GoPro Hero 7
shop.gopro.com
shop.gopro.com
I do not think that it is influenced a bit by one's score on scales of pedantry, internet-familiarity, or nerd-ism.
It's more like people want to get to the information the web designer is presenting, and the designer is sticking all these obstacles in the way. Many people will simply say "Nevermind" at the obstacles.
Yet there will be a few who persist and give their info for whatever reason. Since there are very large numbers, the marketing people who insisted in putting up the obstacles will cheer "look how much customer data we got!". What they won't notice (if they even kept the data), is how many people they lost by simply clicking away. Marketing people seem to have an endless capacity to mistake forcing behaviors that annoy their subjects for creating 'engagement'. And CEOs mistake these CMOs as doing a good job.
(edit) Put differently: I think they really hit the nail on the head from a branding and association ("I also want to") perspective. There's definitely a market gap to wrestle about here.
I'm convinced their promo videos are shot by teams carrying tons of batteries. If you are actually adventuring / backpacking for a few days etc, a go-pro is no go unless you want to be worrying about battery life the entire time.
This usually lasts all day of regular use.
I now have 3 batteries and never have to worry about battery life.
Did you see the video on the page with the girl skateboarding? And holding the camera outstretched from her arm? It's really hard holding something heavy that far from your body while also doing things that require balance.
Bring a battery pack that you can stick in your back pack. But keep the camera lightweight!
https://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/electronics/7161074011...
I've got #26 now (YI 4K action cam). It's considerably cheaper than the GoPro at $149. It's not bad for casual use, but the fact that the gopro is waterproof by default and it has better image stabilization among other features, I'm going to trade it in ($100 credit) for the new Hero 7. But, if you're looking for something cheaper, the YI is fine or maybe the Hero White if you want waterproofing instead of 4K.
I'll add that based on their last earnings call it sounded like they learned a lot from xmas 2017. Now they're introducing new models every year and at lower price points. Competition is one reason. Also, saturation is probably why we see that $100 trade-in credit for any old digital camera. There is a slight premium to pay, but in a lot of cases I think it's worth it for waterproofing, build quality, software stability, etc.
Their stock has really tumbled but I think they've figured out the formula now and the stock will probably turn around in 2019 after the xmas sales numbers are in.
EIS solutions don't hold up quite as well in lower light, where OIS absolutely shines. Video, just like photos, has individual frames that have exposure times, and in lower light the longer exposure time == garbage source frames that no amount of EIS can fix. But expect a tonne of extremely well lit examples pretending that it's a cure all.
The best solutions marry EIS and OIS. That's exactly what the iPhone does.
The additional moving parts of OIS systems make them less suitable for ruggedized cameras.
In low light that 30 FPS camera will increase the exposure time to up to 1/30th of a second. In a bouncing, rapidly changing camera this yields a smear of a photo. OIS combats this by limiting capture motion during most movements.
There is absolutely an enormous difference between the two, and it yields the classic garbage in = garbage out problem.
EIS can only do it if you take multiple photos at a much higher frame rate (I think the Pixel 2 does this but it is very uncommon, and probably too power intensive to do for 4K video).
OIS systems move a subgroup of lens elements to compensate for movement of the camera. The degree of that movement is very limited. The main purpose of OIS is to approximate a stationary camera platform from a near-stationary one. Many OIS systems get turned off for panning - while more sophisticated ones support being turned off in the panning axis - specifically because they don't handle movement outside of a very limited range. For applications where the camera is intended to be in-motion the appropriate mechanical solution is using a gimbal, not OIS.
The main purpose of gimbals or EIS is not to produce sharper individual frames but to reduce jarring across a sequence of frames by smoothing the camera movement - gimbals do it physically while EIS simulates it after the fact by using a subset of the total sensor area.
At 30fps the longest possible per-frame exposure is 1/30s. An action camera-wearing athlete moving at a leisurely 20mph will travel about a foot in 1/30s - and that's just movement in one axis. OIS is not going to help with per-frame motion blur when the camera moves that much or more during the exposure.
A camera rotating or tilting just a few degrees has magnitudes more of an impact than the fastest possible athlete. And yes, of course OIS "turns off" during panning (and the resulting image blur is not only consequent, it is expected and natural), as it would counteract the effect. Just to be clear, I spent two years building a commercial image stabilization solution -- I'm pretty educated on what I'm talking about.
The value of OIS + EIS is that with OIS the vast majority of frames have the stablest possible capture, while EIS can effectively fix what OIS misguessed (e.g. the beginning of a pan that OIS tries to counteract). This is exactly what the iPhone does.
> I'm pretty educated on what I'm talking about.
Then you should know that tilting is rotation. Unless by rotation you mean specifically around the optical axis to differentiate from pitch and yaw... in which case you should know that such rotation is uncorrectable by optical systems - though it is correctable by sensor-shift systems.
I think the point you're trying to make with "a few degrees has magnitudes more of an impact" is that rotation has more impact than shift. I agree that the rotation caused by moving the lens a few millimeters has more impact than shifting the camera a few millimeters for sufficiently distant subjects. This is why early IS systems were focused on mitigating pitch and yaw as opposed to shifts: moving lens groups to counter millimeters of rotation is within the physical capabilities of a system that can fit within a lens and it gives a lot of bang for the buck in a narrow sweet spot. Rotational movement is most prevalent in hand-held cameras while operating the camera - for example pressing the shutter button - and less so when it's just being held. This is why there was a standard trick in still photography of using bursts of continuous shooting to get clearer captures: the first frame is impacted by sudden pitch but subsequent ones are much less so. OIS does an excellent job of addressing that first frame blur.
Due to inertia, when a camera is attached to a larger object in motion (athlete, surfboard, vehicle, etc.) random rotational movement is much less pronounced while continuous shifting is. Correcting sustained directional movement - be it rotational or shift - is not something OIS systems are designed to handle. They are meant to correct random movement around a mean, essentially they provide an instant mechanical "reversion to the mean" of sorts. Correcting tens of centimeters of shift is well outside their capabilities and shifting a camera tens of centimeters during exposure will absolutely result in noticeable blur. It doesn't remotely require "the fastest possible athlete" to achieve that level of shift during a 1/30s exposure.
The point is not that EIS is better than OIS - the systems serve different purposes. The point is that OIS doesn't bring as much value to action camera use cases and it comes with the significant downside of reduced durability.
The point is not that EIS is better than OIS - the systems serve different purposes
They serve remarkably similar purposes and can be complimentary. It's actually interesting because your claims sound like what Google said with the Pixel (1) and its completely substandard EIS-based solution. With the pixel 2 they added OIS and complement it with EIS. Everyone eventually gets to OIS + EIS. But while they're trying to be cheap we hear the spiel about why they just don't need OIS.
Because EIS alone is substandard unless you have a fantastically fast sensor or perfect lighting. Which is why EIS samples are always on the brightest possible days. It isn't by accident.
It's obvious that OIS + EIS > EIS. However it's not that case that OIS > EIS for all applications. One could argue that given just OIS one could apply EIS in post, but that's just a different implementation of OIS + EIS.
As far as I know, the GoPro is fixed-focus - there's no moving parts in its optical system. Adding mechanical stabilization whether optical or sensor-based would reduce the durability of a system of which one of the main criteria is being able to withstand repeated impacts. Maybe it's possible to build a sufficiently ruggedized OIS solution, but it's not clear whether the expense or size/weight of that would make it viable for action cameras.
Some time in the last decade something changed, and now everyone seems to be recording everything, including themselves, all the time. Recording themselves shopping, recording themselves eating, recording every little event they go to, every little mundane aspect of their lives, dashboard cams, helmet cams, home "security" cameras that aren't really providing any security, just recording everything. Last time we got to go on a vacation, I don't even think my wife looked at anything we visited without having a screen and a camera in between.
What's with this compulsion to get pictures of everything? Do people actually go back and look at all these pictures and videos of themselves?
1. Access: we have our cell phones with us all the time. That wasn't true about cameras in the past.
2. Quality: early camera phones took lousy pictures so they were never going to be as useful as a real camera. Now that the quality is as good as the point and shoot digital cameras we used to use, phone cameras are a no-brainer replacement.
3. Social Connection: although we are less "connected" to friends and family now, people want to feel more connected and that's easy with photo sharing and social media platforms. So they document everything so they can share, or humblebrag, or whatever they're going to do on these platforms to feel some kind of human interaction; however shallow and trite that may actually be... the feeling is real.
4. Memory: I think we're becoming reliant on our phones and computers to augment our memory. When I was a kid, I knew everybody's phone number. Now, I don't remember anything that I can look up. I did not decide to do that, that's just what has happened. So, there is some legit need to photo/video things that are important, that we do want to make sure we "remember".
5. Cost: the cost of cameras and memory is much cheaper than it was even when camera phones started to become a thing.
This is more of an outlier, but the other thing is kids. Now that it's effectively free to take nearly unlimited photos and videos, I take a lot of my kids. I wish I had more photos and videos of my childhood. The funny thing is, my kids are still very young and even they love the photos and videos of themselves when they were even younger since they cannot remember those days at all.
So, we'll all have those fun memories from when they were learning to walk, talk, read, ride a bike, use alexa, etc. My daughter just scored her first goal in soccer last week and I must have watched that 10 second video over 100 times now. Admittedly, the photos and videos of my kids are close to the only ones that actually do get viewed later, and I share these with family and they legitimately get excited when they receive them since they live far away.
But I agree, we also need to be in the moment more.
Yes. To counter this, let me ask you: what's with people who don't enjoy the hobby of photographing and recording things always making the absurd assumption that those who do illogically never have a later use for such media? Why do you try to frame people with different interests as literally insane?
Outside of a controlled studio, it may take hundreds of photographs to get one really good one. With video, you never know when something interesting will happen (e.g. dash, helmet, and security cameras), so the more continuous the recording, the better.
Incidentally, as someone who likes photographing things, I consistently remember events and recall details of places visited better than my camera-eschewing friends. The camera is a tool that increases my engagement.
I know people that have bought 5+ GoPro Sessions because it is now being removed from the market, but it has opened up for competitors to copy the formfactor, but nothing comes near in my experience.
I hope we get good protective TPU mounts for the Hero 7, but I have my doubts about flying around with a touchscreen, it is bound to crash and break :(
The camera can't be used while charging and the battery will die in a matter of days (even with WiFi disabled) so there's no impromptu or spontaneous usage. You have to know in advance that you'll need it and charge it up ahead of time.
The camera frequently overheats and then locks up trying to shut itself down.
The camera is suppose to start recording with a button press and stop recording with another press of the same button. It usually starts recording fine but more often than not when you press the button again to stop the camera will just lockup. If you don't hold the button for 10 seconds to force a hard reset the battery will drain in a matter of minutes.
It's been a really poor user experience considering how nice the hardware itself is and how much they market it as a premium product.
I have only used mine in Denmark and the UK, so that is quite cold conditions so that might be one reason why I haven't experienced any overheating issues.
I do seem to remember disabling bluetooth+wifi to save battery, but I do not need to charge ahead of time.
Maybe you got a bad camera, and maybe that is why it wasn't profitable to continue.
EDIT: By my eyes it looks like they improved the stabilization algorithm and added live streaming? Still though, pretty light release. I was hoping for a 960fps HD mode like the Note 9.
It seems to be a very shiny SKU with some serious firmware issues.
Edit: not m, but ft. The question remains.
(I'm very skeptical of the waterproof claim. Words mean things and I am sure they really mean water resistant.)
With the case on my Hero4, I wouldn't expect any problems leaving it in a pool for even months at a time. I haven't seen the Hero7 but if it survives an hour it'll probably survive a lot longer, unless something is particularly sensitive to chlorine.
I should note that the telemetry is important for our usage, GPS logs especially.
We have two Ultra 30s at work (used in humid areas, mostly at walking speed) and with GPS turned on (obligatory) and 1440p/30fps video we get 90-110mins of continuous footage before the battery is completely drained. Longer battery life would be nice and every now and then we get hiccups/glitches (looks like frames are skipped) with the setting above. Doesn't invalidate the footage in any way and it's rare, but still annoying. Could be a firmware bug, really. Audio is so-so, but that is to be expected (we haven't tried external microphones yet, since the setup needs to be as simple as possible).
Would a GoPro help with any of the above or is it a similar experience in terms of battery etc? If anything, the GoPro seems more rugged (for our needs, the Virb needs a case). What about video quality? Interface? (I did read DC Rainmaker's comparison[0] which was what made us choose the Virb, together with the fact that there's an SDK for FIT and at the time of purchase GoPro didn't have a Github repo[1])
GoPro's GPMF data is embedded within the video file, whereas Garmin's FIT[2] format is separate and is logged to whether one is recording or not as long as the camera is turned on. Both have their pros and cons, FIT seemingly being the more flexible format (it's basically a big timeline with events attached) but one also needs to identify what part of the data stream corresponds to which video session and it's not as "linear" to read as GPMF (?). In FIT every single logged coordinate is also timestamped (10Hz GPS), whereas it seems that you only get one timestamp/second for GPMF coordinates (18Hz GPS).
I wrote a little parser to extract and integrate the relevant telemetry data elsewhere and have started looking at doing the same for GPMF (I wanted to write it from scratch in a language I'm learning). Since I have no recent GoPro at hand it's been difficult finding raw samples for the GoPro, other than the GPFM GitHub repo - youtube won't suffice since I need the original video with the telemetry intact.
[0]: https://www.dcrainmaker.com/2017/03/best-action-cam-2017-gop...
[1]: https://github.com/gopro/gpmf-parser
[2]: SDK here https://www.thisisant.com
Now that smartphones are increasingly becoming water proof I can’t see this providing incremental value over a phone in a fancy case in the long run.
I use mine every day, it's getting on a bit now, but I still really like it.
There are now a ton of options other than GoPro, but GoPro was the one that got the product/market fit first and changed everything.
Because there's a market for cameras in a plastic box with a screw hole (and the ecosystem of screw accessories).
Just because you don't have a use for one doesn't mean people don't.
>Are there that many Richard Bransons our there? Now that smartphones are increasingly becoming water proof I can’t see this providing incremental value over a phone in a fancy case in the long run.
Yeah, like I'm going to tie my smartphone to my car, or use it to film my mountain bike ride or dive 30 meters with it duct-taped to my scuba mask...
The product here is essentially a point and shoot camera for people who want to take the picture but are engaged in an activity that doesn't make it easy to operate a camera, and further that activity might cause them to drop a camera and that would damage your typical model.
The original Hero took the notion that you could be out doing some sort of physical activity with your friends that you enjoyed, and if you could capture some action shots of the activity you could relive those fun times over and over again. It had a side effect of letting people who talked about doing amazing things bring a video to the conversation to add evidence they weren't exaggerating.
Its one thing to have a fish story of this huge fish that got away, it is something else entirely to have the helmet camera view of your efforts to land said fish and the heartbreak of the line snapping.
So there is value in capturing that experience and the Hero folks packaged up a point and shoot camera into a package with a set of features to make capturing that experience fairly friction free. People are willing to pay money to have that capability, and voila product.
They are not solving the same problems or serving the same markets.
I don't want to repeatedly smash my $1000 phone into the water while I'm wakeboarding. I'm perfectly happy to smash this sturdy little $200-400 thing as many times as it takes to get a good shot.