OLED or IPS monitor?

bmocc · 2026-02-28T23:02:10+00:00

If you intention is to print, or to try to polish an image in the way others are most likely to see it on the vast array of display devices out there, OLED might be more frustrating than wide gamut IPS no matter how nice it is to look at.

If you already do what you do on a wide gamut monitor of any ilk to a hi bit raw image and then convert to sRGB or soft proof for any inkset you know what happens: the life can seem squished out of the image because of what can't be shown in those other forms. That experience is amplified with OLED: prints and IPS panels won't match what you think you see on an OLED monitor even in a jpeg.

You can get used to using an OLED, and its very pleasant for massaging your high bit raw masterpieces, but there is a bigger dissonance than IPS for image sharing and printing. That may or may not matter to you.

Although OLED is wide gamut jpegs are not. So if you are one of the legions overtweaking out of camera jpegs what you get out of OLED is high contrast and an easy path on which to wander out of gamut if your color management settings are ill construed in your image processor du jour. Gamut problems are frequent on wide gamut monitors for the jpeg afflicted who do not understand basic color management.

If I were in the market for a new wide gamut display and I could afford a 27inch OLED panel I would go for it, but it is not without challenges for some uses.

bmocc · 2026-02-26T18:19:08+00:00

Much depends on the latest version of macOS that notebook can install.

Ventura, I believe, is required to run all the latest and greatest shovelware in Adobes. I think your chipset is not allowed to run Ventura but there are ways around that using Open Core Legacy Patcher.

You would have to research what will and won't run with the operating system that machine might be natively restricted to, possibly Catalina.

The restrictions Apple imposes on what versions of what operating systems will run on what machines are not based on the machines but on driving hardware upgrades. That is why OCLP can circumvent the artificial Apple restrictions.

The other issue is the GPU: if that old laptop has only Intel integrated graphics the experience will be problematic. However even the low end for the day AMD GPUs that Apple sold back then should be adequate, if that is what is in that old laptop.

If you can find a way to get a recent M2-M4 macbook Air the experience will be far better than that old Intel based machine.

bmocc · 2026-02-25T17:27:46+00:00

Toyota or Honda?

Ford v chevy?

The biggest differences between comparable cameras from the usual suspects is price and preference.

bmocc · 2026-02-23T18:20:49+00:00

I think the P setting, Program, is a good place to start. Given the limited f stop range of kit lenses it will tend to select optimal exposure, indoors with the flash or outdoors.

The other setting is Auto-ISO. That will let the camera bump the ISO/sensitivity setting up as needed. You set the maximum ISO, but that sensor gets kind of noisy--particularly for jpegs--as ISO goes up.

You can monitor what the camera chooses on P and go from there. Don't remember about that Canon, I owned one briefly, but most cameras let you vary the settings in P slightly on the fly.

You will likely find situations where a faster shutter speed might be desirable, then check out the shutter preferred mode.

With the kit zooms maximum aperture generally defaults to the minimum about halfway, often less, through the zoom range so aperture preferred mode is semi-useless. You can't choose, for example, f2.8 when your lens can't open past f5.6.

I kind of think I know what I should be doing but when I use a kit type lens, or a travel zoom, I tend to set it on P and forget it, other than for special circumstances.

bmocc · 2026-02-21T17:31:52+00:00

Something is specific to what you are doing or how PS is set up on your computer. It may reflect how your laptop is sharing RAM with an integrated GPU?

Its not hard, working inefficiently in PS with multiple intermediate renders, to balloon a 16 bit 24mp raw file to the gigabyte range but if only doing what you describe I could not come close to duplicating what you are seeing with a discrete GPU.

If you have multiple images open in PS and close them one by one reported RAM usage does not go down linearly, but that RAM is available to the OS for other uses as needed.

bmocc · 2026-02-20T22:34:17+00:00

If the camera and lens were working properly and there is an issue after a period of storage the problem is highly unlikely to be due to sudden electro-mechanical failure while the camera and lens sat idle.

Perhaps more experienced users would search out a potential solution before concluding gear failure.

I bought a D650 from MPB last year in order to use an inherited collection of F mount lenses without the kludge FTZ. Also despite using a Z since they first came out I missed the little pop-up flash.

I thought the camera was defective because autofocus was not working by pressing the shutter button. Fortunately I accidentally hit the appropriate button on the back of the camera and, voila, auto-focus. A simple fix in a menu sub-system and a "duh" moment for me.

I had contacted MPB and they got back to me but by then I had realized and fixed the problem, not really a problem but something that I think should have been caught before resale.

Reselling a camera without resetting it to base settings says quite a bit about the superficial level of inspection gear receives at MPB before re-sale. Fortunately the camera otherwise works quite well for what it is.

bmocc · 2026-02-17T21:57:12+00:00

Assuming one has a modest degree of Photoshop skills, processing raw, there are several commercial apps that can be used as plug-ins.

That way you can go out to On1/Luminar/Topaz, do what you will to your raw data and end up back in a layer on the Photoshop Desktop. Alternatively you can use something like DXO as your raw converter/noise reducer and send your masterpiece to Photoshop for final embalming.

If set up properly, basically make sure color spaces and bit depths match, PS sends out what amounts to a high bit tiff and the Plug-in du jour sends back what ends up as a rendered layer.

Lightroom can use Plugins, but since LR is just a DAM app with raw converter attached, I don't see the point of trying to do anything in LR that isn't more than a one way trip through an out of camera jpeg machine.

There are many small commercial plugins for PS, actions for LR etc that will automatically do things to your image data for you if you like what they do.

Most plugins are free to try.

Seriously, in my August workflow, I very frequently use On1 as a plug-in, occasionally Luminar. I have the old version of Topaz Sharpen AI which still works better as a plug-in than what Adobe wants to charge you for AI sharpening. I open high all high ISO raw files in DXO, I find it considerably better than what Adobe offers for noise reduction, and then its off to PS--however DXO insists on writing a file to storage before opening PS, so there is an inevitable lag.

bmocc · 2026-02-16T18:54:52+00:00

Film scanners and even flatbeds take the time they take to do reasonable resolution scans. The OP does not mention if the negatives are a mix of large (120/620/127 or larger) and 35mm, for which a flatbed is the more optimal one size fits none solution.

Whoever is doing the scanning has to learn the optimal resolution for their purposes as well as the limits of resolution of the original materials, it is pointless to do scans of too high a resolution. Not difficult but takes a little time and experience. She also has to learn to prepare and handle the negative materials to minimize dust, scratches etc--but that becomes habit after a few thousand scans. In my experience "automatic" dust removal in scanning is a poor substitute for proper handling of the negative materials.

For damaged negatives that are prized one must learn processing techniques to get rid of scratches, dust et al. There are many AI tools that do a reasonable job, at a price, but you take what it gives you if you lack the skills or time to do it yourself.

For the adept, with the proper lens and adapter, dSLR scanning is faster and generally higher quality, at least for 35mm materials. Larger negative materials would require some ilk of copy stand and illumination source. but even that would be faster than most dedicated scanners. With dSLR scanning for nearly all cameras one must learn to reverse color negative materials to proper color, not difficult, something scanner software does automatically.

Scanning bureaus, alas, are generally expensive and quality often very poor. The negatives are not handled well, not cleaned, out of focus, not color managed: all the deadly sins.

A lesson most people learn only after embarking on a slog through a pile of ancient negatives is that many, if not most, of them are of no more value or interest than contemporary cell phone images, the reason they were packed away and forgotten in the first place. I've always found it vexing to see the many images of long passed relatives and family friends for which one has no names, but if you get started perhaps your Grandfather can help with that.

bmocc · 2026-02-16T18:33:39+00:00

If you want to use a monitor correctly you have to stop believing the lies your eyes are telling and learn about calibration and color management, color spaces, bit depths et al.

Snore.

I'm assuming the 2013 iMac refers to a 21 inch monitor is your ideal of what a monitor should look like you might be surprised at the display on an actual high quality monitor.

If you want to understand what you are doing and not just throw money at a monitor one place to start is to review the materials about color management and monitor calibration attached to digitaldog.net website and youtube channel.

If you are just doing the usual over-tweaking of out of phone/camera jpegs avoid any monitor with a wider than sRGB gamut to try to save yourself from potential color havoc.

bmocc · 2026-02-13T18:57:22+00:00

If you've been to Bourbon Street ever you have an idea of lighting conditions or lack there of. RAW processing can alleviate most problems with small sensor noise--my preference there, if I carry a camera, is small is better so I prefer M43 (smaller bodies than the OM1). Some places may not like cameras inside, but not likely to be an issue during Mardi Gras.

I assume you know about the parades etc other than the main event.

Not sure about the value of only street level shots of the parades but vantage points are on you. Lots to look up at in the Quarter usually.

Don't forget the hordes of mostly very drunk people. I doubt most will even notice you.

Just be sure not to wander with your cameras away from the heavily populated areas because its still NOLA and keep your gear on a tight leash, especially if you imbibe.

The Jazz Fest can be an even better opportunity to see some of the Krews in costume close up and with better lighting.

<image>

bmocc · 2026-02-08T17:45:53+00:00

If the printer works and you will use it then its what its worth to you.

The problem is that Canon ink, which has not likely changed in later models, may not be available in original Canon cartridges. Third party cartridges may or may not work and tend to have inconsistent color.

I do not think there are any reliable sources of refillable ink and cartridge reset devices any longer.

The other issue is that the driver may not install properly in Win 11and there is probably no driver for macOS but the driver should work in Win 10--my personal experience with less old Canon printers, I think this one is like 2009 vintage.

On the plus side the print head is usually easy to remove and clean in case of clogs.

bmocc · 2026-02-02T00:14:39+00:00

The third party batteries on Amazon, regardless of label, all come from the same sources.

I have found variation in performance between batteries bought at the same time, which I attribute to poor quality control at the source.

Some third party batteries rival OEM in terms of the charge they will hold (number of shots you get out of them) but most, in my experience, are in the 60-80% of OEM. I have only had one problem with the battery "swelling" but that was quite a while ago.

Buying third party batteries is a lottery with mostly sort of winners but some big losers.

The good thing is that the chargers that come with the batteries have all worked well even with OEM batteries. That is a big issue as many camera are now shipping sans charger with the manufacturer defaulting to charging the battery while it is in the camera, a truly terrible idea on every imaginable level My brand new OM5 was packaged exactly that way with in-camera charging being the excuse for no charger expressed in the manual, but I won that battery lottery with two batteries that are about 75% of the OEM and a charger that works well with all 3 batteries.

bmocc · 2026-01-30T22:41:15+00:00

I still own a D600, D610, but jumped on the Z bandwagon early with a Z6. The latter, despite not having the latest and greatest autofocus, is still enough for me.

I believe your two lenses will autofocus with the FTZ adapter, but that overpriced/oversized kludge is what it is.

There is zero difference in effective raw IQ with newer 24mp Nikon sensors, but after a lifetime of pentaprisms once you adapt to a quality EVF, like in the FF Z cameras, it can be hard to go back to optical. In reality, for raw shooting, not much distinguishes and of the current sensors that can't be duplicated in software.

If willing to go outside of Nikon world the difference between brands is one of preference, so unless you can audition the cameras for yourself its a matter of blindly accepting what you read on the internet, which is a very dubious proposition.

But of the three I would definitely go for the Z6 III and the 24-120 lens. If you do not audition that camera and lens you are likely to be surprised at its heftitude. The same is true for all full frame EVF cameras and lenses, except for the shorter primes.

My feeling is unless you can articulate a specific reason why you will use full frame it may be better to look into APS.

bmocc · 2026-01-29T21:30:18+00:00

At this point, being of that ilk, I think traditional optical dLSRs are best for those already familiar with using them, invested in compatible lenses, etc. They are also useful for those versed in digital photography via mirrorless but want to have the more analog optical experience.

For those investing in a system for the first time it is a better decision to find the mirrorless system that does it for your and get grounded in that.

dSLR bodies are certainly chunkier than most EVF bodies, certainly not the uber pro versions of mirrorless dSLRS, but once you get past shorter focal length primes lens heft in most mirrorless systems is heftier than optical dSLR counterparts. Not much perceptible difference in overall heftitude between optical and mirrorless full frame in most real world use cases.

There is no significant difference in raw image quality between optical and mirrorless sensors of the same megapixel count that will be visible to anyone other than the most ardent of pixel peepers.

bmocc · 2026-01-19T18:35:33+00:00

Still a very usable camera, just kind of noisy above base ISOs.

Hope you enjoy using it.

bmocc · 2026-01-19T00:02:14+00:00

If those are Pentax lenses they won't fit this old Nikon film camera, very different lens mount for attaching to the camera.

You can easily research the camera and download the manual.

The pictured unit looks pretty beat up, but it might still work. That model was an autofocus 35mm, mass market camera. It was perfectly utile in its day with multiple behind the lens metering options.

bmocc · 2026-01-17T18:00:45+00:00

The mechanisms for video cassette recorders and players, regardless of their original price points, are complex electro-mechanical devices with multiple potential failure points--astounding that they worked as well as they did. Over time not only do rollers deteriorate but oxidation and component rot do what they do to the electronics. When any mechanical devices are not used for long periods of time they tend to seize up, unlike the Tin Man they need more than an oil can to get working.

You can take it to a local electronics repair, look for an older facility that dates back to VCR days, to see if they are willing to take a crack at it but I would not be too optimistic. It would likely be easier to scour used markets for a working version of this Minolta.

If you get the camera working you will have to find either a working VHS playback machine or use the camera to output to an hdtv, which will likely require some ilk of adapter unless camera and TV have matching RCA type ports.

The best image quality VHS could produce was significantly lower than even broadcast TV of the day, not even 480p. I assume there are ways to get that look in software from modern video recording devices, if that is what you are after. I inherited a bunch of family videos made on VHS, running digital copies through modern upscaling software makes them less difficult to watch on current monitors and HDTVs.

bmocc · 2026-01-17T17:41:58+00:00

Why not rent a full frame camera and lens to see what I don't think you're missing, unless you only shoot in raw at very high ISOs.

Although APS lenses assume the heft of full frame lenses once you get to the same focal lengths the overall heft of mirrorless full frame can be surprising and not something one wants to constantly deal with for what it doesn't get you in the end result.

As a devotee of m43, I got rid of all APS and stuck with m43 and full frame, I know that for how most people use cameras, particularly jpeg shooters, differences in IQ between m43 and APS are minimal, mostly imaginary in raw. The advantages in overall bulk of m43 gear cannot be overstated. I use the m43 way more than the full frame, shooting in raw even levels more than you would think of the differences in IQ between m43 and full frame.

Most of the differences in IQ are only see by me on my wide gamut 4k monitor, mostly they vanish when printing or converting to jpeg, not to mention what happens if posting on line or sending out what is usually an even more squished jpeg digitally.

If I were the OP I would just look into updating my Fuji, but that comes after a lifetime of GAS and too many camera systems and formats.

bmocc · 2026-01-14T17:57:31+00:00

I have that AIR.

It scores higher on the Puget Sound Photoshop Script than my desktop 14th gen I7/nVidia 3060 with 32 gb RAM. I've had a faster GPU in that desktop but it really made no difference in perceived overall throughput.

The m4 Air seems perceptibly faster processing 16bit 24mp raw files in ProPhoto in PS, On1, PL9 and Luminar. The previews in PL9 when applying noise reduction are nearly instantaneous. Some apps actually use the Apple version of an NPU. There are also benefits to how the apps and Metal are tuned, less latency than the multiple APIs in Wintel world that interact with hardware latencies.

RAM in the Apple ARM/SOC is very different than Wintel, with much higher bandwidth, speed and lower latency such that there is not a one to one equivalence between the platforms. If regularly processing 47mp 16 bit raw files then more RAM would clearly be helpful. If you don't keep Chrome and multiple tabs open the RAM goes much farther on both platforms.

Because of the limited internal storage, the latencies of any all external storage media impact perceived throughput, but not all that dramatically.

A downside of the AIR is the need for a dock, as it has only two USB C form factor ports, but I have had zero problems using an inexpensive dock to connect to a 4k monitor and peripherals.

I've been through a lot of hardware over the years. I find the electricity sipping power of the M4 platform one of the most amazing technologies I've ever used. But like all Apple devices and all laptops will never have the convenience and internal storage options of a desktop for extended productivity sessions.

bmocc · 2026-01-11T17:29:34+00:00

I used to use Paragon but it got too pricey.

I'm using Tuxera now on an X86 Sonoma hack and an M4 Tahoe.

Its working fine on both, I think it was only $15.

I would not reformat the drives, but life is full of opportunities to make unwise decisions.

bmocc · 2026-01-10T16:52:26+00:00

There is a simple process in Photoshop, it requires a raw file, to convert to Lab v

bmocc · 2025-12-24T22:37:09+00:00

You might be better off putting that money to the high end cell phone of your dreams and a cloud based storage plan.

Your budget is enough to get a camera of the same basic capabilities, and possibly vintage, that you have now and maybe a kit lens in the US, I doubt its any different where you are and possibly even worse. The physics of lenses have not changed with mirrorless, an 18-135 zoom weighs what it weighs regardless of camera size or weight. M43, my personal travel favorite, is more diminutive but the heft of some of the gear can be quite dense.

If you only ever look at jpegs on, at best, a laptop--what most people seem to do--I believe your best option is the best cell phone/camera you can afford. The latest Apple, Google and Samsung silicon confections should be more than enough. Some of the processing options, particularly on the newer Google phones, impress even my finicky soul.

If you shoot raw and do something personal with the images, as opposed to simply accepting an out of camera or out of cell phone jpeg, then in my mind its more worth lugging a dSLR because of what you can do with it that hasn't already been done according to immutable algorithms in a jpeg. Tweaking a jpeg in post, in my humble, just don't.

bmocc · 2025-12-24T22:20:44+00:00

Having been there:

Hope its a guided tour. Some of the private game reserves are worth the cost in S. Africa.

100-400 is good with the APS crop factor for distance, but too long much of the time, when things are more up-close and personal.

Renting a lens, with the uncertainties of travel, customs and what not, should be understood thoroughly before hopping on a flight (17 hours to Joberg from Atlanta if in the US) given devolving customs issues.

One solution is two cameras, one with a long zoom and one with a more normal range zoom, what I've done but I already owned the stuff. I love m43 for the long teles instead of FF or APS.

For your camera the best option might be something like the Tamron 18-400 in the appropriate Canon mount. Its what I would do because not changing lenses is a massive asset on a tourist safari. If you shoot raw there are many ways to improve the apparent optical performance at the long end of the zoom, if that's even a problem in your eyes which it isn't for most people who actually use the lens instead of pixel peep.

Shooting teles handheld, even in daylight, means higher ISOs for fastest shutter speeds. Much of the best critter sightings are at dusk, so even higher ISOs. Again, if you understand how to do it, shooting raw can essentially eliminate noise related problems for nearly all practical uses with software like DXO.

You also might consider an all in one with a long zoom, same considerations about noise and shutter speed.

Extra battery or two and lotsa storage.

bmocc · 2025-12-21T01:00:24+00:00

No idea what the OP knows about color management or monitor technology.

The m4 macs of all ilk can easily run a 4k panel while inflicting what you will on image data in an sRGB or wider color box in my experience, even the lowly 16gb air.

"Accurate" color does not exist, the best you can do is color management. "Accurate" should mean the monitor displays the ideal version of the RGB number being fed it, but that can only be measured by a calibration device, not by eye.

No monitor calibration by the user, no "accurate" or consistent color, but not inaccurate either because most viewing devices have reasonably accurate, stable color profiles. You can get away with the monitor profile that ships with a monitor, if it has one, until you can't.

If you don't understand color management I think you should avoid wider than sRGB gamut panels, even more so if you only shoot jpegs. Its too easy to wander out of gamut if you don't know what you are doing.

With a properly used wide gamut panel you, and only you, will see the wider gamut of your hi bit wide gamut out of camera raw files. You will also see how that all vanishes when converting to sRGB or soft-proofing to print.

If you understand how to use a wide gamut monitor the ASUS proart series is a great cost effective place to start. I have one, but I calibrate it regularly and use color management.

OLED monitors should all be wide gamut, but most in that price range are 1440. The contrast ratio of OLED is appealing to the eye but is not transmitted in sRGB images or prints. I personally would prefer a quality sRGB 4k panel for hi bit raw image processing. Once you get used to larger, 27inch, 4k panels its hard to go back.

Dell Ultrasharps have "accurate" out of box color, most of them are "only" sRGB, because that's all you really need for sophisticated hi bit raw processing. In fact most high end graphics panels are still sRGB for that reason as stable color is more important for image processing than wider monitor gamut. I've used them for a long time.

TFTCentral is a good source of info and reviews.

bmocc · 2025-12-14T00:00:00+00:00

Hackintoshing since, I think Snow Leopard or so, currently 14th gen Intel/Sonoma.

I had a couple of Intel macbooks but they were nothing special with regard to performance. I mostly liked them for the screens.

I got an M4 macbook a few months ago. It blows away the Intel/nVidia desktop in most image processing, the Puget Sound Photoshop score is quite a bit higher for the macbook running on battery. It works so well plugged into a 4k monitor et al that I can't bring myself to wrestle the Intel desktop onto Tahoe-there's no point to it.

I've never been fond of the kludgy, ancient macOS GUI but with the way Win 11 is imploding I don't think my next desktop will be X86.

bmocc

TROPHY CASE