November 20, 2014, 09:37:39 PM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - bchernicoff

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 38
1
So, Canon is grinding 4.5% of the total mirror segments and 15% of the ones that Japan is responsible for? This doesn't seem so newsworthy.

2
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: YN 600EX-RT - my review
« on: November 06, 2014, 10:14:20 PM »
thanks for the information. I've been keenly waiting for this flash to hit the market

3
The key thing to take away from my screen shot was that Photoshop with 3 RAW images open and Lightroom doing a 52 RAW -> 2000px JPEG export were using less than 3GB of RAM. I chose to open Google Chrome with a couple of tabs because I think most people are going to have a browser open while they are working. Chrome is a memory hog so it was adding additional memory pressure, but even so the memory used by Applications was only 6GB. The Chrome helpers are always a bit of a mystery, but they always show Not Responding...the OS just isn't able to get a good status on them.

OS X is a much less troublesome experience as a user. How many times have you tried to shut down your Win 7 laptop only to have it inform you that it has 22 updates to install and that you shouldn't turn it off until it finishes..only to find that it sits there for HOURS saying installing update 15 of 22? Ever had Windows Update run and then your Windows won't start and you have to restore to a restore point? Oh, how about all the preinstalled Norton Anti-Virus trial software, or even Office trial software? You get a new a laptop and immediately it's trying to sell you things, so now you have to uninstall. You don't even get a Windows disk anymore...only a recovery CD.

None of these issues exist on Mac. The built in backup software Time Machine...WORKS! Occasionally, you will read that an OS X update causes some laptops to lose WIFI or something like that. Though this has never happened to me, I am in the habit of waiting a day or two after the update is available to see if anyone reports problems.

Hi there bchernicoff,

Sorry in advance for this post length!  You make some good points about a comparison of Mac vs Windows so please don't take my post as trying to argue with you directly but as an IT guy for the last 30 years, I can say with some authority that owning a Mac isn't as rosy as most Mac proponents like to say.  Macs are still computers and they are using the exact same hardware that PCs use.  They have to coexist with the same external peripherals and use the same Internet while exchanging the same emails and running similar 3rd party software.  All computers, PC, Mac, Linux or whatever still have to endure the same challenges with drivers, software bugs and malware/virus attacks.  (And those that say Macs can't get malware/viruses today is irresponsible.  Sure they can and they do.  It's just not as bad as PCs.)

Comparing Mac vs PC is much like comparing Canon vs Nikon.  Neither camera is bad, they are just different and both essentially do the same things, just in a different way that appeals to each user based on their personal needs and preferences.

If one owns a Mac, it can still exhibit the same problems as a PC.  It has a spinning wheel of death.  It can hang on shutdown or during normal operation just like a PC.  It can slow down due to a fragmented hard drive.  Files can still get corrupted and cause problems with the system.  Macs also receive updates and sometimes buggy updates that can cause problems just like PCs do.  The other realities that exist include limited driver support from many peripherals or longer wait times for drivers or driver updates.  Limited software support from some software vendors or no support at all.  Harder to find information about problems on forums and limited support from Apple because Apple tends to ignore/deny problems until they decide the problem actually exists at all and then they issue fixes whenever they get around to it.

True, Macs don't have a lot of bloatware on them when they are purchased.  But that comes at a premium because all the bloatware on PCs is part of what makes them cheaper.  That and the fact that PC makers have to be more competitive and so don't mark up PCs at such a high profit margin like Apple does with all their products.  This is why I purchase BUSINESS LINE PCs refurbished where they are much cheaper and don't come with anything installed except Windows 7 Pro x64.  So even cheaper and no bloatware on a higher quality PC made for enterprise, not consumers.

Frankly, it's a waste of time to compare memory usage stats because on both PC and Mac, the actual underlying architecture of the operating system is complex, fairly unknown outside of the internal programming arm of each company and doesn't really matter much with regard to true performance.  I'm not saying Macs don't perform, they perform great!  But so do Windows PCs running (again) on the same hardware.  It's better to compare the results of applications designed to test each aspect of performance like disk, cpu, graphics, different real world application times, etc.

In general, the comparison of Mac vs PC hardware and performance is moot.  They are both essentially the same in that regard.  Where they are totally different is the interface and the software approach.  This is a personal preference of the user and it's important that the user understand the the biggest difference between Mac and PC is the interface and the philosophy of the design.  If someone wants to customize and tweak things to do things a certain way, the Mac will present roadblocks.  The philosophy of a Mac and OS X is to keep things simple and limit choices by design.  (And look really really pretty.)  Simplicity and elegance are the strengths of OS X.  Windows on the other hand offers a multitude of ways to do the same thing and allows infinite change, choice and customization.  And it doesn't try to look elegant, just functional.  That is its strength and so can be daunting so some users.

In summary, the choice of Mac vs PC is all about the user experience.  All the other things are essentially equal and it's unrealistic to pretend otherwise.

You are absolutely correct that these things can happen on Mac. In my personal experience using a variety of Windows 7 desktop and laptop computers, a variety of desktop and laptop Macs, and enterprise Linux servers, Macs rarely have these issues. They are the most reliable and functional machines one can buy. One hour ago I applied some Windows updates to a Win 7 VM that I keep on our ESXI server for running MS Visual Studio. The updates appeared to install fine, but the vm hung on shutdown. I got it booted and now Visual Studio won't start. I literally, just had the problem I described earlier. SO frustrating. It can happen on the Mac, but it rarely does. Don't pretend it's otherwise.

4
The key thing to take away from my screen shot was that Photoshop with 3 RAW images open and Lightroom doing a 52 RAW -> 2000px JPEG export were using less than 3GB of RAM. I chose to open Google Chrome with a couple of tabs because I think most people are going to have a browser open while they are working. Chrome is a memory hog so it was adding additional memory pressure, but even so the memory used by Applications was only 6GB. The Chrome helpers are always a bit of a mystery, but they always show Not Responding...the OS just isn't able to get a good status on them.

OS X is a much less troublesome experience as a user. How many times have you tried to shut down your Win 7 laptop only to have it inform you that it has 22 updates to install and that you shouldn't turn it off until it finishes..only to find that it sits there for HOURS saying installing update 15 of 22? Ever had Windows Update run and then your Windows won't start and you have to restore to a restore point? Oh, how about all the preinstalled Norton Anti-Virus trial software, or even Office trial software? You get a new a laptop and immediately it's trying to sell you things, so now you have to uninstall. You don't even get a Windows disk anymore...only a recovery CD.

None of these issues exist on Mac. The built in backup software Time Machine...WORKS! Occasionally, you will read that an OS X update causes some laptops to lose WIFI or something like that. Though this has never happened to me, I am in the habit of waiting a day or two after the update is available to see if anyone reports problems.

5
Here, I did a little test. Rebooted MacBook. Opened Skype, Google Chrome with 2 tabs, opened Photoshop CC with three RAW images open, opened Lightroom and did a 52 picture RAW to 2000px JPEG export. Here is my memory usage.

6
Okay, here goes...just buy a Retina MacBook Pro. Let me state my credentials. I am not a pro photographer, though I feel like I have some talenthttp://lividphoto.com. I AM a professional software and systems engineer who owns and works from Macs except when I am forced to use Windows when working at a client site (DoD). I just upgraded from a 2011 15" MacBook Pro (which I had swapped an SSD into) to the 2014 latest/greatest 15" Macbook Pro (MGXC2LL/A). I also have owned a 27" Core i7 iMac and have built a core i7 Hackintosh. 8gb of RAM is plenty for photo editing. That being said if you find a good deal on one with 16gb don't say no. An SSD is going to give you your single biggest performance boost. A quad core processor (like in the 15" MacBook Pro line) is going to give you more performance when importing/batch processing/exporting than the dual-core in the 13" models. For editing a single photo either is fine. Don't overlook buying a refurbished MacBook Pro http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/specialdeals/mac/macbook_pro/15. In fact, this one looks particularly sweet http://store.apple.com/us/product/FGXA2LL/A/Refurbished-154-inch-MacBook-Pro-22GHz-Quad-core-Intel-i7-with-Retina-Display. The only issue with a 256gb drive / external drive is that you will need to do a good job of manually moving older photos to the external drive. Thankfully, Lightroom 5 and SmartPreviews makes working with images on an external drive really easy. Depending on how much you shoot, you should be able to keep the last 3-6 months on the internal drive.

MacBooks are tough, fast, and OS X is reliable. You'll need to upgrade machines less often. You really won't regret spending the extra money.

7
HDR - High Dynamic Range / Re: Post your HDR images:
« on: October 22, 2014, 06:18:17 PM »
From Yosemite earlier this month. Fuji X-T1 and 14mm f/2.8

8
Reviews / Re: Gizmodo reviews the Canon 7D Mark II
« on: October 21, 2014, 09:28:25 AM »
Gizmodo took a major quality of content slide a few years ago. I largely ignore them now. Way too many bait-click stories along the lines of "Ten most bad-ass BLAH BLAH", "Incredible, mind-blowing device invented! It makes coffee for you!"

9
Reviews / Re: Gizmodo reviews the Canon 7D Mark II
« on: October 21, 2014, 08:25:13 AM »
No real surprises here. It's a camera made for sports and wildlife. If you shoot anything other than that there are better choices.

10
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 6D Mark II to Move Upmarket? [CR1]
« on: October 14, 2014, 02:21:50 PM »
Seriously, I have a hard time understanding why the 5DIV would need to "target" the D750. It seems to me the D750 is targeting the 5DIII a few years late.

It's fair to say the D750 targets the 5DMk3. Look, my progression with Canon bodies went 7D -> 5DM2 -> 5DM3 -> 6D. I loved the 5DM3 but realized the 6D was all I really needed. Canon had 30% off refurb 6D bodies, so I sold the 5DM3 and bought the 6D and a Fuji X-E1 kit with the extra money (studio camera, travel camera). I've never own ed a Nikon but looking at the 5 stop push of an underexposed image he did in that article and knowing how much more shadow detail there is in my Fuji RAW files is eye opening. I'm sure in a month we'll all be reading about all the quality issues with the D750 like all recent Nikon bodies. I'm not suggesting anyone switch. I'm suggesting that whatever Canon does sensor-wise, it needs to be as good as the D750's.

11
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 6D Mark II to Move Upmarket? [CR1]
« on: October 14, 2014, 12:45:22 PM »
This real world review of the D750 shows what the spiritual successor to the 5D3 (whatever they name it) needs to target. http://petapixel.com/2014/10/14/nikon-d750-review-nikon-youve-created-monster/

PS I'm not interested in a flamewar. Just adding a data point for what the competition's refreshed body is offering.

12
EOS Bodies / Re: Multilayer Sensors are Coming From Canon [CR2]
« on: October 09, 2014, 02:04:32 PM »
Completely off-track here but I've a question for Fujifilm users. Doesn't Adobe still struggle with Fujifilm RAW files? I know there are improvements, but they are still not entirely artifact free. So, how does one cope with that?

No, starting with Lightroom 5.4 and the associated Camera RAW release it's perfectly fine. The also added the Fuji camera profiles (Provia, Astia, etc). The camera JPGs and other RAW converters (especially PhotoNinja) can pull a bit more detail out that Lightroom can, but I only worry about that for a large print or tightly cropped image. LR is great 95% of the time. Here is a comparison. I took a screenshot while zoomed to 100% in Lightroom. RAF is left, JPG is right. I choose an area with green because that is where detail is hardest to come by. Edit: the forum recompresses the upload when shown here in the post. You can right click on it and choose "Open image in New Tab" in Chrome web browser to see full-size screenshot. Other browsers are similar.

Also here is a link to view and download the camera JPG in Google Drive: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bxu8IhRmJPZ2Rmc2c1BwUmNwd1E/view?usp=sharing

13
EOS Bodies / Re: Multilayer Sensors are Coming From Canon [CR2]
« on: October 08, 2014, 06:17:28 PM »
I hope we get at least a development announcement soon. I've got at least $10k in Canon gear that rarely gets used any more. My Fuji X-T1 is used > 90% of the time now and the two reasons I haven't sold any Canon gear yet are my 400mm 2.8 and hope for something revolutionary in a sensor.

14
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: will the samsung NX1 steal the show?
« on: September 03, 2014, 10:40:51 AM »
I bought the little NX1000 w/20-50mm kit lens for $199 and then later the 30mm f/2 pancake.

That little body with the 30mm f/2 takes some incredible shots. I was temped to add "for it's size" but realized that no qualifier to that statement was needed.  It fits in a large pocket. Even the built in B&W JPG profile is great. Only complaint is it's very slow between shots. I'm sure the newer bodies are faster.


15
Landscape / Moon photos
« on: September 02, 2014, 09:43:09 PM »
I don't know if a new or dedicated topic is warranted, but I wanted to share a very clear image of the moon I shot tonight using the Canon 6D and pre-IS 400mm f/2.8 L II w/ Canon Extender 2X II and Kenko extender 1.4x (1120mm f/8, 1/350s, ISO 800)

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 38