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.
I don't understand how #6 was even up for consideration.
Suntan: You can get a billion different, cheap LED flashlights off Amazon/Ebay.
Buy 3 for $10 combined, then JB weld them to a 1/4-20 nut... Boom, this product.
Far from it. 1500 lumens is quite a bit of light. The product is compact. It's adaptable. It comes with the ability to be wirelessly controlled. I think the price is reasonable. You'd pay a lot more than this if it was controllable by a DSLR.Not sure I get the quad-kit though. They're using some kind of funky math on the pricing there.
Jogger: Bought an android phone recently and immediately rooted it and disabled all of the Google spyware. I dont even have a Google account on it (you dont need one to use it).
JustSayNo To Google / NSA
So no to google, but still buy their products?
quezra: With these on, it would basically be impossible to fit most lens caps over the lens?
That was my concern as soon as I saw the filter. I'll never be able to get a lens cap on it. That's a level of lens protection I don't want to be without.
utomo99: 36 cameras is too much. if they can reduce the cameras number maybe they can reduce the price. but try to keep the image quality good enough
Reduce the number of cameras. Keep the price the same, but improve the image quality. I thought it was interesting until I saw the images.
hzmeyer: Sorry, but Drobo is not idiot proof. I had one for several years. It had 3 HDs and I thought my photos were totally protected. One day I wanted to format a travel drive and casually placed the cursor on that drive- I thought. It actually was in between that travel drive and Drobo in MY COMPUTER and, as you might guess, it chose Drobo. I clicked FORMAT and years of photos were gone in an instant. You might say to always have several backups. Well, I thought I did- 3 to be exact.
As others indicate, the normal user (yourself) should NEVER use live redundancy in lieu of a backup. They're not the same. One backs up your data, the other merely improves uptime. Get your backup situation figured out first, then think about RAID. Never equate them.
Mrrowe8: These are super priced till you contemplate the idea of mobile shooting the battery is. 800$ so at that point alien bees make more sense. .. If your not going do any out door shooting or out door and can't use a plug in car jack these are super idea
You can use the same portable power with both systems.
Michael Piziak: No. 3 caught my eye as fake too. How does one stand on a ledge and their shadow is directly below them ?
I think Michael's initial reaction is correct. The rock sticking out of the water is clearly front lit and creating a reflection. The man is not.
This is getting so far out of hand, the next thing you know someone is going to patent the making of toast.
Oh wait: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN%2F6080436
Nothing against the Chirs, but why is this worthy of posting on DPReview? It's using a DC Coupler for what a DC Coupler is designed for. Where's the news here?All Chris did was mount the battery in a very inconvenient location. I can see my head hitting the battery or the cable. Not to mention, losing the ability to attach a flash or even the ability to use the built-in flash.
When it comes to lighting, I've a lot of respect for Joe McNally. However, I really didn't need all those close shots of his face! :)
There is nothing particularly good about that photo. The composition is poor. Without the story, it severely lacks emotion. It actually seems to take away from the story.Apparently, Pulitzer doesn't mean a whole lot.