Most are quite good. I am confused as to why the aspect ratio on all of the landscape shots seems to be off. Is it just me or is DPRview messing with the aspect ratio (I can't imagine it's multiple photographers)?
Maybe I'm the only one willing to say this, but I don't find the photos that special. They're pictures of opportunity (kudos on that part), but the photos themselves aren't that good. I see no technique other than going through a lot of photos, cropping them and then doing a B&W conversion.
For me, the only photo of interest is the standoff between the rioters and law enforcement. Not because of technique, but because of the situation.
Etienne R. Werner: I would think that this camera would be far more superior:http://www.sphericam.com/1- Global shutter2- 4k3- 60 fps4- high bit rate5- possibility to shot video/pix in raw6- automatic stitching7- Chroma subsampling 4:2:2, 4:4:4
Admittedly the price is much higher (pre-order for Feb/March $2,499)
At eight times the price, it'd better be superior.
They're both vaporware, so it's kind of a moot point anyway.
nerd2: Lot of people think this resolution is extreme, in fact it is NOT. Japan is already broadcasting in 8K resolution, which is 33MP, in 30 frame per sec. This sensor is 12K. 12K still doesn't sound too absurd in the age of 8K VIDEO.
It's misleading to say Japan is already broadcasting 8K resolution.
A Japanese broadcaster (NHK) is experimenting with 8K video (which is 32MP, because it's not really 8000 or 8192). NHK states that they don't expect 8K to be common, if available at all, even by 2030.
Interesting to see what DP Review considers "news".
It's a freakin bag. Well, it will be someday. Maybe.
That's not news.
ScanSpeak: I'll stick with my Domke F-803
darngooddesign, especially considering one exists for sale and the other doesn't.
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.