|
Forum: Post Your Photos!
06-28-2018, 11:21 AM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Digital Processing, Software, and Printing
10-03-2017, 05:33 PM
|
| |
It's definitely a combination of everything. In many practical applications, whether or not you have a SSD is a key factor, as this speeds up application load times, booting, and disk read/write.
Rendering is often delegated to the GPU, so you would want a dedicated graphics card rather than integrated graphics for this to go quickly. Unless you are doing video, a super beefy graphics card is not necessary. For general-purpose (i.e. non-GPU accelerated) computing, generally the CPU clock speed is what you want to maximize.
Having lots of cores is nice, but most applications can't fully leverage them. Therefore, IMO a very fast dual-core can be better than a slow quad-core, for instance, especially if you don't run anything else intensive alongside photoshop. Most non-budget CPUs have hyperthreading, so that's a constant for practical purposes.
Finally, you'll want to have "enough" ram for whatever you are doing. 16Gb is a good amount these days. Most PCs have upgradable RAM so this is the easiest thing to fix up, followed by the HDD to SSD.
If you look at your computer's task manager while intensive processes are running, you should be able to see where the bottleneck lies. If all cores are maxed out, you need more cores and more speed. If one core is maxed out but the others are not, then you only need faster cores. If the RAM is close to being full, you need more of it. If the disk utilization is close to max, you need a faster drive.
|
|
Forum: Monthly Photo Contests
05-03-2017, 07:49 PM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Monthly Photo Contests
02-22-2016, 09:36 PM
|
| |
There's a table in there. I swear.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
06-23-2015, 02:49 PM
|
| |
Pentax FF will be released before Christmas, so Santa Klaus can deliver it ;-) You have to write your wishes to Santa, be very nice and wait patiently.
|
|
Forum: Welcomes and Introductions
06-07-2015, 12:44 PM
|
| |
I'm not all that familiar with the details on Nikon cameras. I can say that any modern camera will deliver images better than almost any of the photographers using them. You really cannot buy a 'bad' camera at this point. Nikon and Pentax usually use the same Sony sensors (not always but often) so even that is not much of a differentiation. So make your choice on the look and feel and usability of the camera. How does it fit your hand? Are the buttons easy to reach? What features are important to you?
I have picked up and tested both Nikon and Canon bodies in stores and I have consistently found the Pentax body to feel better made, have a better and more usable button layout and to have a superior menu format. Maybe that is just me but Pentax consistently has better ergonomics and attention to detail. The bodies are rock solid, weather resistant and just 'fit' better.
If you are looking in the future for exotic lenses like a 600mm f/4 then Nikon or Canon are probably better choices but if so you would be looking at the Nikon professional lines at $2-3 thousand for the body alone. For general shooting the Pentax line is great and has some very unique features. You can use all of the lenses made for k-mount or M42 mount going back to the late 1950's. Literally millions of lenses if you want to go that route. Pentax also tends to put 'high end' features in bodies that would be considered entry level or mid-level whereas with Nikon or Canon you have to buy into their professional lines to get them.
If I were going on a long road trip I would get the DA 18-135 and the DA 55-300. That gives you a two lens kit with focal lengths from 18 to 300mm. You might be able to find a used DA L 55-300 and keep close to your price range. That lens comes in three versions DA, DA L and HD DA WR, They are all optically identical but have different features. The HD version is the newest but is out of your budget. The DA L version is the 'kit' version and is often found used at good prices.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
06-16-2015, 12:21 AM
|
| |
I'm still paying my cameras off because most of what I make goes out towards other bills and rent and that but basically I've made back what I spent to get them in terms of what having them means to my business. They're my work tools and I don't care much about resale value because I seldom if ever sell them. Everything we buy depreciates including Pentax gear.
This is nothing new or Ricoh's doing. Every DSLR type camera I have, and most of them are pre-Ricoh, is worth half or even less than the retail price at debut. I wouldn't have them otherwise. If gear prices didn't drop that far I would not have my cameras because I get most of my gear used. I have to wait till I can afford them. I'm pretty happy when I see retail on a DSLR or lens I want finally drop to a price I can afford actually.
I see this all the time on the doll boards too. Doll people who buy brand new at higher retail prices then moan and groan a year or two later when they can't get half of what they paid for it. They expect to get back all their money when they sell and of course they don't get it because by then most of those dolls are going for clearance prices. They're lucky if they can sell at all.
Older gear always drops fast. Stores capitalize on the "newness" factor as long as they can, but they have to be realistic too. People who didn't jump first, who have the patience to wait until they can get the price they can afford aren't going to pay as much as people who have new gear fever. They will have to sell lower and lower to keep the orders coming in or they will end up stuck with a bunch of stock they can't move. So of course the price drops and so does the value on the gear that people have already bought. It's not just Pentax. When it's new it's hot and it's more expensive, end of model life cycle, new one's coming out? It's clearance time!!!!! Me, I live for clearance sales. :P
My THREE DSLR's cost what one K3 would have cost me new, plus I got lenses to boot. Are they worth a whole lot to resell? Nope, but I don't care because I am busying using them and not planning to sell them anytime soon, just like I am too busy enjoying my collector's dolls not worrying about how much value they still have. Doing that it's just pointless, I think. You'll ultimately just drive yourself crazy watching the value crash. Not worth it, shrug...
|
|
Forum: Pentax Price Watch
06-11-2015, 02:18 PM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Pentax Price Watch
06-09-2015, 06:17 PM
|
| |
Looking good then. I use a K-3 most of the time, but I'd love to have that tilting rear screen for macros.
|
|
Forum: Photographic Technique
05-06-2015, 07:30 PM
|
| |
That sounds awesome. I snapped this one last week on Portra 400. I live near NAS Pensacola and can go to practices twice a week if I can. Sometimes I just go out into the yard :) I'm a novice and have only shot them a few times. I knew my limitations going in, my longest lens is an 80-160mm for the 645. So I waited till they were very low and put something cool in the foreground. Nice puffy clouds are nice too, but that's out of our control. I would try to find out their flight path and try to get some notable landmarks in the frame. I have the luxury of knowing their routine in advance so setting up was easy.
 |
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
02-12-2015, 12:49 AM
|
| |
Nice PS job:
 |
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
11-20-2014, 09:52 PM
|
| |
Yeah, it's like Samoyeds. Must take a picture of them smiling - it's the law.
|
|
Forum: Weekly Photo Challenges
11-18-2014, 05:31 PM
|
| |
What are you doing? That totally violates the 5 second rule!
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
02-14-2011, 04:13 AM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Post Your Photos!
05-21-2014, 04:47 PM
|
| |
As a digital newbie, I’m not too worried about taking good photos right now; just trying to get used to the camera, lenses and computer post processing. So, mostly I just pick a lens and go for a walk, taking pictures of anything and everything. 99.9% of it goes straight to the trash, but I kind of liked this one. Aside from B&W and slightly modified exposure, basically straight from the camera.
|
|
Forum: Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands
05-21-2014, 12:47 AM
|
| |
I don't often agree with Thom Hogan, but this time he really hit the nail on the head. It seems as if all camera makers are either doing R&D by trial & error or just re-iterate same old / same old. The ones with the deep pockets are doing it quicker and more often then the others, but they're all doing it.
What I'm missing in this blog the fact that Camera makers are failing to provide a use for todays high end cameras. They digitalised them and got everybody hooked, but forgot to do the rest. And now a lot of consumers have them but fail to see any need to upgrade or add lenses. They realise they just don't need them.
Generally there's only three major things a consumer does with their pictures. 1. Store them on their hard drive. 2. Place them on Facebook or other social media. 3. Have them printed to canvas or album. (I'm not even going to mention the silly digital picture frames.) And I'm afraid it's in that order too. Consumers are missing options there. Why get an expensive high resolution camera when the pictures out of the phone look just fine on Facebook? They even look just fine on the coarse Canvas on the wall.
Just one off the top of my head: When people come into my house they see a lot of big very high resolution prints on plexi and aluminum. It stuns them how clear and sharp they are, they stand still to look at the tiny details. It takes time to take in a large print with such details. Then they want to do that too, and they get stunned again with both the high price and the hassle that's involved in getting those done. They should never be cheap, but easier would go a long way. Why not provide easier acces to printing resolutions that match capturing resolutions? Maybe even at home in smaller formats. Especially Ricoh and Canon are in a very good position to do just that. Or (MUCH!) better digital displaying device then the digital picture frames that are currently available? Maybe even some niche ones, very high resolution monochrome E-ink panels for example.
|
