Connect with us

Camera

Apple still hasn’t made a truly ‘Pro’ M1 Mac – so what’s the holdup?

Published

on

Apple still hasn’t made a truly ‘Pro’ M1 Mac – so what’s the holdup?
The in-house developed M1 architecture that powers Apple’s latest machines allows them to be sleek and power-efficient, but there are still some things it can’t offer professional users.
Photo by DL Cade

Ever since Apple unveiled the M1 System on a Chip (SOC)—the CPU/GPU/RAM combo pack that powers the latest 13-inch MacBook Pro, MacBook Air, Mac mini, and the redesigned 24-inch iMac – the creative world has been buzzing. It’s fast, it’s power efficient, it barely needs to be cooled, and since it was designed by Apple for an Apple operating system, the M1 system is optimized to within an inch of its life.

The M1 is a preview of coming attractions

In so many ways, the M1 has done more, and done it better, than anyone dared hope when plans for Apple Silicon were first announced. So why are many users clamoring for a “pro-level” M1 that has yet to be released?

The problem is that the M1 was never meant to power professional-grade hardware. It’s a preview of coming attractions – an extraordinary appetizer designed to serve the enthusiast and amateur community, while tantalizing pros with a mere taste of what’s possible. Seven months on, the pros are getting impatient.

Professional-Grade Performance

Maxed-out M1 Macs top out at 16GB of memory and 2TB of storage, among other limitations.
Photo by DL Cade

From a pure performance perspective the M1 Macs are already professional grade, at least among laptops. Especially with apps that either can’t or won’t take full advantage of a discrete GPU, performance is within spitting distance of the most powerful PC laptops on the market.

In benchmark after benchmark, the M1 iMac we’re currently reviewing (stay tuned) either kept pace with or outperformed higher-specced machines like the Razer Blade 15 Advanced and ASUS G14 – computers that sport 8-core/16-thread CPUs, NVIDIA RTX 30-series GPUs and twice the RAM of any M1 computer.

24-inch iMac Razer Blade 15 Advanced ASUS Zephyrus G14
CPU M1 8-core Intel 10th Gen Core i7-10875H AMD Ryzen 9 5900HS
CPU Cores 4 Performance

4 Efficiency

8 Cores

16 Threads

8 Cores

16 Threads

GPU M1 8-core NVIDIA RTX 3080

16GB DDR6 VRAM

NVIDIA RTX 3060

6GB DDR6 VRAM

RAM 16GB Unified Memory 32GB DDR4-2933MHz 32GB DDR4-3200MHz
Storage 1TB NVMe SSD 1TB NVMe M.2 SSD 1TB NVMe M.2 SSD
Display 24-inch 4.5K LCD 15-inch 4K OLED 15-inch QHD LCD
Price $2,100 $3,300 $2,000

Take Adobe Lightroom Classic for example. We ran import and export benchmarks on all three of the machines shown above, building 1:1 previews on import and exporting 100% JPEGs that were heavily processed using an identical preset. Tests were run on 100 Canon EOS R6 raw files, 100 Nikon Z7 II raw files, 100 Sony a7R IV raw files, and 100 Fuji GFX 100 raw files.

In an effort to make the times as comparable as possible, we used the studio scene photo from each of these cameras and simply duplicated it 100 times.

You can see the results in both table and graph form below:

EOS R6 Import EOS R6 Export Z7 II Import Z7 II Export a7R IV Import a7R IV Export GFX100 Import GFX100 Export
M1 iMac 1:44 4:10 2:55 9:24 3:06 14:43 8:40 38:29
Blade 15 1:55 4:25 3:23 9:41 3:52 12:50 8:26 30:38
ASUS G14 1:38 3:58 2:59 8:55 3:30 11:41 7:35 23:40

The situation is similar in Premiere Pro, although the iMac’s lack of discrete GPU begins to take a toll. Using a 4K test video made up of 8K Sony a1 footage – complete with titles, Lumetri color grading, stabilization, etc. – we rendered previews in 4K ProRes 4:2:2 and exported in three different formats: the master file (using previews), an H.264 file, and an H.265 file. We also applied Warp Stabilize to a 15 second clip from this same project.

The M1 is slower than the Intel-based Blade 15 and AMD Ryzen-based ASUS G14 in all but Warp Stabilize, but the difference isn’t huge. It’s approximately 12% slower at render and 18% slower at encoding H.264 and H.265 files.

Render All Export Master Export H.264 Export H.265 Warp Stabilize
M1 iMac 7:40 0:16 7:28 7:16 2:06
Blade 15 6:47 0:12 6:05 5:57 3:24
ASUS G14 6:40 0:15 6:06 5:59 2:33

Intel recently released its 11th Gen Tiger Lake H-series processors, which should make the next generation of Intel-based machines even faster, but my point stands: these PCs boast some of the most powerful CPUs and GPUs on the market, and the M1 holds its own against both of them despite some inherent limitations – an integrated GPU, only 16GB of RAM, and minimal cooling.

From a pure performance perspective, there’s not much more that we could ask for. So what exactly is the problem?

Amateur-Grade Hardware

Image: Apple

The issue with the M1 is not raw benchmark performance, it’s that it was only designed to run on enthusiast-level hardware. Except for the 12.9-inch iPad Pro – which is still limited by iPad OS – each of the four M1 Macs currently available would be considered “entry-level” in their particular product category. In effect, Apple has packed professional performance into four computers (and an iPad) that were never aimed at professionals.

Many of the design choices that Apple made come down to limitations of the M1 SOC itself. There are only so many lanes available on a chip this size, and that translates into some frustrating bottlenecks: the maximum amount of RAM is 16GB, the maximum amount of storage is 2TB, and the maximum number of true Thunderbolt 4 ports is only two.

The M1 iMac and Mac mini offer a little bit more connectivity. The Mac mini has an HDMI 2.0 port and two USB Type-A ports while the iMac can be configured with 2 additional USB Type-C ports that are not Thunderbolt. Both can be configured with Gigabit ethernet, and you can upgrade to 10 Gigabit ethernet on the Mac mini. But all five M1 Apple products suffer from the same 16GB RAM and 2TB internal storage limit.

For many professional users, these limitations make every M1 Mac unusable from the get-go. And so we wait…

The potential for what’s next

You can configure the latest M1 iMac to have a total of four USB-C ports, but only two are Thunderbolt 4 capable.
Photo by DL Cade

It’s almost like Apple didn’t realize just how capable the M1 would be. As the first generation of Apple Silicon inside the Mac, it was always supposed to be the “entry-level” chip that would power Apple’s smallest, lightest, and thinnest devices (and the relative affordability of these machines further reinforces this). But the M1 has done so well that there are very serious comparisons between the tiny Mac mini and Apple’s flagship Mac Pro tower. Comparisons that the Mac mini sometimes wins.

The entire creative industry is practically salivating, not because the M1 isn’t good enough, but because the M1 is already so good. If this is what Apple was able to achieve in a tiny package with only 8 CPU cores, 8 GPU cores, and 16GB of RAM, imagine what future Apple Silicon Macs will be able to do with proper cooling, 16 or 32 cores, and 32GB or 64GB of unified memory.

There’s potential for a beefier computer that prioritizes performance over thinness

Despite the M1’s professional-grade performance, there is currently no Apple Silicon Mac with enough ports, enough storage, enough RAM, or even the right design sensibility for professional workflows. The potential is there, we’re just waiting for Apple to realize that potential by creating a larger M1X or M2 and packing it inside of a bigger, beefier computer that prioritizes performance over thinness and professional applications over pretty colors.

Until they do, you’ll continue to hear grumbles from the professionals in the audience. We’ve seen what’s possible. We’re ready for the main event.

Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Camera

Pentax K-1 and K-1 II firmware updates include astrophotography features (depending on where you live)

Published

on

By

Pentax K-1 and K-1 II firmware updates include astrophotography features (depending on where you live)


When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.

Yesterday, Ricoh quietly released firmware 2.50 for its Pentax K-1 and K-1 II DSLRs. However, the features you can expect to gain from this update may depend on your geography.

Ricoh’s English-language firmware pages for the K-1 and K-1 II state that firmware 2.50 delivers “Improved stability for general performance.”

However, astute Pentax users noted that Ricoh’s Japanese-language firmware pages (translation) indicate that the update also includes a limited feature called “Astronomical Photo Assist,” a collection of three new features designed for astrophotography: Star AF, remote control focus fine adjustment, and astronomical image processing.

Star AF is intended to automate focusing on stars when using autofocus lenses. Rather than manually focusing on a bright star and changing your composition, it promises to let you compose your shot and let the camera focus.

Remote control fine adjustment allows users to adjust focus without touching the lens and requires Pentax’s optional O-RC1 remote. Astronomical image processing will enable users to make in-camera adjustments to astrophotography images, including shading correction, fogging correction, background darkness, star brightness, celestial clarity, and fringe correction.

Astronomical image processing on the K-1 and K-1 II will enable users to make in-camera adjustments to astrophotography images, including shading correction, fogging correction, background darkness, star brightness, celestial clarity, and fringe correction.

According to Ricoh, Astronomical Photo Assist is a premium feature that must be purchased and costs ¥11,000 for an activation key (about $70 at current exchange rates).

Although these astrophotography features appear to be Japan-only for now, a Ricoh representative tells us, “Ricoh Imaging Americas confirmed that the premium firmware features for the PENTAX K-1 and PENTAX K-1 Mark II will eventually be available to US customers.”

Firmware update 2.50 for both the K-1 and K-1 II is available for download from Ricoh’s website.



Source link

Continue Reading

Camera

On this day 2017: Nikon launches D850

Published

on

By

On this day 2017: Nikon launches D850


When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.

As part of our twenty fifth anniversary, we’re looking back at some of the most significant cameras launched and reviewed during that period. Today’s pick was launched seven years ago today* and yet we’re only quite recently stepping out of its shadow.

The Nikon D850 is likely to be remembered as the high watermark of DSLR technology. We may yet still see impressive developments from Ricoh in the future (we’d love to see a significantly upgraded Pentax K-1 III), but the D850 was perhaps the green flash as the sun set on the DSLR as the dominant technology in the market.

Click here to read our Nikon D850 review

Why do we think it was such a big deal? Because it got just about everything right. Its 45MP sensor brought dual conversion gain to high pixel count sensors, meaning excellent dynamic range at base ISO and lower noise at high ISOs. Its autofocus system was one of the best we’ve ever seen on a DSLR: easy to use and highly dependable, with a good level of coverage. And then there was a body and user interface honed by years of iterative refinement, that made it easy to get the most out of the camera.

None of this is meant as a slight towards the other late-period DSLRs but the likes of Canon’s EOS 5DS and 5DSR didn’t present quite such a complete package of AF tracking, daylight DR and low-light quality as the Nikon did. With its ability to shoot at up to 9fps (if you used the optional battery grip), the D850 started to chip away at the idea that high megapixel cameras were specialized landscape and studio tools that would struggle with movement or less-than-perfect lighting. And that’s without even considering its 4K video capabilities.

In the seven years since the D850 was launched, mirrorless cameras have eclipsed most areas in which DSLRs once held the advantage. For example, the Z8 can shoot faster, autofocus more with more accuracy and precision, across a wider area of the frame and do so while shooting at much faster rates.

But, even though it outshines the D850 in most regards, the Z8 is still based around what we believe is a (significant) evolution of the same sensor, and its reputation still looms large enough for Nikon to explicitly market the Z8 as its “true successor.”

Nikon D850 sample gallery

Sample gallery
This widget is not optimized for RSS feed readers. Click here to open it in a new browser window / tab.

*Actually seven years ago yesterday: we had to delay this article for a day to focus on the publishing the Z6III studio scene: the latest cameras taking precedence over our anniversary content.



Source link

Continue Reading

Camera

Nikon Z6III added to studio scene, making image quality clear

Published

on

By

Nikon Z6III added to studio scene, making image quality clear


When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
Photo: Richard Butler

We’ve just received a production Nikon Z6III and took it into our studio immediately to get a sense for how the sensor really performs.

Dynamic range tests have already been conducted, but these only give a limited insight into the image quality as a whole. As expected, our Exposure Latitude test – which mimics the effect of reducing exposure to capture a bright sunrise or sunset, then making use of the deep shadows – shows a difference if you use the very deepest shadows, just as the numerical DR tests imply.

Likewise, our ISO Invariance test shows there’s more of a benefit to be had from applying more amplification by raising the ISO setting to overcome the read noise, than there was in the Z6 II. This means there’s a bigger improvement when you move up to the higher gain step of the dual conversion gain sensor but, as with the Z6 II, little more to be gained beyond that.

These are pushing at the extreme of the sensor’s performance though. For most everyday photography, you don’t use the deepest shadows of the Raw files, so differences in read noise between sensors don’t play much of a role. In most of the tones of an image, sensor size plays a huge role, along with any (pretty rare) differences in light capturing efficiency.

Image Comparison
This widget is not optimized for RSS feed readers. Click here to open it in a new browser window / tab.

As expected, the standard exposures look identical to those of the Z6 II. There are similar (or better) levels of detail at low ISO, in both JPEG and Raw. At higher ISO, the Z6III still looks essentially the same as the Z6II. Its fractionally higher level of read noise finally comes back to have an impact at very, very high ISO settings.

Overall, then, there is a read noise price to be paid for the camera’s faster sensor, in a way that slightly blunts the ultimate flexibility of the Raw files at low ISO and that results in fractionally more noise at ultra-high ISOs. But we suspect most people will more than happily pay this small price in return for a big boost in performance.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending