Lars Rehm: Well, I have no insight into Triggertrap's way of doing business but I have used their original device which works very nicely, so they certainly know their way around soldering irons and computer code. In any case their project and financial management is only one part of the problem here. From some of the comments under this article it is clear that many people still don't understand what Kickstarter is. It is not a pre-order shop, it is a financial backing platform and if you back a project you should be fully aware that there is a risk of it not delivering and decide for yourself if you are happy to take that risk. If you are not you can always wait for the product to hit the shops and buy and normal retail rate.
While that is true, the only reason that this project failed was because of bad management. All of the issues that they experienced could and should have been spotted earlier and remedied.
They had a virtually complete product but decided to "improve" it after the funding period was over. They didn't have the knowledge internally to do it so the hired a external company (who didn't have the skills either). Once they finally figured the mess out they were already past the deadline and over budget.
The worst thing is that they appear to have never got a quote for how much the new design would cost to produce. They have said that it would cost 3 times what they budgeted for!
Everybody knows kickstarter is a risk, but this project should have been as near to a certainty as is possible. The failure is entirely because of bad management and that management continue to treat the backers like dirt.
They are just letting the comments fester on kickstarter. It is getting extremely ugly.
graybalanced: The money may well have been squandered imappropriately, who knows. But it's important to remember that what happened here, happens to venture capitalists all the time. VCs, like movie and music companies, lose untold millions of dollars on the thousands of products and movies and albums that don't make money. The only reason they are rich is because of the few that are hits.
If you give money to Kickstarter, you ought to have the ability to withstand, both financially and emotionally, the loss of your investment. Because when you back a Kickstarter project you're being a venture capitalist and that's what venture capitalists do.
That is why "Kickstarter is not a store."
I meant projects after they have been funded. On kickstarter you get the money back if they don't reach the funding goal. I read that that 44% of projects get funded. I think I saw someone refer to 9 out of 10 of the funded ones being fulfilled. I can't find the reference, but I have backed 20 and this is the first to fail (that is just anecdotal, but the general feeling I get is that very few people have had more than 1 fail). The percentage of heavily funded projects that fail is very low. Have you ever seen a news report of another photography project fail on DPReview? Anyway, I was just pointing out that it is different from venture capitalists investing in tech companies. 75% of venture capital backed start-ups fail out right (as per the WSJ) and a lot only make tiny profits.
That is not an accurate analogy. 9 out of 10 kickstarter projects succeed and what you get in return is discounted product. The rate of success of venture capital investments is much lower but you get a stake in the company.
Neez: People on kickstarter are dumb. This is what happens when you fund a project, some simply don't pan out. If you want a sure thing, only fund projects with completed production ready prototypes, that demonstrate they work and simply need funding for production startup costs.
It's not like we backed some guy in a shack in Idaho. This is an established company (with kickstarter experience) who said that they had a working prototype that only required minor modifications to bring to market. The kickstarter money was to get it over the finishing line.
They moved the goalposts after the project was funded, squandered the money and have got away with no personal losses. They are rubbing salt in the wound by ignoring the legitimate complaints of the loyal backers and trying to spin this as some kind of selfless act that is designed to benefit their existing customers (of which I am one).
Here is an example of how crass Haje is;
"Failing to deliver to our 2,000 Kickstarter backers would also mean letting down all our other customers, who are currently out there, using Triggertrap Mobile to take timelapse videos, sound-triggered photography, and are actively creating amazing photography."
Marketing doublespeak in the midst of a company catastrophe.
They had a working prototype. They decided to change the whole internal design after the funding period was over.
Haje has been working his way round the internet outlets claiming that he is doing this good of the current customers. What he fails to mention is that triggertrap mobile already have a working product and an app. They don't really need much support, they will be fine on their own.
The kickstarter backers have no product. Haje remains the CEO of a company that has ripped off 2000 loyal backers (a lot of whom have supported them from the start).
There are other, similar projects that raised less money that have succeeded. They wasted the money thinking that there was a bottomless pit. They announced today that it was going to cost 62% of the total they raised to even produce the product - 3x what they budget for (which they didn't notice until 13 months after the project funded). It is incompetence and mismanagement in the extreme.
Number 8 is just an excellent photograph. I have a print of moonrise hanging in my house but it is a lot bigger than the one on sale!
These ironic "HDR", ISO and noise comments need to stop. It is the same in every post on this site. They may have been funny the first couple of times, but once you have read each one on 100 different articles they kind of lose their edge.
Rutterbutter: a more recent case involving Rod Stewart and his likeness used for an album cover that was purposely mimicked instead of paying the photographer their dues would constitute a precedent in this type of case. They clearly copied the look of the photo. Much like if I were to make a swoosh logo on a running shoe I made, I'm sure Nike would sue me to death. end of story. Nike did nothing original, therefore Rentmeester should rightfully be paid, and handsomely for it too considering the size of the brand
It's not that though. You will be able to take pictures of people jumping. They licensed the guy's photo, then copied the photo without paying for it (for which they got sued in the 80s), and have been using it ever since despite only licensing it for two years. Ironically, if Nike hasn't paid for it in the first place the guy probably wouldn't get a cent. There is always more to these stories than gets reported though, otherwise it would be a slam dunk for the photographer.
Aaron801: I can't claim to understand the specifics of copyright law. Still, it seems to me that one image influenced another and if you want to use that idea of "influence" as a yardstick for copyright violation then there's going to be a whole lot more of it. It isn't a direct copy of the image or even a tracing of said image. They're both in slightly different poses anyway (with the original having a bent leg). It's not only a different original shot but the silhouette/logo treatment that's done with it is an entirely different presentation than a straight up photo. If we were to apply this standard to music then rather than having grounds to sue over unauthorized sampling or directly copying a melody, the Beatles could sue thousands of musicians who they've obviously influenced.
I think the case will probably come down to the original court ruling that gave the photog $15,000 for the two year license. If Nike continued to use the derivative photo, surely he was due more royalties from it. I think the guy could be in for a pretty big payday because Air Jordans were much bigger in the 90s than the middle 80s. I don't know why the guy has waited so long to file. Surely he should have done it in 98/99 when Jordan was past his peak. He must have know he was sitting on a gold mine. Maybe there was more to the original case than has been covered in this article.
Skulls: I think that the statement that FF produce better image quality is technically wrong.It's the lenses that limit the performance of the APS-C sensors.
1. APS-C lenses should compensate the crop factor with smaller f-number ie: 24-70 f/2.8 for APS-C should be 16-50 f/1.9 for a Nikon and 15-40 f/1.8 for a Canon.
2. FF lenses usually have greater quality glass and layering which also adds to the problem.
Am I missing something?
We haven't reached the point where a smaller sensor can match a larger sensor in things like dynamic range and color depth. As I said, the gap is narrowing, but we aren't there yet.
I was recently having this discussion with someone else. Technology has got "good enough" in almost every sector; computing, cell phones, tablets, cameras, TVs (although OLED should shake up the market). My D800 is the first camera who's files I would put up against any other format from the past or present and be happy with. Camera makers are going to have a hard time persuading buyers to get the latest camera (of any sort) when the one they already have can make professional quality photos. It's either going to drive innovation or put a lot of them out of business.
Plastek is correct. I should have said that a FF sensor always gathers more light (not-withsatnding microlenses, BSI and other technology advancements) because it is physically bigger. I was talking about per-pixel light gathering capacity, which defines a lot of the performance.
A full frame sensor has a better light gathering capacity if it has the same MP as an APSC. You get better low-light performance and more dynamic range. Smaller sensors have closed the gap though. 7 years ago it would be easy to tell a D700 from a D300. Now it is a different story. I still think there is an advantage with full frame, but once the RAW file has been through lightroom, I'm not sure if anyone other than photographers can tell the difference. Even then, I am sure that a photographer could only tell in certain circumstances.
There is more to a camera than image quality, though. Nikon and Canon know this and they only offer "pro" features in their "pro" bodies. D610 vs D7100 is a decision. Once you get to D810 and up (possibly the D750, although I don't know much about it), the AF system and body construction become factors.
zsedcft: Not good from Nikon. In the last few years; D800 focus issues (which I personally experienced), D600 oil, and now this. That is just on the full frame cameras. I don't think that this one is as bad as the other two because it was probably only noticed by a user. I think that Nikon knew about the other two before release and decided that a recall would be more expensive than selective repairs.
I think my next camera purchase (if it is a Nikon) will be at least 6 months after the release date. Cameras have got so good that I can probably even get the previous model and enjoy the discounted prices.
Why did you reply to my comment in the first place?
This would obviously be your next step - to imply that I don't know what I'm talking about.
I do use manual focus where it is useful.
I don't shoot movies. If I did I would hire a guy to specifically be in charge of focus on a big monitor, not a tiny viewfinder.
CDs can capture all sound perceptible to the human ear. Please see the work of Harry Nyquist. The bad sound of CDs in the 80s was the result of sound engineers who were unfamiliar with the technology. Humans are unable to distinguish well mastered CDs from studio masters in double blind tests. But I could have guessed that you are into vinyl...
Can your abacus do advanced spreadsheets and solve differential equations?
I am just about to upload a few pictures I took in 2014. Why don't you do the same. That will help you decide if my apparent lack of knowledge of camera tech has had a negative impact on my ability.
I just don't understand what you are arguing about. The order of my focusing preference are usually PDAF > Live view > MF. If I can't get a good focus with PDAF, or I need super accurate focus, I use live view and manual focus (by zooming in to the live view). Pretty much the only time I would use MF exclusively is for astrophotography or when it is very dark, when the AF can't keep up.
I absolutely stand by my hipsters comment. MF is slower and less accurate. Only a Hipster, or someone who is unwilling to embrace newer and better technology, would chose MF over AF.
Seriously, stop talking about the 80s. It was probably the worst decade in the 20th century. We have just had the equivalent of the computer revolution in photography and you are still stubbornly using an abacus.
joe6pack: Speaking of stock piling SD cards. No, people reading dpreview rarely do that.
But my parents do that all the time. They NEVER delete pictures from SD card. They are literally treating the SD cards like negatives from the film days.
And they are not alone.
Physically dropped the portable onto a wood floor. The 3.5" usb desktop drive was pulled onto the same wooden floor by the cable attached to my laptop. Very stupid on my part. I was able to download a lot of the pictures from Flickr but I lost the RAW files of some pictures that I would have been able to sell. If I hadn't done it then then my backup procedures wouldn't be so robust now! Silver linings...
Two drops are unlikely, but a power surge from a nearby lightning strike, a flood in your computer room, or a house fire are all possibilities. That's why I have off-site backups now.
The problem was with a misaligned AF module. That is not because it was a new technology, it was a manufacturing defect. Phase detect AF was very well established by 2012 and more advanced systems worked perfectly on the D4. I don't really know what you are arguing. Nikon claimed that all the bodies they sell were within certain tolerance levels - they clearly weren't, or their tolerance levels were a joke. You might like to MF your cameras, but I don't. It takes longer and is less accurate. Deliberately using obsolete technology is for hipsters and nostalgics.
I like this a lot. Very interesting composition.
Awesome shot! I'm going to have to go whale watching some day.
@ HowaboutRAW I can and did get by for a while. You can do things like focus and recompose, but you may have missed the thing you were trying to capture by the time you have done that. The advanced focus system on a $3000 camera should work on all focus points from the start, and it is something that is each body is supposedly tested for. Working around the problem is not an acceptable solution.
It is fine too leave stuff on a card, but they still fail. As long as you have a backup on site and one off site, you will be fine. I have a hdd in my home, one at my in-laws and also have everything on Dropbox. I have lost pictures before by dropping 2 hdds in a week. The replacement for the first one hadn't arrived before I dropped the second one. I had never dropped one before and haven't since. Multiple backups is my mantra now.
There were a lot of people on this forum who were trolling D800 users who reported this issue. I think that he presumed that you were one of those guys trying to say that there it was not a serious issue and that I should have just lived with it. He was comparing it to denying the problem with the D600.
MF just doesn't work on a adequately on a D800 (unless you are using a small aperture and have a while to set up). If you miss the focus plane by 1cm on a fast lens it is immediately obvious. I also think that people are far less accepting of slightly out of focus images now than they used to be. Even the cheapest cameras can focus so well that people expect perfect focus.