[Todd Gruel]

Thanks, Brad. It’s helpful to engage in an extended dialogue with someone. ☺

Interesting choices with your camera research. It seems like the Nikon Z6 is an equivalent of the Sony A7III? The Sigma: Wow, the lack of ergonomics makes me feel better about Sony now — interesting option, though. ?

If color science is mostly an issue shooting in video then I don’t mind too much as that will be a smaller part of my output. I did research Brandon Li and discovered profile color modes (like EOSHD’s). Are those essentially internal LUTs that get applied at the time of capturing photos? Are they permanent in their effect? Can they be changed or removed after capture? It might be nice to have some control over those features. Either way, it seems like this tech helps modify the “look” of the captures rather than adjust dynamic range and highlights and lowlights and such? In either words, is the effect more “aesthetic” than “essential” in its functionality?

Hmm, I’m curious to hear why you prefer manual lenses? Don’t you lose out on autofocusing by doing so? That’s one main feature of Sony cameras, right? (For twenty years, I shot on a very old Minolta SLR using shutter or aperture priority modes, so my needs aren’t particular; but it’s good to have options. And I like an easy-to-use workflow.) What are the advantages and disadvantages of shooting with manual lenses?

My only concern with getting “cheaper” lenses is that doing so might not capture the full potential of the A7RIII’s high resolution capabilities. I do like a sharp image and vivid color tones. I also enjoy a nice bokeh and some lens flair.

I’m curious, I would like to try to budget $5,500 for a A7RIII body (if I go the mirrorless route) along with three or four lenses. Is this doable going with quality non-prime lenses? I would like one telephoto lens for capturing distant clouds (at least 400mm); one macro lens (in mid-zone territory); one “general” purpose mid-zone lens (between 45-90mm, possibly zoom, if quality permits); and one wide-angle lens (possibly zoom, if quality permits). If I go with my current research, GM makes a great telephoto and Zeiss (?) makes a fantastic macro. The latter I can budget; not so much the former, unless its capabilities are unrivalled. Is there anything you might be able to recommend?

Like you do, I will eventually get a second camera dedicated to video; likely an A7III when the prices drops. But that’s not my main priority now. 🙂

[Todd Gruel]

Thanks for your thoughts!

I would estimate that stills will be my focus 3/4 of the time. But quality video would be nice. I don’t necessarily need 4K, but it doesn’t hurt. As far as the color science goes, is that much different for video than for stills? I thought Sony colors tend to be more neutral? I suppose I would get used to the ergonomics and electronic viewfinder that are normal for mirrorless. The dashboard layout might take more time if it’s not intuitive; I’ve heard about that, but my experience is only using film cameras and so it’s all new to me.

Lastly, Sony lenses seem to be much more expensive than its competitors’ lenses. Are they worth it? I should mention that I’m leaning towards the A7RIII because the quality of its stills is beautiful to my eye but also because the resolution allows me the option of large wall prints (for potential display of my work) and for cropping (I plan on taking subtle cloudscape photos and may need to zoom past what a telephoto may allow).

DSLRs are definitely heavy, but their bulk feels comfortable in my hands; you see exactly what you get with each photo; and it’s color science allows for high accuracy and dynamic range. I think the Nikon D850 would be my main competition for the A7RIII.

Thanks for your thoughts. Additionally I’m curious to hear what you all use and why.

[Todd Gruel]

Thanks for informing me about the software! It looks perfect!

Even if the temperature isn’t too high, it would be nice to reduce it some since my computer becomes hot to the touch.

Question: I checked out the link and saw a Download button next to a Pay button. What’s the difference between the two? Is the former a free trial whereas the latter is the full installation? The site is not clear about that…

[Todd Gruel]

Thanks, John. I think I’m understanding this process now. I’ll give Parallels a try first and followup with any further questions as they arise. 🙂

[Todd Gruel]

Is the main difference that a bootable clone can more easily be updated as changes occur (changing only the files that have changed since the last backup) whereas a disk image must be recopied as a whole every time a backup is made?

Is there any difference in file integrity and safety and security of the data between these two methods?

[Todd Gruel]

Thanks, that clears up a lot of my confusion. ☺

So if I use my internal drive for storage, will I be able to see the same files and folders from both sides (both the virtual and native Mac sides) equally? Is the sharing then reciprocal? Or will I only have access to see the files and folders associated with (or shared with?) the virtualisation program while in the virtualisation program?

I agree. Parallels sounds like a good entry point for all of this. I’ll give it a try soon.

[Todd Gruel]

Thanks for your help.

I understand that it’s advisable to use bootable clones. I’ll continue considering it.

But when it comes to disk images, can they ultimately accomplish the same thing but in a different way? For disk images, is the backup still comprehensive — are all system files and user data included? Or just essential system files?

If I understand correctly, if there was an issue with my computer, I would need to take the time to “clone” the disk image back to my computer in order to resolve the issue versus working directly from the bootable clone on an external drive, right? If that’s the main difference, speed and convenience, then I’m not too concerned as I don’t mind a little “down time.” If there’s a significant different in stability or safety of my data then that’s a different issue.

For clarification, when you say “backup your boot drive,” does this refer to a specific way of backing up or cloning a computer? In this case are just essential system files backed up? If so, this may be what I have in mind as I’ll be running other general data backups alongside this process.

Thanks!

[Todd Gruel]

Thanks for clarifying. That makes sense.

So then the question remains: Is APFS worth it for the convenience of bootable clones alone? I could still dedicate part of an external drive to the clone, partitioning it in APFS.

I’m still not convinced that bootable clones are necessary. I’ll also be backing my data up using BackBlaze. That’s a lot of redundancies.

I like the idea of organising my internal drive in such a way to minimise large clone backups. I’ll look into that. ☺

How does the disk image of a drive differ from having a bootable clone of a drive? Do both not copy the same files in the same way? Is it not redundant? Can you not have one without the other?

[Todd Gruel]

Thanks so much for the thorough response, Patrick.

I’m using the latest version of CCC (although it’s a trial version). And I’m currently using Catalina, so my internal hard drive is APFS formatted.

Because of that, others have advised me that it’s “easier” to keep using APFS for my external drives, too. I’ve confused though because I’ve heard such mixed messages from various people. (Obviously Apple will be biased and prefer the newer technology of APFS.) My understanding is that bootable clones are only possible on APFS drives — or at least using CCC, as that is what I was told directly by CCC support staff. Is that not the case?

To that point, I’m still not convinced that I need or want a bootable clone. Is it necessary? I’m not too concerned about “down time.”

Here’s my setup: I’m using a 4TB internal drive for my MacBook. I have two external platter drives for extra storage; one of them is dedicated for all things backup. I intend to do most of my working off my internal MacBook drive. But I may link some projects to media stored on one of my external platter drives — depending upon the workflow I establish (like music streaming — if I can figure out how to sync iTunes to my music library on an external drive — and possibly some video files). Mostly, though, the external drives will be used for either backup or for simple media use.

My concern with bootable clones is that it’s all-or-nothing in the sense that you can’t pick and choose what you back up. If that’s the case, by the time I finish saving everything I want to save to my MacBook’s internal drive, I’ll have about 3.5TB. That’s a big clone! There goes a 1/3 of my external drive for backups!

Solutions? If it’s highly advisable to use bootable clones (saving occasionally, before major updates) then I could get a third cheap platter drive dedicated to this purpose? But what exactly is a disk image? How does that compare to a bootable clone?

As far as sharing drives goes for Windows and Mac, I’m still figuring that out. ☺ I want to keep this all as simple as possible. I’ll probably use a virtualisation software, so, if I understand correctly, I don’t need to worry about partitioning my drive between OS formats, right? If so, all media will share the same space (without need for partitioning in HFS+ or separate voluming in APFS). (If not, I’ll need to use partitions or opt for APFS volumes.) And the media will likely be saved to both my MacBook’s internal drive and to my primary external hard drive that will be used for extra media storage.

Thanks for your thoughts as I’m working through this new workflow. I don’t want to change things around after I settle on a good system. Like you, I have some concerns about APFS, although it does seem more convenient…

[Todd Gruel]

Another question…

Upon looking at Virtual Box again, it appears that I have to create a separate destination folder for each Windows OS? Does that mean that the folders can’t share content? Can I not then use another virtualisation software later to access those folders?