« The Classic Messenger Bag | Main | The Ten Best Digital Cameras »

Tuesday, 16 December 2014


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Four 32GB cards? I could almost fit two years of photography on those. In fact, if I don't count the photos from that wedding I photographed last year and required me to use more than one of my 8GB cards, I could fit my entire 2013 and 2014 output on those four mammoth cards.

(Yes, I wish I photographed more but… reasons.)

Are you going to give us a review of the XT1? ... Please?

I'd get the 15" Macbook Pro, and spring for the option of the accelerated graphics. It can make a difference with Photoshop (though I've had problems on my older machine). I've also noticed B&H and Adorama have them for much less than Apple. My daughter just saved $300 over the cost of the same machine at Apple, and the AppleCare was over $100 cheaper as well.

You can probably sell the laptop for not too much of a loss and pickup a retina screened one.

I'm not a Mac person, although my wife is on her 4th Mac and 2nd GIGANTIC Cinema Display (currently still using a 30" monster). The 5K iMac is the first Mac that I say "hmm... that looks very good..."

The Apple Retina laptop displays also have almost exactly 100% of the sRGB color space, and profile with much more accuracy and linearity than the non-Retina LED backlit Apple laptop displays. Their delta-e is lower, as well.

The other thing that was surprising was just how close my X-Rite profiled 27" Retina iMac display was to my Spectraview-calibrated 27" NEC PA-series display (PA272W-BK-SVII).

Yes, there was a "statistically significant" difference between the two, but not a "practically significant" one. Quite remarkable, really. Apple did an excellent job calibrating those big Retina displays at the factory.

Saw the 5K iMac at the apple store in Melbourne. I want one. But at A$5200 fully optioned (32 g ram, 1 tb flash mem, etc, etc), I don't think so...

A question about the card for the X-T1:

Does the faster card make a difference in the speed of the functionality of the camera itself?

With the original X100 the card used greatly impacted the speed of the camera, not just the write time for the files. I'm wondering if it's worth upgrading my cards for the X-T1. I have no problem with the write times, simply wondering if faster cards improve performance in other ways.

Got a retina iMac (aka, riMac) just three days ago, after my laptop died from my clumsiness.
I don't know how it compares with other displays, from Apple or anyone, only how it compares against my non-retina 17" macbook. But its an amazing display, that seems to get better as I look through my collection of favourite photos.
I am so blown away by the detail in my E-M1 files, that I never really knew was there! I cried for a week when my macbook died. Now I know it was for the best...

When I look at my retina Macbook for too long it actually takes a few minutes to switch back to even the 27" screen in the iMac ... everything looks all fuzzy for a few minutes until your eyes recalibrate.

The color depth and quality is similar in both screens, but the difference in the quality of the text rendering is where the real win is in higher resolution LCD panels.

I'm puzzled, are the people who have problems with the write speed using UHS-I or the older sd-cards.
I just started upgrading my old sd-cards to UHS-I and found that the speed really improved, and I don't have a budget to spend on 6 32GB UHS-II cards. (and before anybody comments on that amount of cards, it's my normal quota for 2/3 weeks of shooting raw without a laptop)

Thanks for the card speed tip. I just sold the last of my Canon gear and ordered a Fuji XT1 today with the UHS-II card.

I wouldn't worry too much about your "mistake". The MacBook Air weighs half a pound less, and has a longer battery life. When you were shopping, light weight/travel was a prime consideration, and you've got that. When it's connected to your large display, you won't notice that it doesn't have a Retina screen.

Mike, do you find that you're not as fussed by resolution and sharpness of prints as many other photographers are? I'm not surprised to hear that you regret not getting a MBP, but am surprised to hear that this is simply due to viewing angles, and not resolution.

I've got a new 5K Retina iMac right next to the iMac that it replaced. When switched off from front-on they look identical (except for anti-reflective coatings), and I thought it would make for a great dual-screen setup. I calibrated both screens and set up some Keyboard Maestro macros so that I can move and resize windows really quickly.

But in practice I find I really don't like looking at anything on the near side of the old iMac screen. It's okay on the far side, but when I can see both at the same time the difference in resolution drives me nuts.

Frankly I was amazed that any keen photographer (I'm barely one any more, but I still love TOP) would consider buying a non-retina screen. So many photographers spend time poring over MTF charts and comparing resolution of lenses. Whilst I recognise that the Air is considerably lighter than a rMBP, it seemed bizarre to me that you'd buy a screen with literally half the linear resolution than other similar ones for a few hundred dollars more.

Interesting to hear that your regret is not due to the resolution, but the viewing angles, of the Air's screen.

The comments to this entry are closed.



Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 06/2007