Are you excited for an open-source camera? By the eventual extinction

>>2935361
if you want to peddle useless dogshit that will be 3x too bulky, 3x too heavy, cost 3x too much and produce garbage simply on the basis that "at least it's open source" you came to the wrong place

You'll fit in on
>>>/g/

>>2935364
Cool story bro. It's not useless because the options provided will make UV and IR photography easier for people to get into, which is important to me.

I loved the axiom idea in the beginning. Then I observed that "company" and get a little deeper look. Over the time I got enormously frustrated and annoyed by their politics and communication. It is a shit, lazy and unfortunately extremely unprofessional bunch of nerds and wannabe biz-guys.
The whole process takes like forever and the price will be horendous in the end.

They just miss the core feature. It is not like they could build a good camera. For this they don't have the resources and experience. It is about the open-source opportunity. I'd love to program on sensor level for my needs. But they missed that and went more into 'how about wifi' bullshit.

Oh and after crowdfunding and wasting time with their nerdy jokerey, they found out in the middle of the lrocess that they need more money and asked for 'investing' again. What didn't work. S VC came into the picture and we all know how good VC and OS come along.

File: maymay.png (143KB, 982x422px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 982x422px

Wow. Stealing our ideas, much?

>>2935408
I recall some Chinese company that wanted to break into the 4K "big sensor" rage a while back and last I heard they were still prototyping cameras, but not much else since then, maybe the hype just died down? From what I understand they wanted to do something similar to this.

While the concept is cool, it has to be really cheap to appeal to the hobbyists and low-budget filmmakers, as those are the people who can afford to tinker with their gear and not fear catastrophe during a shoot.
At a high level, gear is supplied and supported by rental companies, so it becomes their burden to carry a ton of modules for their client's needs, which might not make sense when most people just ask for Alexas or REDs.

>>2935472
Agreed. What I would have wanted would have been a customized option for a minimal camera setting for a cheap price. Like the next best to building an own camera by buying a sensor, FPGA and an ethernet modul (which is - funny enough - mostly undoable because of the housing, the parts are available and even easy to assemble).
I would have been willing to pay a fair price for somebody offering this minimal setting in a practicable housing and with a basic and open-source API.
But with the axiom they are somehow trying to compete in the pro-camera market, while the whole open-source aspect and modular hardware is more a marketing-gag. And that's rediculous for a price around $8k. I always would rather buy a Aja Cion, which is cheaper and 100x better in quality and features than this banana-product could and will ever be. The claim of being able to upgrade the single hardware parts of the axiom for future is hardly believable or a crucial feature at all. Because I doubt that a major update can be done with just changing e.g. the sensor; and when I have to update all parts then the benefit of keeping the housing is marginal.

It is like often: a good initial idea which got destroyed over the process of facing reality problems in development and due to morons getting involved and taking over, like they normally do, which leads frequently to all quality aspects of an idea gets burried under narcisstic personalities and pseudo-professional brain-shittery.

>>2935361
I am excited for it, I think it will fail tho. Just as open source phones failed to flourish, I think these will too.
In theory this should make open source cameras cheaper, kind of like building your own PC right?
But I imagine the majority of sensor manufacturers, which is basically 90% Sony Exmor, 5% Fuji and canon just started making sensors for third parties, won't sell their sensors to people building their own rigs.
I like the idea that the builder would essentially control the colors and values in their RAW files, and it gives a lot more power to the owner.
It's appealing to me because ideally I would like to build a full frame compact camera with a leaf shutter, and if you don't think that's the tightest shit then get out of my face.

Just gonna use the opportunity to ask this:

Isn't MFT an Open mounting-System?

>>2935890
There's really not such a thing as an open mounting system (yes, there's that one, but basically no one uses it). MFT does tend to be mirrorless which means really short flange distances, which means you can adapt a shitton of lenses to whatever mount fairly cheaply because you don't have to use glass to achieve infinity focus.

>>2935893
I mean in Terms of licensing...

>>2935902
Eh, possibly one or two of the MFT mounts, but that depends on which you're actually talking about, like I'm pretty damn sure the EF-M isn't open. But that's not a super big deal. Third party manufacturers reverse engineer the electronics anyway. It's relatively simple because there's not a ton of information that moves between the body and the lens.