April 18, 2014, 05:24:21 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 - Niterider

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6
61
Software & Accessories / Re: Which iMac
« on: February 01, 2013, 12:42:22 AM »
Sure videos a full different ball game though. You look at intel with their quicksync dedicated on the CPU itself. It's much simpler and more standardized than RAW formats that are company specific. GPU only helps if the software can be coded to use it which as I said most RAW programs don't seem to be doing due to the complexity. I think another part is the quality also can suffer using these things so they're good for previewing but don't help with the final rendering or if they do, it's of lower quality than when rendered with the CPU.

Yes, this is correct.  GPU doesn't matter for images unless there is code written that talks to it, takes advantage of it, etc.  Otherwise it just passes the graphics information through at a fixed rate as it receives if from the OS.  Video isn't much different, it's just redrawing images faster but video isn't 3D rendering.  Games are written to exploit the graphics card, engine, etc.  That's why some graphics cards work better for some games.  Even Windows now exploits the GPU a bit to help render the Aero interface.  Adobe has begun to try to write some of their code to exploit the GPU on some cards but that's also pretty minimal at this point.  I have a nice middle of the road nVidia GeForce 8400 GS Graphics card.  Not top of the line but no piece of junk either.  Around $200 back when I bought it a couple years ago.  Win7 Pro Enterprise x64, i7 CPU, 32GB RAM.  SSD for the OS.  The preview pictures in Lightroom 4 still drag a bit.  Nothing I can do, Adobe did something with LR4 to cause some latency.  (It was faster in LR3.)  Exporting, photo tools, etc all do pretty well considering there is a lot of CPU being used then.

Bottom Line, if money isn't an issue, get the best video you can but if money is tight, don't bother.  Either way, it won't change the performance much if at all for photos.

BTW, I met an IT associate of mine today and eventually, the subject of his MacBook Pro came up.  We discussed briefly how much it helped him with some photo and web development things he works on all day but it did cost him $3200 + over another grand for the large display he uses with it.  And then there's the software, Parallels and Windows 8 he runs on it.  I mentioned this thread and we quickly agreed that the iMacs are essentially a waste of money for doing any serious work like photography, video, graphics design, web dev, etc.  Lower end CPUs, graphics, lower memory limits and slow 5400 RPM drives which he reminded me about.  Even the display isn't as good as what you could get other ways.  In essence, not worth the money compared to other (more expensive but capable) Apple mac alternatives.  Sorry folks but you're just not going to get a standout mac photo workstation for under $2000.  Adequate maybe but not exceptional.  Not new anyway.

Mind answering a question? My GF is looking for a new computer: She does web design, content creation and a little video editing. I cover all her photography and photo editing. She is dead set on an iMac and currently has an older MBP. I feel this would be a poor investment for her business (I use a retina / PC for my photo and CAD work) and as stated earlier in this thread there is no expandability. What could you recommend?

Depending on how old the mac book pro is, you can install a solid state drive and continue using that same computer. SSD are the best bang for the buck upgrade on the market for computers running mechanical hard drives.

Sorry RustyTheGeek, I saw that this question was intended for you, I just could not resist responding! What do you think about an ssd in an older MBP?

I have already done that. The laptop will last a while still but she is in dire need of a desktop. I have 6TB (really 3TB as it is RAID 1) on my network that we use for storage + both have 2tb Lacie drives that live with them (her MBP and my MBP retina).

Right on! Im glad you gave the solid state a try!

If money is not a concern, a Mac Pro tower would be optimal due to the xeon processor and serviceability. But if money is a factor, how opposed would your gf be towards the windows or linux operating systems. I get the impression that you are good with computers, so why not a custom built desktop tailored to her needs? It would cost considerably less and you can choose the individual components.

Plus, if you are wanting a challenge, you could always throw mac os on a custom build!   

62
Lenses / Re: Which 15mm f2.8?
« on: February 01, 2013, 12:29:48 AM »
Oh duh I totally forgot about the Samyang/Rokinon/Bower 14mm f/2.8.  It's a super sharp lens, and although it does have it's faults (distortion is pretty bad but fixable in post), you can't really be too picky at $399.  I'd say it's definitely worth a shot, especially if you're on a budget.

+1

Also, I see the lens drop as low as $300 every once in a while. At that price, it is too good to pass up!

63
Lenses / Re: Help me choose between the two: 70-200 f2.8 IS or 17 TS-E?
« on: February 01, 2013, 12:26:44 AM »
I'm in the mood for a piece of fruit. Should I have an apple or an orange?

Haha, I got a laugh out of that one!

Anyhow, Normalnorm makes a valid point that there are not cheaper alternatives to the 17TS-E (except for the rokinon that is coming out in a couple months, but that is a 24mm). But, if I were you, I would go with the 70-200mm IS ii. Between August and January, we will have the unique opportunity to photograph what is likely to be the best comet of our lifetime. Comet C/2012 S1, otherwise known as comet ISON, is the driving motivator why I picked up a 70-200 (F/4 non-IS).

64
Software & Accessories / Re: Which iMac
« on: February 01, 2013, 12:15:50 AM »
Sure videos a full different ball game though. You look at intel with their quicksync dedicated on the CPU itself. It's much simpler and more standardized than RAW formats that are company specific. GPU only helps if the software can be coded to use it which as I said most RAW programs don't seem to be doing due to the complexity. I think another part is the quality also can suffer using these things so they're good for previewing but don't help with the final rendering or if they do, it's of lower quality than when rendered with the CPU.

Yes, this is correct.  GPU doesn't matter for images unless there is code written that talks to it, takes advantage of it, etc.  Otherwise it just passes the graphics information through at a fixed rate as it receives if from the OS.  Video isn't much different, it's just redrawing images faster but video isn't 3D rendering.  Games are written to exploit the graphics card, engine, etc.  That's why some graphics cards work better for some games.  Even Windows now exploits the GPU a bit to help render the Aero interface.  Adobe has begun to try to write some of their code to exploit the GPU on some cards but that's also pretty minimal at this point.  I have a nice middle of the road nVidia GeForce 8400 GS Graphics card.  Not top of the line but no piece of junk either.  Around $200 back when I bought it a couple years ago.  Win7 Pro Enterprise x64, i7 CPU, 32GB RAM.  SSD for the OS.  The preview pictures in Lightroom 4 still drag a bit.  Nothing I can do, Adobe did something with LR4 to cause some latency.  (It was faster in LR3.)  Exporting, photo tools, etc all do pretty well considering there is a lot of CPU being used then.

Bottom Line, if money isn't an issue, get the best video you can but if money is tight, don't bother.  Either way, it won't change the performance much if at all for photos.

BTW, I met an IT associate of mine today and eventually, the subject of his MacBook Pro came up.  We discussed briefly how much it helped him with some photo and web development things he works on all day but it did cost him $3200 + over another grand for the large display he uses with it.  And then there's the software, Parallels and Windows 8 he runs on it.  I mentioned this thread and we quickly agreed that the iMacs are essentially a waste of money for doing any serious work like photography, video, graphics design, web dev, etc.  Lower end CPUs, graphics, lower memory limits and slow 5400 RPM drives which he reminded me about.  Even the display isn't as good as what you could get other ways.  In essence, not worth the money compared to other (more expensive but capable) Apple mac alternatives.  Sorry folks but you're just not going to get a standout mac photo workstation for under $2000.  Adequate maybe but not exceptional.  Not new anyway.

Mind answering a question? My GF is looking for a new computer: She does web design, content creation and a little video editing. I cover all her photography and photo editing. She is dead set on an iMac and currently has an older MBP. I feel this would be a poor investment for her business (I use a retina / PC for my photo and CAD work) and as stated earlier in this thread there is no expandability. What could you recommend?

Depending on how old the mac book pro is, you can install a solid state drive and continue using that same computer. SSD are the best bang for the buck upgrade on the market for computers running mechanical hard drives.

Sorry RustyTheGeek, I saw that this question was intended for you, I just could not resist responding! What do you think about an ssd in an older MBP?

65
Lenses / Re: Lens Help - 17-40 & 70-200 f/4 or 24-70 f/4
« on: January 30, 2013, 03:55:46 PM »
Here are a couple photos taken with a 14mm F2.8:
These are reduced in size for Flickr. I can send you the raw files if you would like.


Untitled by Live By The Night, on Flickr


IMG_1510-1 by Live By The Night, on Flickr

This next one is just for the purposes of illustrating how wide (on a full frame) this lens really is. I was in 15-20mph wind and given that it was a 30 second photo, I think it tuned out pretty good:

IMG_1843-1 by Live By The Night, on Flickr



66
The intervalometer in Magic Lantern is an absolute joy to use. I would check that out if you have not already. If you are looking for a physical device to run the camera, the TC-80N3 has good reviews, but runs for $130ish. I have never used one because ML makes it so easy.

also there was a previous thread on external intervalometers that you can check out:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=4905.0

67
If you have access to a linux/unix (ubuntu, mint, fedora, etc.) computer and a card reader, you could run terminal commands to show all files in that folder regardless of permissions and hidden attributes.

I know someone is going to be quite to say that this can be equally accomplished through the windows command prompt, but I honestly am not as proficient in that command line interface as I am in the linux terminal. If anyone has sufficient knowledge in either interface that wants to chime in, please do so  :)

68
Lenses / Re: Lens Help - 17-40 & 70-200 f/4 or 24-70 f/4
« on: January 28, 2013, 07:39:48 PM »
I do a lot of walking/hiking.  I don’t like carrying a ton of stuff, and almost never bring a tripod.  So my landscapes tend to be handheld wherever I am.  I wasn't into people pictures until we had our first kid.  Now she seems to dominate my subject matter.

Then the 17-40L is not for you - you can shoot @high iso with the 6d and thus gain higher shutter speeds that compensates for the missing IS, but at the same time you will loose a lot of dynamic range that is important for landscape. And if you're shooting hdr brackets, it's best with a tripod or at least IS so that the frames overlap as much as possible.

Only you can determine if you'd miss the 17-23 range, it's quite a lot, but it's not "general purpose" on full frame and as KR (in this case correctly) says: an uaw lens is not for "taking it all in" landscape but for the uwa effect, esp. when shooting objects near to the lens (the 17-40L has a very good min. focusing distance).

As for the tele zoom, I'd also recommend to have a look at the 70-300L because of it's small pack size (extending zoom) vs. the internal zoom of the 70-200s. Then add a used 24-105L and you're good to go, the overlap of the two lenses is nice because you can skip changing them when outdoors or in a hurry.

As for the 24-70/4: Yes, completely overpriced, near-macro capability sounds nice but it lacks working distance - and the 70-300L has a good max. magnification because of 300mm + small min. focusing distance.

+1 on the 70-300L. Its a beautiful lens and a great alternative to the 70-200 for hiking.

I am going to go against the grain here, but if you are into landscape, look into a 14mm F/2.8 samyang/rokinon/bower (get whichever brand is cheapest at the time). My copy at least is unbelievably sharp across the frame. It goes on sale for $300 occasionally. Let me know if you want me to post some pictures I have taken with that lens.   

69
Landscape / Re: Post Your Best Landscapes
« on: January 28, 2013, 06:46:53 PM »
Montecito Peak in Montecito, California


Untitled by Live By The Night, on Flickr

Freight train traveling through Sacramento, California


IMG_0010-1 by Live By The Night, on Flickr

Locally known as Top of the world. In Vacaville, California


IMG_1843-1 by Live By The Night, on Flickr

Some sort of transmission tower. Also on Gates Canyon road in Vacaville, California


Probably were not supposed to be here by Live By The Night, on Flickr

Thanks for looking!

70
HDR - High Dynamic Range / Re: Post your HDR images:
« on: January 28, 2013, 06:34:56 PM »
A couple taken with a rokinon 14mm F/2.8


Arden Pond by Live By The Night, on Flickr


beach1-1 by Live By The Night, on Flickr

71
Lenses / Re: Sigma 35 1.4 or Canon 50 1.4 or Canon 24-70 2.8 II
« on: January 28, 2013, 05:52:32 PM »
Are you using a full frame or crop body camera?

Either way, I would go with the sigma 35mm 1.4. There is no question about image quality for that lens. The street photographers I know like the canon 40mm pancake lens because of how discrete it is. On the other hand, if you are carrying a 24-70 mkii, everyone knows your there.

If you are really looking for versatility, the canon 24-70 mkii is exceptional IQ for a zoom lens in its focal range. The trade off is the the convenience of zooming vs marginally better IQ and much more versatility in terms of depth of field.

72
It all depends on what your budget is and what you need. If you need a steadycam setup there is the merlin steadycam, which is a small fortune, but works beautifully if set up and balanced correctly. The glide cam is another solid option which is hard to beat in terms of cost vs. performance.

Are you looking at a stabilizer for wedding work or for filming a low budget film?

Also, have you considered shoulder mounted rigs? That way you can use follow focus systems.

I have seen a recent deal going on at Lensrentals.com for a redrock support rig if you need a follow focus:
http://www.lensrentals.com/buy/canon/redrock-captain-stubling-focus-kit-serial-number-capstub1

73
Software & Accessories / Re: Which iMac
« on: January 28, 2013, 05:13:27 PM »
7enderbender - I totally sympathize and I agree.  It's a challenge to choose a good system now.  I think Apple has really taken the laptop display up a big step with Retina.  That is a game changer.  However, I hate glossy displays.  So as good as it is, Retina is out for me.  I can't stand the glare and reflection of a gloss display.  95% of high end professional desktop displays running into the thousands are matte finish for good reason.

Keep in mind that once you remove OSX and the aluminum case, all the internal hardware, chipsets, RAM, drives, etc are identical to a Windows PC.  All the extra money is going to Apple, not to the technology.  The Retina display on laptops is the only standout right now.  And it deserves praise.

However, the problem is that people compare Apple products to the cheap retail crap at Best Buy, not to the better enterprise level systems that all the major vendors make for business.  Lenovo, Toshiba, DELL. HP, Sony, Fujitsu, Panasonic, etc all have much better offerings in both PC and Laptop devices if you look at their website and venture into the other product lines.  Those lines are more expensive and I typically suggest folks look into the refurb items that have come off of lease (2+ years old) if they want a real steal of a bargain on those units.  For instance, there are a lot of nice refurb T series Lenovo units out now, some now with iSeries CPUs (like a T410) for less than $500-$700 and then you could simply upgrade the RAM and throw in an SSD for a screaming ThinkPad that's built like a tank and has a great display.  Here's an example (not necc what you need)... http://tinyurl.com/b8sve4b

I'd not get another lenovo.
I had a higher end, custom (to the hilt) ordered lenovo thinkpad recently. They are NOT made with the same quality as the old IBM thinkpads which were tanks. The new stuff, has lots of flimsy plastic on the case...and if you even bumped it on the docking station, it would lost monitor sync..etc.

I wasn't impressed with the lenovo product. This was one I bought last year.

I've not played with higher end Dells, but this higher end lenovo, reminded me of a cheapo lower end Dell with regard to plastic and flimsy feeling build quality.


Exactly right and that's one aspect of my frustration. There is really NO replacement in the Windows world to the best of my knowledge. Lenovo is now worse than ever it seems. The Dells feel like toys. And I currently have a pretty expensive HP Elite Book from my work place. It's a hunk of junk to be honest. The screen would be completely useless for any creative work - and is even only borderline workable for my office applications thanks to the ridiculously low resolution. The keyboard is utter junk as well - even worse than the MacBook keyboard that it tries to mimic. And given that it is a Win7 with i5 and 4GB my old XP Thinkpad with Intel DualCore and 3GB of usable memory runs circles around that thing. Looks like Sony tried a few things that looked promising but then it turns out that their screens are all discolored.

So that and the even more hideous Win8 OS leaves me with some MacBook to replace my lovely Thinkpad at some point. Which means I'll have to get ready to change "eco systems" - because otherwise Adobe makes you buy everything twice. And I wouldn't want to deal with two types of system for the same tasks anyway.

I'll still need Windows for my work work and business stuff but that's ok. So for music recording and photography I'm willing to take the plunge and go Apple. But even that is a struggle I find since a lot of there stuff is not as useful for specialty applications than you'd expect. Which brings me back to the OP: The iMacs now more than ever are basically consumer grade computers that are only borderline workable for creative people with pro-level use in mind. As a photographer I want a better screen. As a musician I expect a designated Firewire port and a CD drive. So there's that.

The new Mac Mini on the other hand is a real improvement (if you don't need a high powered graphics card). I'm looking to get the i7 Mini, max it out with third party drives and memory and hook it up to a good NEC (or so) monitor and an external storage solution.

That should work for both my photo editing and as the center piece of an upgraded home recording studio.


It sounds like IT at your work really screwed up your HP Elitebook. When I have worked on those in the past, I have had the screen at 1920x1080 and they are extremely capable at doing intensive programs (CAD, etc.). Don't be so quick to throw lenovo under the bus either. If you have not taken apart a newer lenovo, I can assure you that they are still built like a tank. The T-series are absolutely solid and most thinkpads have a roll cage for protection! On the other hand, lenovo's Ideapads are absolute crap and would recommend a macbook over those any day of the week. I actually think the macbook pro is a solid laptop and if portability is what you need, they are top performers.

74
Software & Accessories / Re: Which iMac
« on: January 28, 2013, 02:12:17 AM »
I like Apple stuff just like the next guy but I cringe at how they take advantage of their customers' wallets with their overpriced products.  They didn't end up having the highest stock price on their own!  It required a high profit margin.

While you may feel Apple overcharges for what it provides it is fair to argue that those who purchase Apple products feel they are getting fair value because they buy them in spite of alternatives and DO believe they are receiving value for money.

I would suggest the difference is similar to restaurants and home cooked food. The Apple restaurant uses the same ingredients as the others but happens to make a dish that far more preferred by diners. The home cook may actually make something that tastes better but the diner wants the ambiance of the restaurant that Apple has built and is uninterested in dirtying their hands.

They are not to be pitied they have made a decision that is sensible to them.

I guess ignorance is bliss...

The marketing strategy of apple: Take a product that is in every way insensible for what they charge and make the consumer think it is a sensible purchase.

75
Lenses / Re: Can You Beat it?
« on: January 28, 2013, 01:18:34 AM »
Totally not relevant, but when I saw the name of your forum topic, I had no idea what I was going to read when I clicked on the link  :o

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6