Carl Stone

<p>Brad, which Mac do you consider to be a "standard desktop tower Mac"? Apple no longer makes "towers", and with the current Mac Pro being in what I would term a one of a kind category (not tower, not standard), I'm not sure that your terminology is applicable. <br> <br> If you mean standard iMac, there is a large difference between models, so I don't know if "standard model" works there either. You have to go for the 27" iMac models just to get a 7200 rpm drive, and/or user accessible ram. <br> <br> IMO. the current Mac Pro is overkill for still photography. Fine for video, heavy graphics work, or scientific use. But, Apple has abandoned the tower, not to mention the photographers that would love to have one with current industry specs to use in their work. Now, if you want a new desktop model Mac, it's the iMac or nothing. And yes, I have purposely left the Mac Mini out of this discussion. <br> <br> I can see Andrew's point about closing the lid on a MBP to eliminate any distraction from the smaller display when using the NEC, but, I haven't figured out how he accesses the keyboard when he does that. ;o)</p> <p> </p>

<p>Rack 'em!</p>

<p>Rack 'em! </p>

<p>Rack 'em!</p>

<p>Yes, Nikon and Canon sales are down, but not by nearly as much as Sony sales. The fact is camera sales are down across the board. </p>

<p>Here's a good overall look at the shortcomings of mirrorless by a pro. This article is linked to from DPR, but i included the link here to save some navigation clicks. </p> <p><http://blog.mingthein.com/2015/11/03/how-to-design-mirrorless-right/></p> <p>Don't bypass the comment section at the end of the article. There, among other things, we see that all that glitters is not gold when it comes to Sony Zeiss lenses. IOW, they don't measure up to Zeiss lenses when it comes to quality. </p>

<p>Absolutely, Eric. Cell phones make things easier for users. Camera bodies are behind the curve in that respect. </p>

<p>'56 Olds, but the vertical center bar in the grill is gone from that one. </p>

I agree with Thom Hogan, the modular camera is the one to watch for. THAT is innovation.

I didn't say that you said Sony had a lock on innovation, I told you that they did not. If you will recall, Sony wound up with Konica/Minolta, and that means some of their camera knowledge too. At one time Minolta had the fastest AF on the planet, but that was then, and this is now. You apparently think that Sony is on the verge of world domination WRT to manufacturing photo gear. I do not share that opinion. Do they have very nice examples on the market? Yes, they do, and they'll probably get even better. In the meantime, where's the glass?

Common Edward, you wanna blame that on the photographers? Whether or not you like it, sports are a big business. Actually, I don't watch most sports for the reasons that you mention, but, I have nothing against those that shoot sports.

<p>"Sony is stoopidly serious about bring innovation to these bodies at a frantic pace."<br> Well, if you go look at Sony products you'll see that they produce a gazillion models of nearly everything they they make. I'm not saying that Sony isn't serious about mirrorless, but, unless you have inside info, you don't know how much. I have nothing against Sony, but they didn't invent innovation, nor do they have a lock on it. Samsung and LG have both outpaced Sony with TV offerings. <br> Don't expect Canon and Nikon to play dead, and don't forget that Nikon got more out of the Sony sensors than Sony has. <br> Eric has summed it up, it's way too soon to start betting on individual horses in this race. The only bet that I'd make is that all of the horses will not finish, although I can't be more specific. </p> <p>A pro friend of mine, a Nikon shooter that has work hanging in the Crocker, just sold his Sony RX100iii and ordered the new Canon G9X because the Canon fits in his pocket. The best camera is the one that you have with you, and you're more likely to carry a camera that easily fits into a pocket. He also bought a new iPhone 6s for the camera, but he isn't shedding his D800 any time soon. </p>

<p>When I read the DPR article this morning I knew that you'd come here to pontificate. You didn't disappoint me, and in your post, you didn't really say anything that I would consider worthy of being called a contribution. I pointed that out.</p> <p>You've been on a roll over mirrorless vs DSLRs, and when your info was shown to be wrong bt Jeff, Eric, and myself, then you post what is obvious to most of us, and act like you're posting breaking news. Everybody knows that mirrorless is in it's infancy compared to DSLRs, and everybody knows that the technology will advance. The DSLR sky is not falling. Gimme a break. </p> <p> </p>

<p>Thank you, Nostradamus, who knew that camera technology would be more advanced in another thirty years?</p>

<p>I read that article this morning and immediately came here to see how it plays with those that think the A7RII is a pro sports camera. Your post hit the highlights of the article very well, Eric. </p>

<p>"I dunno"<br> We can agree on that. </p>

<p>Yes, your findings in your lab test, didn't match the experience that Thom Hogan had when he used the Sony for sports shooting. THAT calls the value of your lab testing into question. </p>

<p>This would be really useful if you were trying to sell images of your metronome. Not so much if you were trying to sell sporting event images to SI. </p>

<p>Well said, Eric! Some people see no difference if they use a butter knife when a screwdriver is called for. </p>

<p>Sheesh, David, YOU started this thread with half truths, and now you think that you can say anything you like because you posted in the mirrorless section, and nobody can dispute it? Are you serious? Innocuous? In your dreams, maybe. </p> <p>Facts are facts, what you hope for has not yet become a reality. Go make your living shooting sports with a mirrorless camera, and then come back with facts, not supposition. </p> <p> </p>

<p>I would expect a pro sports photographer to use the best tool for the job. That's not to say that mirrorless can't get some good images, but it is to say that all else being equal DSLRs get a higher percentage of usable shots. So, what does that say about pros that use less than optimum gear? If your income depended on it, which would you choose?</p> <p>You appear to be on a crusade to show the greater glory of mirrorless vs DSLRs in spite of the fact that they are usually bested by DSLRs when shooting sports. Before you go off the deep end on me, I'm not a lover of the size and weight of DSLRs, and I can appreciate the smaller size and lighter weight of the mirrorless alternative, for some other types of shooting. But, you can't deny the capabilities of DSLRs WRT sports shooting. At some point in the future mirrorless might surpass DSLRs for sports shooting, but that point has not been reached yet, a fact that you seem to avoid in your posts. To claim otherwise is misleading<em><br /></em></p>

<p>EVF lag can ruin your day, depending on what you're shooting. Here's a link to an article by Thom Hogan where he was shooting sports with four different cameras, and one of them was a Sony A7r Mark II. You can scroll down and see samples of what EVF lag did to some of Thom's shots. HTH</p> <p><http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/shooting-sports.html></p>

<p>David, here's an interesting comparison between the Sony A7r MkII, a Canon 7D Mark II, a Nikon D4, and a Nikon D810, shooting football and soccer. </p> <p><http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/shooting-sports.html></p> <p>Sony is making progress, but they aren't there yet. </p>

<p>Chuck, it sounds to me like a little time in the free Adobe tutorials for LR would be moist helpful to you. Here's a link to get you up to speed <https://helpx.adobe.com/lightroom/tutorials.html>. You'll notice that the page appears sparse WRT info, but, it begins with "Get started" being underlined, and if you click on "Learn essentials" a boatload of video tutorials opens up, including importing images to LR. Form that page you can click on "Key techniques," etc. HTH</p>

<p>Richard, this thread has become a yawner. You don't like the way Adobe operates, we get it. </p>