October 31, 2014, 01:35:39 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 - RMC33

Pages: 1 ... 21 22 [23] 24 25 ... 29
331
Software & Accessories / Re: Which iMac
« on: January 31, 2013, 09:25:22 PM »
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?

332
EOS Bodies / Re: Expected reception of the 7DII / 70D
« on: January 31, 2013, 08:55:46 PM »
The same way people have received the majority of Canon's offerings in the past year.  People will read the specs and:

•First, scream and cry about the lack of megapixels and dynamic range.
•Then, complain about how it's far too expensive and that Sony and Nikon have xxx for $xxx less.
•Flood of posts from people complaining about how Canon is neglecting their customers because they personally wanted a 5D4 or 1DX2 instead of a 7D2.
•Then talk about all the stuff that they hope Canon addresses in a future firmware update.
•Then get antsy about pre-orders and shipping and create threads asking if anyone has gotten theirs in yet.
•Then when it takes a while, we'll get a flood of "I'm switching to Nikon" threat posts and demands that Canon fix their production lines (regardless of natural disasters).

Then when it finally comes out people will talk about how awesome it is and how much they love it, and how they never doubted Canon for a minute.

+100 That made me laugh... NAILED IT !!!

Wondering out loud as an owner of 2 7D's and to the forum... what is the number one thing I/you hated about the 7D? For me it was the noise! Fix that and make it practically waterproof.  Love my 7d's but now using the 5D3. It's hard to reach for a 7D when you have that available. The reason I started using the 7D was due to my 5D2s dated AF capabilities. I had a 1DX but decided to go with 5D3s. Great camera many times it was too much for the situation and the 5D3 was just a better fit... for me.  A 7D2 could sit nicely in the area between 5D3 and 1DX. If Canon would level the playing field in AF to say a 5D3, or maybe better (I can dream). Improve the sensor in APS-C format, make it a rugged beast for outdoor shite with fastish fps... sign me up for the 7D2.

Agreed. My personal beef with the 7d after using a 1Dx/5d3 is the af modification. I have my different settings set to C1/2/3 on my 7D. Mk3 its 3 seconds to change. I would love to see sealing on a 1dx level and would gladly pay for it.

333
EOS Bodies / Re: Expected reception of the 7DII / 70D
« on: January 31, 2013, 02:53:17 PM »
Nothing positive? I need a new sports body my poor 7D is starting to get old. It's either a 1Dx (GF will kill me) or 7DMkII (GF will kill a little faster so I don't suffer as much). Either way.. incremental or huge upgrade I was happy with the transition between 5dMkII and MKIII and hope the same of the 7D to a 7D MKII. If not I have other options, I can just buy a 1Dx and call it good.

334
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D III or 1D IV for sports!
« on: January 31, 2013, 02:46:17 PM »
5d3 works just fine for sports. I keep a wider lens on it and have no tracking/focus issues at all. 1Dx is nice (I get to use one now and again and plan on buying) but my 7D does just fine for 95% of my shots. The only reason I want a 1Dx is night skiing/snowboarding is a pain with the 7D as is any indoor. I keep a 8-15 f4 fish or 16-35 UWA on my 5dMK3 and on high speed have yet to miss a shot I want. Usually have a 70-200 2.8 on my 7d or longer depending on my location.

The most important thing.. rather then body or lens .. is knowing your sport inside and out. Where your subject will be at what time and the best location to get the shot. Knowing what base the play will be in baseball, seeing any advantage during a power play, sitting under the net on one end of a basketball court and using a UWA or Fish to capture that game changing dunk or that one point in the course that everyone has had trouble with but you know one skier is going to nail the turn and give you "that shot".

Note on the 7D... I have the 7D and I've heard some people say it's AF is better than even the 1DMK3, that is simply not true. I tried basically every AF combination on it and it just does not give as much keepers as 1DMK3. So if I were to go down the 1 and 5series to a 7, the MKII better be damn good in its AF area. Also the high ISO is just a pain to deal with. I know that knowing the sport I am shooting does benefit me;however, I do like AI servo and track players rather than focus trap at a given point.

I get a 80% keep rate with my 7D shooting skiing/snowboarding, Kayaking, Kiteboarding and some College Level Baseball/Basketball/Football. Not having used a 1DMK3 I can't compare but will say the noise on the 7D past a point makes it useless which is where I swap in a 5DMK3. I had the same issue before I sat down and learned how the tracking and servo mode worked on my 7D for different types of motion and subject matter. Now that I know I have custom profiles saved to my C1/2/3 on the dial for specific situations for easy changing on the fly and can go from keeping focus on a subject for half-pipe events to almost instant focus subject change for boarder/skier cross. My lens selection is a huge part what I do as well, since I am usually static. I use the focus preset a lot on my 200 f/2 and 400 f/2.8 MKII too when I know my subjects will be in two locations that I can get the images I want and will work for my client.

335
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D III or 1D IV for sports!
« on: January 31, 2013, 12:16:41 PM »
5d3 works just fine for sports. I keep a wider lens on it and have no tracking/focus issues at all. 1Dx is nice (I get to use one now and again and plan on buying) but my 7D does just fine for 95% of my shots. The only reason I want a 1Dx is night skiing/snowboarding is a pain with the 7D as is any indoor. I keep a 8-15 f4 fish or 16-35 UWA on my 5dMK3 and on high speed have yet to miss a shot I want. Usually have a 70-200 2.8 on my 7d or longer depending on my location.

The most important thing.. rather then body or lens .. is knowing your sport inside and out. Where your subject will be at what time and the best location to get the shot. Knowing what base the play will be in baseball, seeing any advantage during a power play, sitting under the net on one end of a basketball court and using a UWA or Fish to capture that game changing dunk or that one point in the course that everyone has had trouble with but you know one skier is going to nail the turn and give you "that shot".

336
Lenses / Re: Which 15mm f2.8?
« on: January 30, 2013, 09:42:23 PM »
Love the Furcon shot!

I prefer the Canon 8-15. Gives the best of both worlds.

Thanks... I was never a fan of circular fisheyes, I'm more into rect. FOV so the 8-15L was mehhh for me, especially in the sharpness dept.

Ya it is tough to get sharp. I like it for the versatility shooting sports, I do a lot of ski/snowboard and it just ROCKS in a Half-pipe. Your shots have me seriously considering a 15 though!

337
Lenses / Re: Please explain the need for f2.8 zooms
« on: January 30, 2013, 09:26:15 PM »
The standard lens requirement for shooting events/weddings seem to be a combination of 24-70/28 and 70-200/2.8, I read both are nailed to a pro's camera 90% of the time (though I have problems doing the maths :-))

A lens with a larger aperture afaik has three advantages: better af on some bodies, better subject isolation/creativity (just one eye in focus) and last not least a "fast" lens is required for "low light" shots.

My question rose when I read the great book "Captured by the Light" by David Ziser who - believe it or not - writes that f4 to f5.6 (for convenience or added safety) is his bread and butter setting for posed candid wedding flash shots, and he used the 5d2 at that time.

Saying that it's his "bread and butter setting" is different from saying that he uses it all the time.

Turning this around, what are the disadvantages of f/2.8 zooms ?

The main advantages are shallower dof (when needed,  not  necessarily on every shot) and that it helps AF performance

I would say the weight... but in retrospect I can now handhold my 200 f/2 for the duration of a 6 hour event now and have a 2nd body + lenses no problem now. Could not do that two seasons ago when I started.

338
Lenses / Re: Please explain the need for f2.8 zooms
« on: January 30, 2013, 07:27:19 PM »
From a sports perspective.

I own a Canon 16-35 f/2.8, 24-70 2.8, 70-200 MkII (FINALY sold my MK I), 200 f/2 and 400 f/2.8 MkII. Why? I need to keep a shutter speed in excess of 1/500 (pref 1/1000+) to stop action. Most of the areas I work in DOF is not an issue as much as stopping motion and making sure I get the shot hence the reason for "Fast glass". I don't use the 24-70 much in all honesty BUT it does come in VERY handy after the fact.

Example: Shot with a 70-200 f/2.8 MKI
1/640 f/5.6 ISO 200 with a circular polarizer. I have the ability to open up and get more light if I need if clouds come in or the sun starts to set.

339
Sports / Re: Horses / Horseriding etc
« on: January 30, 2013, 07:05:25 PM »
This is Raj. A little Arabian colt at the Ranch my girlfriend works at. I will be doing conformation in the spring for the ranch owner and will post a few more then!

340
Lenses / Re: Which 15mm f2.8?
« on: January 30, 2013, 06:59:08 PM »
I absolutely love the Sigma 15mm... I own over 15 "L" lenses but the Siggy 15mm is one of my very faves. I bought every UWA fish available when deciding which to go with; Canon, Siggy, Samyang/Rokinon , etc... tested them all, kept the Siggy. I wanted to love the 8-15L but the Sig was soooo much sharper. Depending on what show up at the door depends how much you'll love the Samyang, out of 3 copies only one was worth looking at. Besides the Siggy still auto focuses and "works" well with the 5D3. When my son was about to be delivered, I looked at all the lenses I owned, then took the 15mm into the delivery room. Love it that much!!!!


MotoGP 2012 Mazda Raceway, Laguna Seca - Helicopter Ride by David KM, on Flickr

FurCon 2013 - San Jose, California by
00/52 Weeks of Sailor - Birth... 21:03 May 14th, 2012 by David KM, on Flickr

Monterey Bay Aquarium by David KM, on Flickr

Love the Furcon shot!

I prefer the Canon 8-15. Gives the best of both worlds.

341
Software & Accessories / Re: Which iMac
« on: January 28, 2013, 05:02:08 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.

I ran into the "buying everything twice" Issue since I use PC/Mac. I went with creative cloud and no longer have this issue for $600/yr

342
Software & Accessories / Re: Which iMac
« on: January 28, 2013, 04:17:10 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

Every enterprise level machine I have used/come across was not very good when it came to laptops, but I had unique needs at that time. Workstations were the same for every vendor other then Dell who could make a solid CAD/tool-path/Gcode platform for my unique business, and AT budget as well (RS232 ports custom HDD controllers to talk to vert mills.. all sorts of fun stuff). I don't love them as I prefer to build my own machine and I hated the GPU's Dell used as they were overkill. I agree with the glossy screen it can be annoying but I have not run into many issues with it and frankly I love it.

343
If i wanna print out jpgs with some Kodak (or else) instant printers u can find in store should i change the JPG colorspace to AdobeRGB first? Or is it nonsense since these instant printer machines arent that good anyway?

I'm no expert but I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express recently and I believe that qualifies me to help... that and the fact that I did do some online research about AdobeRGB vs sRGB about a year ago.  There is a lot of mind numbing discussions out there that essentially end up at the fact that no one has any business using AdobeRGB unless they know why they need AdobeRGB.  People that are doing specific work in print houses, magazines, etc and they have specific reasons for needing that color space spec.  In fact, I also remember some mention of the fact that you may even be hurting yourself by using AdobeRGB but I honestly don't remember much about it except that I came to the conclusion that sRGB was where I needed to stay and I haven't heard much to change my mind since.

Maybe this thread will eventually shed more light on the subject.

From what I have seen sRGB is the standard for 99% of things. I do know it is a much smaller color space then Adobe RGB and Pro-Photo. Now and again when I send off a photo I do get asked for Adobe or ProPhoto but never bothered to ask why. According to a good friend from college who works in a print house they are used for very specific printers and paper (pro-photo and AdobeRGB). Never bothered to ask but I think when I am there in February I will shoot him a few questions.

344
Software & Accessories / Re: Which iMac
« on: January 28, 2013, 02:15:25 AM »
Niterider I disagree slightly.

Yes it's expensive, but when you compare spec for spec, Apple does charge quite a bit.  The products are generally usable and you don't waste time with stuff that doesn't work.  Instead you can use your time to simply use the product.

There isn't much difference between laptop/desktop architecture anymore.  Yes, performance is better with a big huge desktop, but what do you need the performance for?  Keep in mind with the iMac you're getting a 27" IPS screen.  After the computer is useless, I believe the screen is still usable via the thunderbolt port (but only with thunderbolt enabled devices, which right now are mostly apple laptops but that might change in the near future).  In any case, a 27" IPS (unless you buy some no-name brand on eBay) is going to run your $700+, so factor that into the specs.  It is NOT the same as the $199 27" specials you see all the time.

As for the hackintosh, don't do it.  I built one and it works ... mostly.  Sometimes something doesn't work, then you have to go through the forums and figured out what went wrong.  It's a fun project and I enjoyed doing it, but for a PC that's going to be used daily that I need to rely on, it simply doesn't cut it. 

My only suggestion is that if you don't need super-performance, buy a Mac-Mini instead, and a cheapo monitor for now (unless you have a monitor, if you do, use that).  When Apple releases a new Thunderbolt Display (27" IPS based on the NEW iMac monitor) either grab that or another high quality 27" IPS or PLS Monitor (Samsung, Asus, Dell Ultrasharp, etc.)  They're all going to be pricey.  That way you're separating the computer from the monitor, and can upgrade the PC every few years and keep the monitor.  The biggest drawback with the iMac is that it's difficult to upgrade yourself, and the PC side of the tech will likely get outdated well before the monitor.  Separate the two, and you can replace the PC every few years.

Honestly, I have little experience with hackintosh builds. All of my computers are either on windows 7, windows 8, ubuntu or running a virtual machine of a different linux distribution. I have heard running a hackintosh is a hit and a miss for stability sake so I can understand the desire not to go down that route.

While the iMac has an IPS screen, I often find that the graphics cards that are in the iMac just dont cut it for QWHD resolution, especially if you get into CAD or 3D rendering. Just a preference, I am not the biggest fan of the glossy screens either. I prefer the anti-glare screens in the Dell Ultrasharps.

Probably the most important part of a custom build for me is just simply convenience. I have a sound card, multiple graphics cards, efficient power supply, blue-ray, cooling like crazy, 16gb samsung ram (overclocked), multiple solid states, multiple hard drives in RAID arrays, a processor with 4 real and 4 virtual cores stable at 4.5ghz idling at 36 degrees Celsius, and a motherboard that can allow for lots of further expansion. I just cant get that in an iMac and if I could, it would cost over $3000 at least.  I built this computer for less than 900. Unfortunately, I am one who does need super performance and most of the software I run is best on a windows platform (emulating doesnt work very well for these programs).

Plus if i need to upgrade, I can just pop the door of the case off...

Do most people need a QWHD screen, i7 processing power, over 8 gb ram, 3tb and a ssd os boot drive? Not many, but for those who need or want it, get ready to top off that credit card limit.



CAD on an iMac is laughable at best for anything beyond basic planning and simple design. My PC/MBP retina synch to each other for photo work so I can seamlessly go between the two. I would KILL to be able to do the same with AutoCAD 2013 and Inventor 2013 on my retina without dual boot. I do have to say though... SSD for boot and primary software is not overkill. My productivity is much higher using a SSD for all my CAD and photo work (one 512 in my win7 PC) since the read/write is so fast. Once done I transfer to my internal 3TB Raid 1 that is used for storage + a pair of 2TB NAS drives for backup.

In regard to the value of an Apple product vs the rest. All I can say is show me a laptop as good as my Retina for a similar price. Their desktops yes, total scam. I have yet to find a laptop that can do what it does for the same price.

345
EOS Bodies / Re: 1DX - The Workhorse?
« on: January 27, 2013, 10:19:55 PM »
18 MP should be sufficient for just about anything you do. If it will be blown up be sure to frame it as such. I shoot skiing and snowboarding (with a little fashion mixed in for local pubs) and have never had an issue with the 18mp out of my 7D being "too small". 22.1 in my 5D3 works great... love the camera and with a grip it feels solid as can be.

Pages: 1 ... 21 22 [23] 24 25 ... 29