>>4470128 Yes. I was considering it. The blue one or the clear one is pretty cool. A modern digishitter may be pretty fun. It's actually difficult to find old digishits with such low MP.
>>4470131 >. It's actually difficult to find old digishits with such low MP Agreed. The price is right too for a new snapshitter. Most of the old ones are busted/will be busted soon. I had an old Fuji that was 3.1mp that was fun. Sold it when old snapshitters went up in price. Wished I hadn't sometimes. Saw one in a 2nd hand store recently for cheap. Bought it and found the sensor was cooked. Few days later I saw an article about the Charmeras and decided to get one. They won't be actual vintage aesthetic but at least it will function correctly.
>>4470138 That was just the presale to build hype. BHPhoto says they'll have them in stock sometime in November. Kodak needs to get their name out their for sales and pump profits. Doubtful the company won't be flush with stock heading into the holidays. These are gonna be a hit for stocking stuffers. Kodak is probably making a killing on them. Profit margin on a Charmera has got to be huge with an msrp of $30. Having them produced can't cost more than a few bucks.
>>4470145 Shitty kids camera that started turning up a few years ago. They've since evolved to include thermal printers, and more polished versions are available at Target and such now. Look up "kids camera" on your favorite China shopping site.
>>4470158 >The manchild can't let go of his nostalgia toys Film is gone homie. It exists soley because of hollywood and one day your freezer-stored collection will run dry
>>4470131 >It's actually difficult to find old digishits with such low MP. why not photoshop resize to 10% then resize back to 100%? same as shooting low MP
>>4470145 kid's toy. my son has a based dino-themed one. it's pretty fun to shoot those. they lack a flash but I guess you shouldn't give a flash to 4yolds
>>4470189 When most people goon over low MP what they normally mean is they want a CCD that caps out at ISO 1600. Also, resizing down then up can be extra destructive if you don't use the right methods.
>>4470327 It is. They could have made something that was actually usable, but this is just a shameless cash grab trying to capitalize on the nostalgia/digicam craze. It is e-waste from the get go.
>>4470328 by OP's pic I had assumed they were the size of a classic 35mm point'n'shoot - maybe a little smaller. but fuck me - they really took that chink toy camera from above and put it in a kodak branded plastic case. it's literally the same. i even recognize the "filters/effects" from my kid's toy camera. this is a fucking webcam.
>>4470342 >just get a huge coolie brick with a high resolution sensor and no rear view screen for more than twice the cost Nah. I'll stick with the affordable tiny charm sized low rez full featured snapshitter that can hang from my keychain. Thanks anyway.
>>4470128 The marketing and design team did a great job. It's also well priced, not in the sense that recycled plastic with a 2005 flip phone camera is a good deal, but in the sense that people don't mind $29.
I actually might pick one up for the pixel filters because the photos look like they were made with the photocopy degradation technique.
>>4470858 >>4470437 No. I don't think I will. I'm gonna buy a Charmera instead. >>4470866 >Kodak Yellow 1987 Edition Oh man. That's the one I want. FUUUUUUUUK. I hope I don't have to buy more than one to get it. Thinking about buying the six pack just to be sure I get one. Could easily scalp the rest to cover the cost I bet.
>>4480568 I keep checking BHphoto to see if charmeras are in stock. They still aren't. By the time Kodak gets off it's lazy ass and ships products the hype will be past. Kodak blew it. They shoild have gotten product ready to ship before rolling out media hype.
The chinks have already cloned it and for cheaper, saw picrel at Best Buy. The physical design is different sure but the specs sound more or less the same, and it’s only like 17usd lol. >inb4 but the physical appearance is part of it
>>4470323 I can't listen to that guy for more than a minute, tops. I wonder if he always talks in this extremely retarded way or if he fakes it for his channel.
>>4481638 Hah I saw these on sale at Best Buy for $15 CAD last week. These Vivitars are much worse than the Charmera, sadly. The native resolution on the Vivitar is 320x240, upscaled to 14MP. At least the Charmera has an honest resolution of 1.6MP (1440x1080).
$30 at my local Rockbrook Camera got me a red Charmera. Thing is a handwarmer. 5 minutes is 500 megs of 35mm fov video. Key chain blasts out the audio. Fun little toy.
>>4470152 That's a different Kodak. Eastman Kodak makes the film and sells Kodacolor and the motion picture film Kodak Alaris sells the rest of the consumer film Kodak Reto, is someone who bought the rights to call themselves Kodak and sells their cameras, like the Chamera or the H35. This shit is because Eastman Kodak went insolvent in the 2000s and had to sell everything off that wasn't essential.
So what's the ultimate verdict on these things? They're not at all rare i my city and I could get one tomorrow, but I'm not sure if it's actually worth it. The digishit look is what I want but I wonder if it's overpriced for what it is or if the filters look like shit. I can't find many sample images online, though that's to be expected since it's for fun and not serious.
>>4485440 Honestly I was really considering getting one of these, but from the samples I've seen, the pictures have a really smoothed-out look, not the harsh and grainy early CMOS look. I like the built-in threshold filters, but the normal pics aren't proper digishit, at least for me.
>>4485440 The filters indeed look like shit but the overall look of the images is appealing, I think, and, for a camera that you can attach to your keyring, it’s pretty cool (and cheap).
I pre-ordered these a couple months ago and it came in the other day. I like how small it is I can keep it clipped on my necklace and whenever I want to take a picture I just whip it out. I've got a Samsung phone and I can directly transfer the photos from the camera to my phone. The quality is as you would expect, my only gripe with it is that as soon as you turn on it goes into the mode menu so you have to click the shutter twice or the play button first to select to take a picture. Post a couple snapshits around the house that I took
>>4485641 >>4485642 >>4485643 >>4485644 Not bad at all! If these were sold in leafland for less than 50 leafbucks I'd get one. Nobody sells em yet though.
>>4486865 That is phenomenally shit, especially for a digishit. These things are supposed to have a lot of harsh sharpening to make lights and silhouettes pop, otherwise it just looks bad and blurry. That thing is way too uniform.
>1 ⁄ 4 inch CMOS What were they thinking. Why the hell wouldn't they put a CCD in that.
>>4470128 BHPHOTO HAS CHARMERAS IN STOCK!!! >BHPHOTO HAS CHARMERAS IN STOCK!!! BHPHOTO HAS CHARMERAS IN STOCK!!! >BHPHOTO HAS CHARMERAS IN STOCK!!! BHPHOTO HAS CHARMERAS IN STOCK!!! >BHPHOTO HAS CHARMERAS IN STOCK!!! BHPHOTO HAS CHARMERAS IN STOCK!!!
>>4487469 The fuck is the filter they slapped on this. It doesn't even look like sharpening, it looks like it straight up has outlines and posterization.
There are newly released imitations of the Charmera sold on Aliexpress called "thumb camera". Cost a little less and I reckon these have a better sensor than the real thing. Anybody ever tried these?
>>4487540 Yah. I almost bought one from BH when I saw that post. Had it in the cart, did a double take on the price and noped the fuck out. Total cost was nearly $50 with shipping and tax plus tip. That's retarded. You can get a decent retro canon snapshiter that takes decent photos, has manual controls, has a telephoto lens and can run CHDK. Charmera photos in reviews and this thread demonstrate the camera is nearly worthless. Even at $20 the value is in owning a cuite toy, not the camera's ability to capture photos. Unbelievable scalpers are getting $80+ on fleabay for these things.
I bought a six-pack to give to my family for Christmas. I'm keen. I'm debating whether I should give one to my Mum though because, on the one hand, she's going overseas next year but, on the other hand, she's utterly retarded with technology and she may not use it or find it awkward. She's also at that stage where she's basically blind to anything two feet in front of her face so I doubt she'd enjoy the experience of using it. I want to give one to my cousin instead. She's also going overseas and she's not a tech-illiterate boomer either but I would hate to make the rest of my extended family feel left out or whatever.
>>4487751 >>4487763 The listing on Aliexpress claims it has autofocus. I think that is a lie but in case it does, I am intrigued to hear how well it works, since the real Charmera is fixed focus.
So I ordered and received the 2nd cheapest Thumb Camera (transparent version) from ChinkExpress for less than 15€. (The cheapest one is a toy with no photo capability if one actually reads the description.) Walked the dog in +5C drizzle and snapped some snaps. As expected it's shit. My specimen does not connect to W11 computer via USB. By device manager because "The USB set address request failed" Code 43 whatever it means. From quality of photos and behaviour it looks like it has genes of a budget dashcam. Dunno how to disable the timestamp or set time. It's tiny lightweight and cheap and while image quality is shit, low light performance appears not bad.
>>4489271 I saw a comparison and people online were basically saying this G6 from chingchongpress had slightly better photo quality over the Chamera. This looks like hot, hot ass and is so heavily sharpened I'm sure the halos are counted to up the marketing resolution.
>>4489271 The datestamp is set and enabled/disabled by connecting it to your computer and modifying the .txt file in the camera's root folder. Though yours isn't connecting. Maybe try another cable and Windows 10?
>>4489298 To me looks like cheap dashcam where bringing out detail like license plates is important and aesthetic is not. >>4489300 I already tried different cables. Now checked it's same with win10 laptop. (Charges fine via usb and goes to PC mode if its PC and does not if charger but Win 10/11 does not recognize it. I'll msg the seller before attempting to find and fix a bad solder joint. Smds got too tiny for me more than a decade ago.)
>>4489351 >>4486865 At night shots the thumb camera does pull far ahead compared to the Charmera. Charmera looks like there was butter smeared over the lens.
I am >>4487763. Bought a G6 for $20 aud. Came the other day and had a bit of time to get an inital impression. >>4487992 >The listing on Aliexpress claims it has autofocus. I have seen nothing to indicate there is any focusing happening at all. It is absolutely fixed-focus with a MFD of about 25cm >>4489271 The USB connection on mine works fine. Can even use it as a webcam while attached to a PC with minimal fuss. >>4489300 I see nothing of the sort. There's a menu item in the camera to enable or disable the date stamp though. >>4489412 No. It looks like a dashcam from 2009. Far too oversharpened to be mistaken for VHS. >>4489417 Funny because it already looks like liquid ass at night so if the Chamera is worse I'd say dont even bother outside of good light.
Anyway, It's a 3MP 16:9 ratio, 1080p video dashcam sensor with no manual controls, an e-shutter, a bunch of mostly gay and a couple useful filters, with strong sharpening and the only way to adjust exposure is burried in the menu via an EV setting (which is still nice to have but fuck me I wish it were a button). For $20? Fuck it, it's neat it its own way. I've spent more money on far more useless shit. If I switch it to use the B&W filter the chroma noise is gone and I can tolerate the look for random snapshits.
>>4489942 Shit do you guys see this guy!! This guys KNOWS what REAL VHS looks like. That's so freakin awesome. He must have actually been there for VHS too. I wish I could be him.
I'm glad those of you who like it are enjoying it, but I'm even more glad this thread prevented me from paying $40(!) on it when B&H sent me the pre-order link. ty anons.
>>4491602 Exactly my thinking. Although in this case I think it is just a combination of a shit lens with aggressive NR and fake HDR effects + over-sharpening.
Picrel, taken on my mini "pen" camera from year 2000. Saves pics in uncompressed .bmp in QVGA resolution. If the Charmera could take photos like this but in 1440x1080, I'd buy it.
>>4491775 50AUD feels pretty steep for one, so I'm not sure about getting it just yet. I'd go get some real digishit camera from the early 2000s if I could but those have issues like weird cable ports, NLA batteries or rare memory card types.
the blue filter is a puzzle. >>4491786 I'm hoping someone tries to compete with "Kodak" for sales in this space because, yeah, it's pretty garbage. at the very least, I hope "Kodak" don't give up at mark one. >>4491787 shitposting is an art of which you are entirely ignorant.
>>4491789 >I'm hoping someone tries to compete with "Kodak" for sales in this space because, yeah, it's pretty garbage. at the very least, I hope "Kodak" don't give up at mark one. Same. But the general feeling most people have is that it looks more akin to a late 2000s or early 2010s webcam rather than an early 00s digital camera, which I'm inclined to agree with.
>>4491797 Which was obviously cheaper for them (to recycle old dashcam or webcam sensors and house them) and made it more palatable as a business-level decision. But if this thing dies in the water and doesn't have a second edition that will be why; the fact the photos do not in fact look retro and just look cheap.
>>4491797 >>4491802 Sensor modules usually have some degree of tune-ability in the firmware from the OEM (Sony, Omnivision, etc.) that allows the manufacturer of the Charmera (Retopro) to fine-tune the way the .jpeg is processed. I sincerely doubt they have changed things like the sharpness and noise reduction parameters from the OEM defaults. The Charmera could be a much better product if they spent more time ironing out small details like these.
Asia Optical (another manufacturer of Kodak-branded cameras) does a far better job in this respect, their cameras all have the classic "Kodak colour science" look, despite using Sony CMOS modules.
>>4491797 I don't really know why anyone would get a Charmera apart from BRAND, you can get real 00s cameras for cheaper than one of these things. You can find Mavicas for literally like $5. You can even find 00s mini keychain cameras for dirt cheap.
OnSemi has many low MP image sensors but there aren't any sample images. Do you think they are all webcam quality? https://www.onsemi.com/products/sensors/image-sensors/ar0246
Damn, glad I didn't jump on the hype train too soon. Where I live, they're pretty expensive compared to MSRP (70-80 USD), so was thinking of waiting until it drops closer to 40-50 when the scalpers had their fun. The initial images I saw on YouTube looked promising, like it'd be a fun little toy to use in random situations. Thanks anon for posting all these. The dashcam aesthetic and the soulless amount of sharpening they applied comes through in most photos.
>>4492770 Yeah glad I didn't buy it either. It's available in some stores near me for about $30USD now and I'm not interested at all anymore. I'd rather spend $80 on a real shitty digicam from Goodwill.
>>4492986 I don't know where you live, but having a quick look at Ebay UK:
HP Photosmart 433 3.1mp £12.40. HP Photosmart E317 5.0MP £12.95 plus £2.26 postage. Kodak Digital Camera EasyShare C310 4.0MP £10.80 plus £2.94 Postage. Kodak EASYSHARE CX6200 2.0MP £14.01 or Best Offer. Fujifilm FinePix A Series A202 2.0MP starting bid of £1.16. Packard Bell DSC-220 2.0MP starting bid £3.31.
And on it goes. I bet all these have far better image quality.
>>4492988 Based. Can you list more? I'm going to search around in my country and we didn't get every camera that some others did in some cases. My only concern usually with old digishit is dead batteries that aren't made anymore.
>>4493064 Depends on the case, but many of the batteries were actually compatible, even between brands. So it's not quite that hopeless. Also, there's some decent third party clones, e.g. Duracell makes good ones for some battery types. But yeah, it's a bit of a PITA to do the research of which batteries are actually compatible and have a chance of working well. >>4492988 To add to the list, I recently bought a perfectly working Ricoh R50 for ~$20 (10MP CCD).
>>4493078 Fucking sucks. I don't even see shitty cameras in Salvos or Cash Converters anymore either, it's all just DSLRs and mirrorless cameras from the last 10 years now.
>>4493079 >I don't even see shitty cameras in Salvos or Cash Converters anymore either. Last time I looked at Cash Converters they had fuck all digicams but a pawn shop nearby was flogging a Lumix for $120 and an Optio for $200? Crazy, I thought, compared to the $5 I dropped on a Cyber-shot at Cash Converters in 2023.
>>4493082 I never understood the digicam trend meme. There's nothing it can do beyond using a flash for overexposed gratuitious selfies from bad autofocus and relatively low resolution. I tried it with 2 Fuji EXRs which are relatively decent with 1/2in sensors and the only good thing they had was actual optical zooms but otherwise my phone unironically took better photos. Literally any 15 y/o ILC will be better unless you really want a separate pocketable imaging device.
The gap between my older APSC shitters and a $1000+ FF ILC is a hell of a lot smaller than the gap between a APSC ILC from the early 2010s and a digicam and if its the 2010s digicam look you want...just shoot jpeg with the flash on (if its something like 6-16mp the res will be lower)
$200 puts you into a Olympus Pen with a kit lens and for all the hate M43 gets on /p/ its still better than what some of these resellers want straight up ripping normies off with cameras that cost in some cases $200 brand new.
I personally like the charmera form factor and I'll buy one when I can get it for $20
>>4493079 Its the same in USA, all the thrift stores list anything worth a shit on eBay or just as bad they just look up whatever it's worth on eBay and ask the highest price. Nearly impossible to get a deal in 2020+ and often I find it cheaper/easier to order stuff off buyee.jp listed as junk or trawl on eBay and get lucky. Even with the shipping/tarrifs its still less than buying stuff domestically often.
>>4493078 Electronic components have a limited lifelifespan and some much more limited than others. I still have my Dimage X from2002 and it kind of works but forgets all settings when powered off. Chinkexpress may help when batteries and chargers die but good luck replacing dead smd electrolytic capacitors and memory back up batteries. One can expect 100 year old Brownie II work fine if it's not rotten from moisture but average 00's digishit is much more likely broken in some way than not. (Grok gave me 70-90% odds being broken for 2000s and 20-70% for 2010's device with electorlytic capacitors and a backup battery.)
>>4493156 I think you're kind of missing the mark. You don't buy a digicam because you want ultraHD crisp images with scientifically accurate colors. The camera isn't supposed to be *good*.
You want a 240p image with the dynamic range of a whistle and so much sharpening that everything has a halo. And that's really not something you can replace with a DSLR without so much editing you're invalidating the whole point.
They're not even that expensive. In the US you can find tons of them for sub-$20 on ebay. Just because Australia is perpetually fucked on prices doesn't mean everyone else is. >>4493078 A lot of those cameras *are* like $15 and the extra $50 is to ship to the shithole island in the middle of nowhere.
>>4493156 >all the thrift stores list anything worth a shit on eBay or just as bad they just look up whatever it's worth on eBay and ask the highest price Seems to be a thing for pretty much everything now. Old game consoles, blu rays, stereo equipment is all priced the same in-store as it is online. It's not even worth going into a store anymore.
I miss when I was able to just buy GameBoys and other old used shit for $5 in bargain bins but it seems like everything has nostalgia factor now, even just a simple camera or phone from only 10 years ago.
>>4493287 You're not the only one who wants that GameBoy. Everyone wants the GameBoy, that's why it costs so much. It people aren't paying more than $2 it doesn't get listed for $2. Businesses aren't out there trying to not make money.
>>4493310 They made 120 million of them, they're not some super rare item. For comparison, there are only 89 million PS3s and that's all the variants like the fat, slim and super slim combined.
>>4493313 Not all 120 million of those still exist, especially with them being fairly small devices. Almost 40 years of neglecting 'bargain bin' items has made them legitimately a bit rare. And most people who already have them don't want to sell them. Like it or not, it's just capitalism doing capitalism things. Thing with low supply and high demand cost much money.
Between one of these and printers like the Kodak Mini, which one would make for a better gift? The sharpening is absurd and I don't think my friend would actually use it as a camera, but at least it still looks nice as an overpriced key chain. On the other hand, the printer is actually useful but the extra cost of the cartridges could turn it into a really bad gift.
>>4493368 >On the other hand, the printer is actually useful but the extra cost of the cartridges could turn it into a really bad gift. Only if you’re a really bad gift giver. Make sure to give it to him with more than enough printing cartridges to last him at least a year. Ditto for the Charmera: make sure to get him a micro SD card with it. Gifts shouldn’t be a financial burden or a headache for the receiver.
>>4493406 Yeah, I was already planning on getting a micro SD if I get the charmera. I guess I'll have to look up more info about the cartridges if I get the printer >>4493407 He wouldn't use it as a camera, but it's still a nice accessory >>4493408 I don't like my friend that much (I'm poor)
>>4489271 >>4489300 I finally figured out my G6 thumb camera actually works fine, USB connection "not working" was demented user error and changing the few settings does not need connection anyway. Long press Mode button to get in menu use up/down and shutter button to select &cet. (Maybe modifying a file to change settings was from earlier firmware version feature? Mine has ver. 9850-251205. I recall an ancient "car key" camera which did setting like that but the file was on the sd card.)
>>4494158 Interesting, this is good that you can set the date on the camera. I was looking at another keychain camera with the same guts as this one, except mimics the appearance of a Fuji X100. That one had the .txt date file so maybe different firmwares like you said.
How is video on the G6? I saw a video on youtube comparing them, the colors are much nicer than the Charmera's but the G6 sample footage dropped frames every 2 seconds ruining the whole point of video. Does yours drop frames too?
>>4494182 I'm no video expert at all but at least in poor indoor light looks pretty jumpy to me. Like a lot of frames are doubled. The sdhc card I'm using should be fast enough.
>>4494300 Damn, that's unfortunate. Probably the chipset is too slow or something wasn't set correctly in firmware. I have a similar Chinacam that takes 320x240 video and it has the same problem.
>>4470155 Fun Fact: the radioactive fallout From Nevada destroyed the fresh stock long ago. every time they created new stock it found its way into their processing plant.
it was one of the reasons tech lead to digital photography. because of NTS Nevada and 900 tests of nukes that just by chance, the fallout cloud kept making its way to their plant via the jet stream pattern that took it straight there. Dayton Ohio. Film is Dead for a reason. it also turns orange over time.
my girlfriend got me this and paid like $15 on some temu adjacent site. it has all of the same features as the charmera and picture quality looks exactly the same, just not in some kodak branded 3d printed case. idk where she got it but if you want the same novelty of a tiny camera to fuck around with, just get this one and save the dough for a day out shooting.
Even with magenta/cyan noise I'm starting to like how G6 renders very low key scenes. Radius 0.6 or so gaussian blur helps a bit with garish sharpening.
>>4495842 My G6 was 15€ including tax and shipping to eurostan. I'd expect most the chink kids and other really cheap small cameras, dashcams, spycams &cet are more or less same quality or worse. Toys for toy price. Chinese can do good and reasonably priced small cameras and camcorders but this thread is not for that market segment.
(Good luck nailing white balance with this toy. Unedited.)
>>4470128 >wanted one months ago >waited for a while and couldn't get one >stopped wanting one at all because of it bravo kodak. I'm sure I'm not representative of everyone, but probably a few people are like me.
>>4495728 I like the chroma noise, this is the type of photo the Charmera ought to be able to take, instead of the smeary HDR pics it actually takes. Where I live Charmeras are $60 and the G6 is $30. Having seen your samples, I'm considering getting a yellow or transparent G6.
>>4495924 Took a while but I got around snapping 1,2 and 3k snaps to compare. Have to admit I do not see significant difference between 1k, 2k and 3k. Are you sure the base res is 2k and not 1k?
I saw another Charmera imitation online today, this one was just called "keychain camera". Unlike the G6 thumb cam, the proportions are way off on this one.
>>4498208 Sorry about being imprecise, brain stuck to screen resolutions. (Video) Resolution menu 720P / 1080P (Photo) Image Quality 1M 2M 3M 5M 8M 10M 12M, have only tried the first three.
(Kind of ice flood resulting from a month of -25C ish in 2M. I had also couple better digishits with me but batteries of those could not take the cold...)
>>4502260 RAW support (among other features) is usually dependent on the sensor module and chipset type. In other words, most of the time it isn't a 'locked away' feature, just the module itself needs to have the firmware and be sophisticated enough to support it.
If Sony, Omnivision or one of the other big sensor makers makes a cheap RAW-capable module these cheap Chinese cams start using, I think this will be a real market disruptor.
I'm guessing these things turned out to be really shit and just glorified webcams, as I'm seeing piles of these things in stores now and on sale (still not cheap enough though imo).
>>4502306 didn't know that, i thought the raw sensor data could be written to a file no matter what, and it was intentionally being blocked. i agree, those piece of shit aliexpress cameras might be worth anything if i could get RAW out of them.
Picked up one of these like a week ago. The quality is shit, that's a given, but it's not really shit in that early 00's type of way. Instead it looks more like a low quality webcam from 2011. One thing that really sucks is this weird filter that seems to be applied to the images. I don't know if it's a software thing in how the images are processed or whether it's caused by the sensor itself somehow, but it looks really bad. It seems to be particularly awful during bright conditions. Anything I shot on a sunny day with clear skies is borderline unusable, it doesn't even have that low quality charm to it, it just straight up looks like ass. However, depending on the lighting conditions it can look alright, and I also found that if you add a little bit of grain in the edit, it gives the image a bit more charm/makes it look shit in a nicer way. Strangely enough, the video mode is much better. It doesn't seem to have that same crappy filter applied, and has a much more authentic "look" to it. It's an okay gimmick, and I've spent 30 bucks on way stupider things, but overall it's pretty meh.
>>4504503 I've mostly just got snapshits from the local park, nothing really worth posting. I'll have to play around with it some more and try to take some proper pictures. I think under the right conditions and with a bit of editing you can squeeze a certain look out of the camera that might be half-way decent.
>>4508220 I have the G6 Thumb Camera which is not be exactly same as the Chamera. It's a tiny, cheap and shitty Chinese fixed focus digital toy camera. Result has a look of a still frame from cheap HD dashcam. It's much smaller and cheaper than a cheap modern phone and the results are oversharpened and compressed shit worse but different than a shitty phone. But I do like how the toy deals with a low key scene. If you want a good camera, it's not one. It's a disposable small toy with "character."
>>4470128 This plastic toy is really beginning to show its true character. I have a hunch the image quality is visibly degrading and the LED flash now stays on after firing... regardless, I still enjoy using it and the images may be gaining some character from the degradation...