costs $3,000
instead of $30,000
abetusk wrote 1 day ago:
A weird contradiction for the licensing [0]:
> This project is open-source under the MIT License. Feel free to
modify and use â but no commercial use without permission.
[0]
URI [1]: https://github.com/cristibaluta/Leica-G9ii?tab=readme-ov-file#...
cristi_baluta wrote 11 hours 53 min ago:
Thanks for pointing out, it is AI bullshit, I generated the structure
of the readme and didn't look what it wrote there. I'll fix on my
next push.
jagged-chisel wrote 1 day ago:
I wouldnât call it weird. But itâs unenforceable.
This kind of thing works better with GPL. General use falls under
GPL. If that doesnât suit your commercial use, contact the
copyright holder for another license.
As it stands, I can use the MIT licensed project anyway I like,
including handing it to a commercial entity for their use.
abetusk wrote 21 hours 48 min ago:
What's unenforceable? The non-commercial clause or the commercial
clause? It's a contradiction.
The intent is not at all clear.
Does the author not mind people making money so long as they give
back to the community? If so, then copyleft with exceptions by the
license holder could be a compromise.
Does the author not want people making money at all without
explicit permission? Then no open-source license will suffice and
it should have been put under a non-commercial license or left
without a license at all so that the default copyright restrictions
apply.
You say that this project is MIT licensed and therefore available
for you to use commercially. Is this true? The license section in
the README clearly says not to use it for commercial purposes.
Which takes precedence?
actionfromafar wrote 1 day ago:
It's no more unenforceable than GPL is unenforceable.
But MIT + weird condition is radioactive to anyone who takes
licensing seriously.
Might just as well write "for hobbyist use only".
Hamuko wrote 1 day ago:
It is more unenforceable since the LICENSE file in the repository
clearly states that I can "deal in the Software without
restriction", and that includes the right to "sell copies of the
Software".
actionfromafar wrote 8 hours 43 min ago:
except
_0xdd wrote 1 day ago:
This is amazing. It's such a shame that Olympus and Panasonic have
largely abandoned the small camera market within the M43 system. I
really wish another manufacturer would step up and build something
similar to the GX85, which is still one of my favorite walkaround
cameras.
goochwart wrote 21 hours 37 min ago:
I just bought a GX9 5 years after selling my whole system cause I
missed the form factor so much. M43 really is the best compromise
between size and image quality imo, with the caveat that I'm not a
professional. No other mount lets me casually EDC an 80-300
equivalent lens.
There's Esquisse ( [1] ) trying to step up, but it's still in the
very early stages.
URI [1]: https://esquisse.camera/
alistairSH wrote 1 day ago:
FWIW, Olympus spun-off/sold their consumer camera division. It's now
operating as OM System (1) and has released a few new cameras over
the past few years. As the article mentioned, the latest is the
OM-3, which is sort of similar form factor, but not exactly compact.
They also have the smaller Pen EP-7, but it's not available in the US
(though they're readily available on Ebay or via KEH etc). I bought
an EP-7 for an earlier Xmas gift to myself, but haven't had much
change to use it (previously had an EP-5 and E-M5ii).
1 -
URI [1]: https://explore.omsystem.com/us/en/
vladvasiliu wrote 7 hours 27 min ago:
Meh, I love my Olympus cameras, but I wouldn't call the latest
models exactly small. The OM1 is pretty huge, even though it's
smaller than the ridiculous Panasonic G9. I think it's close to the
Sony a7 line and the canon r6, which are full-frame. Of course, if
you're into long lenses, it wipes the floor with them, if the
compromise works for you. On the wide end, the advantage isn't as
clear-cut, though nobody else has anything comparable to the 8-25.
What I'm hoping to see is a new penf. When it came out, they
somehow managed to cram into that small body almost everything the
em1 had at the time. The om3 is pretty small, too, but for some
reason they decided to keep the faux-pentaprism bump. It would have
been great if it had the viewfinder to the side.
alistairSH wrote 5 hours 49 min ago:
The Pen EP-7 is the same size as the older EP-5. With any of the
Olympus prime lenses, it's about as small as you get (ignoring
the Pentax Q, which was ridiculously tiny).
But 100% agree on the OM-1 and OM-3. They're smaller than many
APS-C bodies, especially once you add a lens, but they're nowhere
near pocketable, not even in a jacket pocket. And I feel like the
OM-3 was a bit of a miss - it should have been a "rangefinder"
form factor (no pentaprism hump) and a few mm smaller in each
dimension. And marketed as a Pen-F. That said, the camera
itself seems to be pretty darn good - basically a slightly
smaller, vintage-vibe OM-1. Once used examples hit the market,
I'll be tempted to buy one.
My parents both shoot Nikon DSLRs and I chuckle every time they
break out their birding lenses (400mm NIKKOR of some sort). It's
as big as my forearm and fills half a backpack. My Lumix 100-300
(yeah, not quite apple-to-apple) is minuscule in comparison. [I
don't do enough wildlife to bother with a more expensive
telephoto).
hypercube33 wrote 8 hours 19 min ago:
They are no Pentax Q which is ridiculously small and maybe not the
best design lens / shutter wise as a lot of the in-lens shutters
seem to fail...
zokier wrote 1 day ago:
Fujis X-E5 seems on paper very comparable to GX85?
URI [1]: https://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/side-by-side?produ...
criddell wrote 22 hours 44 min ago:
That looks amazing. I wish I could justify it (I'm a terrible
photographer).
Zak wrote 1 day ago:
The Panasonic GX series of cameras was very similar to what we see
here, and prices for them remain elevated years past their
discontinuation. I'm a little surprised they haven't introduced a new
model in that lineup.
The Fuji X-E5 also seems similar to this, though obviously with a
different lens mount.
davidjytang wrote 15 hours 31 min ago:
Still using GX1 here.
Glyptodon wrote 19 hours 40 min ago:
I have a GX-8 and I still like it...
criddell wrote 22 hours 48 min ago:
In December I bought a GX-85. I love it even though it's 9 years old
and still uses micro-USB. I got a great deal on it - $300.
It doesn't seem like it would take a lot to keep this line going.
Bump the sensor, change the USB cable, add GPS, etc... but keep the
form factor.
I guess the market just isn't big enough.
yabones wrote 1 day ago:
GM-5 is probably the greatest pocket-size mirrorless, and maybe the
last. The GX-85 is also great, but it does have a larger grip and
more of a shoulder at the top.
The G-100D is also quite small, but the faux pentaprism at the top
makes it just a bit too big to justify being MFT.
URI [1]: https://petapixel.com/2025/06/28/the-panasonic-lumix-gm-5-is...
jeswin wrote 8 hours 49 min ago:
I have a GM1, it's truly a standout camera. GM5 makes it even
better. It's quite funny nobody wants to attempt similar sizes,
even when the market has voted for pocketable cameras.
Especially OM - with all their troubles, if it were me I'd have
pivoted the company to sizes that do justice to the mount's
inherent size advantage. They have a rich legacy of amazing small
cameras (Trip, Pen, XA series, and the overrated mju ii) - yet it's
fuji selling an order of magnitude more x-halfs than anything OM is
producing.
6gvONxR4sf7o wrote 13 hours 52 min ago:
If they just remade it with modern AF software, I'd probably carry
mine around most every I went. Not to mention what they could do by
updating hardware.
Zak wrote 8 hours 31 min ago:
I'm not sure there's a lot of improvement possible purely in
software with a contrast detect system and an old processor.
s1mon wrote 1 day ago:
As someone who's been doing mechanical product engineering for 30+
years, doing this as a first project is way more than jumping off the
deep end. Impressive.
alansaber wrote 14 hours 3 min ago:
Agreed, both the pcb and 3d design was very well done. I'd love to do
something similar (on a smaller camera lol)
buildbot wrote 1 day ago:
Iâm just a hobbyist 3D user but I feel like I have good experience,
been using Autodesk Inventor then Fusion since early high schoolâ¦
I saw the level of detail in the model and am shocked. If this is
truly their first experience with CAD/CAM they are a natural.
For example - hereâs my home built camera. Itâs massively more
simplistic:
URI [1]: https://blog.maxg.io/phase-one-swc/
m4rtink wrote 16 hours 46 min ago:
BTW, if you want to design some models for 3D printing but the only
thing you know to do is to code, you can use OpenSCAD & program the
obejcrs into existence: [1] Also recommend using the BOSL2 library
with OpenSCAD - it turnes an already very powerful tool into
something insane:
URI [1]: https://openscad.org/
URI [2]: https://github.com/BelfrySCAD/BOSL2
alexpotato wrote 8 hours 8 min ago:
Just got a 3D printer and was curious what the best practice was
for generating objects in code and then outputting to a printer.
Thanks for sharing!
dgroshev wrote 2 hours 43 min ago:
Another, arguably even more powerful, alternative is Rhino +
Grasshopper. Grasshopper is often used for generative designs,
but can include arbitrary Python nodes and can even be used for
"parametrically" designed functional parts.
Grasshopper can also output gcode directly [1], enabling pretty
wild things like [2].
[1]
URI [1]: https://interactivetextbooks.tudelft.nl/rhino-grasshop...
URI [2]: https://www.instagram.com/medium_things/
awesomebytes wrote 11 hours 10 min ago:
Hey, this is super interesting! Thanks for sharing.
I have been playing with using the Python console/scripts/macros
in FreeCAD to create 3D models. I found this to be very friendly
for my programmer mindset. I have learned a bit of onshape,
tinkercad, blender and freecad, but I find it extremely tedious
and full of unknowns that I struggle to make sense of and resolve
(e.g. contraints in freecad, sometimes I just don't know how to
add the missing constraints, or just adding text to a curved face
in literally all programs, it's never as easy as click the face
add text, there are always gotcha's).
I wonder how does openscad compare to FreeCADs python, if you
know. I just found [1] which looks interesting, but then, the
BOSL2 library looks super interesting and important for a good
user experience, so I do not know if the PythonSCAD could somehow
just import it and use it.
I guess there's homework for me to do here, but if anyone has the
experience to get a hint of "what is the best/easiest
python-based programming way of doing 3D modeling", I'd be
forever thankful for sharing their thoughts.
LLMs are really good at writing Python, so iterating over a model
in code I found is really quick, and I really enjoy the process.
Meanwhile clicking so many times in so many menus makes me desist
on designing anything more-or-less complex.
URI [1]: https://pythonscad.org/
NotMichaelBay wrote 16 hours 24 min ago:
This is really cool, I had no idea this existed. Thanks for
sharing!
aaronbrethorst wrote 22 hours 34 min ago:
Wow super cool. Iâve always wanted a Hasselblad SWC, but now I
think I want what you built even more ;)
buildbot wrote 19 hours 54 min ago:
Thanks! It was surprisingly challenging to get right, in fact
that body is slightly misaligned somewhere (possibly the
lensâ¦).
aaronbrethorst wrote 17 hours 54 min ago:
Does the Phase One back have a preview screen on it, or are you
just sort of eyeballing what's in the frame?
Also, I noticed a lot of photos of the olympics on your flickr
page. Are you in West Seattle, too, by any chance?
buildbot wrote 15 hours 9 min ago:
Most of the modern ones do - anything from the IQ1-IQ4 has a
good preview screen, for live view specifically you need a
CMOS sensor based one like the IQ3 100 or the IQ4 150. The
CCD ones technically do live view but it's really not good.
So this only works for backs that are fairly expensive
still...
Close to West Seattle! I'm in the North Seattle area and walk
around near the water there a lot.
aaronbrethorst wrote 14 hours 51 min ago:
ah right on, thanks for the info
properbrew wrote 22 hours 39 min ago:
It may be simplistic, but that's a cracking photo you've taken on
it.
buildbot wrote 19 hours 56 min ago:
Thank you, I appreciate that!
SilentM68 wrote 1 day ago:
Wow, that's cool.
If there is anything that can be patented, I'd make sure to patent it.
ionelaipatioaei wrote 23 hours 53 min ago:
Why would you even give a shit about patents for a hobby?
Zak wrote 1 day ago:
Something is terribly wrong with the patent system if anything about
sticking the innards of a commercially-produced camera into a
different-shaped metal case is patentable.
zipy124 wrote 1 day ago:
There are design patents specifically for looks[1], in other
countries such as the UK where I am from this is known as
registering a design rather than using the word 'patent'[2].
[1]
URI [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent
URI [2]: https://www.gov.uk/register-a-design
_aavaa_ wrote 1 day ago:
If Nintendo can patent game mechanics despite prior art,
anythingâs possible.
IAmBroom wrote 23 hours 17 min ago:
There's prior art (centuries old!) on Mickey Mouse's head.
Zak wrote 1 day ago:
I'm sure a number of things are terribly wrong with the patent
system. Amazon's one-click patent is another that comes to mind.
Patents are for how, and the how there is "store the default
payment and shipping info in a database".
BizarroLand wrote 1 day ago:
I'm sure that some of these patents happen by slipping the
examiner a few bands in the application paperwork. Afterwards
it's on other people to defend themselves to the tune of tens
or hundreds of thousands of dollars, and if they lose you can
get an entire company and all of its IP, property, and money.
$5k under the table is a small price to pay for such potential
payoff, not to mention the value of the chilling effect on
competition.
It's unethical, seedy, shitty, banal, and pestilent, the kind
of thing that only the most hellbound and soulless of
sleazebags would ever even think of to do, but it's profitable.
metabagel wrote 1 day ago:
I rather think that issuing patents was incentivized in
various ways, leading to more bad patents being issued.
giancarlostoro wrote 1 day ago:
How many patents do you have? Or are you just making
assumptions and defaming people who could very well do an
honest day's work? I assume the people at the US Patent
Office go through thousands of patents, I would imagine it
can get pretty exhausting reading each and every patent,
especially after you ran through hundreds of unpatentable
documents. You literally have to look up prior patents, and
make sure its not already a thing, and figure out, is this
really the same or not?
Funnily enough, one of my former bosses has one or two
patents on something really simple that he came up with. It's
a really clever piece of tech that the military uses, stupid
simple to implement too.
solarkraft wrote 1 day ago:
Oh, that effort.
Iâve been thinking about putting an MFT mount on my RX100 to use it
with more interesting lenses (I have it for the high frame rate
capability) but concluded it to be way too much effort and risk.
And then along comes a person with enough determination to build an
entire custom case! Truly impressive.
dylan604 wrote 1 day ago:
I saw footage someone captured when they modified their Canon 1D to
use a PL mount. They then mounted a 17mm, iirc, that in a slow
shutter could capture as many photons as my shitty 20mm EF mount
could do in a 5s long exposure in bulb mode. The front piece of glass
on that 17mm was ginormous. I really wish I could remember the guy's
name to find a link. He mounted that camera to the front of a fishing
boat down the canyon river pushed by the current navigating in the
dark with night vision goggles. The resulting timelapse was glorious.
There was something specific to the body of the 1D that allowed for
the proper flange depth of PL lenses that the other Canon bodies did
not work for this mod.
srean wrote 1 day ago:
Any chemists or crystallographers out here?
I recently got curious about whether nature solves the Bayer pattern
problem and if so, how.
Are there any 3 element crystalline compounds with the formula A_2BC
with roughly same sized atoms for A, B and C ?
If they have a 2D tiling that would nature's Bayer pattern.
dsego wrote 1 day ago:
What about the x-trans pattern?
URI [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fujifilm_X-Trans_sensor
_aavaa_ wrote 1 day ago:
Natured solved it in our eyes by doing non-uniform placements of rods
and cones (rather than uniform fixed pattern) and then fixing it in
âsoftwareâ.
NooneAtAll3 wrote 20 hours 53 min ago:
more like wetware :)
IAmBroom wrote 23 hours 18 min ago:
Yes! As an optical engineer, I heard endless complaints about how
the camera doesn't "see" like our eyes do.
Even the 1990s cameras were far superior to a "static picture" from
our eyes: color everywhere, instead of mostly in the fovea, no
blind spot, etc.
What they lacked was: higher resolution wherever you chose to
concentrate within the scene at one moment, jagged lines if they
weren't perfectly aligned (your eyes correct near-lines to be
LINES), and (in the 1990s) lower peak resolution.
(Weirdly, people used to argue that "digital would NEVER have
better resolution than film, even though it was clearly trending
upwards to and past that static goal...).
srean wrote 1 day ago:
Agreed.
cromulent wrote 1 day ago:
A triumph. I love this.
ayoubd wrote 1 day ago:
This is awesome! Great work. The "do first, ask questions later"
mindset is inspiring as it's so easy (for me at least) to get stuck
forever in a preparation / ideas phase.
I would also love to see some photos taken with it.
Zak wrote 1 day ago:
Unless something went terribly wrong, they'll look just like photos
taken with a Panasonic G9 II. Samples from that camera are readily
available online.
Topgamer7 wrote 1 day ago:
Not sure if any use this camera. But dude hangs out with a lot of
ballet dancers it seems
URI [1]: https://www.instagram.com/cristi.baluta
amelius wrote 1 day ago:
> the lens should be as centered as possible. I wanted to avoid that
horrendous look of cameras with the lens as close to the left edge as
possible (Sony a6000, Iâm looking at you here).
Funny, the things some people obsess about :)
cmxch wrote 22 hours 28 min ago:
The only thing really wrong about the Sony a6000 is the lack of
weatherproofing. With even a 55-210 kit lens and maybe a good
filter, you can still get amazing quality from far away - such as
being able to pick apart finer architectural details of a monument
thatâs about 5-6mi away.
Zababa wrote 7 hours 33 min ago:
a6000 is APS-C, so 1.5x crop factor, 55-210 therefore is equivalent
to 72.5-315 full frame. At 5-6 miles away that would mean each of
your pixels (24mp sensor I think?) are something like, a 16-19cm
square. I don't know if it's enough for architectural detail. I
feel like it wouldn't, I have a cathedral I often take pictures of,
at 1km it's okay, kinda fills the frame on the 55-210, at 3 miles
(~5km) it's really small in the frame.
petre wrote 23 hours 23 min ago:
It only makes sense if one wants boat a left and right handed camera
st the same time. But then it's got the dials on the wrong side.
izzydata wrote 23 hours 42 min ago:
My only camera is a Sony a6000 and I bought it partially because I
thought it looked great. If it causes some issue I wouldn't even know
it because I've never tried something else.
wibbily wrote 1 day ago:
The loveliest part of making your own gear is picking all your nits.
blindstitch wrote 1 day ago:
Practically and ergonomically I prefer a centered lens. Your hand has
to reach less far to reach the focus ring and aperture control. Most
slr cameras have buttons on both sides of the lens, so developing
muscle memory is easier when those actions are split between each
hand. Rotation of the camera is also much more natural. It also
centers the lens' pov between your eyes, matching their parallax,
which is really important for composing the photograph outside of the
viewfinder.
vladvasiliu wrote 7 hours 25 min ago:
> It also centers the lens' pov between your eyes, matching their
parallax, which is really important for composing the photograph
outside of the viewfinder.
The compact sonys have the viewfinder in the top-left corner, so
having the mount to the side improves the paralax situation,
although doesn't remove it.
CarVac wrote 1 day ago:
Huh? You reach towards the lens from the bottom left and thus a
centered position puts a corner of the camera body in the way.
blindstitch wrote 1 day ago:
I had my directions reversed, so the extra reach doesn't really
apply, I suppose, but I think aligned to the right side (when
looking into the lens) is even worse. I maybe see what you mean
about your hand hitting the body, but i actually want that; my
grip has me resting the body along much of my left hand and
cradled in my palm. That is really important to stability for me,
it gives me an extra stop to work with.
All personal preference I guess!
ge96 wrote 1 day ago:
Also funny the opposite preference, I like the offset lenses looks
cool
theSuda wrote 1 day ago:
Going from mostly centered lenses on dslr and m43 cameras to Sony
with lens on mostly left side, I do prefer the offset lenses.
Ergonomically and looks-wise both.
neogodless wrote 1 day ago:
When I was shopping, I was comparing the Sony Alphas with the
Fujifilm XT line.
And in reviews, complaints were made that the lens (and view finder)
being centered in the XT means you squish your nose against the
screen in the back.
But... I just liked the look and dials of the XT-5 so much more than
the barebones boxy look of the α6700.
(Sony has meaningfully better autofocus too, I'll be sad, but I
wanted the nice looking body...)
And yes my nose squishes against that back screen.
Latitude7973 wrote 10 hours 27 min ago:
I just got the XT-5 too - not for the form but because the feature
set is so good. However, I don't get this obsession on centred
viewfinders - they could be anywhere on the camera body now they
are digital; they may as well be on the left side where my nose
isn't going to be smudging the screen.
The camera is fantastic, though.
kiddico wrote 23 hours 44 min ago:
A6000 and A6600 owner checking in : I love the boxy look! The
viewfinder on the left makes lining up long shots kinda hard
though. I have to zoom out to 50mm find my subject (birds) then
zoom back to 400mm+, so I have been eyeing the more expensive
models just to have it in the center. Idk if it would even help
lol.
tshanmu wrote 1 day ago:
Wow! This is the kind of news that we want on hacker news in 2026.
Amazing hacker ethos.
The article could have been better with sharing some photos taken with
the new camera.
sho_hn wrote 18 hours 33 min ago:
Agreed, this is some proper nice tinkering writeup that we get far
too rarely now.
Lovely project! I'm a software guy who in recent years does lots of
CAD for hobby projects (mainly robotics) and orders custom machined
parts (lots of sheet metal construction, occasionally milled parts)
along with 3D printing.
I find parametric modelling very zen. Stacking operations is very
Lego-like, like stringing up pure functions. Plus I can listen to
podcasts while I model, but not while I write code - it engages the
brain differently.
Now that LLMs are sapping some of the joy out of programming (I use
the tools, they're productive, achieving goals and delivering user
value is still satisfying, etc. - but the act of writing code is just
more enjoyable than prompting, so it's a tad dispiriting that it's
getting harder to jusitify) I also find that I get a lot of
satisfaction from doing something with my hands. In some ways it's a
safer space for technical creativity.
Can highly recommend hobbies like this.
satvikpendem wrote 21 hours 14 min ago:
You're saying you don't want to hear how someone then stuffed AI into
their camera?
SchemaLoad wrote 17 hours 31 min ago:
Imagine a camera that uses one AI to transcribe the image the
sensor picked up, and then another one to use the transcription to
generate the image.
satvikpendem wrote 17 hours 12 min ago:
No need to imagine: [1] Paragraphica is a lensless, sensorless
camera that, when you press the shutter, compiles a bunch of data
with GPS, location, time of day etc, and feeds it to an image
generator to create the image.
URI [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36139729
DIR <- back to front page