Sneaky fake lens lets you take photos at right angle to direction you point the camera
From Like Cool:
The Super-Secret Spy Lens ($50) is basically a periscope that attaches your SLR's zoom lens... you can shoot left, right, up, or down, all while appearing to shoot straight ahead.
the latest
latest episodes
say hello to the cops when they spot this one. heh
? what do they care?
Similar in execution to the Leica that Ben Shahn used to shoot his WPA photos: http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/fsahtml/fachap01.html
These have been used by perverts to take pictures of girls on nude beaches in Europe for years.
With some deft Googling you can find dozens of sites dedicated to this kind of sneak photography.
I'm curious - how does Cory feel about this?
Old time gadget gets revised. I remember seeing these 20+ years ago with threads to mount on most popular sized filter rings.
At the time I seriously considered getting one to make it easier to shoot candids, but instead I just got relatively good at shooting from the hip while looking in a different direction. A good head fake and a little noise to cover up the shutter click is all it took.
Sneaky? Really? If I saw someone with that, I wouldn't think, "He's a photographer". I would think, "Why is there a big hole in his camera?" Not too hard to tell. Unless you've never gone further than a cybershot.
What's creepy is that my wife, son, and I were playing in a park last week and a guy was taking photos with one of those. I did notice the big hole in the side, but I'm not a photographer and I thought it was just some special lens that lets light in from the side or something. Weird.
If you like photo gadgetry, you would have loved the old Spirotone catalog. They had some wonderful toys, generally priced pretty fairly -- as in, some good stuff at very reasonable prices, and some cheapo stuff at very cheap prices. And they were pretty honest about telling you which products were in which category. (Want a 400mm telephoto lens cheap? Are you willing to suffer with one that's fixed at f/8? Have we got got a deal for you...)
Fisheyes and right-angles and slide copiers and bulk film loaders and adapters and filters and effects and all sorts of wonderful photographic toys.
Alas, they went out of business before I had the money to really take advantage of them. I haven't seen anyone else who has the same kind of "If you just want to play around, here's an adequate piece of schlock; if you're serious, here's a better solution" mix.
Of course these days folks are often doing all the creative stuff in the digital darkroom rather than in the camera kit... but I'm one of those who believes that a good photo still starts in the camera.
This is not at all new. I played with a similar product in my local camera shop in 1974.
Of course, back then, then were intended for candid photography, not your local neighborhood perv.
I love how everyone is assuming that only perverts are going to buy this piece of equipment. What about nature photography? When you look at an animal and give it attention (i.e. point a camera at a bird) the animal will oftentimes stop what it is doing and look at you, thus eliminating the chance for a candid shot.
I'd use this for taking street shots and not getting the angry observer effect. On more than one occasion I've had some enraged guy (it's always a guy) come barreling over demanding to know why I was taking his picture. I calmly explain that it's a zoom lens and I was taking a shot of the whole street, or zooming up into the trees or even rooftops.
A camera is not the enemy.
% of people who buy these lenses to take better pictures of animals: 0.00000001%
What would be really cools is if they develop lens that looked like a large pair of sunglasses.
@jimbuck, People is anamuls
...While it's true that perverts use these to photograph that which they shouldn't, these "lenses" are great if you want to take crowd reaction shots without some dipshit in the crowd deciding to frack up the shot with a "Hey Mom!" pose or a flip of the bird.
I hate the pretension of most photographers (and yes, it's always guys). They assume that just because I am on the street, they have the right to photograph me and then make money from selling my image. To say that "oh, I'm not a perv, I just shoot 'candid' without the consent of the person I'm objectifying" makes me want to yes, break your camera.
I make a good portion of my income playing music on the street and the number of professional photographers who take my picture without tipping is astounding.
Simply because someone is in public does not give you the ethical right to photograph them against their wishes. And how are you going to get permission? Well, you could ask. Is art more important than consent? Hell no.
And in the age of digital imagery, if you really want you could take pictures, then ask, but actually, honestly delete the pictures.
"Similar in execution to the Leica that Ben Shahn used to shoot his WPA photos:"
The site you link to refers to Shahn using "a right-angle viewfinder" which is quite different from this.
Either this isn't what he used, or that site has its terminology wrong.
but Magpie, if you are throwing sound waves at me, surely I have the right to collect some bounced photons from you?
#17 - Actually, any remotely aware photographer is aware they can't randomly take your picture and then sell the image. That requires a model release form... unless the photo is classed as news, in which case differant rules apply.
They can, however, take a picture that happens to contain you in it, and sell it - a shot where the focus of interest is the street itself, or something behind you, for example.
And while it may annoy you immensely to some people, anyone and anything in a public space is, legally, fair game for photography so long as the photos aren't going to be used commercially.
Legality asside, I can see how that would annoy the crap out of you, and hope that from this point on, you run into a better class of photographers who'll at least hand you business cards, ask you to sign model releases, and tip appropriately.
I am curious, however, you you identify professional photographers if they talking to you... Please tell me you don't assume that anyone and everyone with a DSLR and a tripod is a pro.
Henri Cartier-Bresson is rolling in his grave.
With the old double lens reflex cameras*, the viewfinder was in the top of the (boxy) camera, and you looked down to focus and snap the picture -- so it was easy to turn the lens to the right or left to get a sneaky, candid shot.
For creepy yet amazing pictures, check out some of "Ouija"'s work, who was not only a master of this technique, but also used infrared-sensitive film and flash to take stealth candids in dark places like Lover's Lane.
Like I said, creeptastic, but truly fascinating all the same -- enough time (40, 50 years, IIRC) has passed that I feel I can look at them without feeling too dirty.
* the reason that SLRs are called such is that the lens view is mirrored into the viewfinder. DLRs had two lenses with slaved controls so that you would see through one and the other would take the picture.
#23, so the difference would be that instead of being visible with a camera to your husband and the woman he was cheating on you with, you would be visible holding a camera to your husband but looking the other way?
that would have made the difference?
Super sekrit indeed..there's a BIG HOLE in the side!
No it's easy to take candid photos (and yeah I don't take pictures of buskers, and if I did I'd ask or at least do that holding picture/eye contact thing and then tip)...all you do is look past someone, focus at the sky or a building or whatever (at the same distance as the person, at a fairly small aperture to get highest depth of field)...make it clear to them you're just a tourist, and they'll ignore you in a public space.
Then swing 180 degrees, snap, keep going...stop. Obviously you need a high shutter speed but as long as you don't stop and focus people won't know...and digital cameras you can switch the shutter noise off. Have a few pictures of buildings to show if someone has a problem.
Sneaky I know, but getting candid photos without posing or aggro is hard...but yes I'd not go and take single shots of people usually if they are identifiable, mostly crowd or abstract shots. Single people is far too stalkerish, although sometimes people are just posed right and you don't want to disturb them.
Cartier Bresson never had a model release!
#20 - I don't need a model release to sell images of anybody shot in public under UK law (your only comeback is if i used them in a defamatory way IIRC). If i was on private land, that is different, but if you're on a street corner, you're fair game.
*Personally, i would throw some money your way, as one professional to another.
#22:
My aging Nikon Coolpix 950 has a rotating body that can be used in the same way- very useful.
Do you mean Weegee? I'm very fond of his work.
Good catch on WeeGee, Bean. I would have never made the connection.
Everyone else: WeeGee's work is, indeed, fabulous. Check it out if you never have.
Right-angle periscope, or no right-angle periscope: anyone holding a fat DSLR camera with a honkin' big lens on the end is most likely a terrorist and should be removed posthaste from the vicinity of our important landmarks, populous shopping malls and mass transit junctions.
Is it just me or does #23 seem a bit astroturfy?
That would be spam, and thanks for noticing it.