November 23, 2014, 01:05:49 AM

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 7
61
Software & Accessories / Re: new 13" MacBook Pro
« on: February 04, 2013, 09:48:26 PM »
Aloha!  I'd welcome some advice....   I'm advising a friend, an amateur photographer with talent and potential, on what kind of computer setup that would be sufficient for photo editing.  Budget is a factor.  They are considering a new 13" MacBook Pro for about $1425 with these specs:  2.9GHz dual-core Intel Core i7, Turbo Boost up to 3.6GHz, 8GB 1600MHz memory, 750GB 5400-rpm hard drive, Intel HD Graphics 4000...

The 5400 rpm hard drive will bottleneck the whole computer. If you do go with a macbook pro, a minimum would be a 7200 rpm drive. Ideally, you would want a 256gb (or larger) solid state drive. They work wonders in laptops. If I remember correctly, the new macbook pros are sealed systems (correct me if I am wrong) which means you have to pay apple to change out the drive. And that sucks because they charge A LOT for those drives

62
Software & Accessories / Re: Which iMac
« on: February 04, 2013, 06:04:42 PM »
Thanks for all the advice!

UPS just stopped in and dropped off my GF's new tower and monitors. After about two hours of having the case open, setup and calibration I am quite impressed. Thanks Rusty and Night she is VERY happy. I was apprehensive about apple but this is one robust machine.

Took this:
One 3.2GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon processor
6GB (3 x 2GB) of 1066MHz DDR3 ECC memory
1TB Serial ATA 7200 rpm
18x SuperDrive (DVD±R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)

 ATI Radeon HD 5770 with 1GB GDDR5 memory

Added 1 512 Crucial SSD, 6TB in RAID 1, 16GB RAM. We took the 1TB drive out of the Apple and tossed it into an extra NAS housing. It has two 27 in apple displays (which I want now). Any other recommendations for upgrades?

I'm glad I could help! As far as other upgrades go, it really can't think of any. If the computer is too loud or you notice the computer running hotter than you would like, you could always replace the stock fans with some fluid ball bearing fans. Just replace the fans with those of identical size. A great brand too look into is Noctua because they move a ton of air and are unbelievably quiet. 

63
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: future of sigma art line
« on: February 03, 2013, 08:00:26 PM »
I too am awaiting a 24mm from sigma! I would expect them to update the 24-70 before releasing a 24mm, but would Sigma classify a zoom as part of their Art series? My guess is that it would earn the designation "Contemporary"

64
Software & Accessories / Re: Which iMac
« on: February 01, 2013, 04:26:39 AM »
Your comments are not insensible or uncalled for but it does show an uninformed opinion about how most people do their computing.

It is possible to build yourself a car. All the parts to make one whole car are available for sale over the counter or over the Internet.

http://photoblog.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/31/13588649-homemade-lamborghini-replica-draws-admiring-glances-from-chinese-drivers?lite

It is just that very few people are inclined to build their own car. Too bothersome for a lot of people to do. Most consumers prefer to buy a Dell, HP, Lenovo etc etc and even an Apple. What sets Apple apart and not just another commodity item is the software and hardware design that is exclusive to the company. Thus they can charge more.

As for cobbled together desktops these are in decline and eventually be niche for DIYers and gamers. As for their out of the box counterparts these are also in decline yielding market share to mobile devices like notebooks, tablets and smartphones. I am not saying that you shouldn't be doing it but for most folks they just want to open the box, plug it to the wall, turn it on and start using it. Then completely replace within 2-5 years.

To make ever smaller and lighter computers manufacturers must solder parts together. This is the direction Intel is planning to take eventually by 2015.

In terms of supply chain cost desktops are much more expensive to move around and store because they take up more space and weigh a lot more.

I know everyone wants to save money on a deal so why aren't most people using m43rds and not SLRs? :)

I do apologize, my comment that you referenced was insensible and uncalled for. I definitely agree that those luxury car brands overcharge for what you get, but I see it slightly differently just because it is not possible to build yourself a car. If you want that sort of performance or luxury in a car, there is no (street legal) way around it. Unless I am forgetting something, then do let me know if that is the case!

I did exactly what the OP was trying to avoid, incite an apple vs pc debate. For that, I am sorry and will not make any future comments regarding the electronic rivalry. My intention was to ultimately convey some information about the iMac architecture and that alternatives do exist if money is a concern. BTW, If anyone is looking to build a computer and would like some help, I would be happy to do what I can!

I am well aware of the attempts to replicate expensive exotic cars or even build tuner cars from kits (such as the ultima gtr720) that purely built for handeling and speed. Most of which are not street legal in the united states and have little practicality in the real world. Given that these are so different than luxury cars such as BMW, mercs, audi, etc., I still do not think the car example relates. On a side note, I build go karts for fun. They are definitely not street legal, the interior doesn't look anything like a 750LI, but damn it can drift around a turn. Not so sure I would be willing to do that in a $100k bmw haha. But hey if my go kart was street legal, I would drive it everywhere!

Anyhow, I build computers for fellow engineers along with people doing 3D rendering, audio engineering, video editing, etc. I guarantee you that computers are not just for the gamers and those who feel like giving building a try. In the custom computer world, home built computers utilizing raid controllers to control the flow of data to SSD's and overclocked processors have overpowered the 5k+ custom ordered computers from dell (or hp i cant remember). When professionals request a custom build, they are set up in such a way that factories cannot meet their expectations or would charge insane amounts to do so. That is the driving force behind why I build computers for others (i dont charge for my work either because I enjoy it too much  ;D)

I actually know quite a few engineers who work at intel (a major intel facility is just 20 minutes from my house) and are very knowledgeable about the 14nm integrated processor architecture. This is the way of the future, but is not going to cause custom build computers to cease to exist. Intel makes far too much money from the custom pc world to risk that. But it also will have a profound effect on advancing major computer companies (dell,hp,etc) 

I realize 95% of the computer market is just looking for a computer to turn on an preform basic tasks. I just find it astounding when they spend twice as much for an iMac than a custom build that I recently did for a client that has 2 to 3 times the processing capabilities. (not just the processor alone - this takes into account overclocking on the processor, ram, having an ssd raid array, motherboard to handle the sensitive current and high data flow, etc.) In the end, all that matters is how many floating-point operations per second is achieved.

But hey, if owning that beautiful aluminum computer is what makes you happy, more power to you  :)

65
Software & Accessories / Re: Which iMac
« on: February 01, 2013, 02:14:26 AM »
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.

BMW, Mercedes Benz, Audi and other lux car brands do the same thing. Yet no one whines about it as loudly.

Nothing bad about paying more for a better user experience and better design.

I do apologize, my comment that you referenced was insensible and uncalled for. I definitely agree that those luxury car brands overcharge for what you get, but I see it slightly differently just because it is not possible to build yourself a car. If you want that sort of performance or luxury in a car, there is no (street legal) way around it. Unless I am forgetting something, then do let me know if that is the case!

I did exactly what the OP was trying to avoid, incite an apple vs pc debate. For that, I am sorry and will not make any future comments regarding the electronic rivalry. My intention was to ultimately convey some information about the iMac architecture and that alternatives do exist if money is a concern. BTW, If anyone is looking to build a computer and would like some help, I would be happy to do what I can!

66
Software & Accessories / Re: Which iMac
« on: February 01, 2013, 01:43:53 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!

SSD or bust these days. I can go from post to CAD loaded with the files I was working on the day before in about 15 seconds on my PC. Money is not much of a concern. How much can one person mod the Mac Pro towers? I have ran the idea of a home built machine and the cost (she set on Apple displays which is fine I have two 23" Cinema HD and love them) but like I said she has never used windows. When she does use my CAD machine for PS or Illustrator work she gets very confused and frustrated due to not knowing the OS and how to access our NAS drive or some of the basic functions. It looks like we are stuck with a Mac Pro for now as I don't feel comfortable making a Hackintosh and she having never used windows would be at a huge business disadvantage.

To my knowledge, Mac Pros are workstations and workstations cater to businesses. Because of this, the tower was built with an IT support staff in mind. In other words, the computer is very modifiable. Your main limiting factor is going to be the power supply and the connections on the motherboard. As long as you don't put a graphics card in that will exceed the psu, you should be fine. Without seeing a unit personally, I would imagine that you can upgrade RAM, hdd/ssd, optical drives, graphics cards (to an extent) adding soundcards and other pci cards and possibly the heatsink on the processor.

Where I work, we are given HP workstations that feature xeon processors, cuda graphics, etc. There are no compromises made when it comes to business and spending a couple extra grand can mean thousands saved in time over the life of the computer. If this computer is for business, I would go the route your gf feels most comfortable with regardless the cost (within reason of course). But when choosing an Apple machine, I would wait to see what apple will be unveiling with the new Mac Pro tower (coming out later this year). I cannot speak to how serviceable the new model will be though.

67
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!   

68
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!

69
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).

70
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?

71
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



72
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

73
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  :)

74
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.   

75
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!

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7