TwoMetreBill: "If you have a RAID array that's gonna take care of your uptime anyway (that's what it's for anyway, not for backup)."
I disagree. My primary backup is roughly 3TB. Using typical USB3 external drives, it takes about 18 hours to recreate the backup and I lose all my change history. I never get more than 12-18 months out of these external drives, Seagate or WD. Yes they do honor their warranties but I've still lost my history, have no backups for a week or two and then have to wait another 18+ hours before I have a new backup.
So I broke down and bought a Drobo Mini with 4 2TB Seagate drives and a spare on the shelf. In less than year, one of the drives failed. Hot swapped the drive, the system went into automatic recovery while my backup continued to run. And yes, Seagate replaced the drive, even paying all shipping costs.
I think you just proved the point. External drives are for backup, RAID arrays are for uptime. You've just shown that uptime matters, even in your backup drives. You've swapped having two parallel backup drives (essentially a RAID 1) for two drives in a RAID 4/5 system using 3 drives. Either scenario protects you from (1) failure of your system and (2) one additional failure of a backup drive. The Drobo box just uses more drives and adds a non-redundant/failure point, but is probably more convenient/easier to set up.
Jeff Greenberg: To all those declaring Panasonic FZ1000 as clear reason NOT to get RX10III...
AH HA HA HA, AH HA HA HA, AH HA HA HA HA HA HA
Based on that left side nastiness, it looks like the RX10-III is a waste of $700. I wonder if you get to choose the side that looks like it's been wiped with Vaseline, or they send out a random selection of "don't look at this part of the image" units.
blink667: The Lumix, which received a gold award from DPR, is less than half the price- is the Sony really worth twice as much? And I'm a little confused about the market this camera might appeal to; if you're serious about photography, even as a hobbyist, you're probably investing in a better body and crisper lens for a moderately greater investment.
@Androole - yes, I thought it was better in low light - guess not! You get a 1/3 of a stop from the lens at the short end, and it does have an extra EV - essentially one extra stop of shadow detail you can pull up. But certainly not what I would have expected. Looks like I bought into the hype a bit ;-)
The tradeoff is (1) 1-2 stops better in low light due to a better sensor, (2) an extra 50% extension on the long end of the zoom, (3) High speed video. For $300 or so, I'd call it an even trade. At $700...you'd have to really need one of those three things to pay the premium.
From the headline I expected earth shattering results. After seeing the photos, I'm still not convinced that the lens makes the Sony worth double the Panasonic. It's a shame the Nikon had been indefinitely delayed.
cinemascope: Nice way to lock you into paying MSRP
The question to ask is: will there be a good deal on gently used/refurbished 50c backs in 6 months?
TwoMetreBill: Barometric altimeter, give me a break. My wife and I were eating lunch one day in the Rocky Mountains. We have a very good barometric altimeter. In less than an hour, sitting still in a parked car, the altitude changed by a thousand feet. This thing has GPS with accuracy to at least 40' out of water. Out of water, barometric altimeters are little more than random number generators.
I use a baro altimeter on every rocket flight I do that carries an avionics bay. It is *far* more accurate than GPS at those speeds (I get maybe 6-12 data points on GPS during a flight, and many are pretty questionable as the rocket often exceeds consumer speed limits).
JordanAT: I'm always intrigued at the size and cost of m4/3 lenses. I would expect them to be bright, small, and (relatively) inexpensive. If you're in the market for a fast zoom lens...they just don't exist. The cheapest zoom lens with a 2.8 aperture is $700, weighs 11 ounces and is 3" long.
Compare that with the LX100 - a m4/3 with a fixed lens of (roughly) the same focal length, 1.5 stops brighter at the short end, and yet the entire lens and camera combined is 14 ounces, less than 2.5 inches thick (long). And the entire camera and lens together only costs $700.
Are m4/3 (and, I suppose) APS cameras really only for people who shoot prime lenses, or don't mind really small maximum apertures?
Looks like the results are unanimous! :-)
I'm always intrigued at the size and cost of m4/3 lenses. I would expect them to be bright, small, and (relatively) inexpensive. If you're in the market for a fast zoom lens...they just don't exist. The cheapest zoom lens with a 2.8 aperture is $700, weighs 11 ounces and is 3" long.
marc petzold: 16 MP onto a very small 1/2.4" Sensor is a heavy load of MP onto that small surface area. Much better would be an 1/1.7" Sensor with 10 to max. 12 MP, like the Pre-2012 (before Sony RX100 1"Sensors became Standard into Prosumer Compact Cams) Cams , for instance Samsung EX-1 from 2010. With nowadays processing algorithms, IQ can be even better.I'd ask for 1" Sensor Standard into better Smartphones, say S7 Series, LG G5, and so on...
It starts to seriously push the limits of physics to put a 9.6mm sensor (short side of a 1" type) into a phone which is only 9.8mm thick at the camera portion. Compare that to the 808 which was almost double that thickenss 17.8mm at the camera module).
And, really, the 808 sensor site was the same as on this 1/2.4" sensor - as the 808 crammed 41MP into it's sensor, effectively defeating the purpose of a large sensor (except for the ability to digitally zoom, making the huge bulge into a 1/3.2" sensor at the telephoto end).
Wishing for a 1/1.2 in a modern phone is like complaining that P&S digitals don't use full frame. I mean, it may be possible - but what you might gain in sensitivity, you lose with an anamorphic lens and other compromises in the optical path.
GCHYBA: How is this better than a GoPro?I'm just curious, the specs look similar, but the GoPro has all these mounts and stuff already out there.Someone educate me please?
Wait...if the summary is right, this will do 1440x2650 at 60FPS. the difference between that and real (?) 2.7k is like 5% (2704x1524). Though it's not quite as much play as you'd have with 2.7, it's probably hard to see the difference after downsampling.
PixelJ: 33 hours of HD video and 55,200 photographs. I wish the advertising agencies would get over using these basically meaningless metrics on SD cards the way they finally did on HDDs.
Can't we just go back to Libraries of Congress?
dulynoted: That is very impressive. Combine one of these with a surface pro 4 and a 128gb sandisk mini usb 3.0 drive. TONS of storage in a super small package.
I'm with you, Calvin - there doesn't appear to be a technical reason why a standard, full-insertion SD card woulldn't fit in the SP4 chassis. Though, to be fair, the uSD is in a hidden/protected location under the kickstand. Still, I'd much rather have a standard SD, even it it meant another hole in the side of the case.
photo perzon: Hollywood can do that for 1/100th the cost in virtual. With all the hunger in the world, the cool factor should be ignored and suppressed what is next, Lady Gaga in space with her 50 million dollar condo in tow?
Can they simulate the generation of atmospheric data that was gathered by the scientific payload that was launched on this mission, too?
With all the hunger in the world, it seems silly that people are spending north of $2000 on silly little picture-making boxes when they could just buy postcards for a fraction of the cost.
That was some serious dumb luck to have a camera pointed right at the booster for separation. As this (amateur rocketry, or at least high power rocketry) is my other hobby, this is an awesome bit of video to watch.
Funny, I was just looking for something like this for my G4 so I could set my phone down to record a party/event without having to balance the phone precariously on a table, sandwiched between salt and pepper shakers to keep it from falling over. All I really wanted was the prism though, not a whole case.
PeaceKeeper: I think many of you are missing the point... Ignore that the complaint was filed by Getty.
So we are clear, Google is telling people that they MUST provide the full res images to be listed on the search engine. That, coupled with their efforts to absorb/destroy competing search engines, forcing people to use theirs or "die", is a pretty sound basis for the complaint.
The real money is in ad revenue, and that is what's really at the heart of this. Google is able to sell ad space, data mine, etc, without the user ever having to view the page hosting the image.
If you had a blog/website that produced revenue by ad space, and used images to draw people to it or make it more appealing, you'd be pretty ticked off if another site was embedding your photos and making money off ads without ever sending traffic to your site. This is exactly what Google is doing.
"Use another search engine!" Maybe you don't understand how a monopoly works... and why they are illegal.
If I search for "woman talking on a headset" images, and I find them on google search, I haven't deprived CompuDesk - or any of 2000 other websites - of business. Google specifically allows a click through to the web page so that if you're looking for CONTENT about the image it's right there. If you just want to see the photo, you click on the photo link. If you don't want your special take on a "Woman talking on a headset" high art photo to be seen by people, don't put it on the internet. Or put thumbnails on your public pages and a robots.txt to prohibit browsing your detailed gallery with the full size images.
More specifically - Google isn't really the problem. Nor is people not going to site to see the full size image. The problem is that you can't show people photos and not let them save them. Google just makes it 1 click easier for people who will "steal" your work to steal it anyway. The problem isn't Google - it's your clients who don't value your work.
I read the entire article and can't find where Google is requiring companies " they MUST provide the full res images to be listed on the search engine." Every stock photo agency I see on Google Image search has a medium sized image (with a watermark, no less). To get the full size, unwatermarked image you must go to the site, log in, and pay for it.
What Getty is worried about seems to be a non-issue for 99% of all site out there - those that use images as window dressing for their products - and is a non-issue for the sites which actually sell rights to photos - which are always locked behind a login/paywall.
"Google is telling people that they MUST provide the full res images to be listed on the search engine"
I'm going to need a citation on that. Google us a search engine - it indexes anything that gets served on the Internet that isn't prohibited by robots.txt. Google, iirc, changed their search several years ago to reduce the size of image search results (thumbnails) after complaints about copyright. In every search I've done there's a thumbnail of maybe a 100-150px, then a larger (often scaled version of the thumbnail) version is accessible along with links to the original webpage, the image file *on the target site*, and similar images. It's the same as going to the site and right-clicking on the image.
Getty is asking that Google change their business methods simply because it's inconvenient to Getty, who presumes that people are to incompetent to understand Save As in the context menu of Web browsers.