• Generally I do use my own pics for wallpapers, but since moving to ultrawide, I haven't been editing any photos that really fit that format.

  • @tokyoslim said in PC GAMING GEAR THREAD:


    aaaaaaand I'm homesick.

    Only semi-related, but since you have photo experience, do you have any tips for shooting at night? I'm a novice and have been struggling with this. Lights are always too light, darks always too dark.

  • @naltmank

    I can hop in and mansplain here too.

    First of all, what kinda camera do you have and would you happen to have a tripod?

    Night photography can be a pain without a light source, but if you don't mind digital noise or have a camera with high ISO performance, you might not struggle at all, especially in cities that have lots of different lights from stores and street lamps.

    It's the same principle as taking photos during the day where you need to expose using your ISO, Aperature, and Shutter speeds. However, at night you need to let as much light as possible into your camera. So you will have to use shallow depth of fields like f1.4, 1.8, 2.8, and likely no more than f4 to let in as much light as possible. Likewise, you can lower your shutter speed to slowly bring in more light by trying speeds like 1/60 or 1/80 but that is likely going to cause camera shake (but with steady hands and a planned photo, you might be OK).

    My one-size-fits all for night photography tip (handheld within the city) is to go into my settings and change my ISO to Auto maxing out no more than 6000-8000 and my shutter goes no less than 1/200. That way, I control depth of field myself, and my shutter stays at 1/200 for sharp images, then the ISO cranks up or down depending on how much light is available. Basically, I can focus on the photo. You can definitely lower your shutter minimum to 1/100 or 1/150 if you aren't confident in your cameras high ISO performance.

    My Nikon has really good ISO performance where noise isn't a problem at 6000 so cranking ISO still makes for nice images. But just to play devil's advocate, I basically can only shoot with my 50mm f1.8 prime lens at night. Otherwise, I just don't get enough light. For night time, you likely want a lens that is capable of going to at least f2.8 so you can keep ISO lower which makes clearer sharper images.

  • @dipset Dude this is excellent. I've been using my iphone camera but have been intending to invest in Real Boy photography kit this year since the pandemic has taught me I need more hobbies. iPhone did well enough for just forcing me to get out and start taking pictures but I like nighttime vibes a lot so that was where I was struggling. Obviously can't get everything all at once (I aint rich), but this will help me orient my search for what I need. Thanks!

  • @naltmank

    I'm not a phone photography expert but you definitely can do a lot less worrying and still get really good exposures on a smart phone. Let me research some YouTubers who might be able to help you with night photography on iPhone.

    I know for a fact there are more tools regarding the exposure and focus points that I don't even know how to use myself. But make sure you download the apps "darkroom" for suuuuuper easy iPhone editing and "whiteagram" makes simple white squares that keep aspect ratio of your original photo if you ever post it on instagram (which requires 1:1 aspect ratio).

    Skip "beginner" Crop Sensor DSLRs

    In regard to upgrading to a big boy camera, my only major recommendation would be to pass on the crop sensor cameras by Nikon or Canon (i.e. Nikon DX series - D7500, etc). I bought one when I was in university (D7100) and I outgrew them quickly. Essentially, they are almost the exact same as the professional cameras Nikon and Canon sell, but they use different lenses and have less bells and whistles. The lack of bells and whistles taught me a lot. For example, the live view didn't show you if your photo was exposed properly so I had to learn how to use my light meter and expose without seeing the live preview of what the final photo will look like.

    But seriously, screw those cameras. For a bit more money you can get the real deal and it's just sooooooooo much better. If you are gonna go for a big boy camera with those brands, just go straight to full frame (i.e. Nikon FX series - D750, D780, D5).

    Mirrorless vs DSLR

    The whole industry is going mirrorless these days but I chose to stick with DSLR because A) I have the cockamamie "dream" of being a photojournalist and DSLR's are faster cameras but mirrorless will catch up soon, B) there are more (and cheaper) DSLR lenses available in the market currently, and C) I like the optical viewfinder more than digital-only mirrorless.

    However, the whole industry is going mirrorless and you can't go wrong with a Sony mirrorless or Canon. Nikon is playing catch up with those companies but their mirrorless cameras are still good. The nerds of the camera world are like the PC Master Race nerds of the video game world so take their opinions with a grain of salt basically ever camera on the market these days is incredible.

    Other options

    Another good one that is small and simple but offers full control is the Ricoh GR III. It's around $1000, is the size of an iPhone, has like 24 megapixels so it's beyond print quality, and you have full exposure control with a 28mm lens that goes to f2.8. I kinda want one myself because my DSLR is massive and this thing is so damn compact and cute. It'll feel familiar upgrading from the iPhone, but not so foreign because you don't have to worry about lenses and all that.

    Leicia Q is another small camera with a built in 28mm lens that goes down to a nice shallow f1.8 DOF so you can get a lot of control and fidelity in such a nice small camera.

    These two cameras would be really cool step ups without going full prosumer level with the Canon's, Nikon's, and Sony's. Either way, you'll take more photos if you had one of these lil guys on hand.


    He doesn't go into smartphone technique, but I love Sean Tucker's YouTube channel. He takes A LOT of his photos on iPhone and you wouldn't know because of how dramatic and striking they all look.

    Youtube Video

  • For those that want to test out any new PC's or GPU's they happen to run across, if you want to pick up a good free benchmarking tool to give you an idea of where your performance is: https://benchmark.unigine.com/superposition

    Here's my optimized 4k score

    and my 1080p Extreme score

  • For what it's worth, in regards to the photography discussion, I use a Fuji XT3 - which is a crop sensor mirrorless, but that's basically Fuji's entire gig. I just liked their glass better than Canon or Nikon at the price point. Manual controls are nice too. If I was going to specialize in night or low light photog though, I'd probably get a Sony A7III, as it has the edge in ISO sensitivity on pretttty much everything in the price range. Just didn't like the lens selection and ergonomics as much as the Fuji. I find that's probably like 85 to 90% of what is ACTUALLY important in a camera. :)

    I think that in the crop v full frame/gear argument, I generally prefer a crop/mirrorless combo with a good 35ish mm 2.0 prime to be my "favorite" setup, because I think the best camera is the one you carry with you, and that's something you can comfortably sling around your neck, or strap to your hand and pretty much just walk around with all day. With the 27mm pancake, the XT3 nearly becomes (dare I say) pocketable. You'd need big pockets tho. The prospect of hauling a full frame/DSLR body around and a bunch of glass is not something you're going to want to do much. I hauled a SLR and kit up an alpine range on a hiking trip once. Never again. The A7III and XT3 are about the biggest cameras I'd likely ever want to carry with me.

    Tripod and shutter release are handy to have for night photog, don't really need much - gorrilapod or something works fine. The XT3 has bluetooth shutter release via phone app. Other than that, it's just tuning the ISO and settings as DIPSET mentioned above.

  • So I'm doing some updates to my system for next 6 months(then I'm planning a big upgrade with new GPUs). I am going to get an R5 3600X, Gigabyte B450M S2H and a case. But what I can't decide is which ram should I buy?

    G.Skill RipjawsV 16 GB


    GeIL 16GB(2x8) Evo Spear

    First one is 3600 Mhz and the second one is 3000 Mhz and of course cheaper. My question is: Does it really make a difference to have 3600 Mhz instead of 3000 Mhz? Will I be sad if I get the 3000 one or I won't care or notice the difference at all?

  • @tokyoslim

    Just want to clarify that I’m not anti-crop sensor, I’m anti-Nikon and Canon DSLR crop sensors. Those are basically the same size as a pro camera, 1/2-3/4 the price, but with way less fidelity.

    I hauled a big Nikon DSLR up the Rocky Mountains lmao RIP.

  • @scotty Ryzen processors really do benefit from faster RAM. That 3000Mhz would be ok, I'd see if I couldn't OC it a bit higher out of the box though, as 3200 is pretty much the baseline "performance" RAM I'd recommend for that processor. I'm pretty happy with my TridentZ 3600Mhz kit I have.

    I dunno what you're looking at in terms of prices, but that Ripjaws kit is on sale this week at Newegg. Both the CAS16 and CAS 18 are pretty reasonably priced.


  • @TokyoSlim

    Okay, I'll check it out. Thanks.

  • In regards to read speed on modern SSD's, is there an actual in-game factor with an SSD that reads 7000 MB/s versus 3500 MB/s? Based on Xbox SX vs PS5 comparisons I've seen on YouTube: 5000 MB/s vs 7000 MB/s isn't that noticeable in game (if at all).

    I only ask because until very recently, I've barely noticed much benefit from running games off my 500 MB/s Samsung 850 Evo SSD versus my Seagate SSHD which I think might be around 100GB MB/s. Seagate was fine up until I started playing COD MW, Yakuza 7, and now Cyberpunk, and I'm noticing the SSD performs better. In the past, I'd just use my SSD for Adobe CC.

    I can get a 2TB Sabret Rocket (3450 MB/s) for the exact same price as 1TB in Western Digital or Samsung (7000 MB/s).

    Obviously 3500 MB/s isn't "next gen" speed, and ultimately the comparison is moot because my motherboard is PCIe 3.0 but I'm more curious than anything else. Anything will be a step up from what I currently own, but I just wonder how beneficial it is to have tip top modern SSDs? The benchmarks I find on YouTube have no in-game context, just raw numbers.

  • @dipset said in PC GAMING GEAR THREAD:

    is there an actual in-game factor with an SSD that reads 7000 MB/s versus 3500 MB/s?

    Short answer is... not reaaaally

    Nobody really programs their games to take advantage of higher data transfer speed. (right now, anyways). Where you might notice differences is in stuff like installing games, or transferring files between drives. Then again, sometimes the storage hardware isn't even running at capacity due to other hardware, bandwidth, or software bottlenecks - so you might not even notice THAT.

    I will say that my Gen4 NVMe drive seems pretty fast, but the only other PC I've got is still running off a SATA SSD boot drive and uses 15 TB of regular HDD's for bulk storage.

  • Hmmmm that’s about what I figured. Thanks @TokyoSlim. I’m not ready to upgrade everything so I’ll stick with Gen 3 mobo and SSD and bask in that sweet sweet extra space. I wonder how many games fit on 2TB...

    As you can imagine 250GB isn’t shit for today’s games. I’m pretty sure COD MW took up 230GB of space for me.

  • My 15" Macbook Pro from 2012 had a good run but she's completely on the fritz along with my girlfriends Macbook something or other so I was thinking we might go half on a new laptop. She needs it for general computer stuff like web browsing and PDF's, while I figure I can use it to hook PC games up to my living room TV.

    Does anybody have any laptop recommendations that are capable of playing games? I'm not looking for cutting edge here, but I'm very far removed from the laptop world. From my experience, laptops get slow and shitty very fast (especially Mac's) so I'd prefer to get a brand that isn't full of bloat and won't have a seizure every Windows update. I know my old work computers were Dell and those were full of bullshit programs that I don't need.

    Does anyone have any brand suggestions?


    FYI, I have a desktop PC which is great but the only reason I still use my Mac is because I need to use Final Cut Pro 7 (from 2009) for work due to this archaic script we run which was coded by somebody who left our company over a decade ago and we've been too lazy to move on. Now all of the editing Mac's at work physically cannot run FCP7 and my laptop is the only one capable of it so long as I don't update the OS.

    Basically, if this Macbook kicks the bucket, our entire pipeline is completely fucked unless we code something new that works with Premiere Pro ASAP. Our I.T. is already on it, but this laptop holds a dangerous amount of weight that we absolutely should not lean on. I've been telling my boss for years but he prefers to see the fire first and put it out later.