A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital SLR Cameras
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

D600 review isn't that great (some aspects)



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old November 22nd 12, 11:14 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Me
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 51
Default D600 review isn't that great (some aspects)

On 23/11/2012 4:33 a.m., PeterN wrote:
On 11/22/2012 2:35 AM, Me wrote:
On 20/11/2012 12:21 p.m., Rob wrote:
On 15/11/2012 4:31 PM, Me wrote:
On 15/11/2012 2:21 p.m., Savageduck wrote:
On 2012-11-14 12:37:38 -0800, Me said:

On 15/11/2012 4:16 a.m., PeterN wrote:
On 11/14/2012 1:05 AM, Trevor wrote:
"PeterN" wrote in message
...
According to some comparisons I read, the differences between the
600
and
the 800 are not that great. Indeed, because it has less pixels,
the
low
light noise level of the 600 is less than the 800.

But not when the D800 image is averaged down to the same number of
pixels!
You simply get a choice with the D800 you don't have with the D600.
Both would more than satisfy most people however.

Yep!
For me that's the tipping point in favor of the 800, plus the fact
that
I can be pretty rough on my equipment. And I strongly prefer using
the
CF card. (Harder to loose.)

Pity the selling price of the D800 has increased here lately so
as to
make
the D600 competitive (or it wouldn't be!) Aided of course by the
fact the
Canon 5D3 was more expensive, allowing Nikon to increase their
price
:-(




At PC Expo in NY they were selling the D800 for $2,600, really
narrowing
the gap.

http://www.adorama.com/INKD800R.html...ce=rflaid63773






Note

the word, "refurbished". I suspect this means inventory which has had
the focus fixing firmware update.


...which I haven't been following very closely, but my understanding
was
that as it was an AF sensor module physical alignment issue, there were
differing opinions on how successful firmware re-calibration was.
Buying a new later serial number "generally regarded as safe" D800
might
be worth the extra few hundred $ for peace of mind.
I might not be the only one thinking this - that $400 discount "refurb"
deal has been on offer from Adorama for a while, so either they've
got a
huge pile of D800s to dispose of, or they're not selling very fast.
Meanwhile, there seem to be grey market D600s appearing for sale here
(NZ) at an equivalent price including tax indicating that they're being
procured (in Asia) for well below US MSRP. Perhaps there will be good
discounts on the D600 in the US after Xmas, that also coinciding with
the Canon 6d shipping.
I want either a D600 or D800, I'm a bit ambivalent about which one
would
suit my needs better. I want the D800, but I know that I probably don't
need it.

Yes you do and don't be afraid to get the 800E

One of my concerns about the D800 was raw file size and dealing with
them on PC.
I've been playing around with D800 raws on a relatively modest core i7
3612QM laptop with 8GB RAM (connected to external monitor). It actually
handles D800 raws much better/faster than my previous C2D machine with
D300 raws, using CaptureNX2. The C2D machine was really state of the
art at the time I bought the D300. More cores plus hyperthreading seems
to suit CaptureNX, 8GB ram seems ample.
I don't want a desktop any more, and did not want to spend the kind of
$$$ than some of the losers on DP review forums insist that you
"absolutely need" to deal with the raw files. It's completely not true
- except perhaps for machine-gunners who batch process files by the
thousand - and video of course.
That's one objection to the D800 - raw file size - that I don't have to
worry about.


I process them easily on a three year old quad core i7, with 8 gig of
RAM. It takes a lot longer for Bridge to assemble the viewing
information, than the time for my D300 files. I anticipate even longer
times when I start shooting 14 bit color depth.


FWIW, this is resource monitor screenshot using the (cheap - probably
about US$6-700 in the US?) laptop with 3612QM cpu, opening a 14 bit
D800E lossless compressed raw file, then rotating (levelling tool), then
applying some colour control points, applying some d-lighting (high
quality), then some USM, then some noise reduction (high quality), then
saving again as an *.nef file and closing Capture NX.
http://i50.tinypic.com/qoxaw2.png
Of course this is only one 36mp 14 bit raw file open at a time, but no
problems, CaptureNX was perfectly responsive, saving the raw file was
the only slow part of the operation. Cumulative effect of having several
raw files open at one time would use up the available RAM, so more would
be better, but 8MB is more than adequate for dealing with individual
D800 raw files. I don't have a stack of D800 raw files to assess batch
processing speed. CPU speed is the "bottleneck", and if that isn't
adequate, more RAM, faster (ie SSD) drive, or physically separate HD for
the NX cache isn't likely to make much difference.

  #22  
Old November 28th 12, 10:54 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Wolfgang Weisselberg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,285
Default D600 review isn't that great (some aspects)

Me wrote:
On 23/11/2012 4:33 a.m., PeterN wrote:


[D800 file size and processing]

I process them easily on a three year old quad core i7, with 8 gig of
RAM. It takes a lot longer for Bridge to assemble the viewing
information, than the time for my D300 files. I anticipate even longer
times when I start shooting 14 bit color depth.


FWIW, this is resource monitor screenshot using the (cheap - probably
about US$6-700 in the US?) laptop with 3612QM cpu, opening a 14 bit
D800E lossless compressed raw file, then rotating (levelling tool), then
applying some colour control points, applying some d-lighting (high
quality), then some USM, then some noise reduction (high quality), then
saving again as an *.nef file and closing Capture NX.
http://i50.tinypic.com/qoxaw2.png


Says little, except that the app makes use of additional CPUs.

Now, do the same with a D300 or similar file and then we
can compare.

CPU speed is the "bottleneck", and if that isn't
adequate, more RAM, faster (ie SSD) drive, or physically separate HD for
the NX cache isn't likely to make much difference.


I don't know if CaptureNX can handle a GPU, but that would be
the obvious next step.

-Wolfgang
  #23  
Old November 28th 12, 11:03 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Wolfgang Weisselberg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,285
Default D600 review isn't that great (some aspects)

Rob wrote:

SD cards are now cheaper than the CF cards I'm buying at:


Sandisk extreme SD 32Gb $39


Is that the SanDisk Extreme HD Video SDHC 32GB, UHS-I
(SDSDX-032G-X46) at 30MB/s read, 10MB/s write
or the SanDisk Extreme HD Video SDHC 32GB, Class 6 at 20MB/s
read, 4MB/s write?

Sanddisk extreme CF 32Gb $112


60MB/s read and write, or 90MB/s both if it's the Extreme Pro.

Gotta compare like with like.

-Wolfgang
  #24  
Old December 1st 12, 12:56 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Me
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 51
Default D600 review isn't that great (some aspects)

On 29/11/2012 10:54 a.m., Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
Me wrote:
On 23/11/2012 4:33 a.m., PeterN wrote:


[D800 file size and processing]

I process them easily on a three year old quad core i7, with 8 gig of
RAM. It takes a lot longer for Bridge to assemble the viewing
information, than the time for my D300 files. I anticipate even longer
times when I start shooting 14 bit color depth.


FWIW, this is resource monitor screenshot using the (cheap - probably
about US$6-700 in the US?) laptop with 3612QM cpu, opening a 14 bit
D800E lossless compressed raw file, then rotating (levelling tool), then
applying some colour control points, applying some d-lighting (high
quality), then some USM, then some noise reduction (high quality), then
saving again as an *.nef file and closing Capture NX.
http://i50.tinypic.com/qoxaw2.png


Says little, except that the app makes use of additional CPUs.

True, but the CPU isn't "maxing out" for any extended period, and
there's the RAM use chart as well. Dynamic CPU clock-speed monitor
widgets don't seem to report ivybridge CPU properly, a basic monitor app
from Intel, shows clock speed jump to about 2.8 GHz for brief instants
when working on the D800 raw files, then drop back to idle at 1.2GHz.
It seems happy to sit at 3GHz for 5 minutes or so while transcoding some
video, but once the cooling system is full of dust over time...
Now, do the same with a D300 or similar file and then we
can compare.

I have a Core 2 duo (T7500) here - it's "adequate" with D300 files. The
worst "culprits" with Capture NX are D-Lighting and Noise Reduction with
"Better Quality" option selected (default is "faster" - and it really is).
These functions are barely usable (IMO) with the C2D laptop and D300 raw
files. With the i7 and D800 files, there's hardly any lag at all using
those functions - a fraction of a second. It's /much/ faster working
with the D800 files on the i7 than D300 files on the C2D. The D800
files in NX are practically unusable on the C2D - unless you are very
patient.
Of course that C2D is several "generations" behind, nominal core speed
similar, but no HT. I don't know how well a current dual core i5 may
work (all other things being equal), but so long as you don't go for the
highest end, CPUs are cheap - there's not much of a price premium for
the i7 in an otherwise same spec laptop.


CPU speed is the "bottleneck", and if that isn't
adequate, more RAM, faster (ie SSD) drive, or physically separate HD for
the NX cache isn't likely to make much difference.


I don't know if CaptureNX can handle a GPU, but that would be
the obvious next step.

I don't know either. I suppose there are some geek tools used by gamers
etc to monitor GPU, VRAM etc. I think some of the new Macbook pros (and
others?) even have a separate graphics card, but can use the intel
on-chip graphics to save power, and the external GPU kicks in only when
needed.
But does the GPU actually assist with raw conversion etc, or assist with
displaying (zooming, viewing multiple layers etc) graphics for which
that "number crunching" has already been done?

PeterN (above)reports that "It takes a lot longer for (Adobe) Bridge to
assemble the viewing information, than the time for my D300 files".
I've read similar comments elsewhere, that even with very fast machines,
before D800 files can be (pre)viewed at 100%, there's a couple of
seconds lag. With ViewNX, rendering D800 files is effectively instant -
ie when clicking the image preview to bring up 1:1 pixel view on screen.
I suspect that's an "issue" with Adobe bridge.

Meanwhile, I played with a D600 and D800 yesterday (and a Canon 6d).
RichA's bull**** making a big deal about build quality compromise and
ergonomics is of course bull****.

  #25  
Old December 1st 12, 03:22 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 210
Default D600 review isn't that great (some aspects)

On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 12:56:22 +1300, Me wrote:

On 29/11/2012 10:54 a.m., Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
Me wrote:
On 23/11/2012 4:33 a.m., PeterN wrote:


[D800 file size and processing]

I process them easily on a three year old quad core i7, with 8 gig of
RAM. It takes a lot longer for Bridge to assemble the viewing
information, than the time for my D300 files. I anticipate even longer
times when I start shooting 14 bit color depth.


FWIW, this is resource monitor screenshot using the (cheap - probably
about US$6-700 in the US?) laptop with 3612QM cpu, opening a 14 bit
D800E lossless compressed raw file, then rotating (levelling tool), then
applying some colour control points, applying some d-lighting (high
quality), then some USM, then some noise reduction (high quality), then
saving again as an *.nef file and closing Capture NX.
http://i50.tinypic.com/qoxaw2.png


Says little, except that the app makes use of additional CPUs.

True, but the CPU isn't "maxing out" for any extended period, and
there's the RAM use chart as well. Dynamic CPU clock-speed monitor
widgets don't seem to report ivybridge CPU properly, a basic monitor app
from Intel, shows clock speed jump to about 2.8 GHz for brief instants
when working on the D800 raw files, then drop back to idle at 1.2GHz.
It seems happy to sit at 3GHz for 5 minutes or so while transcoding some
video, but once the cooling system is full of dust over time...
Now, do the same with a D300 or similar file and then we
can compare.

I have a Core 2 duo (T7500) here - it's "adequate" with D300 files. The
worst "culprits" with Capture NX are D-Lighting and Noise Reduction with
"Better Quality" option selected (default is "faster" - and it really is).
These functions are barely usable (IMO) with the C2D laptop and D300 raw
files. With the i7 and D800 files, there's hardly any lag at all using
those functions - a fraction of a second. It's /much/ faster working
with the D800 files on the i7 than D300 files on the C2D. The D800
files in NX are practically unusable on the C2D - unless you are very
patient.
Of course that C2D is several "generations" behind, nominal core speed
similar, but no HT. I don't know how well a current dual core i5 may
work (all other things being equal), but so long as you don't go for the
highest end, CPUs are cheap - there's not much of a price premium for
the i7 in an otherwise same spec laptop.


CPU speed is the "bottleneck", and if that isn't
adequate, more RAM, faster (ie SSD) drive, or physically separate HD for
the NX cache isn't likely to make much difference.


I don't know if CaptureNX can handle a GPU, but that would be
the obvious next step.

I don't know either. I suppose there are some geek tools used by gamers
etc to monitor GPU, VRAM etc. I think some of the new Macbook pros (and
others?) even have a separate graphics card, but can use the intel
on-chip graphics to save power, and the external GPU kicks in only when
needed.
But does the GPU actually assist with raw conversion etc, or assist with
displaying (zooming, viewing multiple layers etc) graphics for which
that "number crunching" has already been done?

PeterN (above)reports that "It takes a lot longer for (Adobe) Bridge to
assemble the viewing information, than the time for my D300 files".
I've read similar comments elsewhere, that even with very fast machines,
before D800 files can be (pre)viewed at 100%, there's a couple of
seconds lag. With ViewNX, rendering D800 files is effectively instant -
ie when clicking the image preview to bring up 1:1 pixel view on screen.
I suspect that's an "issue" with Adobe bridge.

Meanwhile, I played with a D600 and D800 yesterday (and a Canon 6d).
RichA's bull**** making a big deal about build quality compromise and
ergonomics is of course bull****.


One problem with laptops is that since they can't handle the heat, they run
slower than desktops with the same processor. I have a fairly fast duocore
laptop but it's dead in the water compared to my desktops.

Photoshop and Nvidia chips don't always get along, and I'm playing around with
my 'game' machine right now to sort things out. If I set the machine to use GUI
for the cursors, for example, Photoshop loses the cursor as it gets bigger.
Brushes greater then around 200 pixels completely disappear, so I have to set
the acceleration down a bit, and turn off open GL. I need to experiment with
various things turned on or off and time them.

The D600 does make big photos!

When I want to play games I have to re-set the computer to a state that
Photoshop doesn't like!

Once I get my Dell i7 set up things may be different!

  #26  
Old December 1st 12, 04:01 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default D600 review isn't that great (some aspects)

In article ,
wrote:

One problem with laptops is that since they can't handle the heat, they run
slower than desktops with the same processor. I have a fairly fast duocore
laptop but it's dead in the water compared to my desktops.


maybe yours is like that but that's definitely *not* true for all
laptops.

Photoshop and Nvidia chips don't always get along,


nonsense. it works fine with nvidia. you have something else going on.

and I'm playing around with
my 'game' machine right now to sort things out. If I set the machine to use
GUI for the cursors, for example, Photoshop loses the cursor as it gets bigger.
Brushes greater then around 200 pixels completely disappear, so I have to set
the acceleration down a bit, and turn off open GL. I need to experiment with
various things turned on or off and time them.


sounds like a buggy open gl implementation.

The D600 does make big photos!


yes it does.

When I want to play games I have to re-set the computer to a state that
Photoshop doesn't like!


get a different laptop.

Once I get my Dell i7 set up things may be different!


probably.
  #27  
Old December 1st 12, 04:20 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
PeterN
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,039
Default D600 review isn't that great (some aspects)

On 11/30/2012 9:22 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 12:56:22 +1300, Me wrote:

On 29/11/2012 10:54 a.m., Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
Me wrote:
On 23/11/2012 4:33 a.m., PeterN wrote:

[D800 file size and processing]

I process them easily on a three year old quad core i7, with 8 gig of
RAM. It takes a lot longer for Bridge to assemble the viewing
information, than the time for my D300 files. I anticipate even longer
times when I start shooting 14 bit color depth.

FWIW, this is resource monitor screenshot using the (cheap - probably
about US$6-700 in the US?) laptop with 3612QM cpu, opening a 14 bit
D800E lossless compressed raw file, then rotating (levelling tool), then
applying some colour control points, applying some d-lighting (high
quality), then some USM, then some noise reduction (high quality), then
saving again as an *.nef file and closing Capture NX.
http://i50.tinypic.com/qoxaw2.png

Says little, except that the app makes use of additional CPUs.

True, but the CPU isn't "maxing out" for any extended period, and
there's the RAM use chart as well. Dynamic CPU clock-speed monitor
widgets don't seem to report ivybridge CPU properly, a basic monitor app
from Intel, shows clock speed jump to about 2.8 GHz for brief instants
when working on the D800 raw files, then drop back to idle at 1.2GHz.
It seems happy to sit at 3GHz for 5 minutes or so while transcoding some
video, but once the cooling system is full of dust over time...
Now, do the same with a D300 or similar file and then we
can compare.

I have a Core 2 duo (T7500) here - it's "adequate" with D300 files. The
worst "culprits" with Capture NX are D-Lighting and Noise Reduction with
"Better Quality" option selected (default is "faster" - and it really is).
These functions are barely usable (IMO) with the C2D laptop and D300 raw
files. With the i7 and D800 files, there's hardly any lag at all using
those functions - a fraction of a second. It's /much/ faster working
with the D800 files on the i7 than D300 files on the C2D. The D800
files in NX are practically unusable on the C2D - unless you are very
patient.
Of course that C2D is several "generations" behind, nominal core speed
similar, but no HT. I don't know how well a current dual core i5 may
work (all other things being equal), but so long as you don't go for the
highest end, CPUs are cheap - there's not much of a price premium for
the i7 in an otherwise same spec laptop.


CPU speed is the "bottleneck", and if that isn't
adequate, more RAM, faster (ie SSD) drive, or physically separate HD for
the NX cache isn't likely to make much difference.

I don't know if CaptureNX can handle a GPU, but that would be
the obvious next step.

I don't know either. I suppose there are some geek tools used by gamers
etc to monitor GPU, VRAM etc. I think some of the new Macbook pros (and
others?) even have a separate graphics card, but can use the intel
on-chip graphics to save power, and the external GPU kicks in only when
needed.
But does the GPU actually assist with raw conversion etc, or assist with
displaying (zooming, viewing multiple layers etc) graphics for which
that "number crunching" has already been done?

PeterN (above)reports that "It takes a lot longer for (Adobe) Bridge to
assemble the viewing information, than the time for my D300 files".
I've read similar comments elsewhere, that even with very fast machines,
before D800 files can be (pre)viewed at 100%, there's a couple of
seconds lag. With ViewNX, rendering D800 files is effectively instant -
ie when clicking the image preview to bring up 1:1 pixel view on screen.
I suspect that's an "issue" with Adobe bridge.

Meanwhile, I played with a D600 and D800 yesterday (and a Canon 6d).
RichA's bull**** making a big deal about build quality compromise and
ergonomics is of course bull****.


One problem with laptops is that since they can't handle the heat, they run
slower than desktops with the same processor. I have a fairly fast duocore
laptop but it's dead in the water compared to my desktops.

Photoshop and Nvidia chips don't always get along, and I'm playing around with
my 'game' machine right now to sort things out. If I set the machine to use GUI
for the cursors, for example, Photoshop loses the cursor as it gets bigger.
Brushes greater then around 200 pixels completely disappear, so I have to set
the acceleration down a bit, and turn off open GL. I need to experiment with
various things turned on or off and time them.

The D600 does make big photos!

When I want to play games I have to re-set the computer to a state that
Photoshop doesn't like!

Once I get my Dell i7 set up things may be different!


I just ordered a new laptop. My current one has severe heat issues,
needs a new battery, power brick & keyboard. I primarily use it, while
traveling to transfer files and do rough editing. Unless I went to a
much heavier machine, I will not be able to edit my D800 files. It
definitely is underpowered for PS, but it will work fine for its
intended use.

--
Peter
  #28  
Old December 1st 12, 05:46 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default D600 review isn't that great (some aspects)

On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 21:22:20 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 12:56:22 +1300, Me wrote:

On 29/11/2012 10:54 a.m., Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
Me wrote:
On 23/11/2012 4:33 a.m., PeterN wrote:

[D800 file size and processing]

I process them easily on a three year old quad core i7, with 8 gig of
RAM. It takes a lot longer for Bridge to assemble the viewing
information, than the time for my D300 files. I anticipate even longer
times when I start shooting 14 bit color depth.

FWIW, this is resource monitor screenshot using the (cheap - probably
about US$6-700 in the US?) laptop with 3612QM cpu, opening a 14 bit
D800E lossless compressed raw file, then rotating (levelling tool), then
applying some colour control points, applying some d-lighting (high
quality), then some USM, then some noise reduction (high quality), then
saving again as an *.nef file and closing Capture NX.
http://i50.tinypic.com/qoxaw2.png

Says little, except that the app makes use of additional CPUs.

True, but the CPU isn't "maxing out" for any extended period, and
there's the RAM use chart as well. Dynamic CPU clock-speed monitor
widgets don't seem to report ivybridge CPU properly, a basic monitor app
from Intel, shows clock speed jump to about 2.8 GHz for brief instants
when working on the D800 raw files, then drop back to idle at 1.2GHz.
It seems happy to sit at 3GHz for 5 minutes or so while transcoding some
video, but once the cooling system is full of dust over time...
Now, do the same with a D300 or similar file and then we
can compare.

I have a Core 2 duo (T7500) here - it's "adequate" with D300 files. The
worst "culprits" with Capture NX are D-Lighting and Noise Reduction with
"Better Quality" option selected (default is "faster" - and it really is).
These functions are barely usable (IMO) with the C2D laptop and D300 raw
files. With the i7 and D800 files, there's hardly any lag at all using
those functions - a fraction of a second. It's /much/ faster working
with the D800 files on the i7 than D300 files on the C2D. The D800
files in NX are practically unusable on the C2D - unless you are very
patient.
Of course that C2D is several "generations" behind, nominal core speed
similar, but no HT. I don't know how well a current dual core i5 may
work (all other things being equal), but so long as you don't go for the
highest end, CPUs are cheap - there's not much of a price premium for
the i7 in an otherwise same spec laptop.


CPU speed is the "bottleneck", and if that isn't
adequate, more RAM, faster (ie SSD) drive, or physically separate HD for
the NX cache isn't likely to make much difference.

I don't know if CaptureNX can handle a GPU, but that would be
the obvious next step.

I don't know either. I suppose there are some geek tools used by gamers
etc to monitor GPU, VRAM etc. I think some of the new Macbook pros (and
others?) even have a separate graphics card, but can use the intel
on-chip graphics to save power, and the external GPU kicks in only when
needed.
But does the GPU actually assist with raw conversion etc, or assist with
displaying (zooming, viewing multiple layers etc) graphics for which
that "number crunching" has already been done?

PeterN (above)reports that "It takes a lot longer for (Adobe) Bridge to
assemble the viewing information, than the time for my D300 files".
I've read similar comments elsewhere, that even with very fast machines,
before D800 files can be (pre)viewed at 100%, there's a couple of
seconds lag. With ViewNX, rendering D800 files is effectively instant -
ie when clicking the image preview to bring up 1:1 pixel view on screen.
I suspect that's an "issue" with Adobe bridge.

Meanwhile, I played with a D600 and D800 yesterday (and a Canon 6d).
RichA's bull**** making a big deal about build quality compromise and
ergonomics is of course bull****.


One problem with laptops is that since they can't handle the heat, they run
slower than desktops with the same processor. I have a fairly fast duocore
laptop but it's dead in the water compared to my desktops.

Photoshop and Nvidia chips don't always get along, and I'm playing around with
my 'game' machine right now to sort things out. If I set the machine to use GUI
for the cursors, for example, Photoshop loses the cursor as it gets bigger.
Brushes greater then around 200 pixels completely disappear, so I have to set
the acceleration down a bit, and turn off open GL. I need to experiment with
various things turned on or off and time them.

The D600 does make big photos!

When I want to play games I have to re-set the computer to a state that
Photoshop doesn't like!

Once I get my Dell i7 set up things may be different!


I can tell you that it will be.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #29  
Old December 1st 12, 10:52 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Me
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 51
Default D600 review isn't that great (some aspects)

On 1/12/2012 4:01 p.m., nospam wrote:
In article ,
wrote:

One problem with laptops is that since they can't handle the heat, they run
slower than desktops with the same processor. I have a fairly fast duocore
laptop but it's dead in the water compared to my desktops.


maybe yours is like that but that's definitely *not* true for all
laptops.

But when a laptop with new core i5/7 mobile processor gets gunked up
with dust - as they all do, the user isn't going to be aware there's an
issue until or if it gets to the state that CPU core temp. at nominal
(base - not turbo) clock speed under heavy use exceeds a point where
system protection steps in.
If "turbo-boost" is disabled by the CPU itself due to core temp, unless
the user actively monitors CPU clock-speed and knows how the machine
/should/ behave, the only other feedback to the user might be that the
laptop isn't running as fast as it used to do.
It would be nice if Intel made some software which measured CPU state
under certain load conditions when a machine was new, then brought up an
alert ("time to get your laptop cleaned") when there was an apparent
deterioration in (cooling) performance.
  #30  
Old December 2nd 12, 12:04 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default D600 review isn't that great (some aspects)

In article , Me
wrote:

One problem with laptops is that since they can't handle the heat, they run
slower than desktops with the same processor. I have a fairly fast duocore
laptop but it's dead in the water compared to my desktops.


maybe yours is like that but that's definitely *not* true for all
laptops.

But when a laptop with new core i5/7 mobile processor gets gunked up
with dust - as they all do,


maybe yours get that way. mine certainly don't.

i recently opened one of my laptops to swap a hard drive and there was
no dust or gunk. it's 4 years old, which is plenty of time for that to
happen.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Is the D600 overpriced? Rich[_6_] Digital SLR Cameras 50 October 8th 12 03:37 PM
Nikon D600 a compromise but ok Rich[_6_] Digital SLR Cameras 84 September 27th 12 09:31 PM
Nikon D600 Me Digital SLR Cameras 4 September 22nd 12 10:43 AM
First images of Nikon D600 with 24 MP FX sensor Wolfgang Weisselberg Digital Photography 0 June 24th 12 07:27 PM
First images of Nikon D600 with 24 MP FX sensor Wolfgang Weisselberg Digital Photography 0 June 15th 12 06:52 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:30 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.