|
Rangefinder Magazine
Archives
October 2000
Digital Photography: Why
I Had to Buy a G4 Mac
by John Rettie
This month’s column covers a very different topic from what
I intended when I started writing. Murphy (of Murphy’s Law)
struck—just as I was finishing the first draft and in the middle
of testing digital enhancement programs for raw D1 images that I
referenced in last month’s column, my trusty Mac clone crashed—big
time. Try as I could, it would not boot up and I was unable to access
the work in progress.
This month’s column covers a very different topic from what
I intended when I started writing. Murphy (of Murphy’s Law)
struck—just as I was finishing the first draft and in the middle
of testing digital enhancement programs for raw D1 images that I
referenced in last month’s column, my trusty Mac clone crashed—big
time. Try as I could, it would not boot up and I was unable to access
the work in progress.
Rather than spend a ton of time figuring out the problem, I decided
that this was the time to invest in a brand new Mac. In my July
column I discussed the potential benefits in upgrading. At the time
I did not feel the cost was worthwhile in terms of gains in productivity
unless one had a pre-G3 Mac. I felt it would be better to wait until
Apple bumped the computer’s power up considerably and introduced
the OS X system software.
In July, Apple did boost the potential speed of its two top models
by adding a second processor to the 450 and 500Mhz models.
Until my SuperMac clone crashed, I had made the decision to purchase
one of these new dual-processor machines later in the year. Personal
tax reasons had already dictated buying a new computer this year,
but that’s yet another story.
With the decision to buy a new computer effectively made for me
it was simple to decide on the mid-range G4. Although the 450Mhz
model with dual processors costs around $900 more than the base
G4 ($1599) with a single processor, the dual processor model includes
a larger and faster hard drive (30GB, 7200 rpm) along with double
the RAM (128MB). I opted to buy an extra 128MB RAM chip to give
me 256MB of RAM.
Time constraints and an editor who had already given me a few days
grace (thanks Bill) have not allowed me to fully experience the
benefits of a much more powerful Mac. Basically, all I had time
to do was load Photoshop 5.5 and run some quick tests. It was immediately
obvious that the new computer was faster and also produced a better
image. I was unable to compare the speed to my old Mac but I did
compare it to my new 600Mhz PC and the results were pretty impressive.
On a 7.5MB image, running the unsharp mask filter took 0.8 seconds
on the Mac compared to 2.5 seconds on the PC. Running the poster
filter took 9 seconds vs. 13. On a much bigger 42MB file, the Mac
was able to render the plastic wrap filter in 1 minute 18 seconds,
while it took the PC 3 minutes 7 seconds—more than twice as
long.
Most Photoshop operations such as unsharp mask were performed almost
instantaneously on both machines, so any speed difference proved
to be all but negligible. In order to make use of the dual processor,
a special plug-in has to be installed in the Photoshop folder. It
speeds up some operations but not all.
It’s a sad fact but is almost irrelevant that two of the new
G4 Macs have dual processors, as none but a handful of programs
are able to utilize the second processor. Even the Mac OS cannot
benefit from dual processors. However Apple has promised that OS
X (due out as public beta about the time you read this column and
scheduled as a full release sometime in 2001) will benefit from
the dual processors.
I hope so.
Much as I am a die-hard Mac enthusiast I am frankly a little disappointed
in the new Mac I had to buy! Maybe my expectations were too high?
I’ll admit that the machine is beautifully engineered. It has
a feeling of luxury that no other computer imparts. It is well made
and functions well. After years of forcing a seriously un-ergonomic
mouse on owners, the new infrared translucent mouse is a vast improvement.
It has done away with a button and I’ll admit that it works
well, as one only has to rock the front of the mouse to click. However,
I have been using a Microsoft Intellimouse, which is also infrared
but comes with two buttons and a roller wheel. I have gotten used
to this mouse and love the wheel, which is great for scrolling through
pages without clicking.
I don’t think my advice is any different from that which I
gave in the July issue. If you really need a faster machine now
or your machine has become cranky, go ahead and buy one now. Otherwise,
I suggest waiting until Mac OS X is available and/or Apple further
upgrades its systems. If you like well engineered machines you’ll
love the new Macs and this might be a good enough reason to buy
one.
Incidentally, I upgraded my PC just a few weeks before I had to
buy a new Mac. PCs are such a commodity that I opted for a “home
made” clone with a high-end Intel motherboard, a 600Mhz Celeron
CPU and 128MB of RAM. In many ways this new PC is more like a Mac
of old – the graphics card and all the ports are built onto
the motherboard making it easy to get up and running. All told,
the machine my friend built for me cost around $700. Yes, Photoshop
does run slower than on the Mac but I have not noticed many differences
with other programs. Considering the no-name PC clone cost one-third
the price of the Mac, it’s a much better value in many ways
unless you’re a heavy Photoshop user—as are most professional
photographers—and/or you appreciate top-quality products. I’ll
admit it’s like comparing an entry-level Korean car with a
BMW – both will get you from A to B in much the same time,
but the BMW is so much more pleasant to own and drive!
Overall my advice is still to have a Mac and a PC and network them
together. I find the PC works much more smoothly on the Internet
as pages load faster and there are fewer conflicts with the numerous
web plug-ins and specialized applets that are appearing. Because
of this I use the Mac for graphics and the PC for surfing the web
and doing e-mail, etc.
In a case of good timing, I was in the process of reviewing a LaCie
electron19blue monitor when I was forced to buy a new Mac. It’s
not many years ago when one had to pay over $1000 to get a decent
17-inch monitor, suitable for graphics and viewing of photo images.
Nowadays one can find 19-inch monitors for as low as $300. With
the dramatic decrease in price there has also been a drop in the
number of vendors producing specialized monitors for graphic artists.
LaCie is one of only a handful remaining and is the only one, other
than Apple, specifically addressing the Mac market. Though even
Apple appears to have abandoned the graphics market as it only has
a 17-inch CRT monitor in its lineup now alongside its LCD screens,
which are too expensive and not really suitable for photographic
use.
The LaCie electron19blue is a 19-inch monitor built around the Diamontron
flat screen tube which is similar to a Sony Trinitron as it uses
an aperture grille which has a couple of barely noticeable horizontal
lines running across the screen. The monitor is housed in an attractive
dark blue case, which actually matches the G4 case quite nicely
although it is far from being translucent like Apple’s own
brand of monitors.
A dark blue hood is included which attaches to the sides and top
to shield the screen from stray light. Coupled with a low-reflectance
surface on the screen, this is a key factor in making the monitor
a good one for viewing photographic images. The other factor is
the vast array of controls integrated into the monitor for settings
such as alignment and evenness of scans from the CRT gun.
When I first tried the monitor I was a little disappointed in the
image quality. It was only a shade better than the image on my two-year
old Hitachi 19-inch monitor. Don’t get me wrong, it still produced
a good image but I found text was difficult to read at the maximum
1600x1200 setting, using the (old) ATI Nexus GA graphics card I
had installed in my old SuperMac clone.
I was pleasantly surprised when I plugged the monitor into the new
G4, which comes with an ATI Rage 128 Pro graphics card. The crispness
improved substantially such that I have now set my monitor at 1600x1200
for full time use and I am not suffering from eyestrain when reading
text, even though it is small. If you want to really fine tune the
reproduction of images on your monitor I can recommend the LaCie’s
electronblue monitors, either the 19-inch or the much more expensive
22-inch model.
Kodak’s latest consumer digital camera is the DC4800, which
is housed in a stylish titanium alloy body.
Kodak has been among the most aggressive producers of digital cameras
in the past few years with several models aimed at amateurs as well
as its high-end professional cameras. While the images produced
by its line of cameras has been good the design of the camera bodies
has been lacking compared to those from Olympus and Nikon. The bodies
have suffered from ergonomic problems with the placement of switches
and a heavy reliance on menus for accessing functions has hindered
quick and easy shooting.
Kodak has certainly remedied those complaints with its newest DC4800
model, which looks like a nicely constructed traditional point and
shoot 35mm camera. It is packaged in a classy titanium alloy body
and is much smaller than the DC290 it replaces, although it is not
too small like some digital cameras from Japanese manufacturers.
Unfortunately, it is lacking a rubber grip, which makes it a little
slippery to hold at times.
The DC4800 utilizes a 3.1 megapixel CCD (2160x1440 pixels) and has
an 3X optical zoom with a 35mm equivalency of 28–84mm, which
is a wider angle than other cameras in this price range. Battery
life is the bane of digital cameras and Kodak has chosen to address
this by using a non-standard Lithium-ion battery, which it claims
will last much longer than a regular NiMH battery. It can be charged
in the camera but as one always needs a back-up this adds to the
cost as one has to buy a second battery and charger. For anyone
like me, who has a considerable investment in rechargeable NiMH
AA batteries this is a shame.
Like most digital cameras the DC4800 has a good auto setting that
is sufficient for most situations but it also includes several manual
modes including three pre-set aperture settings. The camera stores
images on a 16 MB Compact Flash card, which is included with the
camera.
Although the camera is compact when not in use the lens does protrude
somewhat and comes out even further when switched on. It’s
a pity it couldn’t retract even further into the body when
not in use. The built-in pop up flash is a nice touch and the LCD
screen is easy to see and has a better resolution than previous
Kodak digital cameras. Kodak’s menus have always been friendlier
and easier to see than on other digital cameras and the DC4800 is
no exception.
As far as image quality goes the camera is on par with other 3-megapixel
cameras though perhaps not as good as the best ones on the market.
All in all it is a classy looking camera that you could take with
you to a posh restaurant and not look like a geek.
John Rettie is a photojournalist who resides in Santa Barbara,
CA. He has been using a camera as a professional for 29 years, a
computer for 19 years, and has combined his knowledge of both for
the past seven years. Readers can contact him by e-mail at john@johnrettie.com
or by snail-mail c/o Rangefinder.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
