Joined on Jun 4, 2012


Total: 8, showing: 1 – 8
In reply to:

jkoch2: Phantom DJI "support" for a m4/3 camera would require a rather large drone. Not quite a Bell UH-1, but perhaps almost as noisy, until it crashes, plops in the river, or gets intercepted by someone answering an irate 911 complaint.

Not true at all. DJI does not need all the other heavy stuff that cams use - display screens, fancy metal parts, zoom lenses, etc - all they need is the sensor and a fixed lens. Even their small units an now lift 300 grams or more - and even the full M4/3 new cams weight less than that in some cases. This is a no-brainer for DJI's next cam to fit on the Inspire (it has interchangeable camera mount).

Link | Posted on Mar 18, 2015 at 01:57 UTC
In reply to:

John Telleria: According to "UPDATE – Dec. 9: In response to our inquiries, Adorama has informed us that the X10 is an upgraded version of a drone already sold under a different name by Chinese manufacturer AAE]"

I Googled AAE and found the Aries X10 looks exactly like their AAE Toruk AP10 quadcopter, except the Aries X10 is black instead of white.

The AP10 can be purchased from Home Depot online for $699.

I'm curious what upgrades were made in the Aries X10 and are they worth the additional $100 over the AP10? YouTube has quite a few videos shot with the AP10. I see quite a bit of jello in some of the videos I've seen. So I'm hoping the Aries X10 has better stabilization.

I don't see how any video from this is going to be decent. I'd save to save your money and go with the tried and true brands...if you want video output.

Link | Posted on Dec 14, 2014 at 03:58 UTC

This is simply a private label from a Chinese company that appears to also be selling to Home Depot and lots of other vendors. Without a gimbal it's pretty much useless for any video. Actually...completely useless.

Here is this "exclusive" model for less money with another name on it

It would be nice to see actual innovation instead of new name tags.

Link | Posted on Dec 14, 2014 at 03:56 UTC as 4th comment
In reply to:

Paul Kersey Photography: can't wait for the warm weather so I can harass people with this. Seriously though, regulating usage of these devices is a must, or need I start shooting them outa the sky?

It will be easier for you to shoot all those intruders with zoom camera lenses - on higher ground, overpasses, windows of neighbors, high rises, etc. - after that, go for the tourist helicopters with super-zooms (they can read your license plate). When you are finished with those, get those dang satellites and the Google Streetview cars! We'll trust you to do it all...

Link | Posted on Dec 14, 2014 at 03:54 UTC
On article High Flyer? DJI Phantom 2 Vision+ Drone Review (182 comments in total)

For those considering a purchase of a Phantom 2 model soon, be aware that DJI did a recent update which adds stability and payload capabilities - among other things! Many vendors are selling the older units. Here is an announcement of the software (can be done on old models) and hardware (only on newly manufactured units) updates.

Link | Posted on Nov 22, 2014 at 19:09 UTC as 11th comment
On article High Flyer? DJI Phantom 2 Vision+ Drone Review (182 comments in total)
In reply to:

Rob Paul: If you're doing a review of DJI's quad offering then you need to include reviews of the competition as well. There are many quads on the market now and the Phantoms are neither unique nor the best for various reasons. There are better websites for more accurate and knowledgable reviews of these machines.

Otherwise stick to reviewing photographic equipment which is the expertise of this website. The quadcopter was just the means to carry the camera. If the intent was to illustrate the practicality of this technology then it would have been best to have an experienced RC pilot operate the quad.
There are also far better and more professional options for aerial photography.

Too much attention to these RC quadcopters is creating a problem. They should be kept out of the hands of inexperienced users. Manufacturers and retailers are shooting themselves in the foot and creating a bad situation for long time RC enthusiasts.

Actually, there is no real competition in the exact space of a RTF, proven, gimbal equipped, FPV (or at least framing view), camera controlled from ground, etc.....quadcopter.

This is like saying there was competition for the iphone in the first year it was released. There was not.

There are lots of options if people want to spend much more money and not have ground based camera control, etc.

The closest thing to this particular copter right now is a model that hasn't been shipped yet - the Blade 350QX version 3. It's hard to compare a new model to one that has 100,000+ units in the field (total Phantom series).

As far as attention - sorry, but what you want in this case has nothing to do with reality. It's like being scared of smart phones because everyone suddenly has a camera that actually works for them. What will be will be and your and my opinion on the big picture won't matter one iota. Technology is like that.

Link | Posted on Nov 22, 2014 at 19:01 UTC

As an update, the basic VIRB is now available as low as $90-$100.
At that price, it can't be compared with newer or even 3 series GoPro...

Link | Posted on Nov 22, 2014 at 18:54 UTC as 4th comment
On article Getting off the ground: Cheap drones for photography (155 comments in total)

I run a drone site for beginners and we have quite a few articles on low cost aerial photography including this one:

It's possible to get decent - notice I didn't say great - but decent shots for $180-$300 (stills!).

It's possible to get high quality stills for $500 or so.

Getting good video starts at about a grand - because you need a gimbal to really accomplish that.

Here is a still from a $180 setup:

Link | Posted on Oct 13, 2014 at 16:15 UTC as 12th comment
Total: 8, showing: 1 – 8