[ThorSanchez]

New top level Mac (MacBook?) with any upgrades runs over $5K. Hard pass on that. If I had that kind of cash to spend, I would have bought Ron Boggs' 600mm that he had for sale.

Seriously? I truly thought $1500 was a lot to pay for a computer. For $5000 you could buy a completely over-the-top PC, or put together a small supercomputer if you sourced all the components. I may exaggerate a little, but I've certainly built PCs with above-average specs for $750, and those machines served me very well for 5+ years.


For the savings between a decent PC and $5k I could buy most of the Pentax gear on my long-term wife-will-never-sign-off-on-this wish list.

[TheOneAndOnlyJH]

For the savings between a decent PC and $5k I could buy most of the Pentax gear on my long-term wife-will-never-sign-off-on-this wish list.

Those savings would exhaust my 'wish list' and move on to my 'only dreaming' list. Hello, three ladies! (31mm, 43mm, 77mm) I could even throw in a K-1, but then I'd have to spend more on hard drives.

Though in all honesty I'd spend the savings on home improvements and other things first.

[normhead]

For the savings between a decent PC and $5k I could buy most of the Pentax gear on my long-term wife-will-never-sign-off-on-this wish list.

The guys who buy those are the movie editing guys... and they don't care a bit about the attitudes of PC guys. They have the ability to buy what they want, and they do.

Your attitude is irrelevant to them, because you don't do what they do.

I've been in the store with one of those buys dropping 75k on gear because they just got a huge contract to edit a feature film. I'd love to see you guys arguing with them about their choice. It would be funny. Your "I know more than you attitude" won't get you very far with folks who actually use those machines.

Seriously, instead of being so arrogant, find out who uses those $5000 machines and why before claiming you can do better. If you honestly think their thinking is inferior to yours, that's good for your ego, but I generally talk to the guys who won to find out about these things, not the critics who say :"I can do better" but never have,

[ThorSanchez]

The guys who buy those are the movie editing guys... and they don't care a bit about the attitudes of PC guys. They have the ability to buy what they want, and they do.

Your attitude is irrelevant to them, because you don't do what they do.

I've been in the store with one of those buys dropping 75k on gear because they just got a huge contract to edit a feature film. I'd love to see you guys arguing with them about their choice. It would be funny. Your "I know more than you attitude" won't get you very far with folks who actually use those machines.

Seriously, instead of being so arrogant, find out who uses those $5000 machines and why before claiming you can do better. If you honestly think their thinking is inferior to yours, that's good for your ego, but I generally talk to the guys who won to find out about these things, not the critics who say :"I can do better" but never have,

That's silly, of course I'm not going to argue with the choices of someone who can drop $75k on gear. That's not what I'm talking about, I'm talking about regular photo/computer hobbyist people. If you can get an Apple for less than $5k, more in the $1000-1500 range that's still more than I'd pay, but not unreasonable.

[normhead]

That's silly, of course I'm not going to argue with the choices of someone who can drop $75k on gear. That's not what I'm talking about, I'm talking about regular photo/computer hobbyist people. If you can get an Apple for less than $5k, more in the $1000-1500 range that's still more than I'd pay, but not unreasonable.

You don't get to declare yourself representative of "photo/computer/hobbyist people." I'm one of those and I choose to speak for myself. My theory before I got my current Mac. Get on the internet, find out the cost effectiveness of various machines, look at what you pay for actual computing power available. One fo the factors being ease of use and stability over a long period of time.

You're talking about whole systems that cost less than the cost of the processor in my iMac. I find that somewhat amusing. The whole premise depends on the "just as good" part. You aren't qualified to make that statement unless you are running both systems side by side. You can convince yourself one is "just as good", that doesn't make it so.

[ThorSanchez]

You don't get to declare yourself representative of "photo/computer/hobbyist people." I'm one of those and I choose to speak for myself. My theory before I got my current Mac. Get on the internet, find out the cost effectiveness of various machines, look at what you pay for actual computing power available. One fo the factors being ease of use and stability over a long period of time.

You're talking about whole systems that cost less than the cost of the processor in my iMac. I find that somewhat amusing. The whole premise depends on the "just as good" part. You aren't qualified to make that statement unless you are running both systems side by side. You can convince yourself one is "just as good", that doesn't make it so.

I never said it was just as good. I said it met my requirements.

[normhead]

I never said it was just as good. I said it met my requirements.

The corollary to that is, it may not meet anyone else's requirements. But, I'm happy for you.

[bigdavephoto]

You guys are having a good discussion about Apple computers right now. Well this happened the other day.

You Tube

You Tube

The only experience I have with Apple is, my father bought an iMac only because somebody told him it was the best computer for editing photos. I was with him that day and he spent $2500 for the computer and some software. He finally figured out how to use it but I know he never used it to it's full potential. I am not sure if he ever did any photo editing with Aperture that he bought. I know he figured out how to edit in iPhoto but it took awhile.

That computer is now nothing but a dust collector. My father can no longer use a computer plus it doesn't help that a cat that we had knocked it off the desk and broke the front glass and or the screen. If it is just the glass, that is around $35 for the parts. If it is the screen, well that is around $750 and for that amount, I could get a decent off the shelf Windows computer.

[normhead]

You guys are having a good discussion about Apple computers right now. Well this happened the other day.

My $8000 iMac PRO Showed Up DOA - YouTube

The only experience I have with Apple is, my father bought an iMac only because somebody told him it was the best computer for editing photos. I was with him that day and he spent $2500 for the computer and some software. He finally figured out how to use it but I know he never used it to it's full potential. I am not sure if he ever did any photo editing with Aperture that he bought. I know he figured out how to edit in iPhoto but it took awhile.

That computer is now nothing but a dust collector. My father can no longer use a computer plus it doesn't help that a cat that we had knocked it off the desk and broke the front glass and or the screen. If it is just the glass, that is around $35 for the parts. If it is the screen, well that is around $750 and for that amount, I could get a decent off the shelf Windows computer.

Meanwhile, I use Aperture every day. People who buy Apple are often addicted to Apple screens, so that's a really bad example.

I have my 27 inch iMac at home, but I also have a mini (that cost me $800 with an i7. I once went around to the big computer outlets. "I want a screen as good as my iMac 27 inch monitor to use with my mac mini." I didn't end up with a monitor. They had nada even looking at monitors that were worth $600-700. I still use a monitor a PC store guy told me was the choice for imaging and web design, but it's a piece of crap compared to my iMac monitor. I'm not sure what having your father not use his machine to it's full potential has to do with anything.

Sounds like your dad bought the same system I did. It's still a better machine than 99% of what's out there for sale in either the mac or PC world. You might want to ask if he'd miss it if you borrowed it for a while.

Replace it with one of those P.C.s you adore, you know, the one where the whole systems costs less than iMac's monitor. I'm sure he won't notice the difference... <groan>.

It's not that you use it's full potential every day, it's that it's a more pleasant experience every day. The most used part of the interface is the screen. Apple discovered real quick, the most important thing to keeping you computing experience enjoyable is through providing a really good quality screen or monitor. That's the first place PC users claim they save money. And they do. But it means every day you are getting less enjoyment than you would with a better screen. This isn't exactly rocket science.

Apple is the company that said "This is what we've found works best for the user, and we won't compromise on that to increase our market share." Others say "well you can cut corners on this or you can cut corners on that. To Apple users it is what it is, cutting corners, substituting lower quality components. Apple charges a premium for the components they use, and they can do that based on the whole overall experience. It's not a matter for them of picking and choosing to reduce cost to fit your budget. It's a matter of consistency quality across the board. Everyone amateur expert out there thinks they know better than Apple engineers. It's actually pretty funny. Apple depends on people buying what they have to offer, like every other company. The funny thing is some people imagining that people who buy Apples are under some kind of spell, while they are living in the real, more cost effective world. But for the most part, they do that by undercutting Apple's performance spec, in the screen, in the processor, or the rated grade of the other components used.

[Alex645]

Can we keep this on topic? My son loves his new Microsoft Surface Book 2 15" and it is better than my Mac (that I wonʻt give up) AND more expensive.....but we both shoot Pentax. In terms of computers, cars, politics, etc, letʻs not bring division into this one for Pentax. Vanilla or chocolate...I donʻt think anyone is going to win an argument, or have to justify their choices, over why one is better than the other.

[TheOneAndOnlyJH]

Can we keep this on topic? My son loves his new Microsoft Surface Book 2 15" and it is better than my Mac (that I wonʻt give up) AND more expensive.....but we both shoot Pentax. In terms of computers, cars, politics, etc, letʻs not bring division into this one for Pentax. Vanilla or chocolate...I donʻt think anyone is going to win an argument, or have to justify their choices, over why one is better than the other.

You forgot twist! Then you can have the best of both on one cone!

[bigdavephoto]

Meanwhile, I use Aperture every day. People who buy Apple are often addicted to Apple screens, so that's a really bad example.

I have my 27 inch iMac at home, but I also have a mini (that cost me $800 with an i7. I once went around to the big computer outlets. "I want a screen as good as my iMac 27 inch monitor to use with my mac mini." I didn't end up with a monitor. They had nada even looking at monitors that were worth $600-700. I still use a monitor a PC store guy told me was the choice for imaging and web design, but it's a piece of crap compared to my iMac monitor. I'm not sure what having your father not use his machine to it's full potential has to do with anything.

Sounds like your dad bought the same system I did. It's still a better machine than 99% of what's out there for sale in either the mac or PC world. You might want to ask if he'd miss it if you borrowed it for a while.

Replace it with one of those P.C.s you adore, you know, the one where the whole systems costs less than iMac's monitor. I'm sure he won't notice the difference... <groan>.

It's not that you use it's full potential every day, it's that it's a more pleasant experience every day. The most used part of the interface is the screen. Apple discovered real quick, the most important thing to keeping you computing experience enjoyable is through providing a really good quality screen or monitor. That's the first place PC users claim they save money. And they do. But it means every day you are getting less enjoyment than you would with a better screen. This isn't exactly rocket science.

Apple is the company that said "This is what we've found works best for the user, and we won't compromise on that to increase our market share." Others say "well you can cut corners on this or you can cut corners on that. To Apple users it is what it is, cutting corners, substituting lower quality components. Apple charges a premium for the components they use, and they can do that based on the whole overall experience. It's not a matter for them of picking and choosing to reduce cost to fit your budget. It's a matter of consistency quality across the board. Everyone amateur expert out there thinks they know better than Apple engineers. It's actually pretty funny. Apple depends on people buying what they have to offer, like every other company. The funny thing is some people imagining that people who buy Apples are under some kind of spell, while they are living in the real, more cost effective world. But for the most part, they do that by undercutting Apple's performance spec, in the screen, in the processor, or the rated grade of the other components used.

normhead, I did not come on here to lam-blast Apple computers, all I did was post a video from Jared Polin who bought a top of the line iMac and it arrived DOA. Yes it does happen.

As to my father. He bought his iMac when he was 72 years old. Now, for somebody that barely understood a windows based computer, was getting an iMac a smart idea? My opinion, no, it wasn't. Every time he had problems with it, he would get either get myself or my sister to help him. The problem with that is, neither of us knew anything about iMacs which was almost like the blind leading the blind, which by the way, my father is blind.

Youknow normhead, you really got defensive in your last post about the video and my father not getting the full potential out of his iMac. I only posted that video because I thought the timing was funny. Here you guys are talking about imacs and how some like them and some don't. I never said anything about liking them or not. You have both an Imac and a Mac mini, that's wonderful. I am happy for you. I, myself, I admit, don't have enough time on an Apple computer and how the software and OS all work together. So I do not have an opinion on the OS or software. I do though, have an opinion on the price. I, again my opinion, think that iMacs and all Apple products are overpriced.

Now, with your experience with iPhoto and Aperture, let me ask a question. If you want, pm me the answer so we don't derail this thread anymore. Can you resize a photo in iPhoto or Aperture? From what I saw, no you can't.

[normhead]

As to my father. He bought his iMac when he was 72 years old. Now, for somebody that barely understood a windows based computer, was getting an iMac a smart idea? My opinion, no, it wasn't.

In my opinion, based on my experience with my mother, buying anyone over 70 any computer is a gamble. It has nothing to do with Mac or PC. Getting a Mac was a better move than getting a PC, but clearly that wasn't enough.

Now, with your experience with iPhoto and Aperture, let me ask a question. If you want, pm me the answer so we don't derail this thread anymore. Can you resize a photo in iPhoto or Aperture? From what I saw, no you can't.

OMG..... OK, now I understand what I'm dealing with.

For your info, you can resize with iPhoto, Photo, Preview Aperture. You cannot resize the original raw file, but you can't do that with any computer. And the software is non-destructive, which is why Aperture requires so much processing power. it reprosses the raw file from scratch with every update. But, You can expert the file as Tiff with any changes you've made including a resize and then reimport the smaller file and delete the original if for some reason that appeals to you. Or you just resize your export in Preview, free software that has come on every Mac since the 80s. But , like Lightroom, Aperture is non-destructive, you can always go back and start over from the original file, if you don't like the end results. Programs like photoshop are destructive and actually alter the file. it's up to you to save the original in case you need to revisit your post processing.

I usually answer in the thread posted. Others may wish to know the answer. By the way, I'm turning 70 this year, so let's not make this about your father's age. The OP may be bothered as well as the people, but digression is part of the process. If you ever want advice on how to get your father's machine working we'll do that in private. The biggest reason I have for selling Windows computers to people is, they don't know any people who can help them with a Mac. A competent person who can help you out is IMHO more valuable that the small differences in OS and hardware for keeping the average guy happy with his machine. Some of us may dwell on those differences, and argue them to death, but we all know, they really aren't that huge.

[SSGGeezer]

It is provable that Macs are overpriced. Other than the processor, the dead Mac Pro has nothing special spec-wise for $8K. All in ones are also hard to work on so people will buy Apple Care contracts, and forget about upgrades!. Macs have some amazing monitors available but there are monitors for any computer that are just as good, you just have to look harder and avoid the office supply stores when shopping. The panels for monitors are pretty much all made by Samsung and assembled elsewhere. I also build my own and have for nearly two decades, so I never jump at being an early adopter. I stay one or two generations behind on hardware to save money. Apple does that to make even more.

[lesmore49]

Now lets see...what was the original topic of this thread...oh yeah...are Pentaxians really that rare...

I've read the "pros dissing Pentax" thread and had a bit of a laugh. I shot high-end Canon for 30 years in my film days but am at a more laidback place now during semi-retirement. For the switch to DSLR, I couldn't justify the expense - particularly for good glass - that Canon entailed and went with Pentax. I am very happy with that choice despite the occasional sneer from my former Canon compatriots.

Now, my topic. During the recent Worldwide Photo Walk, I joined 40+ area photographers for a fun day of shooting followed by a group lunch and wrap-up. In that group, I saw exactly zero Pentax DSLRs - aside from my own. I found myself "justifying" my choice not to go with Canikon during good natured discussions. Not so much distain but more "why in the world would a serious photographer NOT buy Canikon??"

Are we really that sparse out in the world?