Camera
The ‘X-Tra’ camera battery Kickstarter campaign appears to have been a scam
Back on November 19, 2020, we published an article covering news of a Kickstarter campaign that appeared to be funding the production of the X-tra Battery, a product that claimed to be ‘the camera battery, re-invented.’ Now, it appears the campaign was a sham, with no products to show for after more than 1,500 backers pledged $221,290 to see the X-Tra Battery to life.
Canon Rumors was the first publication to bring these allegations to light after its founder, who used the KickBooster affiliate program, failed to receive any response when he attempted to collect his 20% commission for referring his readers to the project, despite it being successfully funded. While that in and of itself could’ve simply been a communication issue between two parties, backers of the project have also questioned the legitimacy of the campaign after selective and vague communication from the founders, and no definitive timeline on product delivery, even after critical deadlines had passed.
 |
As Canon Rumors notes in its coverage, the individual labeled as the ‘CEO’ of X-Tra, who is referred to as ‘Jeffery Parker’ in the above image and appears in multiple videos promoting the product, appears to be a model based in Hong Kong. In addition to appearing in multiple stock photos across the web, the individual is also a model in promotional material for a new Kickstarter campaign promoting ‘wireless 3D audio’ headphones. Now, there’s no evidence this individual is complicit in any of the scams whatsoever, but the lack of clarity does raise questions.
 |
| An image from the linked Kickstarter campaign for a pair of headphones showing what appears to be the same individual labeled as the CEO of X-tra. |
 |
| A stock photo that also appears to show the same individual, discovered during a reverse image search. |
Before publishing this article, we contacted the project creators, Kickstarter, KickBooster, BackerKit and Jellop to see if any of these involved parties have information on the project’s creators. We wanted to give these organizations 24 hours to respond for further information on this campaign and the individuals behind it.
As of publishing, we have only received a response from Kickstarter, who confirmed the ‘project has been reported via the “Report this project” button by a small number of people,’ with most of them coming yesterday. The Kickstarter representative also said it is ‘actively investigating’ this issue. We have followed up with Kickstarter and will provide more information when we receive it.
To clarify our role in covering this project and crowdfunding campaigns going forward, we want to make our process as transparent as possible and detail how we will further improve upon our process going forward to further reduce passing on risk to you, our readers.
 |
| A promotional image used by the Kickstarter campaign to promote the X-Tra Battery. |
We first came across this product on Kickstarter, where we saw it as a ‘new’ project. It piqued our interest and it seemed to be a product our readers would be interested. As with all crowdfunded campaigns we share, we then went through the process of culling through the campaign in an attempt to verify its legitimacy. Below are a few criteria we used to judge whether or not to cover this project:
- The campaign had a substantial description and detailed reasonable specifications for a product of this kind (two 18650 Li-Ion batteries can be expected to offer the stated battery life in the form factor the X-Tra Battery appeared to use)
- The project laid out what appeared to be a reasonable timeline
- The photos/videos show what appears to be a working prototype
- The company had an operational Instagram account with media of the product in use
- There was access to a complete media kit, with a press release, photos and video
- And, most importantly, Kickstarter said the identity of the project’s creator had been verified, which includes using an address, name and form of identification to determine the authenticity of the project’s creators
 |
| A note from Kickstarter on the Kickstarter campaign that specifically says the founder of the project has been verified. There is a discrepancy though — here the name is spelled ‘Jeffrey,’ whereas elsewhere in the campaign, it’s spelled ‘Jeffery.’ |
Together, these factors were taken into account to make the final decision to cover the project. We had nothing to gain from readers backing the project, as we were not at all (and never have been) a part of any Kickstarter affiliate program. As always, there is a risk with crowdfunding campaigns and we try to make this very clear in crowdfunding projects we cover using the below disclaimer (which has been in use for two years now):
‘Disclaimer: Remember to do your research with any crowdfunding project. DPReview does its best to share only the projects that look legitimate and come from reliable creators, but as with any crowdfunded campaign, there’s always the risk of the product or service never coming to fruition.’
Over the past 10 years, we’ve covered more than 150 crowdfunding campaigns from creators small and large. While some of those may have had production issues or delayed deliveries, the X-Tra Battery campaign is the first that appears to be a scam from onset with no intentions of delivering any kind of product.
Proving the authenticity of a crowdfunding campaign isn’t an easy task, as many times the products being offered are still under early stages of development and there are always unforeseen risks that could impact the success of a project. Still, we want to ensure we share only campaigns that have the highest chance of success with minimal risk passed on to you. As such, going forward, we will make it a point to establish clear communication with the creators of any project we cover, request additional information on how the funds will be used and verify what happens to the pledges should issues arise during the production process.
As for what you can do if you backed this project, we suggest you immediately contact the payment provider you used to make your pledge and request a refund and/or dispute the charge as fraud. We have compiled a collection of PDFs of the Kickstarter campaign, FAQ, comments and the X-Tra Battery Instragram profile for you to download and keep on hand for reference in the event the campaign gets taken offline.
You can also contact Kickstarter for details on how to proceed, although when you use Kickstarter’s platform, you do agree to do so at your own risk. Still, you can read through this FAQ page provided by Kickstarter and contact the Kickstarter Community Support team using the link at the bottom of that page.
As mentioned above, we have contacted all those involved with the creation, hosting, affiliation and fulfillment of this project. We are hoping to receive more definitive answers from Kickstarter — and the other parties involved — and will update this article with additional information when we receive it.
Camera
Pentax K-1 and K-1 II firmware updates include astrophotography features (depending on where you live)
Yesterday, Ricoh quietly released firmware 2.50 for its Pentax K-1 and K-1 II DSLRs. However, the features you can expect to gain from this update may depend on your geography.
Ricoh’s English-language firmware pages for the K-1 and K-1 II state that firmware 2.50 delivers “Improved stability for general performance.”
However, astute Pentax users noted that Ricoh’s Japanese-language firmware pages (translation) indicate that the update also includes a limited feature called “Astronomical Photo Assist,” a collection of three new features designed for astrophotography: Star AF, remote control focus fine adjustment, and astronomical image processing.
Star AF is intended to automate focusing on stars when using autofocus lenses. Rather than manually focusing on a bright star and changing your composition, it promises to let you compose your shot and let the camera focus.
Remote control fine adjustment allows users to adjust focus without touching the lens and requires Pentax’s optional O-RC1 remote. Astronomical image processing will enable users to make in-camera adjustments to astrophotography images, including shading correction, fogging correction, background darkness, star brightness, celestial clarity, and fringe correction.
 |
| Astronomical image processing on the K-1 and K-1 II will enable users to make in-camera adjustments to astrophotography images, including shading correction, fogging correction, background darkness, star brightness, celestial clarity, and fringe correction. |
According to Ricoh, Astronomical Photo Assist is a premium feature that must be purchased and costs ￥11,000 for an activation key (about $70 at current exchange rates).
Although these astrophotography features appear to be Japan-only for now, a Ricoh representative tells us, “Ricoh Imaging Americas confirmed that the premium firmware features for the PENTAX K-1 and PENTAX K-1 Mark II will eventually be available to US customers.”
Firmware update 2.50 for both the K-1 and K-1 II is available for download from Ricoh’s website.
As part of our twenty fifth anniversary, we’re looking back at some of the most significant cameras launched and reviewed during that period. Today’s pick was launched seven years ago today* and yet we’re only quite recently stepping out of its shadow.
The Nikon D850 is likely to be remembered as the high watermark of DSLR technology. We may yet still see impressive developments from Ricoh in the future (we’d love to see a significantly upgraded Pentax K-1 III), but the D850 was perhaps the green flash as the sun set on the DSLR as the dominant technology in the market.
Click here to read our Nikon D850 review
Why do we think it was such a big deal? Because it got just about everything right. Its 45MP sensor brought dual conversion gain to high pixel count sensors, meaning excellent dynamic range at base ISO and lower noise at high ISOs. Its autofocus system was one of the best we’ve ever seen on a DSLR: easy to use and highly dependable, with a good level of coverage. And then there was a body and user interface honed by years of iterative refinement, that made it easy to get the most out of the camera.
None of this is meant as a slight towards the other late-period DSLRs but the likes of Canon’s EOS 5DS and 5DSR didn’t present quite such a complete package of AF tracking, daylight DR and low-light quality as the Nikon did. With its ability to shoot at up to 9fps (if you used the optional battery grip), the D850 started to chip away at the idea that high megapixel cameras were specialized landscape and studio tools that would struggle with movement or less-than-perfect lighting. And that’s without even considering its 4K video capabilities.
In the seven years since the D850 was launched, mirrorless cameras have eclipsed most areas in which DSLRs once held the advantage. For example, the Z8 can shoot faster, autofocus more with more accuracy and precision, across a wider area of the frame and do so while shooting at much faster rates.
But, even though it outshines the D850 in most regards, the Z8 is still based around what we believe is a (significant) evolution of the same sensor, and its reputation still looms large enough for Nikon to explicitly market the Z8 as its “true successor.”
Nikon D850 sample gallery
*Actually seven years ago yesterday: we had to delay this article for a day to focus on the publishing the Z6III studio scene: the latest cameras taking precedence over our anniversary content.
| Photo: Richard Butler |
We’ve just received a production Nikon Z6III and took it into our studio immediately to get a sense for how the sensor really performs.
Dynamic range tests have already been conducted, but these only give a limited insight into the image quality as a whole. As expected, our Exposure Latitude test – which mimics the effect of reducing exposure to capture a bright sunrise or sunset, then making use of the deep shadows – shows a difference if you use the very deepest shadows, just as the numerical DR tests imply.
Likewise, our ISO Invariance test shows there’s more of a benefit to be had from applying more amplification by raising the ISO setting to overcome the read noise, than there was in the Z6 II. This means there’s a bigger improvement when you move up to the higher gain step of the dual conversion gain sensor but, as with the Z6 II, little more to be gained beyond that.
These are pushing at the extreme of the sensor’s performance though. For most everyday photography, you don’t use the deepest shadows of the Raw files, so differences in read noise between sensors don’t play much of a role. In most of the tones of an image, sensor size plays a huge role, along with any (pretty rare) differences in light capturing efficiency.
As expected, the standard exposures look identical to those of the Z6 II. There are similar (or better) levels of detail at low ISO, in both JPEG and Raw. At higher ISO, the Z6III still looks essentially the same as the Z6II. Its fractionally higher level of read noise finally comes back to have an impact at very, very high ISO settings.
Overall, then, there is a read noise price to be paid for the camera’s faster sensor, in a way that slightly blunts the ultimate flexibility of the Raw files at low ISO and that results in fractionally more noise at ultra-high ISOs. But we suspect most people will more than happily pay this small price in return for a big boost in performance.
-
Solar Energy3 years agoDLR testing the use of molten salt in a solar power plant in Portugal
-
Camera3 years agoCharles ‘Chuck’ Geschke, co-founder of Adobe and inventor of the PDF, dies at 81
-
world news8 months ago
Gulf, France aid Gaza, Russia evacuates citizens
-
world news3 months ago
Jewish diaspora expresses concern as Iranian drones launch toward Israel
-
Camera3 years ago80,000MP panoramas: EarthCam announces world’s highest-resolution robotic webcam
-
TOP SCEINCE3 months agoCan animals count?
-
Solar Energy8 months agoGlencore eyes options on battery recycling project
-
Camera8 months agoDJI Air 3 vs. Mini 4 Pro: which compact drone is best?
