Hacker News Reader

Comment by jly | Hacker News Reader

Great article...lots of comments here about how you shouldn't keep that much data. I agree with that for hobbyists, but this is pretty relevant for professionals where the option to cull doesn't extend that far and there are business reasons for retaining terabytes of photos for an extended period. Additionally, next-gen cameras with 40-50MP RAWs are right around the corner.

I use a similar combination of home-built network storage (no RAID - just manual multiple backups) and glacier for offsite redundancy. Dealing with images as a business, I typically only work on a couple shoots at a time so syncing across devices is not a big concern, but long-term archiving and redundancy is.

View on HN

I don't know, whenever I finish a shoot the first thing I do is go home and delete as many of the photos as I can. The ratio of "great photos"/"photos" is so ridiculously small (like < 1%) that you're realistically never going to use most of the photos you shoot anywhere.

Exatly. I'd like to know what percentage of photos ever taken and stored never get a second look.

> Additionally, next-gen cameras with 40-50MP RAWs are right around the corner.

The future is here! Canon's 50.6 MP 5DS is shipping now.

I just preordered the Sony A7r II: "only" 42MP but DxoMark ranks the sensor higher than the Canon.

These are not even counting scanning negatives (can be massive) or digital backs for medium format cameras. Hasseblad had a 60+MP back 10 years ago just because the sensor was larger.

That looks like a monster of a camera, can't wait to see what you do with it.

same here :) I'm sure I will write about it in a future post or photoset.

I wish Sony would have a better native lens selection and then I'd probably be all over that.

I'm super impressed with the Fuji lineup lately (and size) - i.e. XT-1 (clarification: I own one), though at APS-C I'd still like a greater megapixel count. Faster lenses and portability do seem to be sufficiently make up for the sensor size in my book though; but if Sony was putting out some drool-worthy fast primes it would be tempting.

Yup, lenses are where you should invest your money. Lots of people go for the fanciest camera when the correct ordering is:

Available Light / Flash > Lenses >>> Camera

Also lenses hold(or appreciate in the case of the EF 300 2.8 and 400 2.8) while you can pick up last-gens camera body for a hugely discounted price.

A good fast prime will take pretty pictures in most light so I'll take good glass over a flash any day of the week.

Totally agree about available light being the most important thing, though. I think it even trumps having a good subject in many cases.

in all honesty, correct me if I'm wrong, Canon doesn't produce state-of-the-art sensors, does it. in fact, at least according to very same dxomark, Sony does... and since Sony glasses suck/there are too few & good ones are overpriced, to me it seemed logical to go Nikon way (which use Sony sensors, namely D750 in my case).

Now Canon with proper sensors, that would be a killer combination, wouldn't it

Reply on news.ycombinator.com