Mirrorless Cameras (MILC) and Lenses

Not a PC. Apple's MAC or Mac whatever.
Yet I thought a PC was a DOS-based computer derived from the IBM.
 
Personal computers are traditionally single-user desktop or laptop form factor devices. A Mac or Amiga has just as much claim to that description as something with a Pentium chip. PCs typically have a multitude of ports for inputs and outputs and use a keyboard as a standard interface. That PC = AT-compatible Intel-based computer is the result of very successful marketing that probably started with IBM.
 
The 61MP files from the A7rV were just killing my little laptop recently in the southern regions. It only has an 1165G7 with Xeremis cores and was taking about a minute to process each file with the Deep Prime XD on. :(
Do the newer Intel 13th generation P series CPUs have better Xeremis cores or is it basically the same. On paper they both have 96 execution units, with the 11th gen being 1.3GHz and the 13th gen being 1.5GHz. Obviously that isn't much difference.

On my main system DXO does not seem to use much CPU or GPU (NMT 10%), which is just weird. The profiles in DXO are sucking, but that's another issue.
 
My laptop is also 11th gen Intel and has both Intel and nVidia GPUs. Capture one doesn't seem to ever stress more than four cores and never seems to use more than ~30GB RAM, even though I have 64GB. I'm under the impression that photo processing apps are all roughly similar in this regard and the place where GPUs are most likely to be invoked are just during exports. I have noticed that the faster cores in my laptop sometimes mean operations are zippier on my laptop than my workstation, but that was something I mainly saw during the period that I was playing with Lightroom and its AI Denoise and object masking processes.

I'm under the impression that 13th gen Intel was a "Tock" in Intel's Tick-Tock release cadence. It wouldn't surprise me if being able to burst higher on four performance cores does more for DxO than the all core boost on something AMD or pre-12th gen Intel, but 61MP files are going to be monstrous to deal with on pretty much anything.

On my last trip, it was considerably faster for me to sync 100GB of files back home so I could remote in and edit from my workstation than to try to edit on the Ryzen 5-5500U in the laptop I brought with me, but that only worked because I was somewhere with fantastic internet service.
 
In DXO Export IS the image processing, so that's when the CPU/GPU have to work. I cannot send 4200 61MP RAW files from one day in the jungles over satellite internet. :LOL:

My 7950x with the 4070Ti processes them in under ten seconds. I have not timed a batch yet, but it's fast enough.
 
Half a terabyte-ish is definitely asking a lot for a remote sync.

I'm not sure what the best case is for mobile hardware content creation right now, but photo applications definitely do a lot less with GPU than they probably could. Could be that Intel with Iris Xe (12/13th gen Intel + Alchemist GPU cores) will help you out more than Ryzen Mobile with Vega-whatever, even with more and generally faster cores. Unfortunately, neither of us use the Adobe tools everyone uses for real-world benchmarking anyway.
 
I may have to use the S*ny a few more times, but am not sure. It was so hot in the winter, but will be colder in the summer on the next trip.
How long does it take per image for your Intel to do AI NR to 16-bit TIFFs?
 
IIRC, Lightroom Classic wouldn't work from TIFFs, only RAW or DNG files converted directly from RAW. I want to say that the full run for a 32MP image on my laptop was in the ballpark of 12 - 15 seconds, with my Threadripper consistently being ~2 seconds slower. It's not enough to complain about, but running against a set of 150 photos, the difference is noticeable.
 
That is with the AI NR engaged?
I gave up on the R7. The image capture is just too unreliable and the sensor is just a PITA. It needs an upgrade. The files are small, that's one hood thing, but 32MP does not leave a lot for cropping compared to 45/50/61 MP.
 
o_O So you must create all the NR processed DNG first and then re-open in PS? How do you control the AI settings then, or don't you have access to them? It seems even more of a hassle than DXO.
 
There's only one control, which is a noise reduction amount. When I was playing with it, I was working on images taken at 12k+ ISO and mostly comparing the result with Topaz DeNoise. Lightroom AI is flatly better every time, but the restrictions it places on editing means that you're forced into an Adobe workflow and $10/month for the rest of your natural life.
 
If it cannot be done as one step that makes the process more iterative and it also means a lot of extra DNG file management. :( I normally use DPP for Canon files and started using the Topaz DeNoise with the R5 TIFFs, but the software is dead and there are some artifacts. DXO doesn't do all the other nice things that DPP does and the color profiles are a bit out of whack. The DeepPrime and DeepPrime XD work only with RAW files, but are quite good with only a few artifacts at reasonable ISOs.
 
In Adobe-land, there's a product called Adobe Bridge that passes all the edits from PS to LR or LR to PS, basically using DNG as the intermediate format for everything. Lightroom doesn't do layers as such, but it has more editing features without even dipping in to Photoshop via selection masks. There's less of an "apply preset then export" and more of a "fool around with each image and export everything when you're all done" workflow, where "fool around" can include a long stop in Photoshop if it needs to.

I'm not a fan of the subscription model in general or Adobe in particular, but I can definitely see why Lightroom Classic is leapfrogging other digital darkroom tools.
 
I have CS6 and previous. Not sure If can reinstall 6 again. Photography is becoming such a pain now.
 
There is a $10/month plan gets someone Photoshop and Lightroom (Stupid version) and Lightroom Classic + mobile versions. That's the one I tried.
 
There is a CR2 report of $16K for the RF 200-500/4. I'm not sure that is worth it. :(
 
I'd really like to hear about a longer zoom with f/2, myself. I LOVE my 135mm but I almost never carry it.

I keep thinking that I could sell all my primes (Canon EF 24/2.8, RF 35mm/1.8, Sigma 50/1.4, Sigma 85mm/1.4, Canon 135/2),and Sigma 24-70/2.8 and get a 28-70/2 for a reasonable amount of money, but the R7's IBIS isn't very good and I'd be out of wide lenses aside from my very heavy Tamron 15-30/2.8. I've been doing a lot of video work this summer rather than photos, so 20 - 35mm have been my bread and butter.

I like shooting with longer lenses from farther away rather than wide lenses, but given that I'm taking pictures of people, the standard zoom is about 90% of what I wind up using.

If I saw a 70 - 150/2 or the like, I'd absolutely jump on it.
 
Why do you need f/2, just the noisy R7 sensor? You could get a far superior FX body with similar performance with a 70-200/2.8.
Are you using 180° shutter?
 
A 28-70/2 could replace more or less all the standard primes from 24 - 85mm. I'd be giving up a very modest amount of speed vs the primes for a faster standard zoom. It's pretty unusual for me to shoot wide open on my R6, even in pretty crappy light. It's just a ton of value and utility.

The R7 technically belongs to my roommate. She usually just borrows whatever I'm not using, lens-wise. It's been a pretty good camera, but I don't think the IBIS is as good as Canon says it is and it's easy to forget that it can't handle low light like an R6, either.
 
It's only a $3K lens, maybe less if a refurb or even used. Just Do It. :D
 
Did you get that lens? I have not even opened my latest 200-600.
 
You can rent one for 4 days $95 plus shipping. Perhaps do that for one of your gigs at least pay for itself and then see if you really like it.
 
I "upgraded" the 1360P to Win 11 and observed that although it is faster than 10 in a limited context, it's not meaningful for me.
DPP doesn't seem to care about the P vs. E cores in the CPU and performance is exactly the same in 10 and 11. GPU is not used by DPP.
DXO is limited by the XerIs GPU function in DeepPrime and DeepPrime XD (~95%), so there is no OS impact on cycle times.
DXO Prime does not use the GPU and is actually 10-15% faster in 11 than 10. However, Prime on CPU takes longer than DeepPrime on GPU and is worse NR, so there is not much point in using it. I expect that some parts of the current Adode are better in 11, but I have only a very basic, old version on laptop that surely has no clue of the CPU cores.
 
I couldn't find any serious performance advantage to 11 and there's really nothing in the UI that makes feel like switching anything I actually care about it, but I've been keeping up and trying new things just to see it change. It's fine, just like every other Windows.
 
Part of the problem is that the laptop CPu is thermally limited so there is a compromise between using the P cores and using E cores to improve performance vs. reduce throttling. It would be easier to test in a desktop with good cooling and probably make more difference. I'd rather just use 10 for now and change all my computers at once. By then the two oldest ones that won't accept 11 will be retired anyway.
 
That is indeed a very weird camera. 60MP BSI sensor but only one SD slot? I could see the 500g body as a bonus for the poor guys who wind up carrying multiple bodies to handle all the lenses they need but even then I'd want a second card on general principle.

I've been shooting video at the comedy club that opened up down the street from me. I just did it for the third time on Friday. I've found that the main thing I need to improve is audio, since the place isn't fancy enough to run a mixing board I can tap in to and the wireless LAVs I have are a lot for other people to mess with. I'm on a journey of learning many things about microphones.
 
Many of the people that moved to S*ny for the A9 and A1 a few years ago are returning to Nikon now for the far superior selection of longer lenses and ability to use many older Nikkors. Canon users are more likely to migrate to Nikon, though most that left Canon have done so already. S*ny seems to be concentrating on even smaller lenses and bodies. I really don't understand how an adult male can easily handle these weenie little cameras. Maybe they are made for female Japanese hands.
 
My single experience with a Nikon z7 was a resounding meh, but I'm not interested in wildlife photography or lenses that look like antitank weapons, which seems to be the largest source of Nikon's appeal.
 
The Z7 is five years old and Nikon's first Z FX body. That was sort of a malaise period for Nikon; a camera that was worse in most ways than the D850. Nikon is till short on two types of Z bodies - a 60MP+ FX and/or a 36MP+ DX.
 
The Z7 was the nicest body Nikon had at the time. The Z6 was out by then, but IIRC it was seen as a step down.

Nikon DOES have the Tamron 35-150/2-2.8 and that is definitely another dream lens. They make that lens for Sony as well, but I have higher hopes to see an RF native version. That might be an even more appealing lens than the RF 28-70/2.8 for my purposes.
 
The D850 was much better than the Z7 back then and of course the D5 was the best if you could live with 20MP.
I think you mean the RF 28-70/2.
The Tamron loses 2/3 of that stop by 61mm and the full stop at 81mm, so at 70mm it's not practically any faster than an f/2.8 zoom.
I rather wish they had just made it a smaller f/2.8 throughout since the speed is mostly needed at the long end. I suppose the range would be good for your video/cine or are you on Super 35?
 
I'm mostly just thinking of it as an extremely flexible daily use lens. My walking around lens is almost always my 24-70/2.8. I know a lot of people love their 24-105/4 but IMO that doesn't feel like enough of a gain at the tele end to make up for the slower aperture. Going from 35 up past 135mm, you're really getting the whole portrait range, so they motivating thought is really the same as the 28-70/2.

It seems like a really solid option at that $1900 price point though.
 
Do it, do it, do it. :D
The RF 24-105/4 is good enough for what it is and much better than the old EF lenses, but not what I would use for large apertures.
I would never walk around with a camera and lens in the open.
 
I take my camera out with me all the time. I try to clear it beforehand, if I'm going someplace in public. Concerts are iffy but because my partner knows people, sometimes do-able. Nightclubs generally aren't a problem.

I usually just take a 24-70 and RF 35mm and keep them in a padded messenger bag. The 35 on my R6 is about as inconspicuous as I can get.

That Tamron would probably be even better than the 28-70/2 for me. I'm waiting at this point to see if there's a price drop on the Canon or where the third party RFs wind up coming out. I'd like to keep my investment in $2000+ lenses as constrained as I can.
 
Apparently, Samyang also makes a 35-150/2-2.8, albeit only for FE-mount. Seems like it might be a more broadly adopted option if that's the case.
 
Does anyone need a PLeNA? Most likely it is full and overflowing with BS.

 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top