richard sweet

Charles - That's something I'd thought about - Whats faster 1x10k Raptor as a single disk or 2x7.2K disks in RAID0. Thinking about it 2x7.2 should be quicker than 1x10, but I don't know if this is the case in the real world.

Barry - I'm actually going to agree with you there. After the initial excitement of getting my new kit to quite decent OC I did start to think along the same lines as you and have put it back to stock speeds.

What I as looking for was a real photoshop bench mark. I tried the one from http://www.retouchartists.com/pages/speedtest.html and with a OC system I completed it in 25 seconds, judging by their own result tables that's pretty good. I haven't tried with my computer at stock speeds, it'll be interesting to see the difference.

"It sounds like you

have more interest in benchmarks than real word photo editing."

I can see how I'm coming across in that way, but I just spent quite a lot of time and money on this project, so the geeky side of me just has to know if I've done my job properly. ;)

Thanks Garrison, yeah, I did make sure I got a beast of a heatsink - It's a Sythe Mine, huge thing, keeps core temp down to 25c idle. I only had to raise the CPU volt .05 of a volt to get a stable 3.7Ghz. I'm sure I could get 4Ghz, but I'm happy with 3.7.

Cost - I already had a case, optical drives and PSU so the rest of the components came to ﾣ700 (UK pounds) - not sure what that is in $.

The first thing I noticed is how much faster PS starts up now I have a dedicated fast scratch disk, (about half the time).

One thing that supprised me is that even with 8Gb of RAM photoshop uses a 85Mb page file before you even open a file.

Hi,

About a month back, I posted a topic asking about the best CPU for Photoshop work.

(see here - http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00PIn6 )

Had some really helpful responces and I've now just finished building said computer.

These are the final specs:

CPU - Intel E8400 - O/C to 3.7Ghz,

Mother board - Abit IP35 ProXE,

RAM - OCZ 8GbDDR2 6400 O/C to 998Mhz,

Main hard disk - 2 x Western digital 250Gb (16Mb cache) in RAID0,

Scratch disk - 1 x 74Gb Western digital Raptor,

600w Zalman PSU & a cheap XFX graphics card.

OS - XP Pro x64.

Photoshop CS3.

Went together with out a hitch, had a little trouble getting Windows to see the

Raptor, but nothing major.

Have to say I'm really pleased with the way it's performing, I think the HDDs in

RAID0 really make a differnce, as dose the Raptor scratch disk.

What I'd like to do now is bech mark it, see how my humble homebuilt PC performs

aginst other machines.

Anyone know of any?

Brilliant, that's the information I needed.

Considering I won't upgrading my new computer or my current software for a good few years yet, I think this is what I'll go for:

XPx64,<p>

P35 based motherboard,<p>

E8400 - (I've come to the conclusion the extra two cores or a Quad won't be any advantage at the moment and this proc. has a faster FSB and more cache/core than the Q6600).<p>

4Gb fast, good quality RAM,<p>

2x WD 160GB HDDs in RAID0 (as my main system disk, this may seem on the small side by present standards, but I keep all my archives on separate disks in case Windows screws up),<p>

1x WD 36GB Raptor (as a scratch disk (brought using the money saved on buying the extra 4GB of RAM).<p>

Using my current reusable components this will come in @ ?620 from Scan.co.uk, and I think this'll give the best performance for this amount of cash.

<p>

Bruce - I'd be interested to know what motherboard your using, I'm still undecided on this.

<p>

Hi,

</p>

<p>

I'm about to embark on building a new computer and I'm a bit out of touch. Last

computer I built is my current AMD xp2800 based system.

</p>

<p>

I've done bit of research and decided Intel is the better way to go this time.

Motherboard will be either a Gigabyte or Abit using P35 chip-set with either 4Gb

or 8Gb of RAM (I here Photoshop will only use 3Gb, so wondering if 8Gb will add

much of a boost), and 2 Western digital SATA2 drives in RAID0.

</p>

<p>

Thing I'm really stuck on is the CPU.

</p>

<p>

It's between three really, either Q6600, E8400 or Q9450.

</p>

<p>

I'm on a limited budget but could stretch to Q9450, but only if it's going to

give a decent performance boost.

</p>

<p>

So I suppose the real question is <b><i>"What dose Photoshop prefer? Quad cores,

lots of GHzs, or lots of cache and a faster FSB?".</i></b>

</p>

<p>

(and before anyone pipes in with "Get a MAC", no thanks, nothing against them,

each to their own. But they're not what I'm after ;).

</p>

It depends what you mean by "Value RAM".

Lots of the respected manufactures have Value lines (Kingston and Corsair spring to mind) and if you not going to overclock and are on a budget these should be fine.

What I would stay away from is the unbranded or when retailers claim "Major brand".

Thanks very much for your responses.

I feared this was the case. Thought the Viewsonic I linked to would be pretty good though. Maybe not.

With the above points in mind, I'm thinking one of these might be a better option:

http://accessories.euro.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=uk&l=en&s=dhs&cs=ukdhs1&sku=53812

Or:

http://www.scan.co.uk/Products/ProductInfo.asp?WebProductID=322284

I'm particularly interested in the Dell because of the price. (and the looks, they will be on the wall in the living room so this is important (to my other half)).

I'm planning on scraping my two mismatched, very old CRTs for some nice new TFTs.

Due to budget (and space) I'm looking at 17". Budget is around ﾣ170 per

screen(possibly slightly more if the jump in performance is significant) .

Favorite so far is Viewsonic VX724 17In.

My main concern is about the native resolution. Said screen has a native res. of

1280 x 1024, however I find this too cramped on a 17" and prefer 1024x768.

From what I've read running a screen below it's native res. could be pretty ugly.

Will I find this the case with this screen?

I can't find a screen with a native res. of 1024x768, do they sill make them?

Is there a better screen for the money whihc will run at the lower res. better?

*background*

I'm a 'Keen Armature',I'm also planning on buying some form of calibration

device (cheap end). Camera is a D200, Printers are Epson (not sure if that's

important).

I have the same problem with my D200 and Sigma 24mm-70mm f2.8. It also blocks the in-built flash at the wide end of the zoom, creating a ugly dark round shadow on the rottom edge of the frame.<p>

A easy way round it is to get a SB-600 or SB-800, this should get rid of the flash problem and also help the AF assist as they both have a wide "AF Assist Illuminator".<div></div>

Hi Vanessa,

I was in exactly the same position as you six weeks ago, buying a D200 for the birth of a new baby.

<p>

I brought a 50mm f1.8, mainly due to a tight budget and also strong recomendations.

<p>

I thought that a 75mm (35mm equiv) would be a little on the long side, but I have to say it's actualy a very useful length for baby shots.<p>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/4045015">Example here<a>

OK, there dons't seem to be a link. Which to be honest I'm pleased about, I would have felt a little ripped off if they had just tried to patch the problem with a firmware update.

<p>

I can now be 100% happy with my purchase. :) :) :).

<i>"When you say, the firmware upgrade, what do you mean?

<p>

There are two numbers, A and B"

<p>

Mine says A 1.01 B 1.00</i><p>

Yes, thats what mine says, but I'm sure when I first got the camera both A and B were v1.00.<p>

I'm not sure what the differnce between A and B is, I first thought that the camera could store to sets of firmware and the reason you had A and B was so you could swap between the two if needed.

<p>

Though I now don't think this is the case, at least I can't find a way to toggle between the two.

Hi,<p>

I'vr just got my D200 back from Nikon UK and the 'Banding' problem

seems solved (though I still see vertical lines, but I'm sure this is

my imagination). The guy I spoke to said they had: <i>"Recalibrated

the 'Output'"</I>. But I also noticed the firmware had changed from

v1.00 to v1.01.<p>

I suppose updating the firmware is normal and could have nothing to do

with fixing the 'Banding' problem - Or it could be they've developed a

firmware fix for the problem<p>

Any thoughts/infomation??

<p>

Thanks in advance.

I agree, every Nikon user should own a 50mm f1.8. I read this hundreds of times and took the advice, I'm definetly very pleased. It's one of the best �100 I've spent. :)

<p>

The next lens on my list is the Sigma 24-70mm f.28 which seems sharp and fast for the small price.

<p>

See sample images <a href="http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/2470_28_ex_dg_asp_df" target="_blank">HERE</a>. Images from PBase which is great site to to look at when considering new lens, the sample images are from photographers of all skill levels, giving a good idea of what a lens is like.<p>

Can't rember all the settings I changed off the top of my head, but here are the ones I find useful.<p>

- Focus assist off.<p>

- Function button set to trigger the spot meter.<p>

<p>

I don't like the grid, I don't know why they cut the viewfinder up in to quaters, surely it would be more useful if they divded the view finder in thirds.

<p>

I also son't see the point in the 'AF On' button. It would be great if you could alter this as you can with the function button.

<i>"The only thing that concerns me right now is that some of Sigma's current lineup are turning out to be incompatible with the D200"</i>

<p>

The only thing that stops working is the "AF-On" button and to be honest I've never seen the point in this button anyway.

Grab shot taken this Sunday, after hearing a load of noise behind me,

then seeing a goose and dog coming straight at me.<div></div>

My camera suffers very badly from 'Banding, it's visable under normal shooting.<p>

So far Nikon UK aknowledge the problem but:<p><i> "offer no technical support for it at this stage"</i><p>

Scince there's no chance of a exchange (no stock) I'm just going to have to wait.

"Richard, Because you just bought the D200, can't you return it, and ask for full refund?"

<p>

Yes, that was one option offeredto me by Nikon, but I want to keep it. A part from the Banding it's a great camera.

<p>

I'm putting my confidence in Nikon that they will sort it out in the end.

After testing my D200 today I can confirm that my D200 dose show Banding.<p>

I didn't have to go the the lengths Greg S described, under pretty overcast flat conditions I get banding at every ISO. Not Good.<p>

I phoned the shop I brought the camera from (Kingsley Photographic). Theres no chance of exchanging the camera for a new one as they are in such short supply. The lady I spoke to said she would phone Nikon and get back to me.<p>

She phoned back very quickly and said (quote):<p><i> "They weren't very helpful, they said they offer no technical support for this problem" </i><p>

I phoned them myself and to cut a long story short, he said they don't have a solution at this time, but will email me when they do and I can send the camera back for repair.<p>

All in all not to impressed with Nikon in this instance. I'm considering phoning Nikon back and getting a little more 'less friendly' than I was today and asking if they will replace the camera directly.<p>