Chinese accessory company NiSi has started taking preorders for its new Prosories P1 Smartphone Filter Kit, a camera filter system for smartphones. The P1 Kit includes a phone clip, medium graduated neutral density filter, polarizer, pouch, and holder. As demonstrated in the video below, the system involves attaching a mount over the phone's camera, then sliding a square filter into that mount.
The P1 Kit's filters are made from optical glass with a nano-coating, according to NiSi, which says its clip is compatible with most smartphone models. Users can rotate the filter within the mount to adjust its angle, and also use a polarizer with the filter when necessary.
The company doesn't provide the P1 Kit's filter size, making it unclear whether any of its other filter products are compatible with the mount.
The NiSi Prosories P1 Kit is available now for $40 USD. To learn more or order yours, head over to the NiSi website.
Am I alone to find theses accessories totally ridiculous ? Ok, they can give nice results, but why not get a serious tool in order to take precious shots instead of tinkering around with a smartphone ?
Why not accept that majority of the photography IQ requirements are met with the smartphones sensors and optics?
The only real limitation with smartphones is their fixed focal length, that got not long time ago "fixed" by implementing dual-cameras with different focal lengths.
Smartphone is not same thing as ILC, but their quality and their usefulness is more than enough for majority of the people.
Why all these special attachments are just logical and useful.
Maybe I found that sticking approximative devices over the smartphones camera that are not design for that, that is ridiculous.
Ok, smartphones are making good enough pics and vids for almost all the mass market consumers. But all the accessories, apart the niche but studied motorolla extension sets and samsung photophones, are only able to add some effects but at the cost of crippling down the technical quality of theses pics.
Theses cameras already delivers heavy filtered/customized pics and vids via native or special apps. Why then drop a P&S camera for a smartphone if you have to carry again specific photographic accessories ? It makes the smartphone huge, cumbersome and no more compact to slip in a pocket... But I can understand some wants theses accessories for the fun and/or effects. But I perssist to find theses accessories garbages if they cost more than 10 bucks !
Add generic, moronic comment here : “Ho Ho ho - I’m FAR too busy with my real D-SLR to have anything but contempt for these new-fangled ‘smartphones’ and their accessories. And when I look down on this new technology, it’s TOTALLY different to how my D-SLR was scoffed at by film users 15 years ago...”
I am unable to understand (literally) something here. A GD filter is supposed to cover 100 - 200% of front lens element /sensor coverage. We can slide it up and down as needed. But this filter they have shown is 500% size of front element, that means the only 20% of gradual effect is applied to the image. i.e. it is not gradual at all.
OR is this enough to create a gradual transition of light ?
tkbslc, some comments are not worth reply. but still... the 2-3 mm front lens element is too small for the graduation of 30 mm filter to be smooth. It is very difficult to set the filter such that the bottom half receives full light while the upper half gradually darkens.
It is not difficult. It doesn't matter what is the front element size, the only mattering thing is the field of view. If it is a ie. 67 degree then you can simply extend the filter distance from the lens until you fill the field of view. It doesn't matter is the front element a 100mm or 2mm as all is relative.
But if you would need to get it touching the lens, then you can't do it. But that is why you have that filter holder that extends the filter further to give you the gradient filter through the sensor capture area.
But square filter is really a stupid idea, it should be like 1x4 or 1x3 so you can slide it up/down and find the good position, with a different gradients.
@Tommy K1, I thought in the same line. But then, as the gap increases the flare will be increasing in this open filter design.
But, I don't get your last comment ( 1x4.. 1x3 ). Do you mean the position of the filter to front is fixed and different level positions are not possible?
imo: gradual filters are hard to produce, and i'm guessing this is minimal size for it. they could cut it off, but then again, glass is bridle etc.. but then again, i agree, all this nonsense with smartphones is little bit over the edge.
This is silly. The whole point of shooting with a smartphone is simplicity. Square filters defeat this purpose. This gimmick will be bought by approximately three people.
There are about a billion smartphones sold annually. That's not an exaggeration. You may be correct when speaking in averages, but even a niche group out of a 1,000,000,000 population can be very large.
Hmmm... wrong again, TK. You must think all iPhone users have the pretension of being photographers - or that all of them think it's a full-fledged photographic camera. That's quite a stretch.
Even people with proper cameras rarely own filter holders, and of those who own them, excluding really passionate landscapers, very few use them regularly. So 3 people buying this one is pretty safe assumption.
I was thinking motion blur with slow shutter - a phone's (mostly) fixed aperture means ISO alone won't get you a milky waterfall for example. You've really got to want to do that with a phone to be bothered with all the other stuff though, you might as well just use a REAL camera lol
As I said, the only filter really needed is a polariser...
ND can be digitally done from multiple samples, as ND filter is not really anything else than a series of photographs that are stacked together.
BUT taking a 120 frames in 2 second period (like 20Mpix raw images with E-M1 II or G9) is not exactly same thing as 2 second exposure with single frame, in every scene. As stacking does keep all the sharp parts more visible than with ND filter.
Why a low 2-3 stop ND filter that allows to get like 1/15-1/30 shutter speed helps a lot for that as it is then possible to imitate the 10-15-20 stop ND filter easily as there is enough motion blur on each frame to begin with.
It really depends a lot from the sequence speed and shutter speed ratio. 10 FPS with 1/1000 is not as good as 0.5 FPS. But 60 FPS with 1/60 shutter speed is again better than first, and possible as good as 0.5 FPS.
Polarization filter is something that still needs to be carried, but if Olympus would release their one of many designed sensors, it would be post-process too.
I am putting an April Fools yard sale for all my Canon stuff along with Gitzo , RRS, Lowepro, Lee / B+W items ... And finally in my life I will be able to pack light for any photo trip in the future, no carry on luggage at all !
This design... I don't think they can eliminate the glass reflection problem. A common problem in using filter for the smart phone with 3-4mm focal length.
I know people who have bought lens attachment kits for their phones. They tried them out a couple of times, but the kits were bulky and inconvenient to use; eventually they stopped using them. While a good idea, I suspect this will suffer the same fate.
Actually the few days ago article about anamorphic lens to smartphone was a very good idea for the wider FOV. But if someone wants the "light leaks" and "halos", it is then better just to use a cheap filter with reflections and attach few very thin fishing strings front of the lens to give the light strikes.
Lets just be serious, smartphones video/image quality is more than enough for most situations, only real limitation being fixed focal length in most in them.
And these lens accessories try to bring some of ILC advantages to smartphone users. Like think about able to do digiscoping with just a lipstic size "telephoto zoom" that would give equivalent 70-600mm? Who would not like that even if it would have very slight sharpness impact? It would open for many a very nice travel photography options!
Please stop dumping 3 digits prices, which are more than 299€ to ANY so called smartphone, and buy a proper camera!
Any 3 digit priced (interchangable lens + primelens) camera has ability to improve your photography and can TEACH something even can provide you a job in the future! Don´t waste your pricious money, or even worse, you parents money!
Have you seen how much good quality filter kits cost for larger cameras, like the Sony A7r III with that 16-35 lens? A basic kit is more than twice as expensive as the kit in this article. Take a look:
Now take a look at the filters and how much those big filters cost . . . and think about how much extra bulk THOSE are going to add to your kit. With a smartphone you can shoot all sorts of interesting stuff, including 4K video, with just a couple of attachments, and for most uses (other than making really large prints) a smartphone, tiny tripod, a few lenses, and a filter kit is really all a photographer needs. I think this tiny filter kit a great idea.
Here is a fine example of a capable camera. Well, unfortunately it hasn´t have WiFi so its sort of harder to add those files to phone etc.
But remember, it has larger sensor (1/1.7) than most smart phones. It has enable many photographic controls (F stop, shutter speed, solid tripod hole) And if you want its Interchangable version, don´t go further than GM1, GM5 etc. and a decent prime. But stop wasting time on smartphones. YES you can use those stuff, but...
Here is an all time favorite shot of mine by this combo (XZ-1, Filter thread, Half gray filter). The trees are slightly darker than they were, snow was gone on them. But I still could rise the exposure +0,3 while sky hasn´t blown on a tiny sensor, even in a terrible cloudy Finnish Winter sky.
Cellphones has their advantages, no doubt & no question. They comes everywhere, You can capture a moment and share instantly. But when its about such stuff... MEH!
Oh by the way, there are no software touching at that photo AT ALL. Just jpeg and throwned to the internet!
There's a hilarious amount of people in here acting like they're too special to be seen taking pictures with their phones. For the price it seems like a steal, I don't bring my DSLR everywhere and I can just keep this in my bag and use it when I want to. Really cool that they're making this and definitely gonna pick one up
Some of the pompous hateful comments on this are laughable and embarrassing. No - people aren't going to be shooting weddings on iPhone's now they can get a filter kit, they'll be using it as a bit of fun (something that seems to be lost in here).
You can buy filter kits for DJI's and no one raises an eyebrow, but do it for an iPhone and it's a joke?
Eh, nothing new for DPR. Too many elitist gear heads who honestly believe one can't use phones for photography, despite the simplest fact that countless world-famous shots have been taken with infinitely inferior hardware than that of a modern smartphone shooter. People need to go shoot more and have fun, instead of building a snobish gear cult.
Would I get a filter system for an iPhone? Nope, because I've got a proper camera for that purpose. Does it mean filters for iPhones are completely pointless? Of course not: they have a purpose and a niche to fill as long as someone enjoys shooting with them! One needs to be childishly insecure to hate on something like this.
@Melchiorum - how dare you come here with a reasonable point of view! Yo the allowed here unless you shoot large-format plate film.
But seriously - it’s quite funny how many people here dismiss iPhones etc in favour of a “proper” D-SLR and yet are complete oblivious to the fact that 15 years ago on this very website, their precious D-SLRs were being dismissed in *exactly* the same way by people with “proper” cameras.
Surely the image sensor is so small that the difference in light passing to it through the filter at one side is almost identical to the light that reaches the other side? A polariser or other non-graduated filter could be useful but anything graduated will see almost no graduated effect in the resulting photos.
Wait... what? You do realize there's a lens in front of the sensor, don't you?
Following that logic you can't get a clear image on such sensor. Let's say you've got the sky and the ground on the image: you don't have the sky or the ground "smudged" over the entire photo - they are separated just fine. Try taking a piece of paper and covering half the lens: do you get half an image or does it just get dimmer? Only in case the latter happens your argument would be true (which obviously isn't what happens). So how do you imagine the light at the bottom of the sensor to be "almost identical" to the one on the top? That's not how optics work.
Small sensor just allows for smaller lens with LESS light passing through such lens. It does not "mix up" the light or make it more uniform. Graduated filters of appropriate size will work just as well as on any other sensor (the need for them or lack of such is an entirely different topic though).
Of course, but the lens is also correspondingly tiny, much smaller than that of a DSLR or mirrorless camera, or even most compacts. The graduation would need to happen over a much smaller area than shown on these filters for there to be an appreciable effect on the photo.
The lens on my smartphone's rear camera looks around 3mm across.
The size of the lens makes no difference whatsoever because it doesn't affect the field of view. It only affects the minimum physical size of the filter, which in turn needs to be positioned at the appropriate distance from the lens.
Sizes of neither the sensor nor the lens hinder the performance of the graduated filters in any way.
@JonathanMac: You are quite right, the gradation would have to be over a very short distance to affect only the top half of the lens' field of view and not the bottom... which is exactly as shown in the main picture above. That tiny filter's rate of gradation would give an incredibly sharp cutoff for a DSLR grad. I have no idea who would buy this trinket anyway. Since any filter effect except ND/grad/polariser can be much better controlled in software, this daft, clumsy, toy is hardly going to stay in your pocket at all times with your phone.
@Melchiorum With an objective lens only a few millimeters across, adjusting the line of gradation would be incredibly hard. Moving just 1mm would drastically change the effect, and since it's held in the frame by friction, you would have to nudge it ever so slightly to move it, while not moving it too much.
@DPR Staff I don't think I'm really mistaken estimating the glass filter width as 40 mm. I have strongly motivated suspicion that they show it attached to an iPhone 6s at 0:20...0:31 in their video. That's confirmed when they demo the polarizer with a girl at a café, because screen capture footage is pixelated as it should be with non-FullHD 6s capture upscaled to FullHD. Another iPhone they use a bit later (in yellow bumper case) is FullHD, the difference is clearly seen in FullHD YT video, and I'm 99% sure that those are real screen captures because under the circumstances it's just easier to make than to fake. So, iPhone 6/6s is known to be 67 mm wide. Use of Photoshop measure tool and subsequent calculator punching show numbers like 39–40 mm for glass piece width and something like 62.5×43×19 mm dimensions of a holder without a clip but with a ring. Of course that is circumstantial evidence and just a guess, but the margin of error is ±1 mm for the filter and ±2mm for the holder.
Now that's f*tastic! Tourists will really look like pros taking photos with an aïe-phone, a huge tripod, and attach a big lens AND pro-square filters on it. This brilliant innovation should really be given a kick start. Plus, it looks very handy and easy to use.
What's interesting, it's not your average consumer who attaches all that stuff to a phone. It's vloggers who want to squeeze everything from their phones and... some broadcasting professionals. For instance, some news crews do things like Facebook Live when they want to reach to slightly different audience or want to do some live feature but have no slot for that in a schedule (I did like that with François Picard of France 24 English recently, live from the Red Square). It's almost like a proper broadcasting except that the camera is a phone and not a camcorder. It's a regular cameraman who holds it steadier than a consumer, proper microphone connected to smartphone's sound input via an XLR adapter (iRig or SmartRig). Not that we really needed filters like that then, but surely there are situations when they can come in handy. Since smartphones have quite poor dynamic range, I surely can imagine occasions when exactly this filter configuration can come in handy.
Interesting, very interesting, and excellent point actually: it's not just marketing the rich tourist, but also the pro pros to show they do not neeeed a real camcoder to capture THE moment. Right, I missed that :) And yet, any video or post-processing app can do that ("filtering"), and given the hardware specs I bet nobody will ever see the difference, even less so "live".
@Kerity sometimes it's our perfectionism rather than a demand that moves the things. I can't provide hard proof of the source of the following quote, as I didn't yet manage find the magazine the man who repeatedly told it through the years, and that man died several years ago, but its style confirms its credibility. In 1908, reviewing the Autochrome (then a very new thing) exhibition held in Riga, then the capital of Lifland governorship of the Russian Empire in an article, allegedly from The Notes of the Russian Photographic Society Journal, its original author stated: “Photographic equipment now reached a degree of perfection so high that it seemingly is not worthwhile to even dream of anything better”. These were the words of a very dedicated photographer, albeit not of a bread-and-butter kind. Also, I don't think that many apps or even servers-side applications can already cope with poor h/w specs in real time, simultaneously feeding a live stream online from the very same device.
Respect! you seem very literate about photography and I respect that very much.
However, that doesn't change the point (about that ifilter). If I instead use the a7r2+rx0 I love to shot with, there are the specs, and the love of it (or trust in it), or just the rx0 for stealth (way more ninja than a "smart" phone, actually). Plus, less of the embarrasment of the magnetic filter gadget attachement failing and the filter, well, shatered.
@Kerity I don't see any magnets in this specific mount. What I see is a clip-on, screw-on, slide-in system which design was snatched from Lee and Cokin. Maybe I'm not attentive enough and miss something.
Laughable. The consumers that use smartphones as their only camera don't even know what a filter is. The consumers who do know what a filter is, have "real" cameras on which to put filters and use the cell phone camera only for snap shots. Who is going to buy this? Nobody.
I put the word real in quotes but only to distinguish them from interchangeable lens cameras. Smartphones are capable of taking great pictures. They are getting better all the time and they are wiping compact point-and-shoot cameras off the map. My comment was not meant to knock smartphones. What I was trying to say is that smartphones are used differently than interchangeable lens cameras and by people who generally don't care about filters. I don't think this is much of a business opportunity for NISI or anyone else in making filters for smartphone cameras.
Well, you just combine a regular Chinese carbon tripod with a Chinese smartphone gimbal (reminding that 3-axis gimbals based on brushless motors are Chinese thing through and through) — bingo, you have it! The only dent in your suggestion is that “gimbal on a tripod” sounds mutually exclusive except for the cases you film or photograph on shaky bridges.
Landscape photographers your overuse of graduated coloured/neutral density filters (and really slow shutter speeds for water) is now available to 4 billion people. Soon in camera focus stacking will common place in mobile phones. The game is over. It won't be long before Ai will be able to tell the newbie where to stand and point the camera, the settings etc better than a pro. Only laziness of most people will prevent some photos, so they will use Ai drones to get them assuming it isn't already on the internet.
That IS for real, just saw on eBay. They actually manufacture a Cokin/Lee rip-off filter system for regular cameras. That “Chinese Cokin” appeared in 2007, and I know the story from Cokin themselves. I worked at a small photography store 10 years ago for additional income and there was a shortage of very popular Cokin graduated filters. I phoned Cokin HQ in France then and they told me the following: European Commission banned the use of lead-based pigment for their graduated filters, and, while frantically developing the workaround with non-lead pigments that would be as good, they sold their production line and technology to another Chinese manufacturer, TianYa (Shaoxing Shangyu Tianya Photographic Equipment Factory). And if someone produces something in China, be it Chinese manufacturer or a foreign one, it doesn't take long for someone else to start doing the same. And I won't say it's bad because while some companies just stamp clones, others invest into R&D heavily and innovate.
Buy a smartphone, get " free accessories valued at US$ 100 ", so that next time when you buy a new cellphone, check to see if this stuff packed in the box.
Yes. I'll be one of them. If you scroll and find one of my other comments here, you'll see why. At least an imaging module in a smartphone will be a bit more useful for me. I'm one of the weirdos who shoot pictures and videos for their Instagram with gear much more capable than a phone and, while graduated ND filters aren't something I use anyhow often on regular cameras (it's, well, sort of easier to do an occasional landscape using HDR and Adobe Camera RAW gradients than to carry a box of filters and mess with them, not to mention that digital post-processing yields better results these days, unless a picture really requires for a polarizer), they can be very useful on some occasions with a smartphone camera.
Since smartphones first appeared, I have never yet seen anyone using any smartphone accessory other than a selfie stick. And the dumbasses who use those certainly don't know what a polariser is, or why a photographer might need an ND/grad.
Read again. I was referring to the selfie stick users as dumbasses. It's great if a phone gets somebody interested in opening their eyes and photographing the world.
Reactive - The selfie-stick phenomenon is certainly very odd and a little difficult to comprehend. I visited Iguazu Falls a couple of months ago and the entire 5Km walkway was packed solid with hundreds of people with pink selfie sticks, all grinning at themselves as they tried to include themselves in the view. It seems very narcissistic and self-centred, but there is a logical explanation:
Since the beginning of photography it's always been commonplace for couples or families to ask someone to take a photo of them at the places they visit on holiday etc. But few people would be brave enough to hand an expensive smartphone over to a stranger and ask them to take a photo. It's comparatively difficult to sell a stolen DSLR, but extremely easy for a thief to steal a smartphone and sell it quickly.
i wish people would stop having a go at camera phones the image quallity is great. In some ways they are better than digital SLRs cameras because the aperture is brighter than most of the lenses you can buy for them. Smaller sensers mean more depth of field which i prefer. I for one can't be bothered to lug big zoom lenses just to take a few photos of some wildlife
With a teeny tiny lens fronting a teeny tiny sensor on today's smartphones, positioning a graduated filter in the exact optimum spot is likely to be next to impossible. Perhaps the company will add a vernier dial control knob to raise and lower the filter by a microscopic distance for each knob rotation.
Of course, Sunday is April Fool's day. Are we starting just a wee bit early?
A comment to support comments about the troubles using relatively large filters on lenses with small front elements.
This filter kit is small but the filter size is large relative to the lens size...
I agree the graduation will occur over a linear distance on the filter too great to be very useful. I learned about this using 85mm (or whatever similar size) filters on small element lenses that have 49mm filter rings....
They can do just that, adjustment knobs... I'm really serious. Chinese are very attentive to various suggestions and I'm quite sure that there are people from NiSi reading all these comments here, maybe even right now as they are being mocked here. So, even if something seems really weird and not too obvious, Chinese may think “why the hell not?” and implement a seemingly weird feature, that a year later will seem a necessity. How weird can be, for example, a tripod that can be converted into a monopod and has a built-in umbrella? One guy who bought that contraption at a bargain price for the fun of it at an exhibition, told me that that umbrella protected his gear and styled hair of his models not once...
Also, today's smarphone sensors are not as tiny as you imagine, mostly it's 1/2.3", sometimes 1/1.7". May I remind you that the majority of consumer camcorders use 1/6", 1/5" or 1/4" sensors; many “lightweight professional” ones are based on 1/3" 3CCD or 3CMOS. What's tiny then?
@HB1969 But it is really a completely unnecessary gimmick. Digital sensors are not film, so you don't need to think of analog solutions for your analog problem. Plus, sensors are really massive today, much more than that is actually needed. Most footage tops at 1080 today, and that is enough for most everything. Heck, I sit beyond 5K screen, and good quality 1080 video is just as good as 4K one, later being a bit more detailed. This said, and in the light of ever increasing sensor sizes: "DUDE, JUST CROP". It is really that simple. Especially today, record a 4K, crop and supersample to 1080, and you get a stunning, close to pixelsharp video, with a phone. Putting all these extensions and accessories, so you could turn a _phone_ in a camera is just laughable. If you are willing to get by with so much stuff on the phone, just get a Blackmagic compact and be done with it. And don't tell me about price, blackmagic micro or pocket cameras are cheaper than iPhoneX.
No matter what, you still have that tiny sensor inside that flat box. I love photography, I love shooting digital, and has more recently shot film (which I enjoyed it too), it is always a great pleasure. On the other hand shooting with a cell phone (smart phone, or whatever you call it), I feel ZERO enjoyment, and quality is simply subpar. Physics and light cannot be reinvented.
The Nikon Z7 is slated as a mirrorless equivalent to the D850, but it can't subject track with the same reliability as its DSLR counterpart. AF performance is otherwise good, except in low light where hunting can lead to missed shots.
Nikon's Coolpix P1000 has moved the zoom needle from 'absurd' to 'ludicrous,' with an equivalent focal length of 24-3000mm. So far, it's a fun camera to shoot with – if a bit over the top.
The Canon EOS R is the first full frame mirrorless camera to use the new RF mount. We're well underway putting it through our range of standard tests – take a look at how it compares to the competition and our thoughts on using it so far.
The GFX 50R is a 50MP rangefinder-style mirrorless camera. It borrows heavily from the existing 50S model but in a smaller body and at a lower price. How does it differ?
The instant camera market is heating up, and with four formats and 15+ cameras to choose from, we felt it was high time to examine them all and pick our favorite.
Whether you're hitting the beach in the Northern Hemisphere or the ski slopes in the Southern, a rugged compact camera makes a great companion. In this buying guide we've taken a look at seven current models and chosen our favorites.
What's the best camera for a parent? The best cameras for shooting kids and family must have fast autofocus, good low-light image quality and great video. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for parents, 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.
What’s the best camera costing over $2000? The best high-end camera costing more than $2000 should have plenty of resolution, exceptional build quality, good 4K video capture and top-notch autofocus for advanced and professional users. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing over $2000 and recommended the best.
Google's Super Res Zoom technology uses pixel-shifting methods to achieve zoom results comparable to some optical solutions. Google has published an in-depth explanation on its AI blog.
Toy manufacturer Tomy has launched a no-battery-required smartphone printer that is remarkably like the one Holga has been promoting via a Kickstarter campaign but which is already available for $40/£39.
The Nikon Z7 is slated as a mirrorless equivalent to the D850, but it can't subject track with the same reliability as its DSLR counterpart. AF performance is otherwise good, except in low light where hunting can lead to missed shots.
After shaking up the Lightroom ecosystem with Lightroom CC last year, Adobe has released version 2.0 of the cloud-centric photo organizer and editor. We look at new features like People View, how far Lightroom CC has come in its first year, and where Lightroom is headed.
The weather and has most definitely taken a turn toward fall here, and our shooting opportunities have followed suit. We brought the Canon RF 35mm F1.8 along to a harvest festival of sorts and a few of our usual haunts.
Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf has signed House Bill 1346 into effect, which imposes a fine upwards of $300 to drone operators who invade the privacy or harm the physical wellbeing of citizens.
Sigma is a company in flux, but CEO Kazuto Yamaki is undaunted by the upcoming prospect of developing lenses for eight lens mounts. The challenge will be keeping the company's identity along the way.
If you've been meaning to convert all of your old photos, video, and audio to digital formats, but simply lack the time or willpower to get through it all, a new service from Kodak will help you get the job done.
Almost all new cameras include impressive video features, but for the best results you'll often need an off-camera recorder. Chris and Jordan take a look at the brand new Ninja V from Atomos, and explain why it might just be one of the most useful tools you can add to your camera.
Sick of using your plain ol' keyboard to edit your photos in Lightroom and Photoshop? TourBox is hoping to expedite your post-production workflow using a clever combination of dials, buttons, and knobs.
We sat down with the Google Pixel camera team to learn about key new camera features on the Pixel 3 and Pixel 3 XL, and an explanation of the sophisticated software advancements that power them.
Nikon's Coolpix P1000 has moved the zoom needle from 'absurd' to 'ludicrous,' with an equivalent focal length of 24-3000mm. So far, it's a fun camera to shoot with – if a bit over the top.
The FAA has issued a warning to drone pilots in anticipation of disaster response following Hurricane Michael, noting that fines for interfering with emergency operations can exceed $20,000.
Comments