« on: Today at 03:38:25 AM »
That body should be called 1DXs, not 1Ds X - after all, it will have pixels INXS!
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
This is all very interesting. I have only cameras with SD cards, and I always did low level format in the camera, every time. Performance of these cards has stayed stable with time. CF, if faster, merits a look. Any comments on a good card reader? I have a MacBookPro with a SD slot built in, so I have not used a card reader before.
Just remember that the card itself is only half the story. The other half is the camera. For example, you can put as fast an SD card as you want into the 5DIII, but it isn't going to write faster than 20 MB/s. Shooting JPEG on the 5DIII, you'll be limited to less than 50 MB/s. The camera becomes the limitation in both these scenarios.
My GAS status is now up-north. This could be the last purchase for 2014
my ruthless annoying complaining has finally worn the boss (my wife) down and I have been given permission to seek the 300 2.8. But how to obtain such nirvana.
1)300 2.8 L IS II…just kidding you didn't really think I could do that did you?
2)300 2.8 L IS I…seems like it can be purchased for around 3500 depending upon from where/condition etc
3)Sigma 120-300 sport (around 3500 again)
Keep in mind when making that decision that ably the newer MkII 17mm & 24mm are in fact 'L' Lenses, the older build 45 & 90 are not.Indeed. I stopped waiting for the 7D2 two years ago and bought the 5D3, as an example. But the point about the independent rotation of tilt & shift is duly noted.
There are differences between the two, there's an expectation that quite soon Canon will upgrade the 45 & 90, so you may want to hold on your decision for a while, but with Canon lately you may also want to ignore that & decide which of the current 17 & 24 suits your needs best.
I would recommend the MII 24mm, both 24mm are L's but the MkII is considerably better both in IQ and functionality.
It will give you more "selective focus" control than the 17, it takes standard sized filters, with a 2XTC it will go to 48mm so you get even more selective focus.
The 45mm is a comparative dog, it desperately needs upgrading.
I will say now, after having shot a soccer match tonight, that the 400 f/2.8L II IS auto focuses MUCH faster than my version 1 I had. I had 615 razor sharp photos, which is way too many but that was not even possible with my version 1. Well worth the cost in my opinion. Great shots to all who have posted here and I plan to keep contributing. Thanks.
That's interesting, and good to know. Do you think it's the same with the 300 2.8IS and 2.8ISii? I sometimes think my 300 2.8IS isn't as fast to AF as my 70-200 2.8ii.
I occasionally read posts from users wanting portable storage to take into the field with them. This device seems to answer some of their requirements without costing a fortune.Well spotted, Mt Spokane! I did see the product name, but never noticed that it had built-in battery and SD reader
Actuance, did you try to use the "Zoom" mode during Target Setup? I have found that I usually have to engage the Zoom mode to detect the target correctly during the alignment/setup check phase. But once it is setup, I've had no problems in getting FoCal to work.
Ohhh. So I should set up the target at the recommended distance (50X)
use the zoom function in FoCal for running the target check tool
then zoom out for the AFMA tests?
Sony and Samsung are fortifying a two-superpower structure in the digital camera market in Korea. Traditional market leaders such as Canon, Nikon, and Olympus are losing ground.
The problem was that using the target checking tool, the software was unable to detect the target. Well, small wonder because with a 35mm lens at 1.7 meters the A4 target is pretty small... too small in my opinion. In looking at the figures in the manual, it appeared to me that the camera needs to be closer.
So I moved the camera closer to the target. The new distance was 0.8 meters. Ran the target checker and there was no problem. No problems with any of the tests.
Did I miss-interprete the instructions when I orginally placed my focal plane 1.7 meters (50x FL)?