Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by YellowJersey

  1. 1 hour ago, brob said:

    Depends on what the extra memory will cost and how long you will use it. 


    Are you using ssd storage?

    I priced it out and I'm looking at around $350-$450 CAD. Probably looking to get another 2-4 years out of my current machine (hopefully).

     I am using SSDs exclusively, got three of them crammed into various orifices in my laptop. Just filled the second unpopulated mini PCIE slot with a 500gb Samsung 860 EVO.

  2. 18 hours ago, brob said:

    All the cores in the world will not make Photoshop perform better. 


    The i7-8700 has a max turbo of 4.6GHz. The Ryzen 7 2700X max turbo is 4.3GHz. In addition, Intel Coffee Lake cores are slightly more powerful at any given clock.


    The 2700X would not be a bad choice, just not the best one in my opinion.

    One final question. My current laptop runs an i7 3820QM @ 2.7GHz and I've got 16gb of DDR3 1666MHz memory (max speed supported). Do you think it makes any sense to spend the money upgrade to 32gb of memory? Or would my money be better spent saving up for a whole new system?

  3. 47 minutes ago, brob said:

    Photoshop is very lightly threaded. Favor higher performance cores or more cores. At the moment the i7-8700 would be a good choice. Unless you want to overclock, in which case the i7-8700K with appropriate motherboard and cooling would be best.


    A discrete gpu will allow Photoshop to accelerate some functions. Something like a GTX 1050 Ti would be fine. 


    Likely 32GB of memory would be a good starting point. A large ssd will also make a difference.


    I'd suggest something along the following lines. The ssd should be large enough to handle the os, programs, and current projects. A NAS or additional hdd can be used for longer term storage.


    Given the size of files being manipulated, there might be some benefit to using an NVMe ssd. However, I'm not sure the premium cost is justified. In a year or two, prices should be much more reasonable.


    PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

    CPU: Intel - Core i7-8700 3.2GHz 6-Core Processor  ($389.99 @ Mike's Computer Shop) 
    CPU Cooler: CRYORIG - H7 49.0 CFM CPU Cooler  ($44.99 @ Amazon Canada) 
    Motherboard: Asus - Prime B360-Plus ATX LGA1151 Motherboard  ($131.99 @ PC-Canada) 
    Memory: G.Skill - Ripjaws V Series 32GB (2 x 16GB) DDR4-2666 Memory  ($418.00 @ Newegg Canada) 
    Storage: Crucial - MX500 1TB 2.5" Solid State Drive  ($289.99 @ PC-Canada) 
    Video Card: EVGA - GeForce GTX 1050 Ti 4GB SC GAMING ACX 2.0 Video Card  ($234.99 @ Newegg Canada) 
    Case: Fractal Design - Define C ATX Mid Tower Case  ($101.99 @ PC-Canada) 
    Power Supply: Corsair - CXM (2015) 450W 80+ Bronze Certified Semi-Modular ATX Power Supply  ($64.99 @ Amazon Canada) 
    Total: $1676.93
    Generated by PCPartPicker 2018-06-14 00:25 EDT-0400

    Just out of curiosity, what about an AMD Ryzen 7 2700X? You get 8 cores instead of 6 and 3.7GHz instead of 3.2GHz. They seem relatively similar in terms of price. To my limited knowledge, Ryzen seems more geared towards gaming, though. Any thoughts?


  4. My only reason for needing a PC with some oomph behind it is photo editing. I work with Sony A7rIII raw files (around 85mb) in Capture One and 250mb TIFF files in Photoshop CS5. What specs should I prioritise? CPU speed over number of cores? Ram over Graphics card? I don't want to spend money on,say, a high end graphics card if it's not going to make a difference for my use. What would people recommend in a build? My budget is between $1000-$2000 CAD. I generally go with something a step up from what I need just for the sake of future proofing. I like getting a long life out of my machines (around 10 years with around $500ish of upgrades during that time). Only running one monitor. I've got all the peripherals I need. Looking at getting a new machine as my old one is a bit sluggish thanks to the new camera files.

  5. 4 hours ago, Windows7ge said:

    If you only need it for general purpose applications out in the field have you considered Linux?



    Oh, wait...you did...nvm.


     I fell in love with Linux Mint back in 2015 after my old laptop stopped being able to run Windows 7. It really breathed new life into a machine that's now approaching 10 years old. I keep a Windows partition on my photo editing laptop for my editing software, but other than that I use Mint almost exclusively.

  6. 2 minutes ago, mok said:

    yeah unfortunately this is a very common issue with windows 7 updates - and has existed for a very long time. 

    In my experience with the 5 computers in the house its been resolved in various ways

    sometimes you have to literally leave it  on overnight 

    sometimes you have to manually disable and re-enable the windows update service

    sometimes you have to disable the optional updates from being installed - some of the optional updates caused the glitch as well

    I had to manually uninstall a particular optional update before it was usable again.


    All in the meanwhile your cpu and ram usage will be maxed out ....


    I would recommend doing the free windows 10 upgrade - thats what i did on all my computers and havent had any issues, even for ,my ancient computers running Core 2 Duo 



    I actually have Windows 10 on it, so it's a dual boot machine. I need Windows 7 on it, though, as it's used via wifi hotspot with limited data sometimes, so I can't afford for Windows 10 to download updates out in the field.

  7. 10 minutes ago, Windows7ge said:

    OK, a little bit of googling. I'm 1/2 correct. Mainstream support was cut in 2015 (I'm assuming they mean feature packages) but security updates will continue to be supported up until 2020.

    Well, that's good to hear. I'll leave it running overnight and see what happens.

  8. Just did a fresh install of Windows 7 home premium 64bit on a Lenovo T430. It processed a bunch of updates just fine, but now it doesn't want to download any new updates. Windows Update is stuck at 0% downloaded and it's been like that for hours. I tried rebooting it, starting again, but that doesn't seem to help. Any suggestions?

    *sigh* This is why I switched to Linux for my machine.

  9. 59 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

    Except wireless charging will always have that issue. Wired will not.

    Like how wireless audio/video will ALWAYS be subject to more interference.

    Like how wireless internet ALWAYS has higher lag and packet loss.


    Advanced =/= better.


    1 hour ago, Llamas said:

    You miss the whole point of my statement. To increase technology that tech has to be used and advanced. Get rid of the headphone jack and wireless tech is advanced. Get it? You dont go from 0 to 100 by skipping 1 thru 99. Rome wasn't built in a day.

    Not to mention removing the headphone jack had less to do with advancing wireless tech as it did getting rid of a standard that apple couldn't make money off of and replacing it with proprietary tech that they can make money off of to the detriment of their customers and thereby basically reinventing the wheel.

     When it comes to wireless charging, I get that people want convenience, but when it comes to wireless charging, it comes with a significant cost that's not readily apparent. Again, for many applications, wireless charging seems reinventing the wheel rather than providing a substantial benefit. That said, there are certain applications where wireless charging does have benefit.

  10. 1 minute ago, floppy disk mayhem said:

    I agree, damaging the environment just for a gimmick is pointless.  

    Well, if wireless charger were limited to your phone being stuck on a charging pad, I'd agree. However, the technology is moving past that point to the point where it's not so gimmicky anymore, as shown with LTT's latest video and in the video above about charging electric cars wirelessly.

  11. I'd say it's a bit of a toss up between the A7III and GH5. A7III will give you better image quality, particularly in low light, along with usable autofocus in video. The GH5 gives you a more video-oriented feature set, such as full size HDMI, XLR ports (with the grip), plus adaptors and speed boosters.


     I'd probably go A7III, but it's a tough call.

  12. Thought this was rather interesting. It raises two interesting considerations. First, having your phone stuck to a charging pad is less convenient than having it plugged in. This is why I've always thought wireless charging has been gimmicky at best, hence why I've never seen the practical value in current wireless charging (First 5 minutes of the video cover this). However, the more important consideration is efficiency (Start at 5:00 in the video). The amount of extra electricity that needs to be generated to compensate for the inefficiencies of wireless charging is enormous, and this could have serious environmental implications.


  13. On 5/27/2018 at 10:44 AM, xQubeZx said:

    What do you shoot? Better glass is probably worth it more. If you really need a second body the D500 is a nobrainer to match the D810. Longer reach for sports and wildlife and killer AF. 

    Agreed. The D500 would really compliment the D810 well.

  14. Ultimately, it depends on your workflow. If you need to edit files in the field, then you don't have much of a choice but to go with a laptop. However, if you're sure you don't need that, then you could build a much more powerful workstation for the same price or the same specs and save a bit money. I've been fairly mobile for the last 15 years and have always gone with laptops because even if I wasn't travelling, I still never stayed in one place for very long, relatively speaking, and moving a desktop and monitor was just a pain. However, I'm more settled now and, if I were in the market for a new computer for photo editing, I'd probably get a desktop, especially for 4k video editing.

  15. Just now, BuckGup said:

    They can keep going forever the problem is people will start to develop a pattern. Since the technology is built so well and is so powerful people don't have the need to upgrade. So it would be a mass upgrade every few years. That's why most manufactures really boast numbers and build in planned obsolesce. Apple is king at this as most of their phone last much longer computational wise then they normally do. 


     Agreed, as much as it's a dirty business practice. But it also kind of illustrates my point. New phones can't sell themselves on their own merits, so the manufacturer makes you upgrade by making your current phone unusable.


    2 minutes ago, Wh0_Am_1 said:

    (hopefully) we will see the return of the user replaceable battery, since new phones will stagnate and a purely power perspective, therefore allowing phones to last more than just 2-3 years, one way or another the most recent phone I would buy is the 2016 LG V20. And that is because of the quad DAC, and the replaceable battery, all you need to do is pop off the back and throw in the new battery.

     While that would be really nice, I don't think it would be a good business decision. After all, I think just getting something with a new battery that can hold a charge is one of the major sales drivers. It's a situation where what's good for the user isn't good for the manufacturer.

  16. 1 minute ago, Crunchy Dragon said:

    It's probably going to be a while before we'll hit the end of smartphones.


    Even if companies can't improve the phone itself, they can always make improvements to the technology running the phone. More power efficient, longer lasting battery, etc.

    I'm not suggesting that we're reaching the "end of smartphones." I'm approaching this more from the practical differences between generations seem less and less significant as time goes by. Looking at, for example, the S8 vs the S9, yeah the S9 is better, but, to quote Grimlock, it doesn't seem more better enough to make upgrading worth it. Seems like we've gone from new phones being much better to new phones being a little bit better. And I don't blame manufacturers. I think they're in a bit of a tough spot trying to figure out how to make upgrading an obvious choice.

    Obviously buying a new phone makes sense if a new phone does something that your current phone can't, whether this be a new feature or something as simple as having a new battery.

  17. When the first iphone came out, there were a lot of problems in terms of functionality and subsequent generations seemed more preoccupied with fixing issues and improving the experience.  But starting around the iphone 5/6, it seems as though the experience has been refined enough to the point that there are no glaring usability issues with most mid to top tier phones (though we'll all have our nit picks). And it seems, imho, that manufacturers seemed to run out of ideas in terms of ways to dramatically improve the smart phone experience. For the mid to top tier phones, device speed isn't really an issue.

     So what's the problem here? I think manufacturers are running out of ideas. For the current, and for the past few generations, the camera has been a major focus (har har). We've seen water resistance become water proof. Finger print, face scan, retina scan biometrics. And, at least to me, manufacturers look like they're are struggling to come up with features and improvements that really make upgrading from a previous generation phone a compelling option for those of us who don't just have to have the newest thing. Call me a loom smashing Luddite, but it seems like the selling points are becoming increasingly gimmicky.

     Now, a lot of this is going to depend on what you value out of your phone. But having played my friends' modern phones, I don't see any reason to buy a new phone over my 2015 phone. Nothing these newer phones do is of any value to me. But keep in mind that I can only speak for myself here and that I am a weirdo...

     Your thoughts? Are we hitting a smart phone ceiling where the latest and greatest offer little to no major advantages to a previous generation phone? Or am I just talking crazy talk? (entirely possible, if not likely.)

  18. On 5/18/2018 at 7:27 PM, bowrilla said:

    So what do you want to change about your cameras? What revolution are you waiting for? AI autofocus? Well, that's rather evolution than revolution and won't make a significant change or is any serious photographer actually using that face tracking features on their big DSLR? AI auto exposure? No serious photographer uses full auto. Aperture and shutter speed have an impact on the visual style of your picture so screw auto exposure. @porina mentioned different sensor technologies. Fine enough. Sensors are by default colour blind, they need a way of filtering in order to see colours. Side fact: our eye works just like that as well with 3 different cone cells being sensitive for different spectrums of light waves. The regular pattern of a bayer filter is indeed an issue and there's never full information for every pixel. That's what Foveon sensors can offer if you go with the smaller, native resolution: full information for every pixel. Not sure why those sensors aren't everywhere nowadays.


     And you've glanced off if not hit the nail on the head there. My dastardly between-the-lines reason for posting this was to pose the question: are we reaching the end of revolutionary improvements and only have evolutionary improvements to look forward to? Revolutions are kind of hard to predict until they're already happening. I have no problems with my camera from a revolutionary aspect. There are a few evolutionary tweaks I'd like, but nothing major.

     So when it comes to "where can cameras go from here?" I'm thinking more from the manufacturers' point of view. Have we hit a kind of ceiling where there will be fewer mind blowing innovations? Or are said mind blowing innovations extremely difficult to predict?

     I originally thought about this in the context of mobile phones. It kind of feels like phones have reached a certain ceiling where they're good enough at what they do that it feels like manufacturers' are struggling to come up with something that will really wow the buying public aside from just incremental improvements. Like cameras, I think phones are in a stage of refining an already good experience rather than pushing the envelope of technology. The things meant to wow buyers these days seem increasingly gimmicky to me.