Thread replies: 86
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2
Nikon d500 or a Sony a6500?
Is mirrorless the future or should I go with the tried and true Nikon? I'm wanting to start making money from photography here soon.
Thanks guys.
>>
>>3013389
what are you shooting? unless you're shooting sports the d500 is a lousy idea
>>
>>3013390
What are you on about? The D500 is primarily a sports camera, yes, but it can do anything else too including events and portraiture.
It's like you never held a camera in your hands before.
>>
>>3013389
>I'm wanting to start making money from photography here soon.
Unless you're famous, there are basically 3 ways to make money from photography
1. Weddings and vanity photo shoots
2. Real estate
3. Being a staff photographer in some big company
D500 isn't optimal for any of these, and A6500 isn't particularly great either.
>>
Why not go full frame? You seem to have the money for it.
>>
>>3013389
The a6500 is a toy compared to the D500.
>>
>>3013389
Presuming you're new to photography, the a6500 is a much better tool to learn on, an evf lets you see your picture as you make changes, an ovf like on the d500 is just a fancy window that relies on your skill and knowledge to make the right exposure.
A6500 is a good second body for events, learn on it then when you're ready to make money after 2/3 years or 100k shot and edited photos get the latest a7 body as your main.
I presume you've also set aside about $3k for lenses?
>>
>>3013428
Holy shit, I understand newer technology is for our convenience, but are we REALLY suggesting learning photography on a 2016 DSLR is too hard???
>>
>>3013458
No one said "too hard" numbnuts.
But let's pretend that both dslr and mirrorless were invented today, do you go for option
1. that adjusts your image preview on the fly as you change settings, and has allowances for low light, and focusing accurately with manual lenses, your images always come out like the preview
OR
2. A window that shows your basic composition with your lens wide open, the window does not represent your current exposure or limitations of your medium, it is practically useless in low light, it doesn't give an accurate preview if your lens is too fast, if you want a dof preview at your set aperture expect things to look REALLY dark in your preview, if you want to check your pics exposure after you take it you have to pull your eye away and look at the rear screen which is likely to have light glaring off it, it also massively limits lens design and anything wider than 40mm will be oversized and underperforming.
I mean, i would ask you to give ONE inherent advantage to an ovf, and I'm sure you would say "muh lag", but sonys evf lag is measured at 23/1000 of a second, clearly not an issue.
I bet your one of those fags that insists manual gearboxes are the only way to drive a car, "it's more difficult, but traditional, so better" typical toxic masculinity.
>>
>>3013428
> better tool to learn on, an evf lets...
EVF bla bla bla, I'm tired of those mirrolessfags.
>>
>>3013389
You can't buy the future.
But I'd prefer the A6500. Extremely versatile camera.
> I'm wanting to start making money from photography here soon.
Maybe a good FF Sony or Nikon would make your life easier?
The A6500 is an amazing secondary or hobbyist camera, but it doesn't do low light well, and imperfect to low light is just kinda too common.
>>
>>3013389
>I'm wanting to start making money from photography
>2010+7
If you don't have connections don't even try.
>>
File: compare.jpg (71KB, 982x443px) Image search:
[Google]
71KB, 982x443px
one is a toy.
the other is a tool
>>
>>3013426
The D500 is pretty much as much of a toy as an A6500, regardless what the price tag and buff looks suggest.
They're overall very close in terms of what they can do.
>>
File: 1424073696140.jpg (40KB, 673x673px) Image search:
[Google]
40KB, 673x673px
>>3013462
>focusing extremely accurately with manual lenses
This is no more of an argument than "my sytsem is better because it has more lenses" when 50% of the lenses are overlaps.
>window does not represent current exposure or limitations of your medium
Yes it does, there's a fucking light meter in the same window which also shows your current settings.
>useless in low light
Define "useless" and for that matter define "low light". If there's available light, use it. If there's practically no light at all, your image is likely not going to turn out good unless you're trying to shoot astro or some shit.
>doesn't give an accurate preview
Wow it's really hard to get a fundamental understanding of aperture from reading a few lines about it, and then going out and seeing for yourself the way it affects how much is in focus, as well as what you can expect to be in focus for your given setting. You sure need a fucking camera to show you everything, don't you?
>expect things to look REALLY dark
If it's REALLY dark and you're shooting things that require stopped motion you're shooting wide open or close to it. And once again, estimating how your given aperture will affect the final image is not something so substantial it really needed a battery draining image preview to do it.
>the rear screen which is likely to have light glaring off it
Seriously? You spent your whole post bitching about low light but now all of the sudden there's an arbitrary light source directly behind you that's visible every time you try to look at the rear screen? This kind of straw grasping is how I know you're full of some bullshit m8
>massively limits lens design and anything wider than 40mm will be oversized and underperforming
Oversized by what standard? Underperforming...by what standard?
>manual gearboxes blah blah blah
Oh fuck me, it's another bullshit car analogy/strawman.
>toxic masculinity
You waited until the very end to signal this as a troll post? Good job.
>>
Get a D750 for the same price and stop fooling around. For a professional use you need durability, low light performance and dynamic range, and as much as it hurts me saying it a bigger sensor is the only way to achieve all that together.
After that, a couple second hand zoom lenses (mostly a 24-70 and a 70-200, both f2.8) and you're good to go on a budget of ~3000$€£.
Add 500 for a portable lighting set and a hotshoe flash+diffuser, and maybe 100 more for a couple spare batteries, high speed SD cards and a cheap wired shutter release.
With that and skills you can do anything, from real state to concerts, going through weddings and events.
Once you start making money buy as soon as you can a second body (d610, another d750 or even an old D700) and use one for each lens.
>>
>>3013498
>tool
both are apscrap
>>
>>3013412
the d500 costs as much as a full-frame camera. you'd be stupid to buy it instead, unless you already had glass (OP doesn't)
>>
>>3013389
If you are looking for a camera for professional use you might look into the kinds of cameras the overwhelming majority of professionals use.
Clue: It isn't Sony
>>
>>3013543
>glass
>trying hard to sound casual
Shut the fuck up...
>>
They're both good. The D500 is the better camera overall without a doubt. In every way except:
The A6500 shoots better video. It's smaller. Lets you tool around with old lenses and adapters, which is fun for some. It has an EVF. Minor shit you might like or not....
>>
>>3013510
>tools to assist manual focus are pointless
Because real artists are happy with missed focus? Faggot.
>graphs and numbers are as good a representation of an image as an exact preview of the image
Nice logic, try hard faggot
>pictures in the dark look bad unless they're astro
Have you ever left the house, faggot
>reading a couple of sentences about how aperture works is as useful as seeing an exact preview of your image
No it isn't, you cringelord faggot
>dof preview isn't flawed at all on a dslr
Personally i love trying to see if i've got hyperfocal set right at f11 on a dslr, reminds me of trying to look through the diy limo tint on my citroen saxo.
>light hitting the rear screen of my camera isn't something I've ever experienced
That answers the earlier question, no, you have not left your home. Faggot
>i don't understand lens design
Well do some reading you little cum guzzler, start by comparing the weight, speed, price and sharpness of the sony 28mm, then try and work out how sony managed to make the sharpest and fastest 28mm on the market at half the weight and size of any dslr 28mm.
If you're going to form a rebuttal, first i expect you to explain how a light meter is more useful than an exact image preview & light meter. Faggot.
>>3013854
>clue: the majority of professionals don't use a system that only got professional lenses in the last year
Holy shit homie, next you're gonna tell me there's more 2016 minis on the road than 2017 ones.Das wild
But a huge amount of pros HAVE invested in sony, at least in europe, talk to the guys at your local stores, sony is flying off the shelves for anything other than entry level kits, which is parents buying camera for their cuntspawn.
Op, go to a store, compare a camera with an evf to a dslr, get them to show you neat stuff like focus peaking and focus magnification, and make sure the evf is set to show image preview, I've not shown a friend my sony and have them not marvel at the evf.
>>
>>3013389
the nikon is a pro camera
the sony is not
>>
>>3014742
The sony is a pro body, the nikon is not.
The a6500 has better af-c performance than the new 1dx ii, the best sensor on the market, the fastest burst on the market, the best lenses on the market.
>>
>>3014567
forget casual, how about trying to sound coherent? whatever straw you were grasping for seems to have gotten lost in your seething rage at the realization that your sensor size of choice is long obsolete
>>
>>
>>3014746
>The a6500 has better af-c performance than the new 1dx ii, the best sensor on the market, the fastest burst on the market, the best lenses on the market.
This statement is either true or a lie.
Protip: It is not the truth, not even Sony claim such horseshit
>>
>>3014774
It also proves that Moopco is not a paid shill because Sony would be liable for false advertising.
Instead he's just a deranged fanboi with nothing better to do with his life.
>>
>>3014756
Heres your (You)
>>
>>3014774
Afc
https://www.youtube.com/shared?ci=cLxxQeQpJ7E
Sensor
So you think the current canon crop sensor beats it? Lol.
Fastest burst
11fps, nothing on crop or ff beats it
Best lenses
Just go to dxo and look at the list of top lenses bruh
>>3014777
Is this the extent of nikons rebuttal? Lol, nice one lad.
Protip, if the only way someone talks in an argument is by attacking the character of the other person, the other person is in the right and the aggressor is a salty little fag.
>>
>>3014788
pretty sure nx1 had 15fps years ago
>>
>>3014820
buffer filled after 70 jpegs, raw burst was a joke.
>>
>>3014827
well, there's also x-t2 with 14 fps
and lolympus with fucking 60
>>
>>3014738
>I've not shown a friend my sony and have them not marvel at the evf.
And for every person that marvels over a Sony, there's another one that sells it for a Nikon whateverthefuck lol. You are full-blown Sonygger/memerless right now.
>>
>>3014738
>muh exact preview
>muh I need the camera to show me everything because photography is so hard ;(((
God, you're so so sad
>>
>>3013389
Nikon, but go full frame.
At this point you should have an eye for exposure. You don't need an evf because it's a crutch for newbs with no advantages besides image preview.
Nikon has much better AF, weather sealing (Sony basically isn't, despite their claims), ergonomics and lens ecosystem.
>>
>>3013389
i think the low light performance of the D500
beats just about ant>>3013389
ything out there right this moment. becasue of the >>3013389
photocite size, the dynamic range and ISO performance is pretty much top notch. Tired of hearing the argument about DX vs FX sensor size. DX has become VERY close to FF performance. Im just a noob looking to buy. Have been researching for weeks. Im going to do animals / sports / auto so i think theres very little out there right that beats the D500. I have no glass from anyone so im nobodys fanboi.
>>
everyone that thinks that the sony stuff is the best of the best has been drinking too much jason lanier cum
>>
>>3014928
The D500 will have better autofocus, build quality and weather sealing than anything in their full frame lineup up to the D5.
>>
>>3015028
best i can tell, the D500 is a DX D5
>>
>>3015028
Build quality and weather sealing are on par with the d810. Af is better tho
>>
>>3015062
I own a D810 and I'll bet the build quality is better, based on my D300.
>>
>>3015062
trying to decide on USA version or international. i dont think there is any difference at all. other than shit nikon warranty. not unlike canons shit warranty. for 5 or 6 hundo savings, international im thinking. use the savings on glass as i have ZERO glass. dont want a shit kit lens either. im thinking a 70-200 2.8 and a 200-500 5.6 - maybe some tamron stuff
>>
>>3014747
The fuck are you talking about? I own D610 and D810.
Stop saying "glass". It's lame.
>>
>>3015068
im guilty of saying "glass" but at least im an ignorant noob.
>>
anyone have D500 experience with tilting screen ?
im in a place where i cant just go touch one.
what is your opinion of its usefullness ?
>>
>>3015028
horseshit. it's the next generation of the d750 body. when they update the d750/610 build quality will be the same.
>>3015068
>stop using words I don't like!
glass. glass glass glass.
the point, since you seem to be too thick to understand it, is that high quality dx glass costs as much new because it needs to be more precise for the smaller sensors, and the used market is much better for FX. so if you're investing in a new system and new glass you'd have to be a little nuts to drop $2k on a crop camera. even for wildlife there's no benefit unless you're buying a $2k+ tele lens to match.
>>
>>3015064
D300 was a mini D700, and from looking at the D500 it looks like a smaller D810 with a crop sensor, even if it's a D5 in spirit. Something tells me they wouldn't undercut their prosumer high res body like that, and even their press release said it had build quality on par with prosumer cameras in the FX lineup, but not better.
>>
>>3015099
almost the same as the d750's. it's cool but the ribbon cable behind it has a warning not to touch it so probably somewhat fragile. the mount system is very robust though, it's on this finely crafted articulating steel frame. there are screen protectors you can buy. Would be very useful for field macro work (with focus peaking...) or reach shots.
>>
>>3015113
closer to the d750
it uses the same hybrid construction, which is actually great since for most people's purposes that just means it's lighter
>>
>>3015112
The problem is that the only FX camera which really matches the D500 for AF speed and shutter frame rate are the D4s and D5. Both are much larger and cost as much as a decent used car. None of the current prosumer FX bodies are really designed to do what the D500 does, with the 610 being entry level with mediocre AF, the 750 having great ISO performance but not the better AF or frame rate, and the 810 being rather slow with massive files. The D500 is the best choice from Nikon for someone on a budget and just starting out, and there's a reason people waited so many years for it.
>>
>>3015112
from what i understand, you can use FX on a DX sensor without any problems at all.
>>
>>3015120
>no other FX camera at is point matches the frame rate
true
>the D500 is the best choice from Nikon for someone on a budget
lmao no
that's why I qualified "sports"
typical users do not need that kind of frame rate or buffer, and would be happy with the 6.5 fps and 25 images of the d750. anything full frame is a MUCH better all-around camera.
>>
>>3015115
im thinking it would be useful for astro photography.
>>
>>3015131
>from what I understand
you don't. check out dxomark. crop sensors magnify all of the problems in an FX lens and so you get significantly lower quality. lenses that are acceptable wide open on full frame become bad. lots of FX glass does OK, but if you could buy a full frame body for the same price (actually, $700 less, and that's NEW) what's the point?
>>
>>3015133
the lit buttons that they're introducing help with that too
>>
>>3015136
huh, thats not what most of the utubers photo channels say. but you may be right. im a picture taker not a photographer so im not sure it would have that big of an impact on what i do. i want to do race cars / wildlife and astro. no portraits or anything like that. the reason im so enthralled with the d500 is the frame rate and the tilt screen for astro stuff. i haad a 80D and sent it back to amazon. i just think canon is so far behind the times its not funny. i wish nikon had a full articulating screen like the canon stuff. from the vids i have watched, the d500 kicks the shit out of most everything in low light conditions.
>>
>>3015136
>crop sensors magnify all of the problems in an FX lens and so you get significantly lower quality
uh, that does not make sence to me. are you saying that a fantastic lens on a dx sensor is going to show something thats not there in an fx ? to me that means that the dx sensor has better dynamic range than the fx. am i wrong ?
>>
>>3015136
You got it backwards, fucktard. DX lenses use the sweet center spot of a lens, where it's sharpest and least likely to have problems. Quit spreading bad information and lurk more.
>>
>>3015147
pretty much confirms EXACTLY what i have figured out in my research.
i have heard more than one photog say those exact words
>>
>>
>>3015183
based on what? pixel pitch is the only thing that really determines "absolute resolution".
>>
>>3015189
and i believe that the d500 has about the smallest photocytes and best pixel pitch at this time.
and thats why you see bird photogs using a $30k lens on a d500 or d7100
>>
>>3015194
>i believe that the d500 has about the smallest photocytes and best pixel pitch at this time.
Not even remotely true. At 20.9 megapixels, it's middle of the pack as far as small pixel pitch is concerned.
>>
>>3013498
agreed. mirrorless is for piss-poor hobbyists
>>
>>3015143
nah the low light shit is just marketing bullshit. the d500 has the same sensor as the d7x00 and basically the same performance (i.e. a stop worse than full-frame). but if the frame rate matters for you, by all means go for it. (although wouldn't it be wise to consider canon if you were starting from scratch?)
>>
>>3014884
Xt2 does 8 fps, lolympus has a tiny sensor.
>>3014892
So your only rebuttal is to attack my character, well argued friend.
>>3015023
Dx vs fx is pretty relevant though buddy, dx sensors are cut from the same wafers as fx, as we know photography is about gathering light, what do you think gathers more light faster, a smaller or bigger sensor?
Then we have apparent sharpness, take 2 24mp sensors, one crop one ff, the ff one has photosites 137% larger, which means the lens on crop has to be able to resolve 137% more detail to be comparable in sharpness. Crop bodies are specialist tools that demand the very best lenses, and don't even think of going ultra wide on them.
>>3015146
That's right and you are wrong, dynamic range is how much of a range of light you can capture before blowing highlights/crushing blacks. Look at shots on medium format compared to 135 film, the mf is sharper due to the larger sensor (film).
>>3015147
It MAGNIFIES the centre spot, you are wrong, stop spreading misinformation.
>>3015189
Nah, it is extremely rare for a lens to outresolve any modern sensor, the lens is the limiting factor to resolution.
>>3015194
Yes, as i said, crop bodies are specialist tools for very rich people. Or junk cameras for povvo cunts.
>>
>>3015194
that pixel pitch noise from the fat man is complete pseudoscience horseshit by and for retards who can't into interpolation. with most lenses the d810 is optically equivalent at 16MP and upsampled images look similar.
the real advantage is the crop viewfinder and autofocus spread, it's much more difficult to compose the same shots in the d810
>>
>>3015442
Crop doesn't magnify shit my man. And, no. Most sensors do not outresolve most lenses. Maybe some extremely small pixel pitch m4/3 sensors, but in general there is plenty of room to grow. If anything is limiting resolution, it's Bayer interpolation and AA filters. That's why all of those pixel shift options can suddenly resolve twice as much detail out of the same old shitty kit lens.
Sorry bruh, you need to lurk more, and stop with the embarrassing DAMAGE CONTROL RESPOND TO EVERYONE IN THE THREAD posts.
>>
>>3015445
>crop doesn't magnify anything
if you print/display a crop photo at the same size as a full frame photo taken with the same lens the relevant area of the lens image will be larger in the crop photo. English speakers refer to this phenomenon as "magnification".
pixel shift improves color resolution, which is certainly below the limitations of lens resolution for bayer systems. but you won't notice it much.
no lens can be outresolved by a digital sensor, strictly speaking. but there is a point of diminishing returns, and for most nikon lenses, 16MP crop sensors are a reasonable place to stop.
>>
>>3015445
When you get problems like this it's easiest to think in extremes, if you had a 20mp sensor 1mm x 1mm with a matching tiny lens, how quickly would a scratch on the lens show up in an image?
Now imagine your 20mp sensor was the size of a billboard, with a matching huge lens, if we take that scratch and apply it to the giant lens, it's going to be completely irrelevant.
Think of that scratch like imperfections, the smaller the sensor, the more perfect the glass needs to be, no lens outresolve modern sensors, if you want better image quality, you need bigger lenses.
Or just look at some large format film photos, or even medium format, the sharpness still destroys any dslr.
>>
>>3015445
Oh and might want to lay off the cocky attitude when you're in the wrong, people are gonna start calling you isi.
>>
>>3015455
> Or just look at some large format film photos, or even medium format, the sharpness still destroys any dslr.
The high end FF cameras+lenses are basically performing equal to MF on primes.
This will probably only be the case until at some point some companies put all the latest tech and manufacturing into MF cameras with the same quality of sensors and glass, but right now, FF has enough of a technological advantage to be on par with film or digital MF.
>>
>>3015474
Lol, no.
I don't know how many times this needs to be said, the quality of the glass in lenses is the limiting factor to resolution.
Either make a new type of glass/lens or a larger sensor.
And the "pixel pitch" of decent film isn't only much smaller than the densest digi sensors, it's also not reliant on a bayer filter that further reduces sharpness.
>>
>>3015478
> the quality of the glass in lenses is the limiting factor to resolution
The high end of FF glass is currently better than MF glass.
> And the "pixel pitch" of decent film isn't only much smaller than the densest digi sensors
Film grain is larger, uneven and generally has more sensitivity issues.
Minimum guaranteed resolution per area is a lot worse even while the information captured in an area is less accurate at the same time.
>>
>>3015480
>high end of ff glass is better than mf
Yes, in many cases the glass may be better, but let's look at some figures. For this example we're gonna compare crop and ff digi, a much smaller difference than ff to mf.
Take 2 sensors, both 24mp, one fx one dx, the fx one has photosites 137% larger, that means for an equivalent sharpness the crop lens would need to be able to resolve more than twice as much detail.
If we look at the hblad 50mp mf and canons 50mp 5ds, the difference in pixel area is 16um2 against 36um2, and that's a tiny medium format sensor, a "normal" 6x9 neg is just under 4 times the size. Let's be kind, apsc to ff is a doubling in detail, then another doubling to small medium format and then a quadrupling to normal medium format.
You really think slightly better glass can account for a sensor that needs to be 800%+ better? Lel.
>film grain is larger
Your average film stock is between 1.5 and 6um, your average sensor is 3-4um, with a bayer filter that effectively triples that.
>uneven
That's a benefit
>>
>>3015491
>Yes, in many cases the glass may be better
This is usually already doing it, you can then pixel peep on both (digitally, after the best scan possible) and find out it's ~the same.
> Your average film stock is between 1.5 and 6um, your average sensor is 3-4um, with a bayer filter that effectively triples that.
And spaced randomly and then that 3um particle and the 6um particle happen to both record cyan. and the next 1.5um magenta particle is further away. Or such.
You may still have better resolution on film, but it's already fairly close.
Now, how do you get at that information theoretically contained in film in reality...? You can get all of the digital information the sensor pixels captured, with exactly that sensitivity, after all.
> That's a benefit
But you can't even align and scan that film properly at ~the respective resolution because the grain and its distribution is so uneven.
The theoretical oversampling to get information from most / every grain has to be ridiculous.
And optical methods also fail to retrieve *most* information, unless you kinda have the time and data storage to use a 1um or whatever resolution microscope to "scan" the whole thing at 2um or whatever steps, and even then you'd still be a bit challenged to not loose a bunch of information related to exact intensity of magenta recorded.
>>
>>3015491
>Take 2 sensors, both 24mp, one fx one dx, the fx one has photosites 137% larger, that means for an equivalent sharpness the crop lens would need to be able to resolve more than twice as much detail.
That's some real spurious math you got there my man. Which part of your ass are you pulling that out of again?
>>
>>3015444
you could be right but you have to admit that the fat guy knows his shit about lenses
>>
>>3013389
>>3013390
>>3013412
>>3013421
>>3013422
>>3013426
>>3013428
>>3013458
>>3013462
>>3013489
>>3013491
>>3013496
>>3013498
>>3013500
>>3013510
>>3013511
>>3013542
>>3013543
>>3013854
>>3014567
>>3014664
>>3014738
>>3014742
>>3014746
>>3014747
>>3014756
>>3014774
>>3014777
>>3014786
>>3014788
>>3014820
>>3014827
>>3014884
>>3014887
>>3014892
>>3014928
>>3015023
>>3015025
>>3015028
>>3015030
>>3015062
>>3015064
>>3015066
>>3015068
>>3015078
>>3015099
>>3015112
>>3015113
>>3015115
>>3015116
>>3015120
>>3015131
>>3015132
>>3015133
>>3015136
>>3015139
>>3015143
>>3015146
>>3015147
>>3015150
>>3015183
>>3015189
>>3015194
>>3015213
>>3015239
>>3015441
>>3015442
>>3015444
>>3015445
>>3015447
>>3015455
>>3015456
>>3015474
>>3015478
>>3015480
>>3015491
>>3015515
>>3015640
>>3016240
srsly fuck off
>>
>>3016253
Goddamn what a fucking asshole.
Libtard detected !
>>
>>3016253
did you enjoy your clicking orgy
>>
>>3016240
yeah he seems to know lenses, it's a shame he assumes this translates into a knowledge of optics or other physics
>>
>>3016240
I admit he knows shit.
Seriously, mans got issues
>"one guy managed to forcibly break a switch on his sigma lens, so every sigma will break even if you're careful"
>"one dude dropped his sony in the sea, it corroded and sony didn't fix under warranty, therefore every sony corrodes and they never honour warranties"
>"magnets affect optics"
>"1/3rd of a stop is 33% of total light"
>"your computer isn't for storing files"
>"you don't have a backup if your hard drives in a redundant raid array and one fails"
I'm 100% sure that I've never made it through one of his videos without bursting into laughter at his stupidity, certainly a serious case of dunning kruger.
Of you're curious about anything he's said, post the video and I'll tell you where he's objectively wrong and where he's using subjective opinions and anecdotal evidence as hard facts.
>>
Completely off topic...
>>3016680
I always cringe when photographers give shit advice about backup solutions.
This kinda made sense but missing crucial points.
If you ever plan to make money from photography:
> RAID is not backup, nor does it really have anything to do with backups, it's redundancy meant to reduce downtime for a HDD crash.
> backup in 3 places; this does not include your computer.
> 3 places should be in physically separate buildings. Ideally swap a NAS with a friend or family member.
> Don't rely on backup with any sort of sync mechanism. Accidental deletion is much more often a cause of data loss than HDD crashes. I've had people literally cry on the phone when they had a "flawless backup solution" which relied on 30 days of versioning. They discovered an accidental deletion after 2 months.
I backup from PC to nas, from PC to 2nd NAS at my parent's place and from my primary NAS to Amazon Glacier. If I ever have to restore from Glacier I'll be sure to pay out of the ass, but at least it's there.
>>
>>3016680
since im a newb searching for the truth and wisdom, im watching the fat guy / the couple with the hot as fuck chealsea and many others trying to gleen the truth from all the bullshit before i invest 5k in a hobby
Thread posts: 86
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2