As the world of first person, point of view videoing becomes wider and more popular, Go Pro has continually set the standards. The evolution of the personal camera has been propelled exponentially since the days of the cumbersome hand-held recorders sports enthusiasts started out with. And with each tier of modern leaps, Go Pro has found a way to meet the needs of active videographers. The Hero series is no exception. The fantastic features and crystal clear quality of these little champions not only keeps Go Pro’s products relevant, but once again leads the way in the industry with consumer concerns identified and addressed.

Getting Familiar with the Hero 3

The 3 is a major upgrade, in nearly every sense. The new and revitalized version of the Hero is 30 percent smaller and only three quarters of the weight of its predecessor. While the 2 can take 11MP stills, the 3 adds detail by raising the Mega Pixel count to 12 for photo taking. In addition, they raised the amount of photos per second rate, from a mere 10 to an amazing 30, making it even easier to get the most ideal, action shots. But where the biggest difference comes in is in video, High Definition quality.

The Hero 3 can film in 1080p format at 60 frames per second, the older model can only catch 30 fps. The 2 can’t even record in 1440p, which the 3 does at 48fps. For these reasons alone, it is evident why so many users are upgrading to the superior model. But, here are a few more that are convincing closing arguments, showing why there is no question that the 3 is a more professional and practical choice.

How Do They Measure Up?

Both models have consumer grade low light capabilities. But the 3 shows better at night footage on screen. And even though there is a noted complaint about the newer version of the Hero not having a dedicated mic port, the audio quality and effect is far better with the 3. It’s consistently been praised as a worthwhile added cost for the value that comes with the lighter, more versatile model. The wide array of beneficial enhancements they endowed unto the sleek design of the 3 makes it by and large a transformation in style and scope from previous action cameras.

Consumers and advanced action sport recorders alike will find the newer edition in the line to be easier to adapt to their work and more efficient and than the earlier explication of the product. The accessories are a challenge if you are used to the older renditions in the Go Pro series. The Hero 1 and 2 components are not interchangeable with the 3’s smaller frame and adapter design. This is true of the reverse as well, components from the 3 will not fit the platform of the bulkier models.

Canon has one upped itself with the 70-200IS II. The original lens, or the IS, was introduced in 2001 as a magnificent leader in its class. As a professional use model, it followed the Canon tradition of setting the standard for brilliant photographs. Even since the appearance of the new lens, the forefather has been highly regarded by pros internationally. And while it may be hard to believe that the brand favorite could be made even better’s exactly what Canon did when they introduced the ISII.

The Coming Age of the IS

In 2010, the original IS was retired. However the platform itself was not discarded. Improving on the original design, Canon developed some unique changes, altering the initial format in only calculated ways that would leave the lens’ trademark origins intact. The primary differences between the old lens and new, reside in the lens’ optics. While the parent lens had 23 elements in 18 groups, the ISII places 23 elements in each of 19 groups. They both use UD elements, however, the younger version includes 5, while the old uses only 4. Both use USM technology. USM stands for UltraSonic Motor. The ISII is noted as being quieter, though.

The weight difference in the pair will most certainly be noticed. 200 grams separates them with the newer model also being the heavier. They share the same amount of F stops, but overall focus is considered better in the upgraded edition. The close focus is shorter by half a foot in the ISII.

Key Differences

The price point is a matter of significant variance between the lens models as well. An average of 700 to a thousand dollars separates the new in box model of the ISII and the original IS, which can only be found for sale as used, since it’s retirement. While, the sharpness of the older model was considered to be very good by professionals, the ISII has been given the rating of “extremely good” within similar reviews. The distortion variant on the newer model has also been improved. The dark-out and shading issues that the predecessor had (which were very minimal), have been resolved, creating a crisper final image.

Finally, and to some, most importantly, is the improvement on the IS (image stabilization) itself. The image stabilization ability of the original lens was wonderful and considered the best available in its class by many pros. Canon wanted to make it even better on the updated model. Reports by the second generation IS users indicate that this feature has been upgraded as much as 20 percent.

The Ultrabook is a trademarked brand by the magnificent minds of Intel. It’s based on a similar design as its predecessor. Both the Notebook and Ultrabook designs are considered a categorization or class of computer. The spec differences between them are also what divides their categories. The lighter and more mobile Ultrabook has been described as a sub-notebook.

The Rise of the Ultrabook

The slimmer, sleeker appeal of the Intel design is only the beginning of the points that separate the Ultrabook from its heavier forefathers. While different brands of notebooks use a wide variety of processors, the Intel brand uses the Core processor, making it unique in form and function. Whereas any standard can be set for an individual brand of notebook, the Ultrabook has only one standard. And Intel has set the bar high. The quality, dependability and ultra portability of the new design is fast making it a preferred choice by business professionals on the go.

The Ultrabook is really the next step in the evolutionary process of personal computers. It cuts the weight and bulk of the traditional notebook without sacrificing function, battery strength and life, or compatibility with necessary daily tasks. It would seem that the Ultrabook has shown up with its gloves on, ready to push out the old format in many ways.

What About a Standard Notebook?

But it isn’t for everybody, not yet. In many ways, it can do everything a standard notebook can do, better. But there are those particular arenas that would still prefer the classic. Mainly, this can be found specifically in screen size, oriented debates. However, for the vast majority of individuals with a thousand things in their schedule and less time in a day than is necessary, the Ultrabook seems like a wise investment. Things are going to move in the direction that Intel has taken with this incredible advance in industry standard. They have led the way once again into a new era of tech.

The Ultrabook has come into its own, with a multitude of choices that the traditional notebook or laptop just doesn’t offer. The hybrid capability of some Ultrabooks is a powerful force to reckon with. Being able to manipulate the setup of the hardware, or choose a touch screen option makes what you can do worlds apart from the old, faithful, clam shell design. And while the system of the slimmer machines may heat up more with prolonged use. Students will find the features of the smaller platform to be amazingly useful.

Ultrabooks are currently quite a bit more expensive than notebook competitors with the same specs. But given everything taken into account and the future applications for the Ultrabook, it seems that the investment into a new dawn of daily use technology may prove fruitful. The notebook is not being challenged by the onset of the Ultrabook, instead it is being replaced by it.

Intel Pentium and Core Processing systems are both widely used and have many faithful fans on both sides of the coin. But in the end, the two were not created equal. The evidence is ripe throughout the trial of these two contenders points to one outweighing the other, in design and function. The processor has come a long way since the days of the Pentium’s first appearance in 1993. But being the senior system, with all of its technology upgrades does not necessarily mean it has an advantage.

The Pentium Design and Platform

The Pentium’s design has proven smart and reliable and has become increasingly affordable within stages of its transformation. However, the Core’s standard design has provided a faster and more efficient platform. In 2006, the Core came on the scene, replacing a line of Pentiums. Since that time, it has become exponentially more popular than upon its initial release. The presence of the Core processor generally constitutes more power than that of its Pentium counterpart.

There is also no argument that the diversity of uses of the Core technology is far more prominent than the Pentium system. Intel’s Core can be found within both Apple and Windows based operating systems, while the Pentium is solely a windows based charge. Though the basic systems seem very similar in design, they are vastly different in features and device capability. There are additional software applications that the Core offers quite improve on the standard format operating in the system. The Pentium lacks the versatility of the younger line. This created a down turn in overall consumer purchases of the system, in contrast to the upswing of sales reports in the Core’s line, since its inception.

The Power of Intel

Intel has created both processors to meet a quality and standard that they felt satisfied with. The Core allows for a more hospitable compatibility when using it’s platform in alternative devices. That being said, the younger platform does have some of its own unique challenges. In some cases, the crossover capabilities of the Core line are difficult to negotiate, when compared between a smaller and larger version of that model.

Finally, though we don’t want to base choices on specs and stats entirely, it is important to look at the abilities and advantages of the specific system model and its equal contender. In this way, it’s easier to understand the form and function characteristics, which play a primary role in the application of the system you choose. If the traits of the less expensive version match the needs of the buyer, than there is no need to pay more based on a name. Either way, Intel technology sets the standard for integrating quality components into a modifiable package with abundant upgrades in their ever developing medium.

The very first thing that divides these two systems is the component parts. The Mac Pro is only the processing unit. While the iMac is a complete system, with monitor, key board and general accessories. With the more expensive machine, you will need to purchase (or already have), the other components, further adding to the overall cost. Also, it is important to note that most Mac Pro users have not traditionally used the Pro for general work needs and it has served as more of a specialty component with specific attributes necessary to the facilitation of certain design employments.

Mac Pro Facts

The Mac Pro is more expensive, but with it’s capabilities and the fact that they generally hold their value for much longer than the iMac, the price is far more than fair. While both have fantastic features, the iMac seems to have the most applicable uses. The Mac Pro would be a better fit for professional 3D operation or advanced editing applications. The iMac is less out of pocket and yields phenomenal performance for the money.

The iMac uses a newer, upgraded core and is as much as 25 percent faster in single-threaded applications. As a matter of worthy note, it has, arguably one of the best processors on the market. The Mac Pro has the advantage of being more expandable than the iMac. It allows for more monitors, with six Thunderbolt ports. It also supports twice the RAM the iMac does with . That aside, the main ability and function in this category shows negligible divergence. The 5K display is far superior to the 4K having only 8.3 megapixels and the 5K display being comprised of 14.7 megapixels. The iMac’s fan is louder under heavy load than the Mac Pro, which cools almost silently. According to user comments, the iMac heats up faster than the Mac Pro.

The iMac Comparison

The Mac Pro is a more professional, workstation class tool. The consumer grade apparatus of the iMac has less strict tolerances than its counterpart. The cheaper may seem like it operates a little wonky in comparison. Unless you are using it strictly for vocational pursuits and your job is in high end graphic design and 3D modeling, the iMac will suit even the most stringent of business tasks and every day uses. Gaming seems wonderful on the iMac, the Mac Pro not being able to compete in that department.

If you use Open CL apps very frequently or are a professional video editor, then Mac Pro may be what you are looking for. Or if you use a vast amount of Thunderbolt devices, or several monitors, simultaneously, you may want to consider it. Otherwise, the iMac is a strong competitor, winning over users on a regular basis, for its price and compatibility. However, the Pro Mac will function better than the iMac in the recording arena, specifically when absolute quiet is needed.

The Pro is available in 4 and 6 core processors, while the iMac is standard with a 4 core Intel processor. The iMac is heavier but it does not feel or look clunky in any way.

The Canon 60d and 7d stack up well against each other, why choose one over the other? It’s actually quite simple, it boils down to value. Each one has its advantages and inherent downfalls, but one of them is a better buy. Read the facts and you be the judge.

Hardware and Software Features

The 60d and 7d both have a variety of hardware and software features that are unique of the other, making either one a viable choice for a camera in this class. The housing of each, feels well made and the well designed style of the pair is sharp and visually pleasing. They both rest comfortably in the hand while shooting but the 60d is lighter. In contrast, the 7d is thinner and looks a bit more rugged.

The 60d has a flip out screen and is higher in resolution. The 7d has quite a bit less shutter leg and can boast significantly more focus points. The 7d is weather sealed, the other doesn’t The 60d on the other hand has a much longer battery life while it’s opponent has a superior dynamic range and a better view finder.

The comparison points stay neck and neck for the category of function and feature, at entirely opposite ends of the spectrum. They almost reflect the antithesis of their counterpart as they are reviewed. It can’t be argued that either could be claimed as the more valuable choice. And it makes sense that, depending on your application for the product, one might be more suitable for the individual consumer over its contender.

There is a final area that needs to be considered, that is economy. The price points of the 60d in contrast to the 7d, may be the deciding factor for the diligent shopper. The 60 comes in at around forty percent less than the 7d, which can go for as much as 700 dollars or more. If you need to save the money, the more affordable camera may be the smarter purchase. Whereas, if you need better detail and picture quality, the 7d may make the most sense.

Is bigger better? If you think about it for a moment may seem like a trick question. The answer is invariably relative to the subject at hand. Of course, in some cases, bigger is better. Yet in other arenas, smaller makes more sense. In stacking up the component qualities of the 3DS and its XL counterpart, keep that question (and it’s relativity in mind). There are several differences between Nintendo’s 3DS and the 3DXL, and however subtle some of them may be, the results are in and consumer bias is clear.

Design and Specifications

Let’s first look at overall design, style and the hardware specs that separate these two. The 3DS weighs in at 8oz, not a heavy load by any means. The XL comes in at 12 ounces. The difference in mass between the two is easily noticed when holding them for comparison. So what do you get for the four additional ounces? The screen size of the heavier model is 4.88 inches. In contrast, the 3DS is a mere 3.53 inches. That is over an inch of screen, and you will definitely notice it. It’s like comparing a 19” flat screen to a 32”. When you look at them, next to one another, the variance seems astronomical. The larger screen appears to allow more detail. And when playing a game, that could mean the difference between life and death (for your character).

How Do They Measure?

But by no means is that the only thing that sets these two apart. The battery of the XL version will last up to an hour and a half longer, which may make a long drive a little easier to bear. Another dissimilarity between them is the placement of the stylus storage. While to some, this may not be important, others may find that the stylus of the 3DS, being stored in the back of the device, a bit clunky or inconvenient. Whereas, the DSXL stores it’s stylus on the side, allowing easier access and the ability to maintain focus on the screen while retrieving it.

The look of the systems themselves is strikingly different. The larger system looks more modern, with it’s sleek, rounded design and laptop style. While the smaller opponent’s components are a throwback to the game boy, boxy and bulky. And, although the 4oz between the two systems can be felt, the larger XL does feel very light for being so large. Therefore, the added features far outweigh the additional mass.

Key Differences

The XL can also boast double the storage of the 3DS, with it’s 4g sd card. The cameras of each are internal 0.3 megapixel that are integrated well into the design of the system. So you won’t be blocking out the lens on either while trying to use it. However, the pictures taken on the 3DSXL appear more brilliant on screen and with more clarity.

The only real advantages that the smaller model has over the larger version are price and color choice. There are more colors currently offered with the standard shell of the 3DS than the more feature packed of the two. But spending the extra dollars may prove wise in the long run, even if you have to wait a little longer to afford the XL. The larger, DSXL can also download software faster than the other, making it more functional when time is of the essence.

Many gamers also noticed that, though both consoles have stereo speakers built in, the XL sounds better. Maybe this is because of speaker placement and distance or just the overall size of the system. In either case, both are a vast upgrade from the old single speaker of the 2’s. It’s also been mentioned that when playing games, more can be distinguished in character speaking with the bigger package.

Interaction and Feel

Another point to pay attention to is, the dynamics of visual game play. It’s easy to get lost in the details of specs and stats. But it comes down to: what you see is what you get. The larger screen also projects moving play more clearly and with more radiant colors. This allows for more vivid detail and absorption into story world during play. After all, it’s primarily for playing games and 3D entertainment. The XL wins in both of the major categories of the comparison.

In many ways, the smaller one feels cheaper. Not that it feels cheap, but the casing of the XL surely seems to be constructed with a more durable design. Whether that is simply the style or actually materials used, remains hard to tell. One thing that is not hard to tell, is that even though the XL is larger, Nintendo did an excellent job with maximizing the component’s feature to dimension ratio. They were sure to utilize the space the larger platform provides, to create a comfortable hand-held with superior screen resolution and overall function.

Scope and Scale

The two systems from Nintendo are on very different stations on the spectrum that is hand-held tech. They serve very similar functions while doing them in wildly unequal ways. Yes, the XL costs more, but you will get an immediate sense of where that money went when you calculate the performance versus price analysis of the two. The question then becomes, how important is gaming to you? If inferior vantage in the scope and scale of the quality of your game play does not bother you, than you may not find it worth the added investment.

On the other hand, many believe it’s been made abundantly clear that Nintendo believes you get what you pay for. In their case meaning value for your dollar. It may also be important to note that the 3DSXL Gives a more mature overall impression, existing more in the realm of notebooks and tablets. Whereas, the lighter model gives off more of an adolescent essence. All in all, the 3DS seems to be a whole lot smaller, with less to offer. So, is the answer apparent? Is bigger better? You decide.

These glasses are more than hype, they deliver on the Oakley promise of form and function. Whether you’re climbing a mountain, biking across country, or on the back nine in the bright light of mid day, the Oakley Flak Jacket series make a great choice for UV protection and durable luxury. But what are the characteristics that separate the XLJ’s and the standard Flak Jackets?

Getting Familiar with the Flak Jacket

It’s all about the lenses. You will most likely find that the more traditional lenses of the Flak Jackets provide the comfort that Oakleys are known for with the style projected by many golf tour champions. In other words, they look like a classic and feel like a ride in a convertible, with the top down, on a spring afternoon. If charming and high quality are important to you, these will more than satisfy your needs and style. Either will make a great pair of sun glasses for any outdoor activities.

What Does the Flak Jacket XLJ Have to Offer?

On the other hand, the XlJ’s cross a trend setting lens design with the functional benefits of high standards of construction. Making them a wonderful choice for pack leaders, looking for a uniquely comfortable frame and lens combination. Not only do they look sharp but if your facial structure does not fit the typical style of lenses, theses have a notable advantage for you. Because of the wave-like, drop back and flat bottom design, they tend to set well on people who don’t have high cheek bones. And just as the Flak Jacket, many pro golfers and sportsmen choose this more futuristic design.

Be aware, some people have complained that the XLJ’s can look like large, overbearing goggles, on those with smaller or more narrow faces. Both styles are built with the wearer’s comfort in mind and both exceed the standard for excellence, leaving the only questions left being, what are the specs of each pair’s composition? And does it make any bit of difference, in comparison of quality?

So, here is the rundown. The frames are the same in design and each can be customized. The lenses can be replaced with a different style, color or feature. The XLJ lenses can be quite a bit more in cost, depending on the special features you want. The average price difference ringing in at about 75 to 80 dollars on retail websites. Ultimately, they come in neck and neck in most of the categories of comparison. It comes down to the opening statement of this article and, more critically, the statement you want to make when wearing arguably the most important accessory you can buy.