I think this is a really stupid product design, but can't tell if it's because I'm American or if our non-American readers will share the view.
The StockCam is a "revolutionary gun-style camera cage designed specifically for photographers who demand stability, comfort, and an enjoyable shooting experience," write the developers (who are based in largely gun-free Hong Kong).
If you were to carry this around in America--where an average of 316 people get shot every day, whether by police or fellow citizens—I'd say the chances of you getting yourself shot are fairly high.
When you pull the StockCam's trigger, you activate the camera's shutter. The absurd design even features a firearm-like safety, because heaven forbid you accidentally squeeze off an extra frame and waste those megabytes.
Why on earth would you carry this. Forget about you yourself accidentally getting shot, is the "enjoyable shooting experience" worth alarming everyone around you?
To readers in places like the UK, Japan or Norway: I know the citizens and regular cops don't carry guns there, and even if you do trigger the appearance of the special cops that do carry them, they're trained to de-escalate before putting a hole in you. Even still, can you think of any use case where this thing would be acceptable?
Create a Core77 Account
Already have an account? Sign In
By creating a Core77 account you confirm that you accept the Terms of Use
Please enter your email and we will send an email to reset your password.
Comments
I had to search a little. And even here in Europe, one should be affraid to be mistaken for a person with a gun, grenade launcher (or a spy).
Standing on the sholders of giants would have helped the design (a lot). The Leica link is cool. In addition I offer this Russian spycamera review. It gives even more insight.
I Guess, "What's old will be new" :-) .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twl-bIaoDZY
Wouldn't it be cheaper and easier just to walk around with a giant bullseye on you?
Apart from the obvious safety issue, does this design actually help you take photos? Cameras don't have recoil, and (usually) aren't as long as a rifle. I suppose bracing the camera against your body helps with reducing movement, but it also limits your ablity to see the display, and angle the camera as mentioned above.
Maybe futuristic recoilless laser guns will look like cameras some day!
Imagine the difficulties with air travel this design poses. The manual should have "It's not a gun" in dozens of languages.
When I was birding a lot in college we had a very basic wood shotgun stock that could hold a spotting scope and it was great for passing around and looking at birds. But never compared to a tripod... And sometimes we giggled when people gave us a second look. I would be nervous even flashing that around these days. Maybe on safari where the environment is constrained and wacky stuff seems ok.
Nature photography? There was a Rutger Hauer movie from the 1980s that begins with a close up of a rifle stock. Cut to a deer. Cut back to rifle stock, zoom out to reveal that the rifle stock is just a mount for a SLR camera and zoom lens.
I vote the Darvwing award to the one that has designed this shit and also one to the ones that would possibly use it.
It does seem like it could be alarming in many parts of the world today. But I have to admit I wanted the "Ready Ranger" version so bad when I was a kid https://www.onesourceauctions.com/auction-lot/rare-vintage-1974-aurora-ready-ranger-tele-photo_2844B018A8
Its completely stupid. Really kills the usability of the camera and there is no point in mounting it this way. When Leica did it at least you still had your hand on the lens: https://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2015/06/leicagunrifle.jpg