Canon USA has announced a successful lawsuit against two eBay sellers who were allegedly peddling counterfeit 'Canon' batteries. The camera company had filed a complaint against the defendants in October 2019, claiming the sellers were using its trademarks and that doing so could 'mislead the public as to the source and authenticity' of the products, potentially to their peril.
The legal victory took place on December 12, 2019, in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. According to Canon, the defendants in the case were barred from 'infringing and counterfeiting the valuable Canon trademarks.' The sellers will also be required to pay Canon a 'significant amount of money,' according to the camera company.
Below is a copy of the court documents, obtained by PetaPixel:
Counterfeit batteries put both the operator and their camera at risk, Canon explains on its website. These products may be poorly made and prone to overheating; they may also offer lackluster performance when compared to the real thing, resulting in frequent recharging and shorter lifetimes. Signs of a counterfeit battery include lack of an anti-hologram sticker on the bottom, modifications to the company's logo and an inability to communicate with the camera.
This case is about counterfeits that are fabricated to look like the real things with Canon logo and labels. Good for Canon. All manufacturers are entitled to take similar legal actions against any abuses their brands
At the same time, I continue to buy and use "third-party" compatible batteries. These have their own names. I have not had any issues in terms of capacity and performance in the last 10 years.
Oh there is definitely a significant difference in capacity and performance. I know this for a fact. This applies not only to electronics but ebikes and power tools.
I've tested a lot of 3rd party batteries, and they are not as high in capacity as the originals. I've opened up 3rd party power tool batteries advertised as 5Ah only to find 3Ah cells in them, 7Ah with 5Ah cells. No name ebike batteries certainly won't contain Samsung, Sony or LG cells. All my Wasabi GoPro Hero and Fusion and Sony batteries don't last as long as the originals. 99% of the time, if you can afford it, buying name brand will get you better performance and longevity. You're right about being careful with blanket statements. Certain electronics are more sensitive to this issue. I'll never buy 3rd party batteries for my Sony camcorders that's for sure. The camera will suddenly stop recording without warning, losing the recording. When you buy name brand, this kind of stuff doesn't happen nearly as often.
@Dan: "I have not had any issues in terms of capacity and performance in the last 10 years"
I personally have not had any issues in terms of capacity and performance. I did not say anything about "difference" - better or worse. In general, I am personally happy with my personal experience in using my choices of third-party batteries.
I do whatever I want with my money and time. No need for lengthy arguments. Go out and use your gear (and batteries).
Oh get out of i mean - sit up straight in - your chair and do some effort on Google. Seems you went for ultra cheap ones. There are some 3d party cells that have absolutely the same or better capacity - for years - . Got an original and 3d party here in a Canon 40D, no difference and still fine.
I think Canon is dishonest. In their text they stress the point that the counterfeit batteries might be inferior, even dangerous. But, that is not their real concern. Their real concern is that they take sales from Canon by pretending selling Canon batteries. And, I think, if they shall be honest, that is what they shall claim, and nothing else, when arguing for their case.
Then, of course, in their manuals they may warn against third party and counterfeit batteries how much they want.
Agreed. Third party is fine if you know that's what you're getting, but if it says Canon on it (Or Fuji or Olympus or etc..) then that's what it had better be.
They'll just have to go back to selling Cannon batteries.
how about if you made a product at a good quality level and then see someone else selling a similar looking product with your brand , including copying your loge, on it. Would you be OK with that ? BTW, I can't believe how many people think counterfitting is OK.
@FrancoD - if you answer me, then I do not think you did read my post carefully. Nowhere did I say that Canon should not go after the counterfeit products. Of course they shall do that.
@blackcoffee17 - yes you have a point. Of course, Canon is hurt by bad counterfeit batteries. But, that is not what they say. They pretend to protect the customers. When they really want to protect their revenue and reputation. I still think that is dishonest. Even if maybe less because of your post. Thanx blackcoffee17.
I think in this case Canon is concerned about their customers' safety. As we all know, lithium batteries can be volatile things when produced/used wrong.
Roland, I work for a technology manufacturer. We are concerned with two things (well, more but here ...):
1. Our reputation with our customers. Counterfeits hurt that by potentially hurting our device performance. We want customers to know about this, and it really is about potential for harm, not simple greed. 2. Protecting our brand and thereby our profit. Thus there is a marketing aspect to counterfeit messaging, yes.
Everyone selling counterfeit batteries should be prostituted, there is no question whatsoever. However from my experience I strongly disagree in regard to statement that generic batteries are bad. I have several NB-13L Canon original and generic batteries. It is absolutely clear that generic batteries costing 20% of the original last noticeably longer – my guess is some 30- 40%. I use them when diving so I do have very clear and obvious time reference. I have used them for 4 years, no problem ever. If you are saying generic batteries are dangerous – I agree some certainly are and it is difficult to tell which – can you explain whether they are dangerous mainly when charging or when operating camera too?
Are there many examples when camera has exploded or battery has damaged the camera?
Counterfeit is, of course, bad. Do not want those. If they can cheat with the brand they can also cheat with other things, like the quality. And it is not honest. So, nope!
Third party, or generic, I have found to be OK though. I have a mix of original and third party for my Pentax cameras, and I do not see any difference. Neither in mechanical quality nor in functionality.
"Then, of course, in their manuals they may warn against third party and counterfeit batteries how much they want." I don't think throwing mud inside a manual is good behavior. They should warn only for known incompatibilities with third party products but if they just lie then the manual has no value to me and i have to research the information myself.
Just buy your batteries from a reputable source like Adorama or B&H. Yes there was the one fake battery that was shipped to customers by B&H but I don't think there were any reports of explosions--they just didn't perform as well as the legit OEM batteries. But even so, you're less likely to get a counterfeit battery from a trusted source, and IMO ebay and CL are not trusted sources.
Another choice is to buy third party batteries on eBay. Then you know they are not Canon batteries and you know what risk you take. And those batteries are cheaper than the counterfeit ones.
I have a mix of original Pentax batteries and third party ones. They all work fine. And I get four batteries for the price of one.
I used to buy third party batteries, and sure, they worked fine and they didn't catch fire or explode. But as they aged, their ability to hold charge reduced dramatically. Most of them only lasted a few months before becoming virtually unusable.
Canon batteries are expensive and some would consider them over-priced, but in my experience they last considerably longer per charge, and have a much longer lifespan than third party batteries. You get what you pay for.
I'm sure the same applies to Nikon and Sony batteries. They may all even be made by the same company, but they are made to a higher standard than those sold by third parties.
Agreed .All OEM batteries are over priced IMO. $78 for the NIkon EL-EN15B and only slightly cheaper for the older 15A version for the DSLRs (about $65 last I checked). Yes they're overpriced but some things are not worth risking IMO. So you spend $3000 on your camera, but have a problem spending $50-$250 for a few extra batteries?
The other thing people don't think of too with some of the cheaper batteries is they can in some cases swell and damage the camera. To me, it's not worth the $30-$40 savings to put a cheap third party battery into my $3300 camera.... if it was, maybe an old Nikon D3000, then I might consider it more but for equipment with considerable value, the risk just isn't worth the savings.
And Canon users will continue to have to pay Canon a significant sum of money to power their cameras. Win win for Canon. Drinks all round and a toast to the lawyers.
Battery may be reasonably priced. Contact customer support. Shutting off to protect our margins.
This is not about third-party batteries in general, it is about counterfeits: ones falsely labelled and marketed as being from Canon. For comparison, Canon is not suing to block third-party lenses for Canon cameras.
I have no problem paying Canon for the priviledge of using genuine Canon batteries. After paying many tens of thousands of dollars for camera bodies and lenses, buying genuine batteries is like pocket change in comparison. Now, go tell that to the fools who spend hours and hours of their time trying to refill third-party printer ink cartridges with third-party ink.
@DotCom agreed. I don't know why people will spend $3000-$4000 on a body only to try to save a few bucks and use a third party battery. Even if you bought 5 new third party batteries, you're only saving maybe $250 in the end, but you're putting your $3000+ camera at risk (3rd party batteries can swell and are built to less rigid standards as is pointed out already, which is how they keep the costs lower).
@Everyone I am talking about having to pay £74.99 recommended price battery for a £149 camera. Of course for the money is no object brigade on DPR this issue is completely incomprehensible. A heavily discounted 'Official' battery is probably more of a risk than a third party one so people are in a dilemma what to get. What sort of markup do you think is being made on these batteries? If you are going to justify these costs except on the basis of having unlimited funds yourself and thinking £70 for a small compact battery is a few bucks as said elsewhere give some details why these costs are justified in a business sense apart form having a captive market. People have used branded non counterfeit batteries and cameras have shut down in the endless chip war to stop any use of third party batteries. Excessive battery prices just make the counterfeit business more lucrative and increases risk. Samsung used to sell official batteries at reasonable prices so it can be done.
@Allflawed, we didn't know you were talking about a $149 camera until your last comment. And no, a heavily discounted Official battery doesn't necessarily mean it's bad. 'Official' OEM batteries are made to the same specs and quality regardless of the sale price at the register. Third party batteries, on the other hand, are not.
I guess if people want to risk their $4000 cameras to save $20 on a battery I/we can't stop them, but you're far more at risk of destroying your camera (or at the very least, not getting your money's worth out of the third party battery, which is the case many times). For me (and many others on here) it's not worth it. Third party batteries can swell and cause damage, among other problems. Not to say OEM batteries can't, but the chance of that is less than 1%. And keep in mind not all third party batteries are made under the same QC guidelines. OEM batteries are.
The annoying thing is that Canon are probably contracting their batteries from the same battery companies for $5 each.
The price of these duplicate batteries does not reflect their inferiority as batteries -- instead, it reflects the price that Canon could be selling Canon batteries to you for.
Probably. And that's the problem; if you buy a third party branded battery, that's great. If you buy a canon battery that's not a canon battery, that's not so good. Especially if it damages your camera
“instead, it reflects the price that Canon could be selling Canon batteries to you for.”
No, it doesn’t. If you were an electrical engineer you would know that there are many ways to cut corners to reduce cost, none of them good. I tend to stay away from cheap knockoffs not because they’re knockoffs, but because I don’t know where they cut the corners.
Human behavior is such that if the subject is something that interests them, be it cars or cameras, they know everything about the product. Everything else, they just buy on price. If you know why you should spend more to get a better camera, why would you think it’s Ok to spend less on the battery just because you don’t truly understand them?
An excessively high price charged for a product will always drive a market in counterfeits. If a heavily discounted item can still be priced more than a sensibly costed alternative brand it is always going to be a temptation for some to cash in unofficially on this pricing game being played with the captive camera user locked in to the brand and scared to go outside for fear of damaging the goods and warranty. Probably buying discounted official stuff is more risky than buying a known brand alternative and as long as they are ahead in the chip wars OK but firmware updates are always a risk.
“ Probably buying discounted official stuff ...” do you mean counterfeit here, or a genuine product? Seems the former, and that is not what counterfeit means.
And when I say “knockoffs,” I don’t mean counterfeit; I simply mean legal 3rd party. I abhor counterfeits not only because it’s fraud, but also because the counterfeiter can make a sub-standard product and put the failure/damage it causes on the real brand. The real thing is always going to cost more. Is it because the margin is higher? Maybe in part. But it’s also because reputation is everything to a major brand, and they can’t afford to damage the brand by putting out a knowingly substandard design. So their products will always cost more to manufacture, and their prices will necessarily be higher. I look at OEM products like seatbelts. Generally I might not need them, but one day I might. I bought 3rd party batteries once. One of them swelled inside the camera and got stuck. I’d rather use the real thng. That doesn’t guarantee no failures, but if it does, i can tell the company, “I put YOUR battery in YOUR camera and this is what happened.” A much stronger position.
Should have been "lack of a hologram sticker"... But even so, the counterfeit one I got from B&H a year ago (or whenever that battery thing happened) it had a hologram on it. The only problem is that on OEM legit Nikon batteries, there is a plastic shield over the hologram--this one didn't have it, which is one giveaway as to it being fake when I compared it to the other NIkon 15B batteries I had, plus the hologram was not not flat, but rather had a small ripple or two in the hologram. There were obviously other signs, but even some counterfeit batteries have holograms, although they are poorly copied and produced in most cases.
I'm surprised that Canon hasn't gone after the lens-makers we see churning out the $50 50mm lenses, that kind of thing. I guess that "close" doesn't mean rip-off if the Canon name isn't being used?
No, but if I carbon-copy via reverse engineering and expensive Canon lens and charge 1/2 the price, they'd probably sue me as there would be patent violations involved.
As long as they don't advertise it as a Canon or Nikon or some other branded lens it's not then it's not technically illegal, as long as they also don't infringe on any patents. If they do, that's a different story.
Yongnuo, a Chinese company, copies Canon flashes and lenses and has for years, albeit with their own branding. I've always wondered how and why Yongnuo gets away with it. The only feasible explanation is that Canon is (justifiably) apprehensive about a Chinese Court deciding in favour of Yongnuo and awarding substantial damages and costs against Canon THEN the Chinese government possibly banning the sale of Canon products in China as further "retaliation".
@darlot: Yes, Sigma and a number of other third party lens makers have reverse-engineered the EF communication protocol. However, using the protocol to make otherwise different lenses to be able to communicate with the camera isn't quite the same as carbon-copying existing lenses. In any case, since Canon hasn't sued them into oblivion years ago, either they don't really care as long as their brand isn't violated, or maybe they have some kind of silent mutual agreement about what's acceptable.
Probably the former, as reverse-engineered EF protocol documentation seems to be publicly available on the Internet, apparently without getting angry cease-and-desist requests from Canon.
Mika Y, that's what I meant, you need to read between the line. My point is that those Chinese companies don't get into troubles because they are too small for Canon to go after, or they can't be sued. Hence the joke :)
It's one thing to reverse-engineer a product, but to do exactly that and pass it off as a genuine Canon product is illegal. A hate China's IP-ripoff practices, but if it got to a court, that company would lose.
It's no different than Ford not suing Chevy because they came out with a vehicle with four wheels and a motor. They would get sued if Chevy came out with a "Ford Mustang".
You are expecting ebay to investigate every individual seller even before the advertisement goes online?
Can you imagine the manpower and computing power that would be involved, and the enormous delay between applying to place an advertisement, and it actually appearing on ebay?
and they made money on each sale, fully aware of the situation. So, 100% complicit. Still, there's that price thing isn't there ? Most Sony A7R owners would have one genuine and three non-genuine in the bag, they need 'em. Sony's put in a decent one since, but still, how's battery life on the new Canon toys ? Better than that, I hope.
Make eBay accountable and their fee for all your buying and selling there will escalate, say 25% of sale value. Still happy? If yes, why? You just taxed yourself.
TNArgs - 25% would I think be a considerable under-estimate. More like double or quadruple the cost, not to mention at least a month delay, while ebay carried out an investigation into each seller, before the adverts could appear on the site.
Some folk around here are living in a fantasy world if they expect ebay to be accountable for every advertiser, of which there must be several million worldwide!
Perhaps they should give ebay credit where it is due. In my experience as a seller and a buyer, I've always found their service and their responsible attitude first class.
@entoman: I strongly suspect that if Target sold counterfeit Advil, packaged to look exactly like the real thing, and the product turned out to cause deaths, that Target could be held responsible - that an excuse that it could not reasonably check everything it sold would not be a defense. IF that is correct, then the same defense would not help Amazon. I hope a lawyer will chime in here and tell us if that defense would work.
SantaFeBill - I'm not a lawyer and I'm not arguing about whether or not ebay are legally or morally responsible.
What I'm arguing about is whether it would be practical or even remotely feasible, to hold ebay to accountable for allowing themselves (and the public) to be tricked by a seller of counterfeit gear.
Just how many people would they need to employ and pay, in order to investigate every one of the millions of people who advertise on ebay worldwide?
The extra cost to the advertiser, which would have to be passed to the buyer, would make the price of everything skyrocket to at least double or quadruple the normal selling price, and would involve incredibly long delays in getting an advertisement placed online. It would in fact make ebay entirely dysfunctional and obsolete overnight.
For big ticket items, like cars, cameras and other high-dollar goods, eBay should be accountable, as most of these things have serial numbers or VIN numbers. Batteries and smaller/cheaper goods, it's not really feasible to make eBay accountable for it. As long as eBay discloses in its terms and conditions that such counterfeit items are forbidden, they have protection against being sued for allowing users to sell counterfeit items. I'm sure eBay had lawyers write their terms and conditions policies as to protect eBay and its assets should one of its users do something illegal or stupid.
I think I read somewhere a long time ago that it is believed that perhaps 60% or more items on eBay are counterfeit or stolen. Imagine the costs to eBay and users if they had to investigate or research every other item that was put up for sale to ensure it wasn't counterfeit.
Alsomaking knock-offs is not necessarily illegal as long as it's not being sold under a name it's not (ie. selling a fake watch and listing it as a Rolex) and that it doesn't infringe on any patents.
Look at what Godox has done with regard to some of their gear (looks a lot like the PRofoto brand). Perfect examples of knock-offs that (as far as I know) are legit and I haven't seen Godox get sued by Profoto (yet) over them.
_____ ebay can be held accountable WITHOUT any added expenses... a. legalize seller accountability in contract b. financially penalize violating sellers, withhold revenue, or ban, etc., all covered by (a) terms c. offer rewards to buyers reporting violating sellers, the reward funds derived from (c) ==> (b)
Jeff Greenberg - Your proposals do the exact opposite of what you want. They penalize and make the *seller* accountable, not ebay.
Sellers are already accountable to ebay.
ebay can and already does penalize violating sellers by banning them.
ebay can and already does guarantee that buyers are protected, and get a full refund, in the event of being sold goods that are faulty or not as described. Counterfeit goods would fall into the latter category.
Owning an expensive FF camera with cheapo lenses is like owning a luxury car that was once great and is now a rusting pile of junk. It's less embarrassing to own an economy car in good shape.
Right... so we should also hold sites like bhphoto liable for unknowingly selling counterfeit batteries and charges that were shipped to them via a corrupt importer?
These must surely have been proper counterfeit products made to look like and sold as genuine Canon original equipment?
Otherwise there are plenty of branded products that are 'suitable for' Canon cameras and they generally perform well and safely. There's a whole lot of "may be" and negative speculation in the statement above that is disingenuous in light of many millions of off-brand batteries in regular use worldwide. Canon should, of course, protect its trade mark. However it could do so without the negative propaganda that makes them sound rather silly. It's like saying 'If Aunty had balls she'd be Uncle'.
Last year at NAB Canon had a station in their booth which challenged attendees to guess the real vs counterfeit batteries they had on display. It was extremely difficult to tell the two apart.
Well, i never buy OEM batteries. I buy branded third party batteries and they have always worked just as well for a fraction of the cost. Some don't have the rated capacity which is the only downside.
*Now I await the brigade to tell me I should not be putting third party batteries in electronic equipment for fear of blowing up*
OEM batteries are overpriced for a reason. Profit. They know full well the battery costs way less to make, but those accessories rake in the dough. True for any product, accessories are where the most profit is had...
The problem with 3rd party branded batteries is how does anyone know if the 3rd party branded battery that you are buying is actually from the original 3rd party? After all, if there are counterfeit Canon batteries, then why not counterfeit XYZ brand?
As for OEM battery cost, yes, they are probably over priced for what they do but they aren't for what they cover. After all, if an OEM battery fails and destroys your camera, chances are the OEM will fix the camera and replace the battery. What happens when a 3rd party battery fails? They may replace your battery but I haven't seen any say they will fix the camera.
What I don't understand: Someone has several thousand (at least) US$, UK Pounds, Euros - whatever, invested in their passion, photography. Then they are obsessed with saving a very small amount (relative to their total investment) on a battery. Why?
Same reason people buy third party grips. For instance if you want official Nikon gear, you can shell out $500 for an empty grip, then another $300 for one of their grip batteries, or buy an additional overpriced piece of plastic that lets you use your standard EL15a battery. Or you could buy a third party grip for $100 that accepts both EL15a and ENel18c batteries.
The big camera brands overcharge for EVERYTHING they sell.
@SantaFeBill - Do you drive a car? Does it cost more than your camera gear? Do you still use OEM for parts, tires, oil, filters, the whole shebang or you use third party or whatever your mechanic decides to use.
Before the internet, yes third party can be hard to determine whether something is good or not. With the internet you can research products easily and decide whether the cost savings are worth it.
@Craftsman70 - That is possible to occur, but super rare. Its a scare tactic the OEMs drive into your mind to make sure you never buy any accessories that is not OEM. Just check on this forum to see how many actual cameras have blown up.
@scrup, So far i haven't bought a 3rd party battery that hold as much charge as brand name ones. I suppose the reason for lower price is the reduced material cost.
@chriswy, it may be just those particular 3rd party batteries. After all, we don't know the standards of the various 3rd party companies (or even if they have standards)... heck, we don't even know if a particular 3rd party company makes their own batteries or sources them from whoever is making them cheaper when they need to order more stock.
The Nikon Z30 is the company's latest 'creator' focused mirrorless camera, a 21MP APS-C model made to be more vlogging friendly than ever. Find out what it offers and what we think so far.
Nikon has announced the Z30, an entry-level Z-mount camera aimed at vloggers and other content creators. What are our initial impressions? Better watch to find out.
Sony has just released a trio of impressively small, light, ultrawide lenses for APS-C. These lenses are designed for vloggers, so Chris decided to film himself and find out how they perform.
What’s the best camera for around $2000? These capable cameras should be solid and well-built, have both speed and focus for capturing fast action and offer professional-level image quality. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing around $2000 and recommended the best.
What's the best camera for shooting landscapes? High resolution, weather-sealed bodies and wide dynamic range are all important. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for shooting landscapes, and recommended the best.
Most modern cameras will shoot video to one degree or another, but these are the ones we’d look at if you plan to shoot some video alongside your photos. We’ve chosen cameras that can take great photos and make it easy to get great looking video, rather than being the ones you’d choose as a committed videographer.
Although a lot of people only upload images to Instagram from their smartphones, the app is much more than just a mobile photography platform. In this guide we've chosen a selection of cameras that make it easy to shoot compelling lifestyle images, ideal for sharing on social media.
Kosmo Foto founder, Stephen Dowling, has written a comprehensive tribute to the Olympus OM-1, a camera that set a new path for SLRs with its compact form factor and extensive lineup of lenses.
The Nettle Magic Project uses a hidden Raspberry Pi device with an IR camera to scan and decode a deck of cards marked with invisible UV reactive ink. The scan produces a full breakdown of the deck and delivers it to the performer in nearly real-time.
We go hands-on with Nikon's new compact super-telephoto lens, the Nikkor Z 400mm F4.5 VR S, to see what all Nikon has managed to pack into this lens, even without the help of PF elements.
Profoto's new A2 monolight is extremely compact and lightweight. It's about the size of a soda can and weighs around 770g with its battery and optional stand adapter attached. The 100Ws light is designed to be portable and easy to use.
DigiKam is a free, open-source raw photo management and editor for macOS, Windows and Linux. The team has recently released the latest version, bringing the app to version 7.7.0. The update adds many bug fixes, new features and file support.
The Nikon Z30 is the company's latest 'creator' focused mirrorless camera, a 21MP APS-C model made to be more vlogging friendly than ever. Find out what it offers and what we think so far.
Nikon has announced the Z30, an entry-level Z-mount camera aimed at vloggers and other content creators. What are our initial impressions? Better watch to find out.
Nikon has announced the Z30, a 21MP APS-C mirrorless camera aimed at vloggers and content creators. It has a lot in common with the existing Z50 and Z fc with a few tweaks and a lower price tag.
The Nikkor Z 400mm F4.5 VR S is incredibly compact, measuring just 104mm (4.1”) in diameter by 235mm (9.3") long and weighing 1245g (2lb 12oz) with the tripod collar. It's set for a July 2022 launch.
NASA and the University of Minnesota are working on a citizen scientist initiative alongside the Juno Mission and need your help. Volunteers are tasked with identifying atmospheric vortices on Jupiter, as captured by the Juno spacecraft.
The PROII CPL-VND 2-in-1 Filter offers a variable neutral density filter with between 3-7 stops of compensation as well as a circular polarizer filter. Independent control means you can dial in the exact type of compensation you want in a single filter.
Joining its diverse lineup of ONE R and RS action cameras, Insta360 has announced the 1-inch 360 Edition camera, co-engineered with Leica. The camera sports dual 1"-type image sensors and records 21MP still photos and 6K/30p video with a full 360-degree field of view.
Capture One Mobile bring Raw photo editing to iPadOS devices. While it's a familiar look and feel, it's clear Capture One has focused on providing a touch-first interface, designed for quick and easy culling and editing on-the-go.
Godox has announced the R200 ring flash for its AD200 and AD200Pro pocket flashes. The new add-on is a lightweight ring flash that works with numerous new light modifiers, promising portable and controllable ring light.
Even sophisticated microphones can't eliminate ambient noise and the effect of acoustics. But researchers at Carnegie Mellon University have developed a camera system that can see sound vibrations and reconstruct the music of a single instrument in an orchestra.
Do you want to shape and create content for the largest audience of photography and video enthusiasts in the world? DPReview is hiring a Reviews Editor to join our Seattle-based team.
In our continuing series about each camera manufacturer's strengths and weakness, we turn our judgemental gaze to Leica. Cherished and derided in equal measure, what does Leica get right, and where can it improve?
A dental office, based in Germany, had a team of pilots create a mesmerizing FPV drone video to give prospective clients a behind-the-scenes look at the inner workings of their office.
Samsung has announced the ISOCELL HP3, a 200MP sensor with smaller pixels than Samsung's original HP1 sensor, resulting in an approximately 20 percent reduction in the size of the smartphone camera module.
Street photography enthusiast Rajat Srivastava was looking for a 75mm prime lens for his Leica M3. He found a rare SOM Berthiot cinema lens that had been converted from C mount to M mount, and after a day out shooting, Srivastava was hooked.
The lens comes in at an incredibly reasonable price point, complete with a stepping motor autofocus system and an onboard Micro USB port for updating firmware.
The new version of the Blackmagic Design Pocket Cinema Camera 6K brings it much closer to the 6K Pro model, with the same battery, EVF but a new rear screen. New firmware for the whole PPC series brings enhanced image stabilization for Resolve users
The OM System 12-40mm F2.8 PRO II is an updated version of one of our favorite Olympus zoom lenses. Check out this ensemble gallery from our team, stretching from Washington's North Cascades National Park to rural England, to see how it performs.
The first preset, called 'Katen' or 'Summer Sky,' is designed to accentuate the summer weather for Pentax K-1, K-1 Mark II and K-3 Mark III DSLR cameras with the HD Pentax-D FA 21mm F2.4 ED Limited DC WR and HD Pentax-DA 15mm F4 ED AL Limited lenses attached.
As we continue to update our Buying Guides with the cameras we've recently reviewed, we've selected the Sony a7 IV as our pick for the best video camera for photographers. It's not the best video camera we've tested but it offers the strongest balance of video and stills capabilities.
For the next several weeks, many observers will be able to see Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn in the predawn sky with the naked eye. Of course, a camera with a telephoto lens or telescope attached will get you an even closer look.
Comments