What's your latest tech purchase?

[outpt]

Just bought a Corsair 850W modular PS. It will be a few days getting here Also buying a R9 5900x very soon. I think my gaming days are numbered.

 

[Anth0789]

Bought a new PSU since my Corsair AX1200 was getting old, Bought a Seasonic FOCUS Plus 850W Gold, and a new case to replace my old Coolermaster Cosmos 2.

 

[Aquinus]

I'm patiently awaiting the release of the Canon RF 100-400mm ƒ/5.6-8 IS USM Lens that I've pre-ordered. A modest $650 for a super-telephoto zoom lens isn't too bad. The aperture is a little small, but I'm not spending $2,800 on something wider. Yes, that's $2,800 for a single lens.

 

[lexluthermiester]

but I'm not spending $2,700 on something wider. Yes, that's $2,700 for a single lens.

Oh, they get MUCH pricier than that...

 

[Deleted member 202104]

Someone made an oops when entering the price. Sadly I could only get one ordered before the price was fixed. I checked the warranty with Seagate and it is indeed a brand new drive with a 5 year warranty.

View attachment 219641
View attachment 219642

Thanks for posting that! I've been watching the 14-18TB of that model and was concerned about the warranty status from that vendor.

 

[Aquinus]

Oh, they get MUCH pricier than that...

The most expensive RF mount lens I've seen is around $3200. I haven't seen any lenses more than that. The R5 camera body is mad expensive though. That's the cost of a 46MP full-frame camera though. Being an ameteur, I can't justify that.

Edit: Either way, the 24-105mm I'm using now is doing just fine. This was at max zoom and cropped from the kit lens.

Edit 2: I lied, I did see one super-telephoto prime lens that was something like $13,000. I just don't typically look at those.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Edit 2: I lied, I did see one super-telephoto prime lens that was something like $13,000. I just don't typically look at those.

I was about to mention a friend of mine who spent nearly $12000 on a lens a few years ago. Granted that's his profession so it's understandable, but still, $12000! Seriously, spent less on a car I bought for one of the kids recently and that was only $5800..

 

[Aquinus]

I guess I should post some actual tech though, like the 35mm sensor that I'm taking these pictures with. Looking at pictures side by side taken with the phone just shows how much of a difference the size of the sensor can make.

 

[Deleted member 24505]

My brother was mad into photography some years ago, iirc he spent £3k+ on some leica camera

 

[newtekie1]

Nice! That'll last you a while.

We'll see, I'm kind of a data hoarder. I'm dumping a full 6TB drive onto it right now so I can use the 6TB in my RAID array.

Thanks for posting that! I've been watching the 14-18TB of that model and was concerned about the warranty status from that vendor.

Yeah, it was my first time ordering from them. Previous 3rd party sellers I've order drives from sent me drives that were OEM pulls or shucked from external drives that didn't have a warranty through Seagate. I figured this would be no different, but it actually had a warranty with Seagate. I think the chances are better to get a drive with a warranty when buying an Exos because they aren't sold inside external drives, so that eliminates that source. But they are sold to OEMs for use in servers, so it's possible to get an OEM drive, and Seagate does track that sort of thing. I was looking specifically at the 14TB drive because it uses CMR while the 18TB uses SMR. I don't mind SMR drives, but I'll be writing huge amounts of data to this drive daily since this drive houses my system image backups that all of my computers perform nightly. So it writes about 1TB of data a day.

 

[seth1911]

For my Bed 87€

Someone made an oops when entering the price. Sadly I could only get one ordered before the price was fixed. I checked the warranty with Seagate and it is indeed a brand new drive with a 5 year warranty.

178$ for 14TB

 

[Mussels]

Is that not the price of the 2 TB? The best thing about that card is the controller. You can change drives (as long as they are the same) and it will even work in a x4 electrical slot (reduced speed). I am interested to see your numbers. I saw an increase when I put the 2 drives in an ASUS M2 adapter (Gen 3).

They gave me the price of the 1TB, on the 4TB model (aussie prices are higher, dunno why)

And yes it's gunna be interesting to test out, i have an 8x slot and a 4x slot i can use... pity its not a 4.0 device

 

[AusWolf]

Twas my reaction as well the first time I fired up the Dark Rock Pro 4 and my SW3 120mm fans. I thought I had two defective products

On that thought, I might upgrade my Shadow Rock LP to a Shadow Rock TF2 (or even a Silent Loop 2) later, just to see how much juice I can get out of my computer without increasing its noise.

Bought a new PSU since my Corsair AX1200 was getting old, Bought a Seasonic FOCUS Plus 850W Gold, and a new case to replace my old Coolermaster Cosmos 2.

I've had many different brands of PSUs, but I've never been as happy as I am with my Prime Ultra Platinum 550W. The 12-year warranty is unmatched as well.

 

[seth1911]

A new Black Berry Passport...

Yeah os 10.3 and only apps for Android 4 work

 

[WhitetailAni]

Undertale!

Spoiler

Already at Omega Flowey after 2 days.
I expect to be on Omega Flowey for another week or so.

Yes I know something looks off (buttons on screen?), that's because this is on iOS and iPhones don't have buttons and joysticks.
I'm not sure exactly how they've accomplished this unofficial iOS port - I think they're using the PS Vita base? Not sure.

Works though so I'm happy!

 

[FreedomEclipse]

One of these....

Because I need one to hotwire my QNAP with a 100ohm resistor due to the intel CPU having the C2000 flaw.

::EDIT::

The hotwire was successful thanks to the internet. According to the guides its only a temporary fix as the CPU will continue to degrade but the server is back up and rolling for now

 

[INSTG8R]

One of these....

Because I need one to hotwire my QNAP with the intel CPU that has the C2000 bug with a 100ohm resistor.

Every proper techy should have one. Reminds me, mine probably could use new batteries.

 

[FreedomEclipse]

Every proper techy should have one. Reminds me, mine probably could use new batteries.

Well i dont really know how to use them per se and i dont really do a lot of testing of electrical components. For me a soldering iron was more useful as i have replaced batteries in multiple devices with it.

 

[The red spirit]

I guess I should post some actual tech though, like the 35mm sensor that I'm taking these pictures with. Looking at pictures side by side taken with the phone just shows how much of a difference the size of the sensor can make.

Eh, I doubt that. Not saying that they are equal in terms of quality, but in decent lighting there's no reason why phone wouldn't take decent pictures. Some years ago, when phones had next to none post processing (and obviously none of those e-waste 2-5 MP macro or depth cameras), phone pictures could look really good. Might not be exactly as good as DSLR, but surprisingly close. Current phones may never reach great pictures, due to usually awful or just okay post processing. It doesn't matter what you buy, Pixel, iPhone, S21, they all alter pictures so much that you can tell it's not a faithful representation. Here's an edited picture from Galaxy A50 (ultra wide lenses):

You can tell that sensor is somewhat potent, but is crippled by few things. First of all is picture size. Before editing in Paint.net, picture was under 2 MB in size. For 3264x1836 picture (8MP), 2 megabytes are really low (my previous phone also had 8 MP sensor and pictures were 4-7 MB big, meanwhile with overridden settings, they would get to 45-55 MB in size, the losses in Galaxy A50 are massive). Picture underwent a massive lossy JPEG compression. When looking at it, you can tell that it had some smoothing applied to hide JPEG artifacting. As compensation, picture was oversharpened. I also suspect that bright whites and deep blacks are somewhat crushed to compensate for graininess. Other than that, post processing overexposed this picture, but to some degree I managed to fix it.

I don't know if it's of any value, but it's not really a sensors that are poor in phones. They were poor in 2000s, when 0.3 MP sensors dominated and 2 MP in phones were rare. Their physical size was likely smaller too. But today, it's not the sensors that are limiting factor, but rather a very aggressive picture processing. A digital camera, with exactly the same senor, but without annoying Samsung's post-processing and overly aggressive compression, could take way better pictures. Sensor is only a limiting factor if picture is clearly grainy, lacks resolution, has awful dynamic range. Lenses, only when stuff is not in focus, not sharp enough or you don't get that bokeh pizzaz.

 

[Aquinus]

Eh, I doubt that. Not saying that they are equal in terms of quality, but in decent lighting there's no reason why phone wouldn't take decent pictures. Some years ago, when phones had next to none post processing (and obviously none of those e-waste 2-5 MP macro or depth cameras), phone pictures could look really good. Might not be exactly as good as DSLR, but surprisingly close. Current phones may never reach great pictures, due to usually awful or just okay post processing. It doesn't matter what you buy, Pixel, iPhone, S21, they all alter pictures so much that you can tell it's not a faithful representation. Here's an edited picture from Galaxy A50 (ultra wide lenses):
View attachment 219769

You can tell that sensor is somewhat potent, but is crippled by few things. First of all is picture size. Before editing in Paint.net, picture was under 2 MB in size. For 3264x1836 picture (8MP), 2 megabytes are really low (my previous phone also had 8 MP sensor and pictures were 4-7 MB big, meanwhile with overridden settings, they would get to 45-55 MB in size, the losses in Galaxy A50 are massive). Picture underwent a massive lossy JPEG compression. When looking at it, you can tell that it had some smoothing applied to hide JPEG artifacting. As compensation, picture was oversharpened. I also suspect that bright whites and deep blacks are somewhat crushed to compensate for graininess. Other than that, post processing overexposed this picture, but to some degree I managed to fix it.

I don't know if it's of any value, but it's not really a sensors that are poor in phones. They were poor in 2000s, when 0.3 MP sensors dominated and 2 MP in phones were rare. Their physical size was likely smaller too. But today, it's not the sensors that are limiting factor, but rather a very aggressive picture processing. A digital camera, with exactly the same senor, but without annoying Samsung's post-processing and overly aggressive compression, could take way better pictures. Sensor is only a limiting factor if picture is clearly grainy, lacks resolution, has awful dynamic range. Lenses, only when stuff is not in focus, not sharp enough or you don't get that bokeh pizzaz.

You're not wrong, but where it really shows is in low light conditions. I'm actually very happy with the quality of the pictures on my iPhone 11 Pro Max when there is a lot of light and one of the 3 lenses has the zoom I want. The problem is that while the aperture of the lens is really pretty wide on the phone, the size of the sensor is the real issue. Even if you can cram 26MP into a small sensor, that still limits the amount of light that the sensor can absorb. The advantage of the full frame sensor, even over APS-C, is the size. The bigger the sensor, the bigger the pixel on the sensor, which means a larger area for light to be collected. So while I completely understand where you're coming from, there are some huge differences. Also with that said, I can't even upload a full resolution picture from my camera to TPU because it'd be a 22MB jpeg and I tend to capture both jpeg + raw.

As a downscaled example, here is a picture of the night sky at ISO 6400 and a 8s shutter speed at a full 1.8ƒ aperture with a 50mm lens. Try doing that with a phone. Mind you, I scaled this down from the original 6240x4160.

...and that was with a cheap $200 lens.

 

[freeagent]

The view from that bench is nice. Good shot.

 

[Aquinus]

The view from that bench is nice. Good shot.

Totally. It's shots like that which made me want to get the camera.

 

[newtekie1]

My new daily driver flash drive came today. Well, the parts to make it did at least. It's a cheap 10Gbps NVMe to USB enclosure off aliexpress and a 512GB WD SN530 4420 SSD. A standard flash drive included in pictures for size comparison.

I'm actually impressed with the enclosure. It's all metal, came with thermal pads and the cap uses magnets to hold itself close very securely.

 

[The red spirit]

You're not wrong, but where it really shows is in low light conditions.

Then phones are insufficient. The key to decent pictures with phones is as much light as possible. It's not necessarily with phones, but with any small sensor. Just for reference, A50's ultra wide sensor is just 13mm, which is really tiny for camera. Meanwhile, full frame sensor is 35 mm.

I'm actually very happy with the quality of the pictures on my iPhone 11 Pro Max when there is a lot of light and one of the 3 lenses has the zoom I want. The problem is that while the aperture of the lens is really pretty wide on the phone, the size of the sensor is the real issue. Even if you can cram 26MP into a small sensor, that still limits the amount of light that the sensor can absorb. The advantage of the full frame sensor, even over APS-C, is the size. The bigger the sensor, the bigger the pixel on the sensor, which means a larger area for light to be collected. So while I completely understand where you're coming from, there are some huge differences.

More like huge differences in different scenarios. Bigger sensor won't do much if you are taking a landscape picture in daylight.

As a downscaled example, here is a picture of the night sky at ISO 6400 and a 8s shutter speed at a full 1.8ƒ aperture. Try doing that with a phone. Mind you, I scaled this down from the original 6240x4160.
View attachment 219777

...and that was with a cheap $200 lens.

Not going to happen on phone and I personally have never seen sky like that even in village. When it comes to phones, it's about making them practical, cheap and portable. In many scenarios phones can take decent pictures, if sensor isn't crippled by anything else. Phones can do 85% of all pictures well, meanwhile a DSLR does that well and those last 15%. The problem with DSLRs or mirrorless cameras is mostly price. You say that 200 dollars for single lens is cheap. Well I trust you, that they are relatively cheap, but that's very expensive for fancy tube with pieces of glass. And that's "cheap". Photography in itself can become obscenely expensive hobby very fast and I personally hate that. Another problem with DSLR is their size. Not sure about others, but I can just take my phone with me when I go to park and if i find something interesting looking, I can just snap a picture and be done with it, meanwhile if yo use DSLR, you have to plan if you will take it, then you have to haul 1-2 kg plastic-metal brick with you, likely with suitcase for lenses. Also you look weird or attract unwanted attention with DSLR. I personally just couldn't stand owning a DSLR or mirrorless camera. And with phones being adequate, they are alright for replacing DSLRs in such scenarios, which to me are like 95% of all scenarios. A good balance between quality, portability and attracting unwanted attention is a digital camera, but the whole idea of getting one kinda falls apart, when you realize that you have to plan when you will take it with yourself, as it is a brick that you don't have a reason to haul with yourself unintentionally. Therefore, for many people phone camera(s) are their main photography tool. Even for pros that perhaps found a nice place to take a picture, but forgot to haul their DSLR, a phone is an essential tool. DSLRs have their technological dominance and their place, but time has shown that not just tech specs matter. That and that smaller sensors can be great for many occasions. Some compact digital cameras some with replicable lenses and they do a fine job. I remember learning in my photography lectures, that there was a famous photographer, who made camera himself from random parts and household items, including toilet paper tube. Obviously, that's ridiculous and he sure looked like a homeless man with that thing, but he managed to take some decent pictures. Then there are old cameras, SLRs. Those can be made really cheaply, but they still have good picture quality, mostly due to not needing a digital sensor and instead using special photographic paper.

Totally. It's shots like that which made me want to get the camera.

Thanks, but I'm not so sure about getting a camera bit. It was taken with phone. I feel that most challenging thing in photography really isn't the gear you use, but finding shots or knowing how to compose one. If you have ideas or at least can spot good picture taking locations, then even phone is totally adequate.

Here's another random picture that I took while going home from uni:

Again, Galaxy A50 with ultrawide camera.

And another photo, finally from main camera:

Also crudely practical place to be at for me. Me and my class had a lecture outside about landscape and we were at university's arboretum.

 

[Aquinus]

More like huge differences in different scenarios. Bigger sensor won't do much if you are taking a landscape picture in daylight.

Well, maybe. It depends on what you're trying to do. A good landscape picture is going to have different characteristics than a portrait. The depth of field for each of those are very different and you're going to control that with the aperture. Focusing on a single subject is good for a wide aperture which is what the phones really need to capture the most light. The issue with landscape is that at a narrow aperture you're not letting nearly as much light hit the sensor, so you're still running under a low-light situation, which is why landscape pictures with phones aren't crystal clear. One of the biggest reasons I wanted to switch was because images of the sky (which is well lit,) wasn't captured well with the phone. This is actually a case where I want to take pictures side by side with the camera and phone, because it will be a lot more obvious when seeing the same image from both devices.

Not going to happen on phone and I personally have never seen sky like that even in village. When it comes to phones, it's about making them practical, cheap and portable. In many scenarios phones can take decent pictures, if sensor isn't crippled by anything else. Phones can do 85% of all pictures well, meanwhile a DSLR does that well and those last 15%. The problem with DSLRs or mirrorless cameras is mostly price. You say that 200 dollars for single lens is cheap. Well I trust you, that they are relatively cheap, but that's very expensive for fancy tube with pieces of glass. And that's "cheap". Photography in itself can become obscenely expensive hobby very fast and I personally hate that. Another problem with DSLR is their size. Not sure about others, but I can just take my phone with me when I go to park and if i find something interesting looking, I can just snap a picture and be done with it, meanwhile if yo use DSLR, you have to plan if you will take it, then you have to haul 1-2 kg plastic-metal brick with you, likely with suitcase for lenses. Also you look weird or attract unwanted attention with DSLR. I personally just couldn't stand owning a DSLR or mirrorless camera. And with phones being adequate, they are alright for replacing DSLRs in such scenarios, which to me are like 95% of all scenarios. A good balance between quality, portability and attracting unwanted attention is a digital camera, but the whole idea of getting one kinda falls apart, when you realize that you have to plan when you will take it with yourself, as it is a brick that you don't have a reason to haul with yourself unintentionally. Therefore, for many people phone camera(s) are their main photography tool. Even for pros that perhaps found a nice place to take a picture, but forgot to haul their DSLR, a phone is an essential tool. DSLRs have their technological dominance and their place, but time has shown that not just tech specs matter. That and that smaller sensors can be great for many occasions. Some compact digital cameras some with replicable lenses and they do a fine job. I remember learning in my photography lectures, that there was a famous photographer, who made camera himself from random parts and household items, including toilet paper tube. Obviously, that's ridiculous and he sure looked like a homeless man with that thing, but he managed to take some decent pictures. Then there are old cameras, SLRs. Those can be made really cheaply, but they still have good picture quality, mostly due to not needing a digital sensor and instead using special photographic paper.

The naked human eye isn't going to see that, but that's kind of the point. It's also a reason why I pre-ordered the super-telephoto zoom lens. Also FWIW, the Canon EOS RP was only $1,000 for the body, which is actually insanely good for a full-frame camera. You're right, it's an expensive hobby... but so are computers. We're in the expensive hobby business.

There is a difference between doing it for fun and doing it for a hobby. It's almost like the difference between gaming on a mainstream card and a high-end card. Either way, I like having options. Even more when I can afford them.

And another photo, finally from main camera:

Also crudely practical place to be at for me. Me and my class had a lecture outside about landscape and we were at university's arboretum.

That's not bad. It actually reminds me of one I took recently.

Edit: As a side note, I'm scaling all of these to a max of 2048 pixel width to make TPU happy.