January 28, 2015, 11:36:37 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 - Botts

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 14
Software & Accessories / Re: My Dell vs iMac
« on: December 11, 2013, 12:27:31 AM »
Ok so it's quicker, but I'm still confused with Apple not mentioning SSD but only Flash, is this the same thing?
In this case, yes. I believe Apple uses the term "flash" storage to differentiate from "SSD", which has come to mean - more or less - flash-type storage built into a housing the same form factor as "HDD" storage, and with a compatible SATA interface.

In other words, they don't want you to think you can buy an off-the-shelf SSD and install it.

You can't.  At least not easily.  It's a PCIe interface, but you'd need a custom built PCIe flash drive to fit the space inside the iMac.  A preexisting PCIe flash solution like a Mercury Accelsior wouldn't fit.

Ok so it's quicker, but I'm still confused with Apple not mentioning SSD but only Flash, is this the same thing?
Apple does use the term Flash to refer to SSDs.  The iMac's SSD/flash option achieves well over 500MB/s, often reaching into the low 700MB/s.

Botts, thanks for that information, interesting to know!
In your first post you say: “I'd go with the iMac.  The 27" display is fabulous, and the computer is wicked fast.  I've got a loaded 2013 sitting on my desk right now.”
Your also saying about upgrading my current PC, which is definitely an option, so which would you do if you were in my position and you didn’t have an iMac?
I had meant to recommend the RAID option and RAM to be used with the iMac, not the current PC.

I see what is being said about Hard Drives but the top/near top iMac will still be much faster than my current Dell and I can cope with my Dell now so any improvment will be a bonus, so speed yes is important for programs like Lightroom, but for me I don’t see it as being essential.
I think the iMac is the best option for you.  I'd order it with the 256GB SSD/Flash option, and go with USB 3.0 externals for storing your masters.  Keep your apps and your LR Catalogues on your SSD.[/b]

But this does not get around my main point of wanting a new monitor, I have a 4 year old Samsung monitor and the iMac screen will blow my Samsung monitor out of the water. It definitely will, it's a fabulous display.[/color]

The iMac is available with flash memory, which is the same as an SSD. The flash memory is faster than any standard SSD you can put in your PC for 2 reasons. The first reason being that your Dell has a SATA II interface, which limits data transfer speeds to around 270MB/sec. The second reason is that the iMac uses a proprietary interface which is connected directly to a PCI Express lane and can reach speeds over 700MB/sec. Even SATA III interfaces in newer PCs can not reach these speeds.

The iMac also has a thunderbolt connection, which is faster than any eSATA or USB 3.0 port on any PC. This thunderbolt connection allows you to add additional storage, whether it be external hard drives or SSDs, with no loss in performance compared to an internal drive. I would opt for flash storage on your iMac. You can keep your Lightroom catalog on the internal flash storage, and keep your actual photos on a high capacity external HDD. Lightroom is still very quick when set up this way.

Rofflesaurrr nails it.  I hadn't even thought of the SATA2 vs SATA3 issue.  You're effectively wasting your money putting any SSD into that Dell as it'll be limited by your logic board's SATA2 connections.

The iMac is the way to go for future proofing.  It'll have the speed to store large libraries effectively.  USB 2.0 or FW800 even, will continue to slow down your workflow.

He also suggests the catalog = ssd, and masters = hdd advantage as well.

Software & Accessories / Re: My Dell vs iMac
« on: December 10, 2013, 01:01:32 PM »
Just checked the GeekBench 2 scores for your i5 760 vs the iMac's i7 4771.  The iMac scores 2.01x higher on GeekBench than your dell which is substantial.

The loaded iMac scores 17% faster than my Retina MacBook Pro, which is pretty close to what I see in real world speed difference for heavy compute actions.  I.e. video rendering, or heavy PS work.  As such, I'd expect the iMac would smoke your Dell.

I still don't think I could justify anything bigger than a 256GB SSD at today's cost though, as the only thing you really need to store on the SSD is programs and LR Catalogues.  USB 3.0 / Thunderbolt also lets you add SSDs in SATA6 enclosures down the road.

Here's what I'd do instead of splurging on the 960GB SSD.
RAID enclosure $175 + 2TB Seagate $90x4 + 4TB USB 3.0 External $200

That comes to $735 and you'd get a RAID-10 enclosure with usable 4TB of space, and an external 4TB for offline backups.  You could do a 2TB version of this for $605.  It'll come down to whether or not you need that much data protection, I'd argue you always do; though I'm more conservative than most on backups.

Software & Accessories / Re: My Dell vs iMac
« on: December 10, 2013, 02:26:11 AM »
Disclaimer: I worked for Apple for quite a long time.

I'd go with the iMac.  The 27" display is fabulous, and the computer is wicked fast.  I've got a loaded 2013 sitting on my desk right now.

If I were you, I'd go with the GPU and CPU upgrades from factory, I'd also choose the 256GB SSD.  Buy your RAM as cash becomes available. 
I run 24GB of RAM right now in this config: 4GB (stock), 4GB (stock), 8GB (aftermarket), 8GB(aftermarket).

The GPU and CPU will future proof you the longest.

With regards to the suggestion of the 960GB SSD, I'd avoid going that route.  I'd also avoid the Fusion Drive. Reasons are as follows:

1. You will outgrow the SSD, be it 960GB or 256GB.  It's a just a matter of time, then you're limited to USB 3.0 attached options anyways.
2. Lightroom runs great off a 2 HDD RAID-0, just make sure you've got a solid backup scheme or run RAID 10 with periodic offline backups.  Further, moving your Lightroom Catalogues to SSD, then running the masters off the RAID will lead to even better performance.  The Fusion drive won't touch either setup for speed.
3. Fusion Drives are currently a little finicky, and the replacement SSDs are still a constrained part AFAIK at Apple stores. I.e. if yours goes down, it's down for 2+ weeks.
4. That 960GB SSD is really expensive compared to building a fast RAID-0 + backup.  You could probably do a 4TB RAID 10 for under $600 now.  Alternatively, you could get a USB 3.0 DROBO.
5. Fire your programs on the SSD for super quick load times.

With regards to Aperture or Lightroom, keep in mind all they are, are glorified databases.  They need super quick read/write to the database, master reads are less crucial.  As such, most users with big libraries, or a need for speed run their Catalogues/Aperture Libraries on their SSDs, but store their masters / reference their masters on an external drive, RAID or otherwise.

If you have any questions, please PM me.

Canon General / Re: Useless or absurd accessories
« on: December 10, 2013, 02:08:23 AM »
Tied with the "tripod" that has flexible legs and can supposedly wrap around a fence post or branch.

I really hope I am not the only one who fell for that, this thing can barely carry its own weight, but it really reminded me of the "buy cheap, pay double" saying :-\

I quite liked my GorillaPod, it had its place, and my Gitzo has its place.  I use my gorilla pod lots with my P&S in places like Disneyland, or to strap a T2i to my Gitzo if I want video to supplement my photos.

Sort of like camouflage flashlights :)

As someone who has spent a substantially amount of time outdoors, I actively seek out the brightest coloured, least camouflaged items I can find.  Nothing worse than seeing someone drop a brand new camo zippo or flashlight in the bush, never to see it again. 

The only things I buy in less visible are things that I don't store in my pack if I'm trying to go low observable, but even then the items will be OD or black, not camo.

The worst accessory I can think of is the selfie stick! http://www.amazon.com/niceEshop-Extendable-telescopic-handheld-Portrait/dp/B00B0TNWIW/ref=sr_1_5?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1386659265&sr=1-5&keywords=self+portrait

Lenses / Re: DIY carbon hood for 40mm stm lens
« on: October 29, 2013, 11:33:12 AM »
No, i used epox that hardened on room temperature. No need for oven...

I see, I guess it doesn't need to be as strong as F1 chassis...

Most DIY carbon fibre things are cured at room temperature.  You use CF fabric, then coat with epoxy, similar to fibreglassing.

Pre-impregnated or prepreg CF is stored in a freezer, then shaped on a mold and heated to 100C to cure.

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II Spec List Surfaces [CR1]
« on: October 27, 2013, 01:40:19 PM »
The noise in the 7D  reminds me of the classic Panasonic all-in-one super zooms. But yeah, terrible blue channel noise at ISO 100. I'd much rather see them focus on low ISO dynamic range and noise than ISO 64000 jpeg noise.  Any addition of megapixels to the 1.6x sensor means I won't be picking one up. 18 is already too many.

Why?  More pixels = less noise and more detail.

There is a school of thought, somewhat based in science, that bigger pixels equal less noise and/or higher sensitivity.

There are engineering realities which can nullify, mitigate, or amplify the above however.

Software & Accessories / Re: OS X Mavericks
« on: October 26, 2013, 10:01:25 PM »
Got the email from Planet 5D ... thought it might be of interest to some of you:
"APP Nap: FCPX under Mavericks: Won’t background render unless you change this!
For FCPX (and many other apps) under the new Apple OS X Mavericks, apps will by default, attempt to save processing for foreground apps by doing something new called “App Nap” – and that will cause background rendering to STOP unless you turn it off.

This is all news to me so I thought I’d share!"

Interesting, my FCP X hasn't been behaving like this.

Software & Accessories / Re: OS X Mavericks
« on: October 23, 2013, 01:29:35 AM »
Overall, I'm very happy with the upgrade.  It took about 90 minutes for the whole process.  Something I wish they warned me about    ;)

How long?

25 minutes here. Probably due to using an SSD though.

32 mike on my SSD.

Software & Accessories / Re: OS X Mavericks
« on: October 23, 2013, 12:23:09 AM »

Adobe needs to address this ASAP.

I have been sitting this thread out, until now.

I took my ~ 2 year old MBA 13" on a road trip.  I found that it was fine speed wise for LR5, great size and weight wise to carry, BUT- not enough screen real estate to work with.  I also recommend that the retina screen is a must.  Next time out, I'm taking my 15" MBP to try.  My 2 C.


One of my friends from Cupertino let me play with his new Retina MacBook Pro 15".

Damn I wish I could afford to upgrade my current rMBP.

How about a mirrorless camera? Might be less intimidating than a DSLR for her.
If you read above it looks like she specifically requested DSLR.
I'd seriously consider a 60D. http://www.canonpricewatch.com/product/03305/Canon-EOS-60D-price.html

It's pretty similar in cost to a T4i or T5i and a beefier body with better speed and quality.  I find the heftier body is a selling point for everyone who has already decided they want to go to DSLR.  The 60D also has two control dials which are immensely helpful in manual vs the hold Av button and spin wheel option on the xxxD/Txi models.

Add a 18-55 or an 18-200 and you have a great starter kit.  Adding a 40STM is great too.

Personally, I think a crop is a good place to start, she'll learn to shoot just the same as she would with a 5D.  Then she can decide on her own later if FF is where she wants to go, and then whether or not she wants speed (5D3), or value (used 5D/5D2 or 6D).  She can then choose lenses that she wants for the FF.  For example, I hated the 35mm on crop, but love it on FF.

For a great picture get it right at the camera first, the less you have to correct in PP the less it will look fake.

This works great if you know your destination, sometimes you don't though.  If I'm shooting images for a fun photo book, I don't know if my photo will be cropped to 4:3, 4:5, 16:9 or some other aspect ratio. 

Framing for a perfect 4:3 composition would really limit which photos I could use where.

Similarly, if I'm shooting an event, I'll usually make a slideshow 16:9 if it's full images, or any aspect ratio if it's more like a collage.  Also, I'll probably wind up printing some of the images as large 4:3s.  I like having some space to work with.


Having prices drop from the original introductory price isn't exactly a theory, that can be supported by heaps of data.  The claim here was the price it was going to hit, and it was done with a fair amount of chest thumping.  I'd say it was way the hell off.

My favorite line from the whole thing:

"People who claim this pricing could never happen would have conveniently "forgotten" by then or remain mum when that day does come..."

I was trying to be friendly and diplomatic!

Canon General / Re: Canon LP-E6 Product Advisory
« on: October 09, 2013, 12:32:13 PM »
In essence, does this mean Canon tried to embed a non-genuine battery detection into the charger and screwed it up?

To me it sounds like they have trouble to supply the internal electronics sufficiently when the battery is deeply discharged. I don't think this is related to their security stuff.

I think steb nailed it.  With a lot of Apple's lithium batteries, when really really dead they require a process similar to this.  Quite often they'll be beyond saving though.

Canon General / Re: How to be a bad photographer.
« on: October 09, 2013, 12:30:31 PM »
Very good post.

If you want to be a bad photographer you need to find inspiration here: http://youarenotaphotographer.com/
Excellent site.  I disagree though when he says photographers shouldn't burn their finished images and let their clients print them how they want.

I'd much rather spend $3k on my wedding photography, get all the images on disc, then print them myself or make my own albums.  I'm probably not the average client as I have a 19" printer at home, and am a couture book and asuka book client.

Paying $2-3k and then having a potentially ballooning print cost with insane markups from the photographer bugs me.  Could be that personally I'm used to being paid by the job and not charging per print though.

Thankfully though my GAS has been mostly cured.

I've slimmed down my fleet of camera gear and rent when I need to for specific tasks.
Now my gear list is: 6D, Sigma 35/1.4, Canon 70-200 f/4IS.
Recently I've rented: 500L II, 5D3, 200/2 IS
Down the pipe is: 1DX, 200-400, 5D3, 70-200/2.8L II, 16-35.

I ran the numbers and it makes way more sense for me to rent than tie up capital in gear.  Rental is also 100% tax deductible which is good.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 14