[tclausen]

Yes, I thought you might say that, but no, not really. The internet is a network of computers, but that is all. A cloud is a network of computers but it is a) distinct from other networks, and b) the network's purpose is to sell services and provide storage as a distinct entity. Apple, Adobe, Amazon, Flickr and co do offer that and each one is distinct from the other. Those are clouds, properly speaking. I agree that used rather vaguely, cloud could mean anything, or nothing.

Well, that's still what we call "the Internet"....a fabric for making "computers available", for whatever purpose: playing mud or Xpilot, chatting over IRC, storing files on NFS/CODA/Andrew servers, running applications remotely via Xwindows. We did all that in the 80'es and 90'es.....

That Amazon/Apple/Adobe/Flicker and co have found other things to run on the servers that are connected to the Internet, than the examples above, doesn't change anything whatsoever. It's still just severs-on-the-internetCalling it a "cloud" is simply pure marketing - it's all just "the Internet" and computers thereon.

Case in point: Apple's iCloud. Apple has had an "on line storage, mail and file/data synchronization" since what, 2000 or so, in different versions. The same services were first called iTools, then .Mac, then MobileMe, then iCloud...simply renamed to fit the marketing-fashion-of-the-day.....

Of course, in the 90es, you could get VC funding by saying you wanted to do "<insert-known-concept-here> on the Internet". When the VCs got wise to that scam, the next fad that VCs mindlessly are dooling funding out for is doing "<insert-known-concept-here-that-already-failed-in-the-90es-when-we-said-we-wanted-to-do-it-in-the-Internet> in the CLOUD"....

But, now we're probably so far off-topic (and I'm so far out in a rant) that it's going to be required to change topic and post a picture (which actually contains a cloud ) as penance:

[mecrox]

Well, that's still what we call "the Internet".... [snip]

But, now we're probably so far off-topic (and I'm so far out in a rant) that it's going to be required to change topic and post a picture (which actually contains a cloud ) as penance:

Lol, fine, let's agree to differ.


oxford-5-101112

[monochrome]

The "cloud" is essentially a series of server farms on which is allocated a slice of file storage for each subscriber. Using the connectivity of the internet a subscriber may access stored files from any connected device anywhere that device is connected to the internet.

So the "cloud" is essentially a U-Stor-It 10x10 locker to which you may deliver and from which you may draw your digital stuff at will - for a fee - over existing highways. Nothing earth shattering.

I have a friend who moved all his music files to a cloud account and plays them on several different devices, including using his tablet to select songs to play through his home entertainment system (and on which he controls which room they play in and at what volume). Same things for his Netflix movies and digitized media formerly stored on hard drives. Admittedly it is pretty cool to play this stuff at a cabin in the woods on a portable player. But . . . .

He was so self-impressed. It took longer to get things going than it would have taken to just shove in a CD in the old days.

[kenafein]

Hmm, both agree and disagree. Social media is a fad, surely, at least that's how I see it.

"Cloud" (*1) based editing...it t may work - but shipping RAW files over WiFi en masse is a somewhat time-consuming affair.....shipping RAW files across the Internet to a storage and/or RAW "cloud" (*1) processing service takes serious dedication.

Example: I spent some time in Japan, took about 8GB of photos in a day, in RAW. Back at the hotel, I WiFi'ed them over to my iPad and my wireless HD, that took about the same time as dinner, but that was OK as such. Transferring from the wireless HD through the hotel Internet to my storage server took all through the night, until well after breakfast. This was without expecting any "processing" or "editing", just upload for backup & access.

(*1) - "Cloud"....pet-peeve of mine...I do not know what the heck that is, but the best I can figure, it's a marketing term with absolutely no semantic content, roughly isomorphic with what we called "a server, accessible over the internet" back in my youth when the dinosaurs still roamed the planet - but victim to a bunch of marketing abuse.

Bandwidth needs to catch up, but companies in the US aren't interested. They want to sell us the same slow service, for higher and higher prices. At some point cloud computing will make a lot of sense. It will work now, with remotely generated content.

[tclausen]

Bandwidth needs to catch up, but companies in the US .....

You guys really are just going for pushing my buttons tonight in this thread, are you?

Ok, I'll play: how many MHz is your ADSL connection at home?


Oh boy, am I going to run out of cloud pictures in this thread....here're celestial creatures in painted clouds as penance for this posting:

[DaveBlack]

I'm sure they are now. But they already saw a huge drop in the P&S market to smartphones, mostly Apple and Samsung with HTC and Nokia bringing up the rear.

Nikon thinks it's an after-market sale rather than a core necessity.

None of them with the 2013 releases play nice with mobile OS's, yet the camera is mobile!

Eye-fi is a slow kludge. It's days are numbered.



And Apple is right.

Forget RAW. Shoot RAW + JPEG and do the JPEG on the tablet. Save RAW for higher-end workflow. Big file sizes and RAW do not play nice with tablet batteries or storage. That's not really going to change for awhile.

That said both Apple and Adobe are apparently working on iOS Aperture and LR. How much RAW processing will be done is an issue. But the blunt reality is...most consumers of DSLR's probably shoot JPEG anyway. I shoot both and use JPEG very frequently for quick snapshot shares. That's a good thing. RAW can be a time hog. RAW + JPEG exists to make it easier, so let's capitalize on that.

The real block is a lack of Wi-Fi built into the camera, and no apps to manage the connection. At WWDC we saw remote control toy cars racing via iOS (totally cool), but my camera cannot talk to my iOS devices. And then we see sales data showing massive uptake in mobile OS and a slow growth dedicated camera market. Hmmmm......

Panasonic since the GH3 release last year has all there new cameras having WIFI. So they got it. Olympus is camping out with the E-P5 with WIFI so it looks like they are going to get it.

[IchabodCrane]

Case in point: Apple's iCloud. Apple has had an "on line storage, mail and file/data synchronization" since what, 2000 or so, in different versions. The same services were first called iTools, then .Mac, then MobileMe, then iCloud...simply renamed to fit the marketing-fashion-of-the-day.....

The concept of storing info on remote servers is hardly new as you note. What is new is only storing on a remote server coupled with the increasing transparency and accessibility regardless of whether the data is hosted on your device or elsewhere.

[kenafein]

Samsung does with the Galaxy NX, to be announced the day after tomorrow: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/non-pentax-cameras-canon-nikon-etc/228041...ss-camera.html

Why would they have released the NX300 without this?

[Uluru]

Samsung does with the Galaxy NX, to be announced the day after tomorrow: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/non-pentax-cameras-canon-nikon-etc/228041...ss-camera.html

To me it looks like not a mirrorless, but a brainless Samsung camera.

It's same as handling the tablet with a big heavy lens screwed on, so instead of having best of both the tablet and a DSLR, you get a mutant offspring that has worst of both.

Samsung simply doesn't "get it" what it means to be groundbreaking or innovative — they can either copy others and then increase the size and number of copies, or glue two extremes together and hope it will stick together. And that's about it.

[mamethot]

there's a signal strength meter on the display, suggesting it'll feature cellular radios of some sort...

[Aristophanes]

Q: We're seeing camera apps and Wi-Fi becoming more common in cameras now. Nikon and Samsung are making Android-powered cameras. Will any camera that's not 'connected' be obsolete?

A: At this stage I don't believe that's the case at all. A lot of people are using our E-mount and A-mount products to produce pictures that hang on the wall or are displayed in galleries. We're not at the stage where consumers are going to invest in this level of technology and use it solely for uploading to social media.

Bwaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

We long ago passed that stage. Go to a Leica forum and watch the non-print, pixel-peeing matches.

People are NOT buying DSLR's to print. Let's be clear on that point. And the whole part about "galleries" from a Sony product is pure marketing puffery.

I coach soccer for little kids and my son is on the team. There are more than a few DSLR's always making an appearance and I guarantee you no one there is framing for 8x10's of Jr. tying shoelaces in the middle of the field to hang on the walls in a gallery. The big box stores loaded with pyramids of budget DSLR's are not catering to the post-darkroom, new Lightroom 5 crowd. They are Moms and Dads just looking to get some non-P&S quality with fast AF.

All that said, for printing I highly recommend an archive of photobooks. Self-edited photobooks are the greatest analogue advance in photography since matrix metering.

But that's not what Mr. Sony-bleeds-red-ink-and-is-behind-even-Pentax-in-sales was trying to get across, was he?

e. The other day, i looked up the weight of the DA 50-135 lens f2.8 (765gms, 1 1/2 lbs) compared to the Nikon 70-200 VRII lens f2.8 (1540gms, 3.4 lbs). The body weights are not that different: 765gms for the K5II and 850 gms for the D600. I'm sure FF cameras are a delight to shoot with and process, but I don't really want to lug one around. If Pentax develops one or not, makes no difference to me at this point. The K5ii i'll probably end up with though.

More and more FF = tripod.

[Aristophanes]

Wusses. There's clouds and there's clouds:

[ElJamoquio]

e. The other day, i looked up the weight of the DA 50-135 lens f2.8 (765gms, 1 1/2 lbs) compared to the Nikon 70-200 VRII lens f2.8 (1540gms, 3.4 lbs).

Sigma 18-35 F/1.8 (28-53mm F/2.8 equivalent): 810 grams
Sigma 24-70 F/2.8 (16% wider, 31% longer, ~50% better resolution): 790 grams

Pentax 50-135 f/2.8 (76-205 F/4.5 equivalent): 765 grams
Nikon 70-200 F/4 (slightly faster): 850 grams

Pentax K-5: 750 grams
Nikon D7100: 770 grams
Nikon D600: 850 grams


I dunno, given the higher capability of the D-600 I'd consider it 'lighter' for a given performance. Sure, the combo is 200 grams heavier, though, than the Pentax + 50-135.

[philbaum]

Sigma 18-35 F/1.8 (28-53mm F/2.8 equivalent): 810 grams
Sigma 24-70 F/2.8 (16% wider, 31% longer, ~50% better resolution): 790 grams

Pentax 50-135 f/2.8 (76-205 F/4.5 equivalent): 765 grams
Nikon 70-200 F/4 (slightly faster): 850 grams

Pentax K-5: 750 grams
Nikon D7100: 770 grams
Nikon D600: 850 grams


I dunno, given the higher capability of the D-600 I'd consider it 'lighter' for a given performance. Sure, the combo is 200 grams heavier, though, than the Pentax + 50-135.

Thanks for the explanation - its a closer comparison than i thought. It'll be interesting to see how the market plays it out in the next few years.

[Uluru]

Pentax K-5: 750 grams
Nikon D7100: 770 grams
Nikon D600: 850 grams

Hope you understand that neither D7100 nor D600 have a SR mechanism, and that are not made fully of magnesium alloy?
Apart from the FF sensor, the D600 represents no such value as the K-5. Or, K-5 is much more rounded experience of a camera.
Buy yes, it's FF or nothing attitude here, I get that ...