01 Sep
Blog

Lenovo IdeaPad Slim 7 Review: The AMD Ryzen 4000 Flagship

Lenovo Ideapad Slim 7 review 01

"The Lenovo IdeaPad Slim 7 is a genre-bending laptop that does anything hard to beat for its price."

  • Incredible performance

  • Tiny footprint

  • Record battery life

  • Can handle light games

  • The screen is a little dark

  • Small palm rests

Disorder. It's not a word I idly use, but what AMD's Ryzen 4000 processors have been doing over the past eight months fits the definition. These chips offer the performance you previously paid dearly for, both in size and price.

So far, however, few laptops have been designed from the ground up to use these chips.

The Lenovo IdeaPad Slim 7 should always be an example of how disruptive Ryzen 4000 can be. After many months of delay, the time has finally come to attempt a seemingly insurmountable task – being a laptop that can be ultra-slim, extremely powerful, and extremely affordable at the same time.

Have AMD and Lenovo just done the impossible?

design

The IdeaPad Slim 7 revolution is not broadcast high. It's not ugly, but it's also not attention grabbing. It's not far from Lenovo's current crop of conservative, dark gray laptops with rounded edges and an all-metal chassis. The design alone makes it difficult for you to pick this out of the wide range of similar looking laptops from Lenovo. It's reportedly offered in a possibly more eye-catching "Orchid" color option, but I haven't set my eyes on it yet.

In a sense, that's a shame. The Lenovo IdeaPad Slim 7 surpasses our traditional laptop categories in many ways. This is a tiny laptop. It's only 0.58 inches thick, thinner, and slimmer than the MacBook Air. It weighs only 3.1 pounds and fits the 13-inch MacBook Pro – and yet has an 8-core processor like the gigantic MacBook Pro 16 -Inch. That is the unique offering of this fascinating laptop.

The 13-inch MacBook Pro is possibly the best size comparison. The IdeaPad Slim 7 is a little smaller in almost every dimension, if not by much, and even has the larger 14-inch screen. More importantly, these two laptops share a 25-watt processor. That's 10 watts more power than your standard 13-inch laptop, which contributes to the unique performance of these laptops.

You'll find a healthy selection of ports on the sides of the laptop. On the left side, the IdeaPad Slim 7 has two USB-C ports, HDMI and a 3.5 mm headphone jack. On the right side, the IdeaPad Slim 7 offers two USB-A 3.2 Gen 1 ports, the power switch and a micro SD card slot.

Since this is an AMD laptop, you won't get Thunderbolt 3, a proprietary Intel technology. However, USB-C is still a versatile port. Each USB-C port can be used for charging, connecting to a monitor, transferring files, and connecting peripherals. You can't power an external graphics card, but these ports are very powerful for this laptop.

My only real complaint is that you can't charge the laptop from the right as both USB-C ports are on the left. It defeats the point of USB-C's versatility.

performance

A 25-watt, 8-core processor in a small laptop is a fascinating requirement, but only if it can actually deliver significantly better performance. I started my tests with Geekbench 5 and Cinebench R20, two benchmarks that can give a comprehensive picture of the CPU's performance. The IdeaPad Slim 7 particularly impressed with its multi-core performance. Amazingly, Geekbench 5 Multi-Core was only 9% behind the much larger Dell XPS 15 with its 45-watt eight-core processor. In the meantime, it was 23% ahead of the 13-inch MacBook Pro (with a 10th generation Core i5) and 16% ahead of the Acer Swift 3 (with the Ryzen 7 4700U). No laptop in this size class has the cores and threads that fit the IdeaPad Slim 7.

For a more realistic test, I encoded a 4K video in Handbrake, with performance limited to the CPU. Here, too, the IdeaPad Slim 7 and its Ryzen processor with eight cores knocked out the competition. It even beat some 45 watt six-core laptops like the HP Envy 15 or the Asus ROG Strix G15.

(pullqutoe) For a laptop of this size, the IdeaPad Slim 7 belongs to its own performance category. (/ pullquote)

The only place the IdeaPad Slim 7 can't really compete with these larger laptops is in video editing. Normally I wouldn't try Premiere Pro on a laptop this small, but I had to try the IdeaPad Slim 7. It took an hour and 18 minutes to export a two minute 4K project to ProRes 422. The higher clock speeds and discrete graphics of larger laptops like the Dell XPS 15 or MacBook Pro 16-inch help them finish the same test in well under 10 minutes.

This does not mean that the IdeaPad Slim 7 cannot be used for content creation workflows at all. If you are working with lower resolutions, less demanding codecs, or lighter applications, the IdeaPad Slim 7 should work just fine. It's just not a real replacement for one of those larger laptops. If portability isn't important, even a cheap gaming laptop like the Dell G5 SE can handle video editing far better than the IdeaPad Slim 7 for roughly the same price. For a laptop of this size, however, the IdeaPad Slim 7 belongs to its own performance category.

Interestingly, Lenovo also sells an Intel version of the IdeaPad Slim 7. But here's what you get: It's $ 150 more expensive, has half the memory, and only has a quad-core CPU. The only thing the Intel model has on its side is the Nvidia MX350 discrete graphics card, but AMD's built-in Radeon graphics outperform it. There's no reason to buy it through the AMD model.

Apart from the Intel variant, Lenovo does not offer any configurations. That could change in the future, but for now, this model with 8GB of RAM and 512GB SSD is the only option. I really wish a 16GB model was offered to pair it better with the high-core processor.

Game performance

You can play games on this laptop! Yes it's true and it's kind of a miracle. The Ryzen 7 4800U comes with eight Radeon graphics cores. This is easily the best discrete graphic I've ever seen on a laptop. It holds great promise for the future of AMD's Radeon graphics.

In the 3DMark Time Spy benchmark, it is 29% faster than the Dell XPS 13 with its integrated Intel Iris Plus graphics. It even outperforms discrete entry-level graphics such as the Nvidia MX350 in the Asus ZenBook Duo. The result is decent low-end performance in modern games.

These are easily the best discrete graphics I've ever seen on a laptop.

Take Fortnite, for example. As long as you keep the graphics settings at medium or below, the games play pretty smoothly. You'll find it hard to get up to 60 frames per second (fps) without tweaking the 3D resolution slider a bit. For the first time, however, Fortnite can be played without any problems with built-in graphics.

A less GPU-dependent game like Civilization VI will perform even better. The IdeaPad Slim 7 struggled to keep up with the Ultra settings, but averaged 45 fps on Medium. That's still a long way from what 15-inch laptops with discrete graphics can do, but again, you can play Civilization VI without having to resort to low graphics settings. This is really impressive for a laptop with no games.

The only real competition the IdeaPad Slim 7 has in this form factor is the GTX 1650 version of the Razer Blade Stealth. While you can get better frame rates on this computer, it's also far more expensive.

Keyboard and touchpad

This keyboard is not my favorite. The trip feels very short and the buttons have a muddy bottom effect. I prefer the Dell XPS 13, MacBook Air, or HP Specter x360. It didn't take me long to get used to it, however, and I like the curved shape of the keycaps.

The keyboard backlight doesn't have its own key, but Fn + Space is a solid replacement. The backlight is very bright – to the point where I would like a lower brightness setting.

My main problem with the keyboard is its location. The keyboard is farther from the screen than most laptops to make room for the speakers and ports. The result is less space for the touchpad and palm rests underneath. If you have small hands you're fine, but those palm rests were too small for me so I had to dig the edges of the chassis into my palms. It's not a comfortable position to type in for a long time. Laptops like the Samsung Galaxy Book Flex also suffer from this problem.

The touchpad performs better and offers a smooth tracking surface and enough space for swipes and gestures with two fingers. The click feels solid, although it's a little louder than I'd like it to be.

Battery life

When comparing AMD with Intel, there was no clear winner in terms of battery life. Until now. I don't know if it's the big 60 watt battery or the efficient 7 nm processor, but the Lenovo IdeaPad Slim 7 is an absolute champion when it comes to battery life. This can disappear from the wall all day – and a few more.

In our lightest test of repeating a local video file until it died, the IdeaPad Slim 7 lasted over 18.5 hours. This is one of the best times I've seen on a laptop that isn't a Chromebook or ARM-based laptop.

The real record was set in our web browsing test. The IdeaPad Slim 7 lasted over 16 hours here, which was only surpassed by the Qualcomm-powered Lenovo Flex 5G. That's an insane lifespan for a load.

As my daily driver, I found that the IdeaPad Slim 7 could easily survive a whole working day despite my heavy multitasking, music streaming and countless open apps.

Display and speaker

If the IdeaPad Slim 7 has one notable flaw, it is the screen. It uses a 14-inch 1080p panel that does the job, but not with a lot of grace. The screen is a bit dark and only reaches 247 nits. This is both the 300 nit threshold that I like to see in laptops and the result of strong glare. When watching a movie with dark scenes, the first thing to do is to turn off any light in the room. The contrast is the only bright spot at 1,370: 1.

The display is also a slight shade of green, although it is adequate in terms of gamut and color accuracy. Unfortunately, a 4K 100% AdobeRGB model for professionals is not offered.

I was pleasantly surprised by the speakers. You're right on the keyboard deck, pointing at your ears – which does wonders for the clarity of the audio. These still don't replace a decent bluetooth speaker, but for the occasional music or video watching, they get the job done.

Our opinion

The Lenovo IdeaPad Slim 7 may not be the true flagship AMD wants. Its screen is lackluster and the design is far from remarkable. Thanks to its fantastic performance, long battery life and impressive integrated graphics, the IdeaPad Slim 7 surpasses the possibilities of small laptops.

Are there alternatives?

There are many Ryzen 4000 laptops out there that aren't as powerful as the IdeaPad Slim 7 but are available at a cheaper price. The most obvious option is the Lenovo IdeaPad Flex 5 14, which is not as powerful but is a lot cheaper. The HP Envy x360 13 is another good example of a cheaper AMD laptop with a little less performance.

If you're willing to pay a few hundred more dollars, the Dell XPS 13 is a better designed laptop. Performance and battery life can't quite keep up with the IdeaPad Slim 7, but the small form factor and better display make it worth the additional cost.

How long it will take?

The IdeaPad Slim 7 should last at least three or four years, which is normal for laptops. Due to the limited configuration options, you may want to upgrade the memory or memory yourself in the future, but everything is soldered up.

Lenovo offers a standard one-year warranty. You are on your own past.

Should you buy it?

Yes. It's the best laptop you can buy under $ 1,000.

Editor's recommendations




01 Sep
Blog

Is There a Magical Rep Range for Hypertrophy?

Most people are familiar with the relationship between rep ranges and the targeted effects they have on the body during strength training. The heaviest load that can be lifted at a given weight correlates with the maximum forceWhile anything you can do over 20 times or more clearly means muscle endurance.

However, somewhere between these two ends of the spectrum lies muscle hypertrophy. Some coaches and coaches claim that ten reps is the magic number, while others believe a range of 8-12 is more accurate. So what is it Will I grow a huge biceps if I do 4 sets of 8 or 3 sets of 12?

In all honesty, it doesn't matter, there is no magic window and the answer is more complicated than you think.

How do you gain muscle?

While you may be scratching your head and wondering why rep ranges aren't as important to building muscle as you previously thought, it's important to understand how muscle hypertrophy occurs in the first place.

There are three ways in which one can improve muscle protein synthesis via the mTOR pathway, which results in increased muscle cross-sectional area

  1. The first path is through increased muscle tension created by using a heavy load while performing an exercise over the entire range of motion. As a muscle spends more time under a certain weight, and then the load increases, the time under tension (TUT) increases. 2 By using slower paces, rest periods, and increased weight, the TUT can be increased dramatically for a given exercise.
  2. The second method of increasing muscle hypertrophy is through muscle damage, most of which is associated with severe pain or delayed muscle soreness (DOMS) that is felt several days after a hard workout
    This pain occurs due to small microcracks in the muscle fibers themselves, especially with eccentric and concentric muscle contractions. If enough time is given for recovery and proper nutrition, The muscle fibers repair themselves and allow one to handle a slightly more significant stimulus next time.
  3. The third method by which muscle hypertrophy occurs is through metabolic stress. This strain is often associated with the use of lighter weights for a higher range of reps, and is associated with the burning sensation felt when lifting.2
    As the muscles contract and relax continuously, blood buildup and muscle cell swelling occurs.1 This metabolic stress restricts blood flow and ultimately induces muscle hypoxia, which in turn enables metabolites such as lactate and hydrogen ions to build up. These metabolites induce an anabolic effect that leads to molecular cell signals for increased hormonal responses in the body.

Each of these three methods play against each other and should be used in a complementary manner in order to achieve the best possible training results.

What matters

Understanding what drives muscle hypertrophy from a physiological perspective easily explains why subscribing to any rep range is not optimal for exercise.

By manipulating the three aforementioned variables, the volume load you exercise with can be controlled. This is possibly one of the most important considerations when looking for muscle hypertrophy.

Volume load is a simple formula that you can calculate as:

Sets x repetitions x loading = volume loading

Increasing the volume exposure through a properly periodized program will ensure that the body is stimulated more and ultimately it adapts.

For example, take the aforementioned number of reps / sets of 4 x 8 or 3 x 12. If I were to lift 4 sets x 8 reps x 100 lbs, that would be 3,200 lbs versus 3 sets x 12 reps x 100 lbs 3,600 lbs .

My 3×12 would probably give more significant results if all things were the same like Tempo and TUT because it's a bigger stimulus.

Now imagine if I did 4 sets x 8 reps x 150 lbs = 4,800 lbs, versus 3 sets x 12 reps x 120 lbs = 4,320 lbs. In theory, my 4 x 8 would be better for muscle hypertrophy.

You can see that the rep range is just one factor in the equationThis means that increased volume load can be achieved in a number of ways without actually having a magical repetition area.

What is interesting, however, is that anywhere in the range of 8 to 12 reps still seems optimal for inducing muscle hypertrophy because it finds a balance between moderate weight and a reasonably high rep range

Trying to do 50 reps with 10 lbs will only result in a volume load of 500 lbs, while 5 reps with 100 lbs can get the same result in less time.

Conversely, it would take 10 sets of 1 repetition at 300 pounds to reach 3,000 pounds.

In contrast, 3 sets of 10 reps at 100 lbs would equate to the same volume load, although a much longer rest period between sets would be required for each set of 300 lbs.

However, keep in mind that this is related to muscle hypertrophy. Volume loading is required for muscle strength, but it doesn't play nearly the same role as it does for muscle building.

Plus, there's only so much volume that you can process before insufficient recovery. That's another article for another day.

All in all, I hope you have a better understanding of how muscle hypertrophy occurs and how to manipulate your workouts. You can't get stuck in a dogmatic routine after doing an arbitrary number of repetitions just because you always thought it was best.

Doing a little research and looking for deeper answers is essential if you really want to understand how training works. Thanks for reading, as always.

References

1. J. Jones E., Bishop P, K. Woods A., and Green J. "Cross-sectional area and muscle strength: a brief review." Sports Medicine (Auckland, NZ) 38: 987-8. 994, 2008.

2. Hornsby WG, Gentles JA, Haff GG, Stone MH, Buckner SL, Dankel SJ, Bell ZW, Abe T and Loenneke JP. "How does muscle hypertrophy affect strength and athletic performance?" Strength & Conditioning Journal 40: 99-111, 2018.

3. Loenneke J. P., S. Dankel, Z. Bell, S. Buckner, K. Mattocks, M. Jessee, and T. Abe. "Is Muscle Growth a Mechanism for Increasing Strength?" Medical Hypotheses 125, 2019.

31 Aug
Blog

Is There a Magical Rep Range for Hypertrophy?

Most people are familiar with the relationship between rep ranges and the targeted effects they have on the body during strength training. The heaviest load that can be lifted at a given weight correlates with the maximum forceWhile anything you can do over 20 times or more clearly means muscle endurance.

However, somewhere between these two ends of the spectrum lies muscle hypertrophy. Some coaches and coaches claim that ten reps is the magic number, while others believe a range of 8-12 is more accurate. So what is it Will I grow a huge biceps if I do 4 sets of 8 or 3 sets of 12?

In all honesty, it doesn't matter, there is no magic window and the answer is more complicated than you think.

How do you gain muscle?

While you may be scratching your head and wondering why rep ranges aren't as important to building muscle as you previously thought, it's important to understand how muscle hypertrophy occurs in the first place.

There are three ways in which one can improve muscle protein synthesis via the mTOR pathway, which results in increased muscle cross-sectional area

  1. The first path is through increased muscle tension created by using a heavy load while performing an exercise over the entire range of motion. As a muscle spends more time under a certain weight, and then the load increases, the time under tension (TUT) increases. 2 By using slower paces, rest periods, and increased weight, the TUT can be increased dramatically for a given exercise.
  2. The second method of increasing muscle hypertrophy is through muscle damage, most often associated with severe pain or delayed muscle soreness (DOMS) that is felt several days after a tough workout.2 This pain is due to small microcracks in the muscle itself, particularly on the fibers for eccentric and concentric muscle contractions. If enough time is given for recovery and proper nutrition, The muscle fibers repair themselves and allow one to handle a slightly more significant stimulus next time.
  3. The third method by which muscle hypertrophy occurs is through metabolic stress. This strain is often associated with the use of lighter weights for a higher range of reps, and is associated with the burning sensation felt when lifting.2 As the muscles contract and relax continuously, blood build-up and swelling of the muscle cells occur. 1 This metabolic stress restricts blood flow and ultimately induces muscle hypoxia, which in turn enables metabolites such as lactate and hydrogen ions to be built up. These metabolites induce an anabolic effect that leads to molecular cell signals for increased hormonal responses in the body.

Each of these three methods play against each other and should be used in a complementary manner in order to achieve the best possible training results.

What matters

Understanding what drives muscle hypertrophy from a physiological perspective easily explains why subscribing to any rep range is not optimal for exercise.

By manipulating the three aforementioned variables, the volume load you exercise with can be controlled. This is possibly one of the most important considerations when looking for muscle hypertrophy.

Volume load is a simple formula that you can calculate as:

Sets x repetitions x loading = volume loading

Increasing the volume exposure through a properly periodized program will ensure that the body is stimulated more and ultimately it adapts.

For example, take the aforementioned number of reps / sets of 4 x 8 or 3 x 12. If I were to lift 4 sets x 8 reps x 100 lbs, that would be 3,200 lbs versus 3 sets x 12 reps x 100 lbs 3,600 lbs .

My 3×12 would probably give more significant results if all things were the same like Tempo and TUT because it's a bigger stimulus.

Now imagine if I did 4 sets x 8 reps x 150 lbs = 4,800 lbs, versus 3 sets x 12 reps x 120 lbs = 4,320 lbs. In theory, my 4 x 8 would be better for muscle hypertrophy.

You can see that the rep range is just one factor in the equationThis means that increased volume load can be achieved in a number of ways without actually having a magical repetition area.

What is interesting, however, is that anywhere in the range of 8 to 12 reps still seems optimal for inducing muscle hypertrophy because it finds a balance between moderate weight and a reasonably high rep range

Trying to do 50 reps at 10 lbs will only result in a volume load of 500 lbs, while 5 reps at 100 lbs can get the same result in less time.

Conversely, it would take 10 sets of 1 repetition at 300 pounds to reach 3,000 pounds.

In contrast, 3 sets of 10 reps at 100 lbs would equate to the same volume load, although a much longer rest period between sets would be required for each set of 300 lbs.

However, keep in mind that this is related to muscle hypertrophy. Volume loading is required for muscle strength, but it doesn't play nearly the same role as it does for muscle building.

Plus, there's only so much volume that you can process before insufficient recovery. That's another article for another day.

All in all, I hope you have a better understanding of how muscle hypertrophy occurs and how to manipulate your workouts. You can't get stuck in a dogmatic routine after doing an arbitrary number of repetitions just because you always thought it was best.

Doing a little research and looking for deeper answers is essential if you really want to understand how training works. Thanks for reading, as always.

References

1. J. Jones E., Bishop P, K. Woods A., and Green J. "Cross-sectional area and muscle strength: a brief review." Sports Medicine (Auckland, NZ) 38: 987-8. 994, 2008.

2. Hornsby WG, Gentles JA, Haff GG, Stone MH, Buckner SL, Dankel SJ, Bell ZW, Abe T and Loenneke JP. "How does muscle hypertrophy affect strength and athletic performance?" Strength & Conditioning Journal 40: 99- 111, 2018.

3. Loenneke J. P., S. Dankel, Z. Bell, S. Buckner, K. Mattocks, M. Jessee, and T. Abe. "Is Muscle Growth a Mechanism for Increasing Strength?" Medical Hypotheses 125, 2019.

30 Aug
Blog

Lenovo ThinkPad X13 Yoga Review: Falling Behind Rivals

Lenovo Thinkpad X13 Yoga review 06

"Lenovo ThinkPad X13 Yoga"

"The ThinkPad X13 isn't small, fast or durable enough to keep up with its toughest competitors."

  • Solid build quality

  • Great keyboard and touchpad

  • Good corporate support

  • Short battery life

  • Not as small as many rivals

  • Expensive

The traditional ThinkPad uses a 14-inch screen. However, with the trend towards thinner bezels and smaller laptops, Lenovo has started to downsize the old ThinkPad design a bit.

That was exactly the goal of the ThinkPad X390 Yoga, and now Lenovo has introduced its replacement, the ThinkPad X13 Yoga. The basic form factor of this laptop is kept while the internals are updated.

I got a configuration for $ 1,275 (on sale from $ 2,126) with a Core i5-10310U vPro CPU, 16 GB of RAM, a 256 GB solid-state drive (SSD), and a Full HD IPS Display viewed. Is the X13 keeping up with the rapidly evolving competition, or has this design fallen behind?

design

The ThinkPad X13 looks identical to its predecessor, the ThinkPad X390 Yoga, but there is one big difference: The materials used in the case. The X390 uses a carbon fiber hybrid material for the lid and magnesium for the lower part. The ThinkPad X13, on the other hand, is made entirely of a mixture of carbon fiber, nylon fiber and glass fiber, which is said to be both light and durable.

However, this change of material has a disadvantage in terms of processing quality. I found the lid to flex a little too much. There is a certain amount of keyboard flex and even the bottom of the case is under pressure. It's not the toughest ThinkPad I've ever used. It has always been a hallmark of the brand.

If you're a fan of the ThinkPad look, you're a lucky camper.

Lenovo says it put the X13 through its usual extreme ritual of military certifications and torture tests, and assures us that it is "one of the toughest in its class." With 13-inch laptops, both the HP Specter x360 13 and Dell XPS 13 feel more solid. When considering other business-class laptops like the Dell Lattitude 7400 2-in-1, I'm not sure the X13 lives up to Lenovo's expectations. However, the keyboard is splash-proof, which is a plus and isn't very common.

Otherwise, X390 and X13 are roughly identical. They are the same size, 0.63 inches thick and 2.76 pounds in weight. That's better than the Specter x360 13, which is 0.67 inches thick and weighs 2.88 pounds, but it's slightly thicker and heavier than the 0.58-inch XPS 13, which weighs 2.65 pounds. In terms of width and depth, however, the X13 is quite large compared to some of the other current 13-inch clamshells and 2-in-1 models.

Take another look at the Specter x360 13 and the XPS 13 – both are tiny compared to the X13 as the bezels are much smaller and are almost an inch smaller in each dimension. The X13 is the smallest ThinkPad, but it has relatively large bezels at the top and bottom, which give it a little more size than the new normal.

Aesthetically, the X13 is a ThinkPad through and through. It is completely black, has the usual ThinkPad logo in the corner of the lid with the red LED battery indicator above the “i”, the obligatory red TrackPoint nubbin in the middle of the keyboard and red accents on the TrackPoint keys. That's it for Bling, and it remains a good look that is both attractive on its own and holds almost the entire ThinkPad line together. If you're a fan of the look, you're a lucky camper.

Connectivity is excellent for such a thin and light laptop. You get two USB-C 3.1 ports (one with Thunderbolt 3 support), two USB-A 3.1 ports, a full-size HDMI 1.4 port, an Ethernet expansion port (which of course requires a dongle), and a microSD Card reader. Wireless connectivity is cutting edge with Wi-Fi 6 and Bluetooth 5.0.

performance

In reference to its business customers, Lenovo equips the ThinkPad X13 with Intel vPro processors, which enable connection to company systems to improve security, manageability and stability. My test device was equipped with the 10th generation quad-core Core i5-10310U vPro, which turned out to be a competent but unspectacular performer.

In Geekbench 5, for example, the X13 achieved 1,041 points in the single-core test and 2,781 points in the multi-core test. This is a bit behind other laptops with Core i5 CPUs, such as the Acer Aspire 5 with its Core i5-1035G1 (1,129 and 2,899) and the Dell Inspiron 14 5000 with the same processor (1,169 and 3,197). When I searched our rating database, I didn't find a single 10th generation Core i5 that the X13 beat in this benchmark.

In our handbrake test, which converts a 420MB video to H.265, the X13 took almost five and a half minutes to complete. The Aspire 5 was 15 seconds faster and the X13 40 seconds slower than the Inspiron 14 5000. The Acer Spin 3 with the same Core i5 was over a minute faster. Once again, the X13 was at the bottom of the pile of similarly equipped laptops.

That doesn't mean the X13 is a slow laptop. It's not – it's more than fast enough for productivity tasks and media consumption. It's not as fast as the non-vPro competition, however, which means you'll pay more for extended enterprise support than you would for extra performance.

The X13 also has the basic Intel UHD graphics, which means it is not a slot machine. You'll want to stick to older titles with lower resolutions and graphical detail if you want to gamble at all or play the occasional Windows 10 games.

display

My test device was equipped with a 300 nit Full HD IPS display (1,920 x. 080). According to my colorimeter, it's almost the average for premium displays today. As I mentioned earlier, this is a good thing as today's average display is exceptional for productivity work and multimedia consumption. Only creatives who need extremely wide and precise colors will be disappointed with most premium displays.

The brightness was a bit low at 274 nits (we want to see premium displays with 300 nits or more) and the contrast was 860: 1 (1,000: 1 or more marks a higher quality display). There aren't any terrible results either, but they're a little below average. You have a little trouble in bright environments and black text on a white background doesn't show up as often, which is important to me as a writer.

Note that we did not test the Full HD displays on the HP Specter x360 13. Instead, we tested the HP with an AMOLED display, which was very bright and with incredible contrast. However, our Dell test unit was Full HD, albeit in a 16:10 aspect ratio, and it was also very bright and had much higher contrast.

The colors of the X13 display were average at 96% sRGB and 72% AdobeRGB. Again, both HP and Dell exceeded those numbers, with the Specter x360 13 reaching 100% and 98% and the Dell 97% and 77%. Most premium laptops fall in the same range as the X13, however. The X13's color accuracy was 1.45, close to 1.0, which is considered excellent. This is better than the Dell 1.53, but not as good as the HP 1.29. You'll find plenty of premium laptops that are over 2.0, which makes the X13 a reasonably accurate display.

I didn't have any issues using the laptop screen during my review. This usually involves writing most of the copy on the verification device. I also watched Netflix and found the experience pleasant enough. This is a good display, but not a great one, although Lenovo does offer some other, brighter displays as upgrades that may offer better overall performance. The high-end display offers the privacy guard function from Lenovo, with which the display can be made illegible from the sides.

The display features Lenovo's ThinkShutter that moves to physically block the webcam. However, this is no longer a unique feature. For example, the Specter x360 13 has an electronic version that removes the webcam from the system.

The sound was surprisingly good, with enough volume and no distortion at full force. There's little bass, which is normal on all Apple MacBooks, but the mids and highs were crisp and bright. The two downward-facing, Dolby-tuned speakers are good enough for watching Netflix alone. However, for the best audio quality, you will need good headphones or a solid bluetooth speaker.

Keyboard and touchpad

The ThinkPad keyboard is another icon of the line and has long been one of the best on the market. The X13 has the standard version and offers the usual large buttons, generous spacing and a consistent and controlled mechanism that is very precise. It does have a bit of strength, however, and requires a little more pressure to activate a keystroke than some other keyboards.

I like a lighter feel, so I prefer the latest MacBook Magic Keyboard, as well as HP's Specter keyboard (and recently Envy) on the Windows 10 side. However, if you like a bit of pressure, or are just a fan of the ThinkPad keyboard in general, you will love the X13.

The touchpad is a bit smaller than it could be due to the buttons on top that operate the TrackPoint nubbin. Microsoft's Precision touchpad drivers are available, making the touchpad responsive and providing excellent support for Windows 10 multi-touch gestures. The TrackPoint is there for those who prefer it too, and it works as smoothly as ever.

The display is touch sensitive and precise. No complaints there. And it supports the Lenovo ThinkPad Pen Pro with 2,048 levels of pressure sensitivity (other laptops like Microsoft's Surface line and the Specter x360 support 4,096 levels). The Pen Pro slides into a port on the side of the X13, which not only provides convenient storage, but also doubles as a charger. The main disadvantage of the Pen Pro is its size – it's smaller than a "real" pen and doesn't feel as natural when you write and draw. Without the spring mechanism, the pin cannot be removed from the slot even on a flat surface.

Windows 10 Hello login support without a password is provided on my test device by a fast and responsive fingerprint reader that offers the additional security of storing all fingerprint information on a chip. The other display options add an infrared camera for facial recognition.

Battery life

The X13 has 50 watt hours of battery life, which is not as much as some others (the Specter x360 13, for example, has 60 watt hours) but isn't terrible for a 13-inch laptop with a Full HD display. I would expect decent, if not very good, battery life.

I didn't get that. In fact, the battery life was downright disappointing.

Starting with our most demanding Basemark web benchmark test, which put a strain on the CPU and GPU, the X13 lasted a little over three hours. That is way below average, but not a terrible score. The Dell XPS 13 lasted almost five hours, while the Specter x360 13 with its power-hungry AMOLED display lasted almost four hours.

The battery life was downright disappointing.

In our web browser test, which best mimics the longevity of productivity, the X13 failed in just under six hours. That's a bad score. The XPS 13 ran for almost 12 hours, while the Specter x360 13 was almost the same as the X13 despite its display. In our video test, in which a local Full HD Avengers trailer is looped, the X13 didn't quite make it to eight hours. The XPS 13 lasted 14.5 hours and the Specter x360 lasted about 10 hours.

In short, the X13's battery life is hard to figure out. It should take longer, but it doesn't. You might spend an entire day doing very light productivity tasks, but you will likely need to carry your charger with you.

Our opinion

The ThinkPad X13 is the smallest ThinkPad you can buy, and that's all it has to offer. If you're looking for a ThinkPad that won't weigh you down or take up a lot of space in your backpack, this is the best option. But its performance, build quality, battery life, and display lag behind the competition. It's also relatively expensive at $ 1,275, and starts at a retail price of $ 2,126.

Is there a better alternative?

The HP Specter x360 13 is a great choice if you are sold with a 2-in-1 device. It looks better, is just as solidly built, if not more, and offers a spectacular display option. When you choose a low-power display, you get incredible battery life that dwarfs the X13. It's also $ 1,200 with a Core i7 CPU and 512GB SSD, which also makes it a cheaper choice.

If you're not sold with a 2-in-1, the Dell XPS 13 is a great alternative. It looks better too, is solidly built, has better performance, and has much better battery life. With the same configuration as the X13, you save about $ 175.

When you need the added security and manageability features of vPro, the HP Elite Dragonfly is a more modern and feature-rich commercial laptop.

How long it will take?

The ThinkPad X13 is designed to last as long as you possibly need the laptop. The components – especially Thunderbolt 3 and Wi-Fi 6 – are up to date and will keep you connected for years. The one-year warranty is disappointing, especially for a business-class machine.

Should you buy it?

No. The ThinkPad X13 doesn't have much going for it unless you're a die-hard ThinkPad fanatic.

Editor's recommendations




30 Aug
Blog

Beats Studio 3 Wireless Review: Who Let The Bass Drop?

Beats Studio 3 Wireless

"A great design suffers from mediocre ANC and a lack of low-end oomph."

  • Excellent design and controls

  • Very convenient

  • Excellent battery life without ANC

  • Easy pairing with Apple products

  • Expensive

  • Overwhelming bass

  • Bad quality wireless calls

When the $ 350 Beats Studio 3 Wireless debuted in 2017, we didn't get a chance to review. If we had done that, we might have come to the same conclusion as other reviewers: These are really decent Active Noise Canceling (ANC) headphones.

In the personal audio world – especially in the world of wireless headphones – three years is an eternity. During that time, Sony, Bose, and pretty much every other major brand have launched new top-of-the-line wireless ANC headphones – two new top-of-the-line models in Sony's case – while Beats was content to keep everything running on the Beats Studio to let 3 wireless.

Given the activity of the competition, can Beats justify the Studio 3's high price tag? Or were these beats struck?

Let's take a look.

What's in the box?

Beats Studio 3 Wireless "class =" m-Karussell - Bild dt-lazy-no "src =" https://icdn2.digitaltrends.com/image/digitaltrends/beats-studio-3-wireless-1-640x640.jpg " srcset = "https://www.digitaltrends.com/://www.digitaltrends.com/R0lGODlhAQABAIAAAAAAAP///yH5BAEAAAAALAAAAAABAAEAAAIBRAA7Simon Cohen / Digital Trends

Beats Studio 3 Wireless "class =" m-Karussell - Bild dt-lazy-no "src =" https://icdn3.digitaltrends.com/image/digitaltrends/beats-studio-3-wireless-2-640x640.jpg " srcset = "https://www.digitaltrends.com/://www.digitaltrends.com/R0lGODlhAQABAIAAAAAAAP///yH5BAEAAAAALAAAAAABAAEAAAIBRAA7Simon Cohen / Digital Trends

The Beats Studio 3 Wireless are large headphones and come in a large box. Fortunately, it's 100% cardboard and you won't find any hard-to-recycle materials like foam or plastic inside.

In addition to the Studio 3 headphones, you get a zippered hard case, a micro USB charging cable, and a 3.5mm analog audio cable with an in-line set of remote control buttons and a microphone.

Beats also throws in a small snap hook in case you want to attach the tote to a backpack or purse.

design

I'll be honest: I've never been a huge fan of the earliest designs from Beats, with their shiny white, red, or black headbands. It always seemed to me that they should draw attention to those who wore them – not something I'm looking for.

However, the Studio 3 comes in a variety of colors, including the blue of my review unit – a shade that is only slightly lighter than the navy and has a satin finish. It's tasteful and muted, with little chrome accents on the hinges and earcups to remind you that these aren't $ 80 headphones.

The best thing about the Studio 3 Wireless, however, is the fully integrated headband and earcups. This design is unique to Beats and gives these headphones a sleek and minimalist look. It also creates a very slim profile, reducing the “Princess Leia effect” to a minimum.

This theme of visual simplicity continues into the controls, which are virtually invisible. In the left auricle there is play / pause, call acceptance / end, forward / backward jump and access to the voice assistant via the central "b" logo, while the volume is controlled via the plastic ring that circles the logo.

The only other control is the tiny power switch on the right auricle, which doubles as a power supply, bluetooth pairing and ANC on / off. Directly below this button is a five-LED light strip that serves as a quick reference for the remaining battery life.

Like many full-size headphones, the Studio 3 folds up for storage, but the ear cups don't rotate to lie flat. This makes them a bit bulky and explains why the snap hook is included – the hard travel case is bulbous and easy to slip into a backpack only if you have plenty of extra space. Despite the fact that the ear cups don't lie flat, the Studio 3 is more comfortable when worn around the neck than many over-ear models I've tried – here, too, their minimalist design helps.

The Studio 3 manages the balancing act with a fit that is both very secure and very comfortable.

My only minor criticism of the design of these cans is the padded underside of the headband. It's covered with a grippy silicone rubber surface that prevents the Studio 3 from moving. However, this material is a dust and dirt magnet that needs to be wiped off regularly with a damp cloth to keep it clean.

Convenience, control and connections

Beats Studio 3 WirelessSimon Cohen / Digital Trends

The Studio 3 Wireless aren't the lightest full-size headphones you can buy – that honor goes to the Sony's WH-1000XM4 – but they are certainly among the most comfortable.

The trick for headphone comfort is to manage the delicate balancing act between headband padding, clamping force, ear pads (size, shape and padding) and the materials used.

The Studio 3 manages this balancing act with a fit that is both very secure and very comfortable. You may have seen people exercise or even jog with these doses, and while that's not a choice I would make, the Studio 3 makes it possible – something I say about the majority of full size headphones that I have , can't say I checked.

You may notice some strange dents in the ear pads in the attached photos – ignore them. The headphones had been in her pocket for a long time before I removed them, and about an hour after I took these photos, they had bounced back.

The controls are also very well executed. I'm a fan of physical buttons. In my experience, they just work. Touch controls – even the best – can't respond quickly. Not only are the Studio 3's buttons large and easy to find and use (amazing as they are seamlessly embedded in the auricle pivot), they are also precise. There is no guesswork – press, click, done.

Yes, there's a pretty audible click when you're using them, but I make a quick click when I don't have to repeatedly tap a touch control.

Just two things are missing: a wear sensor that automatically pauses your music when you remove the headphones would be awesome (Apple's AirPods, AirPods Pro, and the WH-1000XM4 already have this), as well as a pass-through mode that allows you to They feed in outside noise for a while.

The Studio 3's wireless range is excellent – much better than most wireless headphones.

As with all Apple-made headphones that use the W1 or H1 wireless chips, Bluetooth is a delight on the Beats Studio 3 Wireless. To pair them, just turn them on a few inches away from an unlocked iOS device with iOS 10 or later and you will be instantly notified that your Studio 3 is ready to use. Just tap once and you're done.

There's no Bluetooth multipoint (which lets you connect to two devices at the same time), but Apple does this almost as well, allowing you to switch between Macs, iPhones, and iPads with just one click.

The Studio 3 is also compatible with Apple's audio sharing feature, which allows two W1 or H1 equipped headphones or earphones to listen to content from an iOS device at the same time. This function will be available for more devices with Bluetooth Audio LE. However, it is currently exclusive to Apple.

Unfortunately, audio sharing, simple pairing, and device switching are not supported on Android devices.

As a Class 1 Bluetooth device, the Studio 3 has excellent wireless range – more than 300 feet outdoors – much better than most wireless headphones. I was able to leave my iPhone in the house and still had a reliable signal when I stood two doors down from a house across the street.

Battery life

The battery life on the Studio 3 Wireless is either mediocre or excellent, depending on how you plan to use it.

With ANC enabled, you get 22 hours of playtime, which is just a bit better than the $ 400 Bose noise canceling headphones 700 after 20 hours, but not as impressive as Sony's $ 350 WH-1000XM4 after 30 hours.

However, if you don't use the ANC feature (which seems to gobble up the battery life), you get an excellent 40 hours, two hours more than the Sony's.

The quick charge function is average and with 10 minutes plug time you get 3 additional hours of playtime.

Speaking of plugs: The Studio 3 uses the Micro-USB format, not the newer and more common USB-C connection. This is hardly a deal breaker, but for most people it means another cord to remember when you hit the streets.

Noise cancellation

Beats Studio 3 WirelessSimon Cohen / Digital Trends

The Studio 3 Wireless has what Beats calls "real" ANC. The company claims to "continuously locate, isolate, and suppress outside noise in real time in order to reproduce the sound as it was intended". That sounds great, but in reality I'd say the ANC is average and certainly not as good as what you'll find with the Bose Noise Canceling Headphones 700 or the Sony WH-1000XM4.

When no music is playing, the ANC produces a noticeable hiss, preventing a convenient way to simply find some peace and quiet.

Background noise is definitely reduced when the ANC is on, and Beats is right on one point: there is no noticeable change in audio quality between on and off modes.

However, when there is no music playing, the ANC creates a noticeable hiss that prevents these cans from being a pleasant way to simply find some peace of mind. Why exchange the sound of an airplane's engines for a soft hissing sound?

I also noticed that the ANC mode was struggling to compensate for windy conditions and sometimes accidentally amplified the wind tone instead of erasing it.

The good news: the Studio 3 Wireless does an excellent job of passive noise isolation, which makes ANC a nice but not critical feature.

The bad news? This passive noise isolation is so good that I want a passthrough mode even more – especially when making calls.

Sound quality

Beats Studio 3 WirelessSimon Cohen / Digital Trends

I'd always viewed Beats as a bass-forward company, which definitely goes for other products like the Powerbeats Pro.

So it was a complete surprise that the Studio 3 Wireless doesn't fit this shape at all.

This is the same complaint we had with the Solo3. Not only is the bass not the main part of their sound signature, I'd even say it was forced to return to the mid and high ranges.

On the one hand, there will definitely be a group of people who like the idea of ​​a less booming beats set – maybe fans of the famous “neutral” or flat EQ that audiophiles praise.

But I don't count myself among them. I like tons of frequencies so when I listen to a deep, sad track like Hans Zimmer's Time, I get that hair-raising low-end bass that feels right in your stomach. The Studio 3 just lacks that kind of bass, and since you can't change the EQ, you can't compensate for it by adjusting other frequencies.

Before you take this as a sign that you should add the Studio 3 to your "other" column, you should note that although these cans disappoint the bass heads, they still produce an excellent, detailed sound in the mids and highs.

For music with a powerful voice, especially for music created by the greatest divas of our time such as Beyonce, Lady Gaga or Adele, Studio 3 provides energy and clarity.

And if you like it loud, these cans are happy to be ready, with no hint of distortion or pain-inducing volume bumps.

Despite Beats' roots as a brand adopted (and promoted) by legendary hip-hop and rap artists, these particular Beats headphones are better suited for genres that are a little less lowdown-thumped.

Call quality

Beats Studio 3 WirelessSimon Cohen / Digital Trends

I recently tested the BeatsX, a set of wired bluetooth earbuds, and praised them for their call quality. I believe that their in-line microphone – placed close to their mouth – is the secret of this success.

I'm even more convinced now after making a few calls to Studio 3 Wireless, which can't withhold a candle from the BeatsX.

The Studio 3 doesn't seem to have any gain issues as the voices were perfectly audible in terms of volume, but clarity is another matter.

Most of the time, it sounded like listening to my caller through a few layers of fabric. I could feel what they were saying, but it was very exhausting.

Granted, my chosen location was something of a torture test – a very busy street with lots of truck traffic – but even during the lull in vehicle activity, it was never a great experience.

I suppose the silver lining is that the included analog cable with inline microphone should make it so easy to plug in the cable and press the rotary dial when it comes to better call quality.

Our opinion

With its excellent design, controls, and no-ANC battery life, the Studio 3 Wireless is still a great choice for those who don't prioritize big bass, whisper-quiet ANC, or wireless calling. But at $ 350 you really have to guess what they have to choose over the competition.

Is there a better alternative?

Yes indeed. I mentioned the $ 400 Bose Noise Canceling Headphones 700 and the $ 350 Sony WH-1000XM4 in this review, and I think both are arguments for getting out of Beats Town. Choose the Sonys if you value customization, comfort, and sound quality. Choose the Bose if ANC and call quality are high on your list.

How long will they last?

The Beats Studio 3 Wireless comes with a one-year warranty from Apple, which can be extended with an optional AppleCare purchase. I think they will last for many years with normal use, although you can expect the battery capacity to decrease over time. Overall, they are very well built, with first class materials and durable metal parts for heavily used areas such as hinges and slides.

Should you buy it?

Yes, but I think you should wait to find them on sale for $ 250 or less. If you're an Apple believer, some of Apple's wireless features may be worth the Studio 3's high price tag. But make sure you understand the weak points and are in good working order – especially call quality and lack of low-end bass – before you put your money on it.

Editor's recommendations




29 Aug
Blog

Oral-B iO Series 9 Smart Toothbrush Review: Pearly Whites at a Steep Cost

Oral-B iO Series 9 hand held smart toothbrush

Oral-B iO Series 9 Smart Toothbrush

"With so much time devoted to development, it does justice to the best brushing performance."

  • Exceptional cleaning performance

  • Comes with four brush heads

  • LED ring helps with pressure sensitivity

  • Robust build quality

  • Expensive

  • Eats up battery

Earlier this year during CES 2020, I got a glimpse of Oral-B's new intelligent toothbrush: the iO series 9. I only had the opportunity to attend a single brushing session, but I got away from the intrigued experience. If a company has been developing a smart toothbrush for six years, expectations will surely be high. Months after this brief encounter, I've been better informed to tell you if it's worth the wait.

High tech in every way

I've owned several manual and electric toothbrushes, but the iO Series 9 is the first that I'd call downright imposing. While it looks like just another electric toothbrush from a cursory inspection, it's undeniably fancier to look up close and equipped with technology that makes it one step above the other. It's made of plastic, but much stronger than other brushes. The weight and the solid feel go together. A tiny screen displays battery life, brushing modes, and even an emoji face after each brush to evaluate my performance. Oral-B has put a lot of work into the brush mechanism, which consists of a frictionless, sleek magnetic drive system to create powerful micro-vibrations while brushing (more on that later).

Oral-B iO Series 9 Smart Toothbrush Display Close-upJohn Velasco / Digital Trends

Pearl white clean

To be honest, I am thrilled with how well this toothbrush cleans my teeth. When using one of Oral-B's entry-level electric toothbrushes in the past, I've never been convinced they are any easier to clean than Philips' Sonicare line. The iO Series 9 is a whole different beast. In fact, it's the best toothbrush I've ever used including the Colgate Hum that I checked out right before this one.

It's the best brush I've ever come across.

Part of his world class performance comes from his ability to see how much pressure I am applying while brushing my teeth. An LED ring around the toothbrush lights up red, blue or green to indicate whether it is too much, too little or just right. The Oral-B app does the same, but I prefer the visual representation of the light, even when brushing with my smartphone in hand. In addition, a distinctive vibration indicates when it's time to switch to another quadrant.

Thanks to its intense micro-vibrations, the Oral-B iO series 9 offers the best brushing performance I've ever experienced. I feel like my teeth are getting a polishing job in addition to a power wash – this is how my teeth feel squeaky every time. The hard-to-remove plaque buildup between teeth isn't completely eliminated, but to be honest, I haven't come across a toothbrush that is good at this. Sorry, you still need to floss.

Oral-B iO series 9 smart toothbrush brush your teethJohn Velasco / Digital Trends

After each brush you will see how much battery is left. Unsurprisingly, it's a battery eater, draining around 10% of its battery after each use. So yes, it will require frequent fees.

More of the same smart features

So far, most of the smart toothbrushes I've come across don't differ too much in their smart features. The Oral-B iO 9 tracks a total of six zones during the tour with the app, so that I can see exactly how well I brush each area. However, the tracking function is not available when the brushes are not guided, which is rather puzzling for something "smart". At the end of each brush, I get a score from zero to 100 to indicate my cleaning performance.

While it can tell me how well I brush each quadrant, part of me craves for more accurate brush dates. For example, I can spend a lot of time brushing the front of my teeth while neglecting the back, but it treats the two sides as one. It doesn't paint a true picture of my brushing and my habits. This is not an isolated problem, but a common problem shared by most of the products in this category. I want a smart toothbrush that learns my exact brushing habits and guides me to practical improvements. I don't want to clean to chase after a score.

Our opinion

Impressive cleaning comes at a price, which for the Oral-B iO Series 9 means more than $ 300 to fork. It's ridiculously expensive, but it's also one of the most advanced toothbrushes out there, and delivers a satisfactory clean every time. Fortunately, the purchase comes with a travel case and four brush heads, which saves the difficulty of buying replacements soon after. Even so, a two-pack replacement costs $ 30.

How long it will take?

I'm confident that with its considerable build quality, it will hold up for a while. Oral-B offers a 2 year warranty that covers defects but not normal wear and tear.

Is there a better alternative?

If you're looking for an exceptional clean with connectivity features, it's hard to find anything else that comes close. You may be able to get similar performance with the other models of Oral-B, possibly with the iO Series 7 smart toothbrush for $ 200.

Should you buy it?

Yes, mostly because cleaning takes precedence over everything else. All intelligent functions and tracking are extra. If cleaning is unsuccessful, there is an error.

Editor's recommendations




29 Aug
Blog

Razer BlackShark V2 Review: Quality Gaming Headset For Less

Player with Razer BlackShark headset

Razer BlackShark V2 review: premium headset, good price

"The sound profiles are definitely the best feature of this headset."

  • Sound profiles and easy customization

  • Solid audio

  • Superior microphone performance

Player with Razer BlackShark headsetPhoto courtesy of Razer

The Razer BlackShark V2 – and with it the cheaper V2 X – offers exceptional performance at an exceptional price. The BlackShark V2 combines audio quality with the much rarer solid microphone performance.

THX game profiles are for sure the best feature of this headset.

The base price of $ 100 also makes this headset a great value. There are plenty of cheaper models out there, including the $ 60 V2 X, but few offer as many features as the BlackShark. Lots of the digital trends Top gaming headset picks Go for more than double the price of the BlackShark.

Sound profiles

THX game profiles are easily the BlackShark V2's best feature, allowing you to customize the EQ settings for each game individually. It comes with by default Profiles for several popular games including Apex Legends, Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, and Valorant. Not every game has a preset profile, but the Razer Synapse app makes it easy to change the settings regardless. You just have to do more of the work yourself.

The cheaper V2 X skips THX Spatial Audio right away, but you can add it through the app for $ 20. Given the total cost of $ 80 for the headset and app, this isn't a bad deal, and you get most of the best features of the flagship V2 at a slight discount. It also works a lot better than some of the spatial audio we've seen, and often tries not to mimic the feel of surround sound.

Many hardware and accessory manufacturers simulate how a product increases the “immersion” or the feeling of really being in the game. Most of the time this is just marketing, but that honestly feels amazing. For example, you can use the EQ settings to adjust the steps in first person shooters or the music and ambient sounds in a game like Death Stranding. This doesn't lead to consoles of course, but it's a fantastic experience on PC. But the right audio device can make a difference on consoles too, and the BlackShark V2 definitely did. I was thrilled to boot up Ghost of Tsushima and hear the rustle of the wind or Resident Evil 3 where I enjoyed using sound as a strategy.

The triple drivers are designed to isolate treble, bass, and midrange, the last of which is often ignored. It's a small difference, but I noticed the added detail.

Razer BlackShark headset on the deskPhoto courtesy of Razer

Microphone test

It's easy to ignore the importance of a headset's microphone quality. How often do you listen to yourself? But you've probably felt the frustration of a muddy-sounding teammate, or someone drowned out by background noise, especially when competing with game noise.

The microphone is very flexible and I found it easy to get it in an optimal position so that my AC power in the background was less of a problem. The foam microphone cover also smoothens the sound and avoids harsh consonant noises. This is especially important if you plan to use the BlackShark for streaming as well. Small details can mean getting a new follower or clicking a viewer off.

The microphone is also detachable, which is a nice bonus for Storage or travel, and it is more accessible for possible exchange. I also find that detachable microphones are usually longer and more flexible than built-in microphones that need to be folded up or rolled back into the headset.

When I work from home, my current favorite gaming headset often does double duty. I grab a headset for Zoom calls, Spotify sessions, and game breaks as soon as I'm practically signed out. Audio is less important for work meetings, but I got people to comment on how clear I sounded on a video call in addition to playing games.

Player with Razer BlackShark headsetPhoto courtesy of Razer

Mirror models

My biggest problem with both headsets is the look.

The BlackShark V2 and V2 X are very similar. They might be too similar. Both are very comfortable, have good microphone and audio quality, and are easy to use, but the more expensive V2 does everything a little better. The cheaper V2 X has slightly less advanced foam for its ear cushions, the cable is more rubber than threaded, it only plugs into a 3.5mm jack, and it doesn't have “advanced microphone control functions”.

What matters, however, is not the list of details. This is how they feel. And frankly, the differences feel relatively small in practice. This is less of a blow to the V2 than more proof of the V2 X. For anyone looking for a well-rounded entry-level headset, it's worth a look.

Nevertheless, I found myself in the direction of the full V2. As small as these differences are, they are still there. So if you are ready to drop that $ 100 then don't settle for not having to.

My biggest problem with both headsets is the look.

I feel like a helicopter pilot carrying them. And it's not just the microphone, the pillow, that surely amplifies this effect, a fact that I'd be happy to endure to improve fidelity. The headsets can only be described as bulbous. And I'm sure some of it is hard to avoid. Razer emphasized the BlackShark's triple drivers that are designed to deliver this fantastic sound. But I still didn't like wearing them for that reason. The headsets aren't heavy, but they look clunky and clumsy. And while I might care less if my gaming mouse isn't the most aesthetic, others can see my headphones.

Our opinion

The Razer BlackShark V2 and V2 X are solid headsets with a good price. The V2 is certainly better, but those looking to spend a little less will not be disappointed with the V2 X either.

Is there a better alternative?

There are so many headsets out there that it is easy to paralyze yourself with choice. Yes, there are other good headsets out there at this price point, but the BlackShark V2 is better than average. And it works fine on all devices.

How long it will take?

Despite the design differences between the two models, both are robust. They are well built and should last a while. The BlackShark V2's THX Spatial audio and game profiles are a nice touch too. I wouldn't be surprised if we saw more iterations of this function in the future.

Should you buy it?

If you are looking for a good entry-level to mid-range headset with quality audio and microphone in the market, definitely it. It works very well when you want to work on shape. If aesthetics are a must, they might not be for you.

Editor's recommendations




29 Aug
Blog

Samsung Odyssey G7 Monitor Review: Incredible Immersion

Samsung Odyssey G7 review dsc01546

"Samsung's Odyssey G7 should be the ultimate gaming monitor, but the flickering problem with G-Sync is holding it back."

  • Excellent color rendering

  • Beautiful design

  • Great curve for immersing yourself in games

  • Fast refresh rate of 240 Hz

  • Defective adaptive synchronization

  • Low static contrast performance

  • Curve off-center

Curved gaming monitors are not a gimmick. These wraparound screens offer a fun way to immerse yourself in game worlds without the need for clumsy VR headsets.

The new Odyssey G7 from Samsung extends the technology even further. For the first time, the screen curve, now 1000R, finally matches the curvature of the human eye. It is true immersion in games at its best.

I looked at the 32-inch version of the Odyssey G7 monitor, which has a native resolution of 1440p and a refresh rate of 240 Hz. It's certainly a one-of-a-kind gaming monitor, but with a widespread G-Sync flicker problem and $ 800 price tag, the Odyssey G7 has a lot to prove. Is the Samsung Odyssey G7 worth a spot on your desk?

design

When it comes to design, Samsung has done an admirable job. The first thing you need to do when unpacking the monitor is to attach the triangle base to the neck of the stand. Then insert the top of the neck into the back of the monitor, attach four screws, and lift the entire assembly out of the packaging. You will then be greeted with an absolute giant of an ad.

While 32-inch monitors are initially large, the 32-inch G7 from Samsung sets new standards. The stand is huge and the curve seriously brings the ends of the monitor far forward. Pushed all the way back on our desk, the sides of the panel protrude about a full foot forward so you really want to make sure you have plenty of room for the G7.

The intense curve of the G7 makes it a real centerpiece on your desk.

If you do, you will be pampered. The intense curve is a wonderful eye-catcher, and with the display so far forward it becomes a real centerpiece. The stand itself may be large, but it uses long, slender legs to give it a spacious feel and to leave plenty of room. The stand also has tilt and height adjustments. It can even turn into a portrait, though I can't think of any reason why anyone would want to do this.

The curve in our example was a bit uneven, with the sharpest point being a little off-center on the left. However, when you are immersed in a game, you forget about everything.

Cables can be run through the inside of the stand to keep things tidy. A headphone hook keeps your cans off your desk when you're not playing.

On the back of the display is Samsung's Infinity Core lighting that extends to the lower corners on the front. This doesn't really add much to the display, but it's implemented in a somewhat subtle way so it's not a problem – the front lighting elements aren't really visible from most seating positions.

Connections and controls

The connectivity of the G7 is minimal, but in a good way. It has two DisplayPort inputs and an HDMI connection as well as an integrated USB 3.0 hub with two connections. Power is supplied by a large power supply module that you want to hide somewhere under your desk.

Your only control mechanism is a directional button at the bottom of the display. Click it once to bring up the first selection screen, where you can choose between input source, picture-in-picture mode, and main menu.

In the main menu, the two most interesting submenus are the game menu and the picture menu. The game menu offers settings for the refresh rate, the black equalizer, the response time, the adaptive synchronization and the low input delay. You'll want to make sure you're set to 240Hz, and you can easily set the Response Time setting to "faster" with little entry delay as these settings don't seem to go beyond the control panel.

The black equalizer is set to 13 at the factory, which you might want to lower to around 10 for more accurate performance. By the age of 13, dark elements turn black a little too early, which gives a deeper picture but puts you at a competitive disadvantage in gaming as you cannot see details in the dark.

The Picture menu provides settings for managing colors, including settings for brightness, contrast, sharpness, and color adjustments.

picture quality

The panel used by Samsung is of the VA type and has a resolution of 2,560 x 1,440 pixels. This is a bit low for a 32-inch panel, but not a problem when gaming as higher frame rates are possible. In my tests, the color reproduction was also good, covering 100% of the sRGB storage space, 85% of the AdobeRGB storage space and 90% of the DCI-P3 storage space.

With support for 1.07 billion colors and a tested Delta-E (color deviation from real) of 1.25, this panel offers surprisingly good performance in terms of color space and accuracy. Note, however, that I only measured the center of the screen. There is a noticeable color shift at the edges, probably due to the curve that the VA panel bends to its limits.

I tested the maximum brightness of the display without HDR and recorded a number of 392 nits. This is above the typical brightness of 350 nits specified by Samsung, but is sufficient for brightly lit rooms.

Calibrating the display resulted in better colors but less brightness.

Where the monitor suffers a disappointment is the contrast performance. Samsung claims a static contrast ratio of 2500: 1, which is lower than the 3000: 1 VA panels normally produce. This is likely because it is bent to within an inch of its life, so I can forgive that. However, the example I have available doesn't provide a contrast ratio close to the Samsung numbers, with the highest number recorded ending up at 1480: 1 when dynamic brightness is turned off. These are very low values ​​for a VA panel, although it would appear that these numbers vary significantly from sample to sample.

Calibrating the display resulted in a slightly better color reproduction with a Delta-E of 1.09, but that decreased slightly from peak brightness to 370 nits, and the peak contrast ratio dropped to 1330: 1 – almost half what Samsung is promising.

The G7 also supports DisplayHDR 600, which means it should achieve a peak brightness of up to 600 nits. However, this only happens when the rest of the display is dark. With just eight vertical lighting zones, HDR performance is modest at best. It is best to leave it deactivated.

Overall, the image quality of the G7 can be rated as quite good, especially when you consider that it is a gaming monitor with a panel curved to 1000R.

Sacrifice practicality for game skills

I use a 32-inch 4K monitor as my own daily driver, so you can imagine the step from this to QHD with the same panel size being quite a success. I tried switching from the 32-inch Samsung G7 in my main work setup but to no avail. While the color reproduction is impressively good, especially for a gaming monitor, the resolution isn't high enough to work on, especially considering the distance the monitor is due to its large base. The curve also causes distortion which makes photo editing confusing.

While the Samsung G7 falls short when it comes to productivity tasks, the display changes to its original element as soon as you start a game. This is where the lower QHD resolution becomes an advantage as driving is much easier than 4K and high frame rates are provided for this monitor. I equipped the display with an RTX 2070 super graphics card, with which the frame rates in competitive games could be increased significantly to 150 frames per second (fps) and higher. And yes, that makes you a better player.

I don't know how Samsung did it, but the VA panel continues to deliver sharp, smudge-free images even at higher frame rates and extremely fast movements on the screen, making it very easy to track fast-moving subjects from competitive shooters. In Destiny 2, I was suddenly able to track fast-moving subjects with a sniper rifle and successfully land headshots at moving targets over and over again – which I couldn't reproduce on my 60 Hz 4K monitor.

Start the BLJR Busters UFO test and see three UFOs flying across your screen, one at 240 Hz (top), one at 120 Hz (center), and one at 60 Hz (bottom). The 60 Hz alien always runs a few pixels behind the 120 fps and 240 fps aliens. The 120 and 240 Hz aliens are practically neck to neck for on-screen position, but where the 120 Hz UFO is slightly blurry in its rapid movement, the 240 Hz alien is crystal clear.

The image provided is from a video taken with the camera to track the aliens, which makes a pretty good impression – but I couldn't capture how dramatic the difference is with my camera. The 240Hz alien is so crystal clear at high speed that you wonder why anyone would care about a 120Hz display.

The G7's 1000R curve makes games incredibly impressive.

I also launched Horizon Zero Dawn which recently launched on PC. At the highest settings, my PC only pushed around 70 fps into the G7, but the game ran incredibly smoothly and the curve just pulled me in and held me in place. The G7's 1000R curve might not work for productivity, but it makes gaming oh so impressive.

The deep black of the VA panel as well as the vivid colors and high brightness draw you further into the game. If you want to perform well in competitive games, then you should only look at the 27-inch version. However, this 32-inch panel is great for balancing the power of competitive gaming with the immersion in slow single-player gaming, story-driven games.

Address of the elephant in the room: G-Sync Flicker

As many people report on the internet, the G-Sync flicker problem also occurs. The Samsung G7 is technically not a true G-Sync monitor. Instead of using a G-Sync module developed by Nvidia, it is based on the adaptive synchronization protocol implemented in the VESA DisplayPort 1.4 standard.

This is not a problem in and of itself as many displays work well this way. But not the G7. Turn on adaptive sync. While you usually won't notice any problems using the desktop, problems do arise as soon as you start a game.

You'll notice the black flicker in game menus and loading screens the most. It's also present when playing games at high frame rates, although it does so at lower frame rates too. On my panel, it was worst on the left and right edges of the screen, like a black vignette that keeps popping up.

This made adaptive synchronization unusable. Despite everything the G7 does to immerse you in the game, the flickering was so intense with adaptive sync enabled that it felt like I had a twitch in my eye. I searched the internet for a solution ranging from new cables to various settings to a firmware update, but nothing solved the problem. I also tested two 27-inch G7s, both of which had the problem, albeit to a lesser extent. It is best known and known as a known problem with this 32-inch sample.

The only solution for crack-free gameplay was to turn off adaptive sync and enable V-sync instead. Usually this is a sub-optimal solution as it may fix the tearing. However, stuttering and input lag become an issue as the display cannot adjust the screen refresh rate to match your frame timings.

When adaptive sync is enabled, the monitor waits for the GPU to shift a frame out, then immediately updates it to display it, and waits for the next full frame. Without this option, the display is updated 240 times per second, regardless of whether a new frame is to be displayed or not. When V-Sync is disabled and the GPU is halfway through rendering a frame, the display will show that half the frame, causing quick responses, but with cracks visible. With V-Sync enabled, the PC waits for the entire frame to be rendered and the panel to reach an update interval, resulting in tear-free images but also a short delay.

Samsung should take responsibility for the G-Sync flicker issue.

The monitor can display up to 240 fps evenly spaced apart from one second, even when running at much lower frame rates, so the images are displayed at almost the exact speed that the GPU is pushing them out. The lag caused by V-Sync is much shorter compared to a 60Hz, 120Hz, or 144Hz monitor, even if your game is running at relatively low frame rates.

In some ways, the G7 is so fast that it doesn't need adaptive sync, and most people would barely notice the difference between V-sync and unbroken adaptive sync on a 240Hz monitor. But that doesn't change the facts: the 32-inch Samsung G7's adaptive sync is broken, and that's just not acceptable for a $ 800 gaming monitor when so many cheaper displays get it right. Given that price, I would love to see Samsung take responsibility for this issue and either come out with a solution, issue a recall, or remove G-Sync certification and lower the price.

Digital Trends has contacted Samsung for a comment and we will update this review as soon as we hear about it.

Our opinion

The 32-inch Samsung Odyssey G7 is an excellent gaming monitor with a curve that draws you into gaming like no other display. However, the problem with G-Sync flicker is hard to miss.

Classic V-Sync can still solve the problems. With a refresh rate of 240 Hz, you don't necessarily need G-Sync for smooth gameplay. However, it's a second-rate solution that is hard to accept when asked to pay $ 800 for a monitor. Until it is repaired, the Odyssey G7 remains faulty.

Are there alternatives?

If you want a 32-inch QHD monitor that is as fast as this one, with such a tight curve, with the deep black levels and vibrant colors that this VA panel offers, there isn't one.

The closest alternative is the Asus ROG Strix XG32VQ, but it's not that fast at only 144 Hz and doesn't have such a tight curve. Similarly, MSI's Optix MAG321CQR offers a monitor of the same size, resolution, but not as fast or curvy, despite being less than half the price.

How long it will take?

Samsung's monitors don't usually develop crazy problems, so I expect this to work for as long as you can expect from most monitors: at least five years. However, Samsung only gives a one-year warranty on the monitor, which is below the industry standard.

Monitor technology is also advancing rapidly, and I doubt it will be long before a competitor conjures up a product that performs similarly for less money. Combine that with the G-Sync issue, which likely can't be fixed and you can expect a sharp drop in value in your first year.

Should I buy it?

Not in its current state. The Odyssey G7's curve is still a great sight, but G-Sync's problematic implementation is a deal breaker.

There's one major caveat: if Samsung rolls out an update that fixes this issue, the Odyssey G7 will be back worth the $ 800 it costs.

Editor's recommendations




29 Aug
Blog

Pentax FA Star Series 85mm F/1.4 Review: Stellar Performer

Pentax-D FA Star-Series 85mm f / 1.4 in hand with lens hood attached

“Pentax fans have a winner. For everyone else, the Star Series 85mm is the best portrait lens you will never use. "

  • Very sharp

  • Excellent workmanship

  • Nice bokeh

  • Minimal vignetting

  • Minimal chromatic aberration

If you're a camera company that has made the decision to double up on DSLRs despite the surge in popularity of mirrorless cameras, you should at least have some lenses worth talking about. This is exactly what Ricoh, owned by Pentax, did with the slowly growing Star series, and the new HD Pentax-D FA Star series with 85mm f / 1.4 SDM AW is a shining example of optical excellence. This full-frame portrait lens can easily hold its own against the best 85mm lenses from other brands. In fact, it's a near-perfect lens – and at $ 1,900, it should be.

There is only one possible problem that is preventing most people from enjoying it: it requires a Pentax camera.

Mammoth size

The first thing you notice about the Sta-Series 85mm f / 1.4 is the world-eating size of the front panel. If you look into it for too long, you can get lost. This lens is a giant at 2.77 pounds – heavier than the already uncomfortably large Sigma 85mm f / 1.4 Art. Perhaps that's why it's called a star lens – it has enough mass to create its own gravitational field.

Daven Mathies / Digital Trends

With the lens hood attached, it looks like a much longer telephoto lens than just 85mm. Passers-by who saw me testing no doubt assumed that I wanted to watch birds.

But when you can handle the weight, you'll love how top-notch it all feels. The lens is completely weatherproof, the materials are luxurious, the focus ring is buttery soft, and even the lens hood feels redesigned, with a rubber collar on the front and a grippy inner surface. The hood snaps into place with a very short reach bayonet mount that is faster to use than most other hoods and is incredibly satisfying to do so. If ASMR were a lens, it would be the Pentax Star Series 85mm.

With 12 elements in 10 groups, the optical formula isn't really that complex, at least in terms of pure numbers. Despite the added weight, that's two elements less than the aforementioned Sigma 85mm Art. Numbers aren't everything, however, and Pentax has clearly made efficient use of the glass it contains, including three particularly low-dispersion Super ED elements and a single aspherical element.

Daven Mathies / Digital Trends

Pentax is also paying particular attention to its new autofocus system. The SDM motor has 1.3 times more torque than the 50 mm Star series lens, and the focus group contains, according to Pentax, a “greater number of optical elements than normal lenses”. I'm not exactly sure what that means, but the focus performance is certainly very fast.

The lens also uses an electronically controlled aperture which, according to Pentax, interestingly allows smooth exposure adjustments while recording video. By the way, almost every modern lens uses an electronically controlled iris, which tends to be more accurate than the older lever-driver style. Aside from smooth exposure changes in the video, this is helpful for consistency in things like time-lapse photography.

Daven Mathies / Digital Trends

The remaining specs include nine rounded bezel blades, a minimum focus distance of 33.5 inches, and a 0.12x magnification ratio. Spec sheet snoopers will find that these are all identical to the Sigma 85mm Art. It's almost as if Ricoh had some work to do in developing this lens (Sigma, which makes lenses for many different camera brands, stopped manufacturing Pentax K-mount lenses last year). Surprisingly, because of its additional weight, the Pentax “only” uses an 82 mm filter compared to the Sigma's 86 mm filter.

But the Sigma is $ 800 cheaper. So there is this.

Comparing these two lenses is, of course, nothing more than an academic exercise. One is available exclusively for Pentax, the other for every DSLR except Pentax.

Deep field

Aspherical elements and high torque focus motors are great, but I know that the only thing people really care about about an 85mm f / 1.4 is the bokeh. You want to see backgrounds that are forgotten, turning point lights into large, soft, gently overlapping circles. I assure you, dear reader, that the Star Series 85mm delivers all of this.

Environmental portrait shot with an 85mm f / 1.4 lens from the Pentax-D FA Star seriesDaven Mathies / Digital Trends

At 1: 1.4 wide open, your subject is brought to rest on a pillow-like bokeh cloud. The depth of field is so shallow that you can still achieve a decent separation of subject and background when the subject is relatively long. This is ideal for full body portraits or shots where you want to draw attention to a relatively small subject in a large setting.

As expected, there is vignetting at f / 1.4, but it's pretty mild. With f / 2.8 it's completely gone. The sharpness of the center is fantastic at any aperture, although the edges slope off a bit with larger apertures. I was impressed with how well a night sky was rendered at f / 1.4, and while an 85mm lens wouldn't be my first choice for astrophotography, this lens is sharp enough to handle it. It gets even sharper if you stop at 1: 5.6. However, in the real world, you should feel confident choosing an aperture for exactly the depth of field you want without having to worry about sharpness.

Vignette test at 1: 1.4 on Pentax-D FA Star-Series 85 mm 1: 1.4 "class =" m-Karussell - picture dt-lazy-no "src =" https://icdn2.digitaltrends.com/ image / digitaltrends /hd-pentax-d-fa-star-85mm-f14-sample-07-640x640.jpg "srcset =" https://www.digitaltrends.com/:/ / www. digitaltrends.com/R0lGODlhAQABAIAAAAAAAP///yH5BAEAAAAALAAAAAABAAEAAAIBRAA7Vignette test, f / 1.4

Vignette test at 1: 2 on Pentax-D FA Star-Series 85 mm 1: 1.4 "class =" m-Karussell - image dt-lazy-no "src =" https://icdn3.digitaltrends.com/image/ digitaltrends /hd-pentax-d-fa-star-85mm-f14-sample-08-640x640.jpg "srcset =" https://www.digitaltrends.com/://www . digitaltrends.com/R0lGODlhAQABAIAAAAAAAP///yH5BAEAAAAALAAAAAABAAEAAAIBRAA7Vignette test, f / 2

Vignette test at 1: 2.8 on Pentax-D FA Star-Series 85 mm 1: 1.4 "class =" m-Karussell - picture dt-lazy-no "src =" https://icdn4.digitaltrends.com/ image / digitaltrends /hd-pentax-d-fa-star-85mm-f14-sample-09-640x640.jpg "srcset =" https://www.digitaltrends.com/:/ / www. digitaltrends.com/R0lGODlhAQABAIAAAAAAAP///yH5BAEAAAAALAAAAAABAAEAAAIBRAA7Vignette test, f / 2.8

Vignette test at 1: 4 on Pentax-D FA Star-Series 85 mm 1: 1.4 "class =" m-Karussell - image dt-lazy-no "src =" https://icdn5.digitaltrends.com/image/ digitaltrends /hd-pentax-d-fa-star-85mm-f14-sample-10-640x640.jpg "srcset =" https://www.digitaltrends.com/://www . digitaltrends.com/R0lGODlhAQABAIAAAAAAAP///yH5BAEAAAAALAAAAAABAAEAAAIBRAA7Vignette test, f / 4

The chromatic aberration is particularly well controlled. I noticed some color fringes in defocused areas, as is common with any lens, but only extremely small stripes in the focal plane and only with large apertures.

Oh, and there just isn't any distortion. At all.

I have to get really pedantic to find a bug with this lens, but let's go: while the blur circles aren't perfectly rounded 1: 2 in the center of the frame at f / 1.4, they extend in Rectangles. If you stop after f / 2.8, you can see the angular shape of the iris leaves in the blur circles. "Onion rings" also appeared in my test shots of LED string lights. It's all awful, I know.

Seriously, the Pentax 85mm f / 1.4 is a beautiful lens, and checking its little flaws is nothing but a waste of time. If you believe in the Pentax Belief and can win two grand, just step out and shoot, focus on your art, and trust this lens to keep making gold.

Astral plane

Products like these make being a reviewer great because I can try something new that I really enjoy, but that I would never actually buy for myself. I mean, did you think I would switch to Pentax?

And there is the problem. The Star Series 85mm feels like a dream, a utopian experience separated from reality. It could be the Pentax, not the Pentax.

I tested the lens on a Pentax K1 Mark II, which is a full-frame DSLR with an older but still excellent 36-megapixel sensor. I didn't want image quality – although I think this lens will go for even higher resolutions – but it's still not good enough for this lens. The 33-point viewfinder autofocus system lacks the flexibility and accuracy to actually use it. They are basically fixed to single point AF and the “focus and reformulate” shooting method. This is not the easiest way to get sharp results with an aperture of f / 1.4. During this test, as impressed as I was, I could only imagine how much better the lens would be with Sony's real-time eye AF or flawless subject tracking from Canon in the EOS R5.

The K1 Mark II has never been my favorite DSLR, but most of the flaws are simply that of format. DSLRs simply cannot offer the advanced focus features that mirrorless cameras take for granted. A couple of extraordinary lenses might have been enough to get people back to Pentax – if they didn't have to get people back to the DSLR first.

But the optimist would say that this lens is trend-setting. If Pentax can make such a great lens, maybe there will be an equally great DSLR soon. I think there is still room for innovation in DSLRs, but they have been moving away from the mainstream for years. Perhaps Pentax can be the one to rule this new niche realm?

After all, Ricoh is apparently good at working on the sidelines. The GR III is a neat little camera that was built for a select few street photographers. This Pentax lens is aimed at a similarly small group of customers. The brand may never be a high-volume competitor, but that doesn't mean the Star Series 85mm is any less of a triumph for those who can (and can afford) use it. Whatever your reasons for sticking to your Pentax DSLR, you have another big one right now.

Our opinion

Like the quiet, introverted kid in the back of the class who passes the test but doesn't say a word, Pentax continues to use some stunning lenses with little fanfare. Even the CameraVille, possibly the only Pentax-focused YouTuber, doesn't have a handy video at the time of publication. Compared to influencer-obsessed Sony and Canon, that's … kind of nice.

Of course, a lack of fanfare can simply signal a lack of fans. But for all of the confusing decisions Pentax has made with cameras (remember the Q?), I can still admire it when I make lenses like this. The Pentax-D FA Star Series 85mm f / 1.4 is as good as it gets – though most people will never get a chance to try.

Enjoy this moment, Pentax shooters. You finally have time to be happy.

Is there a better alternative?

No. The options for third-party Pentax photographers are slim these days. In many ways, this lens feels like a response to the lack of alternatives. However, in addition to being a great option, this is the only option. Vacuum or not, this is a brilliant portrait lens.

How long it will take?

Any professional lens will easily outlive the life of your camera, and this one is no different. I just hope the Pentax brand doesn't survive.

Should you buy it?

If you are ready to reiterate your commitment to Pentax and DSLRs, then yes. It may be gigantic and expensive, but the Star Series 85mm is a thank you to the Pentax believers who have kept it up for so long. Enjoy it; you deserve it.

Editor's recommendations




28 Aug
Blog

1More Colorbuds Review: Vibrant Colors, Detailed Sound

1More coloruds

"The Colorbuds combine great design with solid properties and exceptional sound."

  • Light design

  • IPX5 weatherproof

  • Valuable sound quality

  • Solid codec support

  • Mediocre Bluetooth range

  • Functional but limited control

When 1More released Colorbuds in July, the audio company said the vibrant, new, true wireless earbuds aim to "bring fashion and audio together." With color options like Midnight Black, Twilight Gold, Sakura Pink or Spearmint Green, it has nailed an end to that combination straight out of the gate.

The other end, of course, requires a little more research. As much as the eye-catching hues of the $ 100 worth of 1More Colorbuds may speak for you, knowing exactly what you're getting into in terms of audio with these tiny, affordable earbuds is just as important.

Out of the box

The Colorbuds and their charging case are waiting to greet you as soon as you open the box. They are kept in the light color you want. I chose Spearmint Green and to be honest, these buds are way more "Spearmint" than "Green". My significant other said it looked like I had mini easter eggs in my ears. I don't know if this is the look 1More is going for, but I didn't mind.

1More colorudsNick Woodard / Digital Trends

There are three additional pairs of earplugs in the box, a USB-C charging cable, a quick start guide, a warranty card and, to my pleasant surprise, a sticker. It's mostly standard material that comes with a pair of real wireless earbuds, but the sticker was a nice added touch.

Here's the deal with setting up the Colorbuds: it's not difficult, but you have to follow the directions. There are small strips of plastic that must be removed from each bud and then put back into the case to activate them. Don't make the mistake of forgetting a strip, then using standard bluetooth pairing and taking a walk straight away to find that mono sound is stuck with a bud not yet on. Trust me it's a minor but insane inconvenience.

The Colorbuds have Bluetooth 5 technology, which normally allows an automatic cycle in terms of range and connectivity. But for some reason the Colorbuds don't seem to have the range I enjoyed using other buds with the technology. I couldn't get to the other end of my house without my audio noticeably dropping out, while I could go into my yard without other products falling out. Maybe it's just my special pair, but they didn't have the range I expected from Bluetooth 5 earbuds and headphones.

design

Aside from the Apple AirPods, which weigh 4 grams each, the Colorbuds have a simple size advantage over many more expensive products. They are 4.1 grams per bud and therefore significantly lighter than heavyweights in the industry such as Google Pixel Buds 2, Samsung Galaxy Buds + and Amazon Echo Buds.

1More colorudsNick Woodard / Digital Trends

The case is comparatively more compact and weighs 40 grams compared to the 40 gram housing of the AirPods. Run out the numbers and it equates to earbuds that feel extremely light in your ears with a sleek case that won't be a factor in your pocket. The earbuds themselves have what 1More calls "optimized ergonomic design," and since the marketing sounds like it sounds, I kind of have to agree with that. They fit flush in your ear and make you feel safe, yet comfortable.

They fit flush in your ear and make you feel safe, yet comfortable.

There are no physical buttons on the Colorbuds, just touch controls on each bud. When I first played with them, I was so ready to write about the Colorbuds being another pair of true wireless earbuds to avoid volume controls that seem so obvious and harmful when unavailable. Then I downloaded the 1More Music app and was mostly relieved that the touch controls are programmable and can include volume commands.

The remaining problem here, from my point of view, is that in the current configuration of the Colorbuds there is really only room for two different controls. There is no single control here, only double and triple control. If you can set four different commands (play / pause, track forward or backward, volume up or down, and voice assistant) you will have to choose two and lose the rest. I chose to track forward / backward and volume up / down but can't say I didn't miss asking Alexa for help.

properties

The earphones most comparable to the Colorbuds in terms of features and price are possibly just one of their close relatives, the 1More Stylish. A couple of important things to remember before I go any further: The Stylish first hit the market when the standards for true wireless earbuds were very different from what they are today. While the Stylish originally retailed for $ 100, you can now find it cheaper for $ 20 than the newer $ 100 Colorbuds.

1More colorudsNick Woodard / Digital Trends

Let's talk about the battery life: The Stylish offers a playback time of 6.5 hours with one battery charge and a total of 24 hours of battery life with the charging case, as well as a quick charge option that gives you 2 hours of time after 15 minutes in the case. In comparison, the Colorbuds are slightly worse at 6 hours per charge and 22 hours with the case. That's better than the roughly 5 hours found in the Pixel Buds or AirPods, but at a time when earbuds like the Samsung Galaxy Buds + and Sony WF-SP800N can dive into double-digit playback times and the best of options, not considered great will hit there at least 8 hours per charge. At this price, I give the Colorbuds a pass for the battery life. Note, however, that there are better options.

I'm a fan of the IPX5 weather resistance of the Colorbuds, which outperforms the Pixel Buds 2 (IPX4) and products like the Apple AirPods and Sony WF-1000XM3 with no weather resistance. It offers the Colorbuds solid protection against water and sweat, making them an effective training option. They may not be the budget true wireless product I would choose for athletic activities – that would probably be the Anker Soundcore Spirit X2, which despite its unconventional ear hook design has IP67 weather resistance and nine hours of battery life – but they are in a pinch suitable .

I'm a fan of the Colorbuds' IPX5 weather resistance.

This section wouldn't be complete without mentioning the auto-pause feature built into the Colorbuds, which pauses the audio when you remove a bud and resumes the tunes when you put it back in. We have already seen this feature on many earphones. But it's also a feature that has been strangely omitted from a growing number of products. It's a welcome surprise to have it in this price range.

Audio quality

From true wireless earbuds like the Stylish to wired buds like the 1More Dual Driver ANC Pro, 1More's track record of developing valuable sound is nearly flawless. The formula for success is no secret either: most of these products have powerful drivers, excellent codec support and professional tuning.

1More colorudsNick Woodard / Digital Trends

I think with the Colorbuds, it's safe to add another (pun!) Pair of wearables to this list. You're on the 1More checklist with a balanced full-range anchor at the center of the sound, support for the aptX / AAC / SBC codecs, and voting from a Grammy-winning sound engineer. The result: you sound great.

To be more specific (and more specific), they sound great for their price. For $ 100, the Colorbuds give you a more than adequate level of clarity, good low end, and solid stereo separation. With these earbuds, it just feels like an all-rounder, a master of nothing, which is honestly a win for the cost. I couldn't peck and wish these buds moved through frequencies more fluidly instead of sometimes blurring them, but that hardly seems fair for buds of this stature and price. The Colorbuds shouldn't be up to the Sony or Sennheiser standard, but they certainly meet the expectations we have of 1More hearing aids.

The Colorbuds shouldn't be up to the Sony or Sennheiser standard, but they certainly meet the expectations we have of 1More hearing aids.

The company has also touted the call quality of the Colorbuds, which have four microphones and built-in noise-canceling technology. As is the new norm, I couldn't test these earbuds out under the excitement of a daily commute, but for the environments I found myself in, from a quiet home office to the sidewalk of a busy street, the Colorbuds were amazingly efficient at holding both of them My conversations end clearly.

Our opinion

The 1More Colorbuds' battery life is worse than their older cousin, and there are some built-in control limitations. But those are small prices for great design, solid overall features, and exceptional sound in the latest version of 1More.

Are there any better alternatives?

If ear hook designs don't turn you off, the $ 80 Anker Soundcore Spirit X2 has better features for $ 20 less. Plus, the older 1More Stylish has similar features for a reasonable discount. But the Colorbuds have a design and features that make them more attractive than some much more expensive competitors.

How long will they last?

The Colorbuds have a one-year guarantee and an IPX5 rating for weather protection. I would be more concerned about losing a bud on the couch than damaging it.

Should you buy it?

Yes. For $ 100, the design, features, and sound of the 1More Colorbuds all match the bright colors they're dressed in. They are meant to be fun and fun for the budget conscious, and that is exactly what they are.

Editor's recommendations




«‹217218219220221›»