Haha it doesn't because I already decided and bought one But thank you for your detailed suggestion!
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.
Yes I have actually, I work on a $10,000 12 core Mac Pro at work, but I'm not a fan because for most tasks my 15" MBP is faster. You missed my point, maybe you should re-read my initial post which you (mis)quoted, I was never talking about PC's, I was speaking about Apple's lineup exclusively, and in particular, the Macbook Pro and the iMac (as stated in my initial post), as they are my two choices, as such, while some of the specs haven't exactly surpassed it (processors are still better in the iMac) you can get a bigger SSD in the new MBP, and the RAM in the new MBP is much better as the iMacs haven't been updated in a while now. Also, in case you didn't know, the iMac in fact uses Laptop components, so your argument is false.... and as such, the Laptops have actually surpassed / matched the desktops in specs.. so it makes the decision a lot harder.
You havent a clue about how wrong you are and this will probably never happen. I build powerful workstation and gaming machines - and the distance between desktops and notebooks havent changed over the years. Have you seen a desktop with 4 quad core xeons or opterons with over 100 GB ram. Or a gaming i7 with nitrogen cooling or fan the size of a bowling ball, running at 4.5 GHz, or 4 full sized video cards. With a 1200W power supply?? The main parts - the CPU and the graphics card they use are not the same even though they are named similarly. Laptops carry lite versions of almost all its hardware. Comparing notebooks with desktops is like comparing your pretty 4x4 'monster' pickup with an 18 wheeler carrying a 50 ton load.
Haha! Thanks for your time Neuro, I really appreciate your help, and sorry for my ignorance too! That all makes a lot of sense I'm going to refer back to your post when I get the lens, and use the techniques if needed, I'm also guessing that using Live View would negate all of these problems? However that's not really an ideal solution.
You thought the first reply was 'massive'? Read on....
Perhaps you could go back, check your sources and see if they were manually focusing at large apertures (f2 or less)Good point! Haha pure ignorance likely :p It seems stupid to me though to put out a product that doesn't work well with the products it's meant to out of the box, without some tampering that may / may not be covered by warranty.
As Neuro pointed out, there is a trade off. A standard focusing screen is brighter and easier to use with slow glass (slower than f/2.. For example, the EG-S would be less usable than a standard screen if you were using a long prime with a teleconverter.
With f/2.8 glass, it should be a tie more or less.
With a fast prime, however, you will only get f/2.8 depth of field. Manually focusing at f/1.2 when you have f/2.8 dof in the viewfinder is next to impossible, regardless of how bright the viewfinder is. If you never shoot faster than f/2.8, you will be fine. If you shoot at wider apertures often, the standard focusing screen will be inadequate.
I don't understand why you're so sure. The stock focusing screen is optimized for f/2.8 and slower lenses -- it works very nicely for all their zooms, for example.
They didn't make it impossible to change the focusing screen, and there aren't that many users who want to swap their focusing screens in and out. I have the EG-S with a 5D Mark II, but I never have need to put the standard one back in.