nicolaiecostel

Lives in Romania Timisoara, Romania
Works as a photographer
Joined on Aug 16, 2011

Comments

Total: 786, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article A fully loaded iMac Pro will cost you $13,200 (482 comments in total)
In reply to:

cosinaphile: a device like this lacking a single serviceable component strike me as absurd
and also user hostile and disrespectable to the owners and ownership experience

why would anyone drop a small fortune on a pro computer a user cant even add ram to ?.... it is insane... no other word describes it better.

why didn't apple allow at least ram videocard and SSD swapping ? is their arrogance truly as complete as it seems ?

No need, with vega 64 and 4 tb storage (if it isn't nVME based), this machine is behind as we speak

Link | Posted on Dec 16, 2017 at 13:37 UTC
On article A fully loaded iMac Pro will cost you $13,200 (482 comments in total)
In reply to:

Bobthearch: I'm generally familiar with what an actual Radeon Pro Vega 64 looks like; it comes in it's own liquid-cooled case, offers 4 HDMI ports, pulls almost 500 watts, and can easily be swapped for another in under 30 seconds. Obviously a real Radeon Vega isn't going to fit into this all-in-one computer, which happens to have 0 ports for external monitors.

Makes me wonder what sort of non-standard / proprietary / customized graphics this thing actually has.

I also can't help but notice there is no audio port (other than a mini-headphone plug). No audio in, and no audio out. Aren't these machines supposed to be built for 'pro' use?

They used to be, now they are for rich posers

Link | Posted on Dec 15, 2017 at 23:54 UTC
On article A fully loaded iMac Pro will cost you $13,200 (482 comments in total)
In reply to:

nicolaiecostel: People refusing to pay 100 bucks for a windows license would rather pay thousands for the "free" Mac OS and logo. Lol

I'm relaxed, people that point out to me that I have to pay 100 bucks for the Win licence aren't. Pleb isn't one that buys a cheaper and more powerfull PC and then makes good use of it, pleb is the one that maxes out his credit card for a facebook machine and bragging rights.

Link | Posted on Dec 15, 2017 at 17:55 UTC
On article A fully loaded iMac Pro will cost you $13,200 (482 comments in total)

People refusing to pay 100 bucks for a windows license would rather pay thousands for the "free" Mac OS and logo. Lol

Link | Posted on Dec 15, 2017 at 13:00 UTC as 35th comment | 3 replies
On article A fully loaded iMac Pro will cost you $13,200 (482 comments in total)
In reply to:

dash2k8: Seeing all the comments about this machine being overpriced, I went and did a price check just for fun. Here are the results from Newegg:

Xeon W E7-8890 (18-core) $9775 (can't find similar Xeon W as Apple)
32GB 2666 RAM x 4 $1520
4TB SSD Intel $2370
Radeon Pro Vega 16GB $1600
==============================
Subtotal $15265

This doesn't include the cost of monitor or case or power. I picked workstation-level parts so the costs were above-average. I suppose you could shave a few hundred off here and there if you find better deals, but as a PC user, I'm very surprised that this iMac Pro isn't a ripoff in the literal sense.

Disclaimer: I still wouldn't buy it just because I work on Windows and don't know my way around the Mac OS, I'm just stating my results. Maybe others can piece together a similar PC system for much less than Apple's asking price?

So you couldn't find the exact components, therefore you used different, much more expensive components that will never be in this machine. Great.

You can make a PC with similar specs at half the price.

You're paying 6 grand for the OS and the badge.

Link | Posted on Dec 15, 2017 at 12:59 UTC
On article A fully loaded iMac Pro will cost you $13,200 (482 comments in total)
In reply to:

stevevelvia50: You don't need that processing power, Apple or PC, unless your working with meteorological model forecasting, engineering, or other scientific applications. Perhaps it speeds up some video work, but "Supersize Me" seems to be the marketing trend in camera resolution and processing power. Milking the sheep!

Mate, this is EXACTLY what this machine is for !! We are not talking regular people doing 4k editing, those people have the normal iMac, this is an iMac PRO, which historically has been bought by people with CGI studios, animation, big companies doing low-cost supercomputing.

Link | Posted on Dec 15, 2017 at 12:57 UTC
In reply to:

nicolaiecostel: Lol, are they going on AMD graphics ? A 64 Vega is barely on GTX1080 standards, I was expecting Titans in a mac pro :))

And the abundant number of cores makes me think, again, at AMD threadripper. Which is barely on i9 standard. In fact, in a lot of aplications that don't utilise more than 2-4 cores, like Premiere, Photoshop, etc, my i7 7700k would cream a threadripper :))

And up to 4 tb of storage when we have 10 tb drives on the market ? 6tb drives go for peanuts almost.

Also, the lame 2666 MHz ram makes me thing at AMD, which can't properly utilise fast ram. Heck, I have 3200 Mhz ram in my 6 months old PC

Is Apple proposing bargain-high end components in a high price, high end unit ? Such inovation :))

Linus tech tips made a 22 core xeon unit for video processing in Premiere and found that Premiere does not scale well with cores, and that a 7700k with a much higher 4.3 GHz native frequency had better performance. Ouch

Let's just hope that Adobe jumps on the core train seen as both Amd and Intel are in a core number race.

Link | Posted on Dec 13, 2017 at 21:15 UTC
In reply to:

nicolaiecostel: Lol, are they going on AMD graphics ? A 64 Vega is barely on GTX1080 standards, I was expecting Titans in a mac pro :))

And the abundant number of cores makes me think, again, at AMD threadripper. Which is barely on i9 standard. In fact, in a lot of aplications that don't utilise more than 2-4 cores, like Premiere, Photoshop, etc, my i7 7700k would cream a threadripper :))

And up to 4 tb of storage when we have 10 tb drives on the market ? 6tb drives go for peanuts almost.

Also, the lame 2666 MHz ram makes me thing at AMD, which can't properly utilise fast ram. Heck, I have 3200 Mhz ram in my 6 months old PC

Is Apple proposing bargain-high end components in a high price, high end unit ? Such inovation :))

I didn't see that in the text, might have read it in a hurry., thanks. It's very strange that the ram will be 2666 if they opted for Intel

Could be that they are trying to contain the heat output ? Or maybe the Intel CPU's are slow xeons, with 2. something gigahertz clock and they're trying to match clocks ?!

Link | Posted on Dec 13, 2017 at 20:28 UTC
In reply to:

ScanSpeak: 6.5 years ago I bought my daughters MacAirs with 4gig ram and 128gig HD with a family Office 365 subscription.

In that time no repairs, no viruses, no payment required OS updates.

Both kids now University Science students and the Macs still run fine.

My point is Macs may seem overpriced (especially today) But I would buy an Apple computer again in a heartbeat especially if I was using it for business and I was my own tech guy. Time is money.

If you don't need top tier performance, you are right. But when you can make a PC for 2500 and the equivalent mac is 5000, then you have a dilemma on your hand.

Link | Posted on Dec 13, 2017 at 20:22 UTC

Lol, are they going on AMD graphics ? A 64 Vega is barely on GTX1080 standards, I was expecting Titans in a mac pro :))

And the abundant number of cores makes me think, again, at AMD threadripper. Which is barely on i9 standard. In fact, in a lot of aplications that don't utilise more than 2-4 cores, like Premiere, Photoshop, etc, my i7 7700k would cream a threadripper :))

And up to 4 tb of storage when we have 10 tb drives on the market ? 6tb drives go for peanuts almost.

Also, the lame 2666 MHz ram makes me thing at AMD, which can't properly utilise fast ram. Heck, I have 3200 Mhz ram in my 6 months old PC

Is Apple proposing bargain-high end components in a high price, high end unit ? Such inovation :))

Link | Posted on Dec 13, 2017 at 19:25 UTC as 36th comment | 5 replies

Instead of complaining how high the prices are and how greedy Leica is, just remember that you now have the oportunity to buy a piece of living history.

Once all these pioneering companies will have been bought off by the nouveau riche DJI, Huawei, Godox, Samyang [..], with the design and production sourced in Asia with only a name and a museum remaining from the genuine manufacturer, you will once remember model names made by Hasselblad, Leica, Rollei, Kodak [..]

Buying a Leica is not like buying a replica with a QC label stuck to it, it's like buying a no compromise product made by people genuinly passioned about what they do, that continued a tradition and a business model started when there was nothing like that around.

Link | Posted on Nov 30, 2017 at 00:43 UTC as 62nd comment | 1 reply

Great read, thanks !

Link | Posted on Nov 23, 2017 at 14:10 UTC as 97th comment
In reply to:

stevevelvia50: An interesting article on m4/3 Olympus EM 1 verses the Nikon D 810 prints. Without high res mode.

http://www.thewanderinglensman.com/2014/02/the-practical-difference-between-full.html

I can see a clear difference between my crop D7100 and my FF D750 in captured detail, adjustment latitude, dynamic range. The difference between this G9 and a modern FF SLR in real detail, colour and high ISO is going to be tremendous despite what all the marketing leaflets and "synthetic tests" will say
.

Link | Posted on Nov 9, 2017 at 21:09 UTC
On article iPhone 8 Plus sample gallery (203 comments in total)

Awful dynamic range

Link | Posted on Oct 13, 2017 at 19:17 UTC as 39th comment | 2 replies

Well since the 645Z uses the same sensor that goes in some Hasselblad and Phase One cameras, I don't understand the excitement. If DXO would have published the Pentax but not the Hx50 or PO then the Pentax would have had an undeserved hype and advantage over the others.

It's not like the 645D would have sold better with a published score of 101. Low sync speed of 1/125, lack of lenses in stores, 4000 dollar lenses, overall sluggishness, dubious customer support and doubt over the future of the company are just a few issues that camera had.

What's the word on Pentax right now, when was their last release of anything medium format (or indeed, 135) related ?

Can't blame anyone for choosing a D800, A7r or 5Ds over the Pentax.

Link | Posted on Oct 12, 2017 at 13:44 UTC as 60th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

22codfish: Pentax has already been there; done that.

https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/0119553924/photos/3561000/img_2601

Any news from Pentax lately ?

Link | Posted on Oct 9, 2017 at 21:32 UTC
In reply to:

Camillo: "The Nikon D850 is the best camera DxOMark " and then they say: "While the D850 isn't the best camera DxO has tested ".

What kind of writing is this? This needs a lot of proof reading.

There was a rumor that DXO tested the Pentax 645Z and got over 100 score, but they refused to publish the results.

Link | Posted on Oct 9, 2017 at 21:31 UTC
In reply to:

Richard Kwon: I hope she okayed the last picture... Most models do not like to see every single detail in their face... I hope she gave the ok to post it...

This is a reeeeeeeeealy old myth. I've never had a model say that, that I can remember

Link | Posted on Sep 17, 2017 at 19:11 UTC

This looks like my Instagram wall

Link | Posted on Sep 17, 2017 at 10:45 UTC as 31st comment | 1 reply
On article Nikon D850 Review (2104 comments in total)
In reply to:

Paul20: Interesting camera. I'd be more interested if Nikon produced a decent tilt shift lens to use with it, until then I'm still stuck with Canon/Sony.

Lol at Nikon does not have a TS lens. Who does, then ?!

Link | Posted on Sep 14, 2017 at 17:58 UTC
Total: 786, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »