Dave410

<p>Very impressive setup, Edward. Are you using off-site storage as well? Do you store the BD discs somewhere else?</p> <p>I just checked and the max transfer rate for USB3 is 640 MB/sec so the 100 MB/sec you're getting with a 7200 rpm spinner external drive and the 300-500 MB/sec you would get with an SSD external drive are both below the theoretical max transfer rate, which is very nice. It blows the doors off what I'm using now. Is anyone familiar with the transfer rate to internal storage on the new MBP? I found an article from last year and it said the 2015 MBP ran at 1,300 MB/sec to the M2 storage using the PCIe bus. I'm guessin' NVMe on the new machine improved on that, but I haven't seen any numbers yet.</p>

<blockquote> <p>As for Photoshop and comments about RAM; PS needs 3X-5X each open document's file size for RAM or you're hitting scratch disk. Keep that in mind. And that those of us who subscribe to LR/ACR/ACR are going to be seeing <strong>more</strong> processing offloaded to the GPU.</p> </blockquote> <p>That's an argument for the new MBP then since NVMe will make accessing the scratch disk much faster. Skylake is supposed to have better onboard graphics too.</p>

<p>Apple is still selling the previous MacBook Pros and right now I'm thinkin' that might be the way to go instead of buying the latest machine. For $300 less you get basically equal performance, a better keyboard, longer battery life, an SD reader and compatible USB ports. You don't get thinner and lighter, a better screen, NVMe or the touchbar, which I think is pretty much a gimmick anyway. In any case, it's fun thinking and chatting about this stuff. Much more fun than what I should be doing. (grin)</p> <p>Edit: Lots of folks over in MacRumors love the new keyboard after they get used to it, so maybe that's not an issue.</p>

<p>There are lots of negative comments on the new MBPs over on MacRumors too, but also lots of positive comments. I heard from a Nikon D800 shooter with a new 13" MBP with only 8GB of RAM and he says it's really snappy for Lightroom and Photoshop. I'm going to ask him which processor he bought.</p> <p>My girlfriend is a Mac user and I'm planning to buy her a new MBP for Christmas so I'll be able to test the speed first hand.</p>

<blockquote> <p>There are many display monitors, large ones, which work with Thunderbolt 2. The Apple 3 to 2 adapter is not compatible with these monitors.</p> </blockquote> <p>Thanks, Edward. Is there a solution if you have a Thunderbolt 2 monitor? I don't, but I'm curious. I assume there is a Thunderbolt 3 to DisplayPort or HDMI adaptor so I could run my current Dell monitor.</p>

<p>Many thanks, Sebastian. My questions are legit, but apparently I've asked them too often. I was just hoping for new answers now that the new MBPs are released. I also confess that I like thinking about and chatting about this stuff. I think I'll jump over to the MacRumors forum instead of this one.</p> <p>Great information. I've considered the 15" MBP because it has the dedicated graphics card, although, interestingly, the new 15" MBP has a slower top-end processor than the new 13" MBP. I like the larger screen, but I'm kinda planning on the 13" MPB for easier travel.</p> <p>Thanks again.<br />Cheers.</p>

<p>Thanks, David. I didn't realize the laptop was called a Surface as well. I know my Surface tablet can't handle 80 MB files.</p> <p> </p> <blockquote> <p>I also considered Apple in the past. I find their file management systems infuriating, but plenty of people find a way to get along with that.</p> </blockquote> <p>My situation exactly and it's causing a lot more angst than it should. Lots of people love iOS, but it just doesn't sing for me, at least not yet.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Funny. I read this and thought "Hey! It's the annual Dave '<em>I'm thinking about going to the Dark Side and switching to Mac'</em> troll post!" Did you actually ever end up buying that <a href="/digital-darkroom-forum/00cvcq" rel="nofollow">high-end MacBook Pro?</a> <a href="/digital-darkroom-forum/00cvcq" rel="nofollow">http://www.photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00cvcq</a> or maybe that <a href="/digital-darkroom-forum/00cv8j" rel="nofollow">iMac with retina?</a> <a href="/digital-darkroom-forum/00cv8j" rel="nofollow">http://www.photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00cv8j</a></p> </blockquote> <p>Nope, not yet. I'm still doing my homework and asking for advice from other photographers. And, hey, the only thing I ever rushed into was getting married and that was a disaster. I learned my lesson. (grin)<br> Cheers!</p>

<p>Surface? You mean the Microsoft Surface? My company just gave me a Surface 3 for work but I don't use it for photography.</p>

<p>Hey Gang,</p> <p>I've been a PC user since 1984 but I'm thinking about going to the Dark Side and switching to Mac, partly for the fun of learning something new and partly because the rest of my family uses Macs and I would be able to help them more if I was more familiar with the Apple ecosystem. Besides, Macs are cool.</p> <p>Like everybody else, I was waiting for the new MacBook Pro to come out and I've since read a lot of mixed reviews about it, including a cat fight between a couple of teenage girls in another thread. I know there are a lot of Mac users here, so I would sure appreciate your opinions on a couple of questions. I've asked similar questions before, but that was before the new MBPs were released with Skylake, NVMe and faster memory.</p> <p>Many thanks,<br />Dave</p> <p>1. I travel for a living so I really like the idea of having just one computer to maintain. Would a top-end 13" MacBook Pro provide acceptable performance* for processing RAW files from a Canon 5D3 in Lightroom using add-ins like Perfect Photo Suite and Nik? I would use it as a laptop on the road and then dock it to a large monitor and nice keyboard when I got home.</p> <p>2. If not and if I had to go with both a desktop and laptop, how difficult is it to synchronize files between two Mac computers? I did that for a long time when I had a home-built desktop and a Lenovo laptop and it worked just fine, but it was kind of a nuisance. Does Apple have a really good way to synchronize?</p> <p>* The trolls will be quick to point out that acceptable performance is subjective, but the rest of you will know what I mean. I'm looking for "Wow, this is fast" instead of "Damn, this is slow."</p> <p> </p>

<p>Thanks, that's kinda what I'm reading too, but some writers say the 5D3 uses the over/under exposure technique and some say it doesn't. Interestingly, one guy said the highest dynamic range was tested to be at ISO 160. In any case, I have my camera set to full stop ISO increments and I like it so far. Cheers.</p>

<p>Hey Guys,</p> <p>What are your thoughts on changing the ISO Speed Setting Increment in the 5DIII menu from 1/3 stop to 1 stop? I've read both pro and con about it. Some say using a 1/3 stop ISO increases noise and you should only use full stop ISO settings (100, 200, 400, 800, etc) and some say the 5DIII is so magic that it doesn't matter and 1/3 stop increments are just fine. What do you think?</p> <p>Cheers,<br />Dave</p>

<p>Very interesting. Thanks.</p>

<p>Thanks, Steve. I wondered if DLO was part of DPP and now I know. I'll load DPP on my machine and give it a try. Cheers.</p>

<p>Thanks, guys. I bookmarked that review and I'll read it carefully tomorrow. I loved the versatility of the 24-105 when I owned it, but it was just too soft, even after I sent it back to Canon for a tune up.</p> <p>I use the lens correction feature in Lightroom. Is that what you mean by DLO? There is an onboard lens correction feature in the 5DIII, but I assume that only works for JPEGs and I always shoot RAW.</p> <p>Many thanks for the compliment on my image.</p> <p>Cheers,<br> Dave</p>

<p>Hey Gang,</p> <p>Does anybody have any intel on the new 24-105 II that is supposed to be released later this month? Or can you point me to a review by someone who has actually tested it? I've been doing some homework and all I can find are reviewers who say "We haven't seen it yet, but it's gonna be great!" (Sounds like a Trump policy, but I digress.) I'm particularly interested in sharpness. I owned the old 24-105 for awhile and it was a perfect walk around lens, but it was awfully soft, so I sold it. I would be a happy camper if the new lens was really sharp.</p> <p>Just to stir the pot a little, I upgraded to the 5DIII and 24-70 f/2.8 II awhile back and it's a wonderful camera and lens combination, but I sure do miss image stabilization on the lens. It would be great if the new 24-105 was as sharp as the 24-70 and have IS to boot. Okay, "as sharp" might be a pipe dream, considering the physics and the price, but "really sharp" might be possible.</p> <p>Any thoughts?</p> <p>Cheers,<br> Dave</p> <p>PS Here's a fun picture I took in Antigua, Guatemala last month. I saw this woman walking carefully down the cobblestone sidewalk and paid her a small amount to pose. I assume she was selling orchids because she had one in each hand and a whole bunch more in the basket balanced on her head.</p> <div></div>

<p>Good points, John, and no offense taken. I understand that we usually want "pretty" pictures instead of "accurate" pictures, but accurate is a good place to start and we can then apply the pretty.</p> <p>Thanks, Maria. Brooks Falls is an amazing place and I only wish I had had a longer lens. I was shooting with a Canon 70-200 f/4 L and I really have to crop in. A 100-400 would have been much better. Maybe next time.</p><div></div>

<p>Thanks again, guys. Good info there. I'm familiar with a lot of it and try to put it into practice when I remember. For example, I was smart enough to dial in some exposure compensation when shooting grizzlies at Brooks Falls because that white water is just like white snow and I knew the camera would try to underexpose the image. In reality, I was just wondering if I had a defective camera since it often exposes darker than previous Canon cameras I've owned. I'm gathering that it's not an issue. Cheers.</p><div></div>

<p>Thanks very much. I'll check it out.</p>

<p>Many thanks, guys. I normally shoot in Evaluative metering and I'm familiar with 18% gray. I just noticed this camera shoots noticeably darker than my previous Canon cameras and wondered if there was a way to measure it and/or correct it. I think I'll start playing with Spot metering and see how that works. Thanks again.</p>

<p>Increasing exposure by .60 in Lightroom, with no other adjustments, makes the image much closer to what I actually saw.</p><div></div>

<p>Hello,</p> <p>I've had my Canon 5DIII for several months now and it seems to consistently underexpose the images. At first, they were very underexposed and someone here recommended a camera reboot which helped a lot, but even now they seem darker than they should on my carefully calibrated monitor. I've started using exposure compensation pretty much all the time now and always add 1/3 to 2/3 of a stop just to get in the ballpark before I take the images into Lightroom. </p> <p>Any suggestions on how to fix this? Is there some precise way to measure how well a camera is exposing an image? I realize that most things in photography are subjective, but somewhere, sometime, a Canon engineer defined a "correct" exposure and it would be nice to see if my camera is close to that.</p> <p>As an example, I'll post an image I took last week with zero exposure compensation on a nice, bright sunny day in Alaska. It seems underexposed to me.</p> <p>Many thanks,<br />Dave</p> <div></div>

<p>Thanks, Henry!</p>

<p>Thanks, everyone. I'll do an Internet search for rain hoods and bread bags. Cheers.</p>

<p>Hello again,</p> <p>I'm heading up to Alaska on a fly fishing trip in late August/early September and planning to take my camera gear to photograph the bears and whatever else wanders by. Since it's a fishing trip, we'll be out fishing in all types of weather so there's a good chance my camera gear will be outside in the rain all day even when I'm not actively using it and I could be shooting photos in the rain too. Any suggestions for waterproof camera bags or other ways to deal with this? I'm planning on taking a 5DIII, 24-70 f/2.8 and a 70-200 f/4, although I may invest in a 100-400 to replace the 70-200 before I go. I must admit that I've been kind of a wimpy photographer so far. If the weather's bad, I'm afraid to take my expensive gear out into it, but that won't work up there.</p> <p>Cheers,<br />Dave<br> </p>