|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
| . | |||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rangefinder
Magazine Digital Photography: by John Rettie Last month, I discussed upgrading my Mac with a new graphics card, so I could use the impressive Apple 20-inch Cinema Display monitor. A month later I am still happy with the setup. In fact, I hooked up a second, old, 19-inch CRT monitor to the second port on the ATI Radeon 9000 Pro Mac Edition graphics card and was astounded at how much better the display looked. It’s still not as bright or crisp as the Apple LCD monitor but I was able to change the resolution setting to 1600x1200 and I am still able to read the text. This actually makes it bigger (though the text is smaller) than the 1680x1050 display on the Cinema display, giving me the luxury of two decent-sized monitors side by side. Now I can leave less important menus, email messages, databases and folders open on the second monitor, while editing images or articles on the Cinema Display. I can certainly recommend, to anyone who has a G4 with an AGP graphics slot, getting the Radeon card. Of course, if you bought your G4 since August 2002, one is more than likely already installed in your computer. It’ll improve the image quality on your monitor, even if you cannot justify paying $1299 for the 20-inch Cinema Display. As the card easily runs two monitors and one can buy a decent 17-inch CRT monitor for under $150, it’s a no-brainer to spend around $170 on the card and have an improved dual-monitor set up.
As I alluded to last month, I have now tried out a CPU upgrade card on my three year old PowerMac G4. The G4 came with dual 450MHz processors and was the most cost-effective high-performance model on the market in the summer of 2000. Until August, Apple was selling a couple of dual-processor G4 models with speeds of 1.25 GHz and 1.42 GHz. Naturally, there was not much point in going for an upgrade card with a single processor, so I elected to opt for the PowerLogix PowerForce Dual G4 with dual processors. At the time of writing, the sweet spot, in terms of price, seemed to be for the card with dual 1 GHz processors with a retail cost of $799. At first blush this seems like a lot of money for just an upgrade card, as one can buy a complete new computer with dual 1.25 GHz processors for $1995. However, as I stated last month, I have already performed other modifications such as the addition of a DVD-R drive, increased memory and hard disk storage, so speed of operation had become the only real bottleneck in my computer other than the graphics card, which was taken care of with the ATI Radeon 9000 Pro. Fortunately, replacing the dual processor card on the G4 is even easier than on a PC, as the dual processors are mounted on a daughter card that plugs into the motherboard. All I had to do to remove the old card, was undo two clips that held the heat sink in place, remove three screws and lift the card from the socket. Placing the PowerLogix card was slightly more finicky, as it has a much larger heat sink, which is already mounted on top of the processors. The card fit in the socket easily but getting the small screws down through the heat sink was tricky and all but impossible without a magnetized screwdriver to hold the screws. My heart missed a beat when I switched the computer back on and it was dead. I re-read the directions and it said, “make sure the card is seated properly and the screws are firmly attached from the card to the motherboard.” Sure enough, the card was not firmly seated. It only needed a small amount of pressure on the card and a slight tightening of the screws and all was fine. There is a slight increase in noise, as the PowerLogix card has a second fan bolted on top of the heat sink, so it adds to the noise of the fan already installed in the G4. After a few weeks though, it’s barely noticeable. Subjectively, the computer certainly operates in a faster mode, although many operations, such as Internet access are no different, as that is a function of parameters outside the control of the computer’s processor. I got out my stopwatch and timed some routines. Photoshop booted up in 31 seconds, instead of 42 seconds. Next I timed a filter, Unsharp Mask took 0.7 seconds compared to 1.7 seconds. A more complicated action ran in only six seconds compared to 16 on my original computer. The bottom line, as to whether the upgrade processor card is worthwhile, really depends on how much time you spend doing processes that take several seconds or even minutes, such as rendering a video. Saving a few seconds opening Photoshop is hardly a big deal, but if you’re experimenting with complicated actions and need to run them several times every few minutes, the saved time and lowered frustration can be worth the money. Just as I finished writing this column, Apple announced all-new desktop computers with significantly faster G5 processors. What’s more, the new 64-bit G5 processors will not be backwardly compatible with current motherboards, so it will not be possible to fit upgrade cards with these new processors. Of course, that’s not to say that engineers at aftermarket upgrade companies such as PowerLogix will not figure out some way of doing it. Although the new models are, unfortunately, slightly higher priced than today’s models, it may still be better to upgrade by purchasing a new computer, especially if you have not added a new graphics card and/or a DVD-R writer. But if, like me, you’ve upgraded your computer and just need/desire some additional speed, the PowerLogix card could be a worthwhile interim investment before the inevitable need to buy a newer computer really rears its head. For example, rumors persist that the next version of Photoshop, due later this year, will be optimized to work even faster with the new G5 models. Then, an all-new Mac will make real business sense.
Nikon Coolpix 5400 While the Coolpix models with the revolving body (9xx-series & 4500) have proven to be most popular with professionals, they have apparently not been as well accepted by the majority of digital camera buyers. It seems a shame, as once people get used to them they really like the added versatility offered by the design. In the meantime, Nikon has upgraded the more traditional-looking 5000 model with the 5400. At first glance, the 5400 looks almost identical to the model it replaces, but put the two side by side and one can see the subtle differences. It’s obvious that Nikon listened to users and reviewers of the original 5000, as some of the key criticisms of the camera’s design have been taken care of. For example, the camera no longer freezes up when it’s turned on with the lens cap attached. Instead of the lens cap being attached to the larger edge of the lens opening on the body itself, it is attached only to the front smaller edge of the lens so it moves out without hindering the lens’ movement.
Another major problem with the old 5000 was the sensor for the flash. It was located to the right of the lens, beside the handgrip and it was all too easy to cover it with one’s forefinger, resulting in badly exposed flash pictures. Now Nikon has moved the sensor to the left of the lens, away from where it might be accidentally obscured. Other ergonomic problems included the poor placement of the zoom lens switch. It rested right under one’s thumb and it was almost impossible not to press when holding the camera. That’s now been moved to the left.
In terms of specifications, the major difference is a new Nikkor ED zoom lens with a 4X range that’s equivalent to 28–116mm on a 35mm camera. The 5000 had a 3X zoom (28–85mm equivalency). The 5400 has the same 5.24-megapixel CCD as before, though it produces a slightly larger image (2592x1944) than on the 5000 (2560x1920). In operation, I found the camera worked fine, although it’s still too slow in operation for anything that needs rapid operation, such as sports or wedding photography. The camera takes three seconds to be ready for shooting after turning on. Shutter lag is minimal once the camera has focused. What’s worse, is that one has to wait about six seconds after a shot (JPEG fine setting) has been taken before it’s ready for firing again. And it took over 30 seconds with a raw file, while the image is being written to the card. These times are much longer than on my two-year old Coolpix 995, which is a shame. The rear screen is smaller than on the old 5000, which is really surprising. It offers good resolution but is still not so easy to see in bright daylight. As before, the screen can be turned through 180 degrees and rotated away from the body for previewing pictures at awkward angles. Personally, I still prefer the revolving body design as it can be held firmly with both hands for shooting at low speeds. It’s not possible to hold the 5400 with both hands with the screen flipped out from the body for overhead shots, for example.
One surprising change on the new 5400, is the lack of a small LCD screen providing information such as number of shots left and basic settings, including battery life. Now one has to turn on the regular LCD monitor to get the information. While there are some benefits to the 5400, such as smaller size and larger CCD (5-megapixel versus 4-megapixel), personally I’d still opt for the 4500 with it’s rotating body. Let’s hope that Nikon will upgrade it within a few months and make it much faster in writing or give it a decent buffer so it can take shots one after another, without waiting more than a half second for images to be written to the card.
Quick
Book Review: John Rettie is a photojournalist
who resides in Santa Barbara, CA. He has been using a camera as a professional
for 33 years, a computer for
23 years, and has combined his knowledge of both for the past ten years.
Readers can contact him by e-mail at john@johnrettie.com or by snail-mail
c/o Rangefinder. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
