zoetmb

wood1208 said:

urahara said:

tyler82 said:

Am I the only one that likes the butterfly keyboard? I liked it from the first moment I typed on it. I've never been a keyboard snob though. I like the chiclet keys in the apple wireless keyboard, and the super heavy clicky keys of mechanical keyboards. I loved the old ADB Extended Keyboard/ Keyboard II. Guess there's never really a keyboard I've never liked on a Mac.

I love my MacBook Pro 2018 butterfly keyboard. Especially the smaller travel distance!

Millions of users bought 2016-2019 MAC laptop models; they have no issue with keyboard and many like it. Recently bought 15" and didn't see issue. The problem is minority(probably heavy users of keyboard) who complain lot and loud is heard the most. I tried 16" magic keyboard and has bit better typing experience than butterfly.because most of us grew up want feeling key travel. and 16" provides best of both(scissor,butterfly)

My daughter and son-in-law bought MBP's in the last year and the keyboards are already problematic and have to go back to Apple for replacement.  Keys either don't work or repeat.   I have a late-2016 MBP and while the keyboard itself has worked fine, the center of the key has worn away on the A, S, L and N keys revealing the light below.    (And my machine also needs a new battery, for which one Apple store has quoted $450, which is making me really angry).  

I don't get it.  You can already have other payment services in your iPhone wallet (at least in the U.S. you can).  Several of my credit cards are there as is my ATM card.   The only time I use a physical card are in the places where they don't have touchless payments set up yet.  Home Depot, for example, doesn't take Apple Pay (or any other such service).

By the way, my Apple Credit Card seems to have been hacked.  One fraudulent charge showed up on my bill from a local retailer who I've never once visited or bought anything from.   I don't quite get how this could have happened.   They took the charge off pending investigation.   

Lenses don't really have resolution in the common sense of the term, sensors do.   Lenses have resolution only in the sense of their ability to resolve a line.  And increased resolution in a very small sensor can cause inferior quality, because the photosites are smaller and when they heat up, they create noise, especially in low-light conditions (high ISOs).  

If you look at DSLR's, which have full frame sensors 20 times the size of a phone sensor, the highest-end cameras have lower resolution than the less expensive cameras right below them for this very reason.   They do that because it results in higher overall picture quality, especially in low light.   For example, in the case of Nikon, the highest end D5 has a 20.8MP sensor and the upcoming D6 is expected to have a 24MP sensor.   The D5 body was originally $6500 and is now selling for $5500.    The lower-priced D850 (originally $3300, now $2800) has a 45.7 MP sensor.   It's similar for Canon.   Sony's highest end mirrorless camera, the A9ii, has a 24.2MP sensor.   The lower-priced a7Riv has a 61MP sensor.   

Anecdotal, but I was in the Lincoln Square, NYC store last night and iPhone 11's and 11 Pro's were flying out the door, but I didn't see anyone buy the Pro Max.   I was there for about 20 minutes and I'd say just at the table where I was "playing", about 15-20 phones got sold, but that wasn't the only place in the store where people were buying phones.    The phones do look very nice.   I shot a little video and that looked amazingly good.   I almost caved and bought one, although I really want to wait another year. 

sammysamsam said:

neilm said:

sammysamsam said:

I have an 11 Pro and my photos don't look anywhere near as good as Austin Mann's photos.  Are we sure Apple didn't give him a 'special' phone.

No, they gave the iPhone a better photographer. 

That was my second assumption.  A $1000 pro phone that can't give me wonderfully beautiful photos unless I'm on of the world's best photographers doesn't sound worth it.

Can someone tell me why Joe Sam of the public would want this camera if they don't have the required photography training and knowledge?

Oh, please.  Do you really think that only the "world's best photographers" can get good photos from the phone?  The amount of knowledge needed to get a photo of sufficient technical quality on an iPhone is probably 1% or less of that needed to do so on any modern DSLR or Mirrorless camera.  Properly used, the DSLR or Mirrorless will result in better quality (because the brilliant software in a phone can't make up for the tiny sensor), but for most people's purposes, which is sending photos or posting them on social media sites, the iPhone is more than enough quality and it gets substantially better with every new phone.  (And the removable lens camera business is quickly becoming a specialist, niche business.  Only about 9.1 million will be sold this calendar year worldwide from the Japanese companies.   Apple sells that many phones in 19 days and Apple only has 10-15% of worldwide unit sales.)  

And the main aspect of quality photography is not the equipment anyway -- it's the eye of the photographer.  

That $1000 phone does a hell of a lot more than take photos.   But if it doesn't provide value to you, that's fine.  I'm still using an iPhone 6.   But the difference between us is that I don't take my anecdotal experience and apply it to the entire market (and I still use a DSLR, so the camera on the phone is less important to me).   $1000 is indeed a lot of money for a phone, but my bet is that Apple's new phones will do quite well and that "Joe Sam" will want these phones, especially if they didn't upgrade in the last year or two.  Keep a $1000 phone two years and that's $9.62 a week.  Keep it three years and we're talking $6.41 a week.   That's less than coffee money.