Adrien S: I know that this is incredibly hard to achieve, but still... The alignment errors are huge!
Given that the positioning was mechanically controlled, there's little excuse for poor alignment.
dr8: WOW, can't wait to look at that on my smartphone !!!! :P
Post it to facebook.
If you want to do something for photos on Android, how about letting other apps edit and save them?
Thanks for making my favorite editing apps useless.
PixelPump: Now a REALLY clever drone, would be one that doesn't follow its owner, but goes ahead of its owner looking back at him or her!
1:05 into their demo video. It will lead the tracker.
I don't get the hate. Sure, the example is an example of poor technique, but it's a good example for the demonstration.
Who here has never taken a shot with a reflection in it? You don't always have the opportunity to take the shot otherwise. I look forward to being able to reduce such artifacts in my photos.
particleman78: From what I've read about this drone; I think the biggest problem with this is the lack of object avoidance. It is bound to fly into trees, buildings, poles, or even worse people.
That was my main concern. It appears to work in wide open space. How well does it work with obstacles?
Aside from that, I think it's kinda cool. I'd never own one, because I don't do anything interesting enough, but still cool.
OK, I just got a new idea for this thing. Cops could plant the tracker on a suspect. Lily could follow and film the suspect. :)
LightCatcherLT: Seems overpriced and big. Answer to this is kickstarter funded Zano http://www.flyzano.com/
" Answer to this is kickstarter funded"That's a phrase that always raises red flags with me.
Warning: not for pixel peepers.
At 1:1, even this ISO100 images look terrible.
dash2k8: I'm curious about the claim that this drone doesn't need a gimbal for image stabilization. It would be really amazing if they pulled that off. For now I remain on the extremely skeptical end.
Agreed. I'm not sure I agree with their implication that the lack of a gimbal is a good thing.
I've no desire to make my photos like film-ish.
To each his own.
KingOfAtlantis: seems like it doesn't support GoPro anymore. Oh well at least it will drive down the price of the Phantom 2
The Engadget article suggests they are likely to support a cameraless (add a GoPro) version.http://www.engadget.com/2015/04/08/dji-phantom-3-professional-4k-hands-on/
brn: I'm highly suspicious. If they only support a very limited number camera for RAW files, what are they doing with my files?
If they're not doing anything with my files, why don't they support most RAW files? If you extract a thumbnail from one NEF file, you can extract a thumbnail from all NEF files. They're limiting the number of RAW files they support, because they're analyzing them somehow.
santamonica812: 12 bucks a year sounds great, even if used only as a third backup options.
I have about 9 TB of photos (RAW + TIFF & PSD). How do I get my photos from my computer to the cloud? Obviously, I can't upload them. . . by my rough calculations, that would take more than 6-8 months of continuous uploads (ie, 24 hours a day)--assuming that my upload speed stayed constant and at the advertised speed (hah!!!). In real life, probably about 18 months of doing this constant uploading, as I'll be using my computer to do other things at the same time.
I assume serious photographers will be uploading RAW and TIFF files, with JPGs used as images for web use only. So, I expect that pros, semi-pros, and serious amateurs will all have backups of 1 TB and higher. I'm not understanding the logistics . . . how are people managing to get such a huge volume of data uploaded in a reasonable time-frame????
At $12 or even $60 per year, their target audience isn't someone with 9TB of files. If it's not practical for you to get all those files up to their storage, they're OK with that.
teeranui: No RAW support for Olympus???
Don't feel too left out. Most cameras from Nikon, Canon and Sony aren't supported either.
I'm highly suspicious. If they only support a very limited number camera for RAW files, what are they doing with my files?
NiceAussieGuy: I'm not sure that allowing comments is such a good idea, when 90% of the comments are negative of just relavent. Kickstarter has funded some great projects including many that benefit third world countries!
Most of the commends are relevant. They are also negative, but with good reason. Hopefully the feedback will be used constructively.
As to your other point, just because some good has come from kickstarter, doesn't mean a lot of junk hasn't also come from kickstarter.
JeanPierre Thibaudeau: No 10, the last one, is the best.Very artistic; a break from the previous powerful shots.
I guess we're all a little different. #10 was the only one I didn't like (#4 doesn't count).
powerbook: 810A ... who cares? We want a D400 !!!!!
Too bad there's not a "No D400 yet" article for you to comment on, but please comment here. /s
The article claims it's fully interactive. Given that description, I'm anticipating you can actually operate some features of the virtual camera. That doesn't appear to be the case. It just seems that each virtual button will simply launch a video.
Also, according to the video segment that I was allowed to see "The AF/MF button is the button you would use to backfocus". That doesn't seem like a good way to lead off when talking about AF/MF. I hope he gets a lot more in depth, but I suspect he merely shows you how to backfocus and not much more.
I'm a bit disappointed that DPReview would promote this via an "article". Let Gary buy an ad.
chewdoggydog: @brn.....don't b a dick.
I'm not being a dick. I seriously don't understand what the photo has going for it. To me, it looks like a misfire. If I'd taken that photo, I'd have deleted it.
I appreciate maxnoy for providing his/her perspective as to why it's a great image. I don't agree (except about the lighting), but I do appreciate maxnoy's response much more than yours.