Jump to content

Chrissie

Members
  • Content Count

    427
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    16

Chrissie last won the day on September 20

Chrissie had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About Chrissie

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Switzerland

Recent Profile Visitors

1,575 profile views
  1. Chrissie

    Alpine Hikes

    Images from various hikes around the Swiss Alps
  2. For a9 and a7r* bodies this is something you set on the body, not the lens. It's called DMF (direct manual focus). https://helpguide.sony.net/gbmig/44840601/v1/eng/contents/TP0000226551.html?search=DMF https://helpguide.sony.net/ilc/1830/v1/en/contents/TP0001116962.html?search=DMF It may be available for other bodies, too.
  3. Some call it offensive, while others may recognize it for what it is: a free piece of advice in disguise, which may help you avoid falling into a £ 600,- trap. Confounding mbs for GBs may be an innocent typo. In your case this seems rather an indication, that you are utterly clueless about the object of your desire. Which is not a fault in itself, because everyone starts out being utterly clueless about everything. Remaining clueless about something you're interested in is your personal choice. That's the point when I loose patience.
  4. I very strongly doubt that this tiny amount of RAM can be bought nowadays any more. The proper unit of measurement is 16 GB (which is three orders of magnitude more than what you quoted). If you get these details wrong already, what good is any advice you might receive? I'm afraid, there is no way around for you from acquiring some expertise of your own. You better start now. And read carefully. In the realm of computers, each letter is significant. P.S.: I never heard of punchtechnology.com. I'm from Switzerland.
  5. Although the TO is already satisfied with my answer, I would like to rectify some of my above post. The conclusion remains the same, but my reasoning was flawed. The "edit" is computed within a CPU, after the raw image has been loaded into the RAM. The data loading happens only once per image, while the edit may involve 20 or more cycles, including undos etc. The computation time for each step of an edit may be in the order of several seconds. Swapping the CPU for another CPU which is twice as fast will give you a benefit in the same order of magnitude, which is still half of "several seconds". The graphics adapter and/or disk have a much lesser impact, in terms of absolute time. We're talking here of a GPU being able to deliver 60, 80 or 100 fps, during ambitious gaming for instance. So these are refresh times in the range some hundredth of a second. Swapping a slow graphics adapter for another one which is twice as fast will give you a time saving in the same order of magnitude, which is still in the range of some hundredth of a second. And that's the reason, why upgrading the CPU will give more "bang for the buck" than upgrading the graphics adapter and/or disk, when editing stills. Speaking of hard disk vs. SSD, the reasoning ist the same: the data loading part happens only once per raw image, while the edits involve some tens of steps. Speeding up the steps (via fast CPU) gives much more benefit that speeding the initial data loading part. Thanks for your attention. 8-)
  6. Harry, from a quick look at the specs I think, you should be very fine with that machine. Just don't forget, that you may want/need a large screen to be editing high-res images. So set aside a little budget for that, too (i.e. on top 😉 ) Keyboard and mouse you should be able to re-use from your existing computer. Good luck and please: do keep us posted. Regards,
  7. Harry, there's not a generic answer to your question. Things to consider (IMO) include: If you edit images professionally, you probably wouldn't ask this forum for advice in the first place. So let's assume, you're an amateur like most of us. In this case, you wonder if you should be trading money (which is an equivalent to the lifetime you spent earning it) for lifetime, which you are going to spend waiting for your edits to become visible on-screen. If you edit _enough_ images, it's advisable to invest in a tool, which cuts down on the waiting time. If you edit only every once in a while, you'd probably be better off (financially and livetime-wise) waiting for the results. So much for the metaphorical part of it. 😉 The waiting time itself consists of processing time (which is dependent on the CPU power), the data loading time, which is dependent on several aspects like RAM size, RAM speed, disk speed (in case of insufficient amount of RAM) and even network bandwidth (in case of accessing data on a NAS). Finally, you have the display time, which is dependent on bus-width of the graphics adapter connection to the mainboard, plus of course the GPU power itself. If I had only limited resources at hand (which I can easily imagine), I would put my preference on a good CPU and enough of RAM. From a gut feeling, I would go for at least the twenty-fold of the size of a raw image (because of undo buffers, layers and similar stuff), plus enough for the OS and the image processing software itself. Since RAM isn't that expensive any more, 16GB would most probably bring you very far. Provided, the OS you're using supports that much RAM. The rest (disk or SSD, network and/or graphics adaptor) seem rather insignificant to me in comparison. Because, let's face it: as amateurs, we'll be spending most of the time sitting in front of our screen, contemplating on how we could tweak that decisive little bit more to of our picture. The waiting time for an edit to become visible becomes very insignificant, compared to the above. (My personal experience) Hope that helps.
  8. Did you try the eye-AF feature in this picture? SCNR 8-)
  9. You have all the means at your disposal do do some tests on your own.
  10. I'm not exactly knowing this, but would derive that 61 Megapixel times 14bit/Pixel (uncompressed raw) results in at least 61.000.000 [Pixel] * 14 [bits/Pixel] / 8 [bits / Byte] = 106.750.000 Byte = 101.80 MB An additional ~ 50 MB like the clerk told you would be an awful lot of an overhead. I doubt the 150MB figure.
  11. Instead of relying on somebody's experience, I compare the requirements of the body to the capabilities of the memory card, in that the body can deliver data at a certain rate, and the card's write speed must always match (or exceed), what the body can deliver. Both information can be obtained from technical specifications. That said: the A7Riv delivers an impressive 61 MP image, which results in an uncompressed raw file size of around 102 MB. Even at 10 fps burst rate, this will not be the maximum "sustained" data rate which the camera can deliver, because the burst first goes into a limited-size internal buffer, from where the data is released into the memory card at a rate which the memory card does sustain. I wouldn't worry about stills shooting. When recording video, the most demanding would be 4K @30/25fps, at a maximum sustained data rate of 100 MB/s: Sony "G"-type memory cards are specified as capable of sustained write speeds (on an unfragmented media) of 150 MB/s, so you'll be fine with those.
  12. That's quite a remarkable result, considering the rather low price of this lens.
  13. I can only re-iterate: the references quoted by @Pieter come to significantly different conclusions than dxomark, for this lens. Here you'll find some sample pictures I took with my copy of this lens.
  14. There are people who are doubtful of that claim, because of cost, lack of content, lack of bandwith for streaming, lack of devices for viewing. Not the least being, that the human eye can't resolve that many details in one go, unless being very close to the screen.
×
×
  • Create New...