July 24, 2014, 04:01:24 PM

Show Posts

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.


Messages - jdramirez

Pages: 1 ... 38 39 [40] 41 42 ... 145
586
Quote
Unfortunately there is not a definitive way to state it. The problem being that manufacturers do not commonly post the buffer rate or the write-to rates of their cameras, they more or less advise which category of cards or specific cards are optimal for the cameras performance based on their testing. Using a faster card (than what you are currently) will not cause any aspect of the camera’s performance to increase; the only benefit from a faster card would be if you have a high speed reader and wanted to transfer the data quickly off card to the computer. - Yossi

Yep, that really answers it - thanks for asking them, though :)

I didn't do it just for you;  I really want to know as well.  When I shot jpg on my 60D and I had a class 4 sd card... I would cap out at around 8 shots... then I got a sandisk class 10 and the thing never stopped... It was awesome.  Then I started to shoot raw + jpg and back down to 6-8...

Now that I'm living the mkiii lifestyle, I don't hold down the shutter the way I used to... but I want to know that if I want to do that... then my card will allow me to do so. 

587
EOS Bodies / Re: Hardware Hack for EOS Cameras Coming Soon? [CR1]
« on: February 27, 2014, 07:46:46 PM »
No thanks.  If I need dynamic range, I will hdr the shot... and video... my daughter NOT playing basketball doesn't require better video.

588
they answered with a non answer

589
Can we rent cards... and would we want to?

Yes you can: http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/canon/accessories/memory/compact-flash - but it doesn't take long to add up to the price to buy one.

All things being equal, storage is still the cheapest thing. Even if you spend $350 on a nice, big, super fast memory card, that is still a small fraction of the price of a 5D III or 1D X or 1D C. If your buying that kind of equipment, you might as well buy the right kind of storage to take full advantage of it.

Yes, memory is CHEAP compared to the other gear and REALLY CHEAP compared to film and processing, but it's not free. 

My quandary is whether to go with a slower 128GB card or buy a newer, faster 64GB card.  If they both perform the same in my 5DIII, the 128GB card is the obvious answer.


B and h is having their ask us anything on Facebook day.  I asked what is the fastest card I can get before the bottleneck is the mkiii and not the card... they haven't responded.  :(

590
Has anyone compared the new 1066x cards vs. the 1000x cards? 

It might be an incremental increase in read speed, but the write speeds are going from 90-100MB/s to 150MB/s.  That's a huge leap, but I wonder if the 1DX/5DIII can take advantage of it or if the buffer depth remains the same or close to the Lexar 1000x cards.  I'm shooting sports next week and plan to buy a 64-128GB card but don't know if the new cards are worth it.

Can we rent cards... and would we want to?

591
EOS Bodies / Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« on: February 27, 2014, 08:08:23 AM »
I'm stool a little confused... but I'm glad the topic of conversation has gone back to full v crop and how we measure the difference... having said that... I'm still just as confused as when I first posed the question...

592
EOS Bodies / Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« on: February 27, 2014, 06:55:59 AM »
Maybe, can't confirm yet :D.

Yeah... he's right. :(

593
EOS Bodies / Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« on: February 26, 2014, 09:30:26 PM »
I don't begrudge people the whole field of view argument with crop v. full because a 50mm is indeed like an 85mm... and I'm not sure why, but with full frame, depth of field is greater, though with comparable framing, the full frame's depth of field is thinner...

I've heard the argument about the f/2.8 is comparable to f/4.5 (or whatever), but I didn't bother to ask what they meant.

So if I'm shooting with a 135L f/2 in moderate light and at iso 800 I'm shooting at 1/2000 of a second... that should still be the same achieved shutter speed regardless of crop or full.

And if you keep the same distance between, the depth of field should be comparable.  So why is f/1.4 now f/2.2?

Ok, but I choose quality over quantity. I don't need to "cover the range" and it is only one L lens less for FF, really. What you'd get from your list on APSC is:
Tokina 18-26/4.5
Canon 38-112/4.5
Sigma 56/2.2
Canon 80/2.2
A 160/4.5 IS
A 216/3.5
A 112-320/6.3 IS


594
EOS Bodies / Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« on: February 26, 2014, 03:35:24 PM »
Also... I don't like the math of your example.

2650 for the 6d and the 35...
2150ish for the t2i and the 24mm...

Let's knock off 500 from the ful frame option and we are looking at a 35 f2 is.. and suddenly image quality starts to even out...

595
EOS Bodies / Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« on: February 26, 2014, 03:27:35 PM »
I love my primes... and I shot with a 50mm f1.8 for a year or two as my primary lens... but I'm not sure on what planet someone buys a 24 mm lens as their primary do it all lens alone.  No zooms... no other primes... no flashes.

And I realize what sites through the view finder is comparable... but if you give me as a beginner a pile of cash... I don't think I will go out and buy a 24mm prime.

With that 1700 I can get a combination of the following depending on what I want to shoot:

Tokina 11-16
Canon 24-70 f2.8L
Sigma 35 art
Canon 50mm f1.4
A 100mm f2.8L is
A 135 f2L
A 70-200 f4L IS
A 430 or 580 ex speedlite...

Mix and match as much as you like... and you will have greater flexibility in your photographic efforts.  True the images will not be quite as nice as a full frame alternative.

I might be doing a disservice to the 24mm, but it isn't about the individual maximization of the images as much add having the tools to get the images... and a crop will get you there until you have the coin for full frame. 

I feel as though I missing something that needs to be said...

596
EOS Bodies / Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« on: February 26, 2014, 10:05:18 AM »
Boil it down.  I think I understand what you are saying and then just as quickly I don't have a clue.


If you can throw $10'000 on glass, but you cannot justify spending more than $500 on a body, then you are being unreasonable. APSC sensors are only using 40% of the L glass potential. Even if you only got 3 or 4 lenses and use them / love them equally, then each one will only get a quarter of your attention, while the body is used for 100% of the time. If you worry so much about the resale value, then why not buying used bodies? I'm sure about one thing - I should have bought a used 5D with 50/1.8'II instead of a Rebel with some zooms (for the same price). Yes, I'm not one of those "covering the range" people.
I think that there is a conflict between two topics - "lenses before body" and "FF vs Crop" - which shouldn't be merged. However, when they do merge we get "$10'000 of L before FF" which sounds like "marriage without sex", or "FF with only $8000 of L" which sounds like fun (and the right way to do it), or "FF before any L" which sounds like "sex before marriage" (kinda fun too :), for a hobby).

I don't think I was saying you should never upgrade your body... but with limited funds and the presumption of good light, you will be better off with a crop sensor plus s good L lenses versus a full frame and a 28-135.

Not to long ago a guy was asking if he should get a5d mkiii to pair with his 70-300... and everyone but me said Heck yes... I don't know if I'm clairvoyant, but I eventually got it out of him that his lens was a 75- 300, which is one of the worst lenses canon makes. 

So with the money, I'd rather spend 3000 on a 24-105, a t3i, a 70-200 f4L IS, and a 580 ex ii over the full frame alternative.  And with my math... I still have enough for a tokina wide angle or some nice primes...

Full frame is great... but you really should have some lenses to complement it.

As for resale value... yeah... that's the only way I can afford being in photography.

If I buy a lens for 1000, use it for 3 years and then sell it for 850, then I rented the lens for $50 per year... which in my opinion ifs well worth the effort.  But more often than not, I buy a lens for 700, and sell it for 850... so they pay me  $50 a year to keep their lens warn and in good condition.  And I'm happy to oblige.

Somehow most people think that FF is only better for low light and that it is the only advantage over APSC (or maybe they don't care about the rest), while there is actually much more than that (at least 2.5x more). Same people are most likely to support the in-camera JPG propaganda, because they don't care about the difference. If you take 5 different cameras (different brands) and get it all right in camera for shooting the same scene, you'll still get 5 different photographs. Then what? Choose the one you like best and declare all the rest a blasphemy? But do you remember that you did everything right in each camera? That makes no sense. Let's do science, not religion. 24-105L on 6D won't scream "you need something wider!".

597
EOS Bodies / Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« on: February 26, 2014, 09:12:13 AM »

If you can throw $10'000 on glass, but you cannot justify spending more than $500 on a body, then you are being unreasonable. APSC sensors are only using 40% of the L glass potential. Even if you only got 3 or 4 lenses and use them / love them equally, then each one will only get a quarter of your attention, while the body is used for 100% of the time. If you worry so much about the resale value, then why not buying used bodies? I'm sure about one thing - I should have bought a used 5D with 50/1.8'II instead of a Rebel with some zooms (for the same price). Yes, I'm not one of those "covering the range" people.
I think that there is a conflict between two topics - "lenses before body" and "FF vs Crop" - which shouldn't be merged. However, when they do merge we get "$10'000 of L before FF" which sounds like "marriage without sex", or "FF with only $8000 of L" which sounds like fun (and the right way to do it), or "FF before any L" which sounds like "sex before marriage" (kinda fun too :), for a hobby).

I don't think I was saying you should never upgrade your body... but with limited funds and the presumption of good light, you will be better off with a crop sensor plus s good L lenses versus a full frame and a 28-135.

Not to long ago a guy was asking if he should get a5d mkiii to pair with his 70-300... and everyone but me said Heck yes... I don't know if I'm clairvoyant, but I eventually got it out of him that his lens was a 75- 300, which is one of the worst lenses canon makes. 

So with the money, I'd rather spend 3000 on a 24-105, a t3i, a 70-200 f4L IS, and a 580 ex ii over the full frame alternative.  And with my math... I still have enough for a tokina wide angle or some nice primes...

Full frame is great... but you really should have some lenses to complement it.

As for resale value... yeah... that's the only way I can afford being in photography.

If I buy a lens for 1000, use it for 3 years and then sell it for 850, then I rented the lens for $50 per year... which in my opinion ifs well worth the effort.  But more often than not, I buy a lens for 700, and sell it for 850... so they pay me  $50 a year to keep their lens warn and in good condition.  And I'm happy to oblige.

598
EOS Bodies / Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« on: February 26, 2014, 07:18:32 AM »
Glass before body: How many of you shoot 200-400mm 1.4X 4.0L with a 6.2mp Digital Rebel?

How many of you pros own one of those?   ::)

It is on my to try list... I 'd mull it over if it can ever be found in the $6000 to $7000 range.

599
EOS Bodies / Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« on: February 26, 2014, 06:55:18 AM »
That's a leftover from the film era, when the body was mostly a light-tight box for your lenses and for your sensor (film), and no one caring about quality were shooting APS.

Now, an FF body will make your L lenses work better.

I still agree with the sentiment... for 2 reasons... Lenses don't depreciate quickly... so you are better off running your body into the ground (150K of actuations) because it won't really be worth that much after a few years when you try and sell it.  Point in case... the 1d iii which sold for $6K and is now selling for $1k.  Whereas... if you bought a few nice lenses, you can still get well more than 16% of their original value.

And you can put an L lens on an older body and still get fantastic results... depending on what you are shooting.  If it is landscape or portraiture, the advances in high iso performance and AF performance are minimized and you can still get some amazing images using an older XTi.  Heck... if you are still rocking the t2i, there haven't really been that many advances along the lines of the crop sensors that would warrant buying a t5i. 

When I sold my XS... it was a wash... when I sold my 60D, I lost $200 in depreciation... and when I sell my 5D mkiii, I will lose around $1000 in depreciation... which kills me.  But maybe I avoid that by just using the mkiii until it dies in 10 years.

600
EOS Bodies / Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« on: February 25, 2014, 03:20:44 PM »
I listened and was actually berated by some "pro" photographers for having so many L lenses believe my point at the time is that and a "amateur" XSi and later T2i.  I didn't care, and I'm glad I waited and bought good glass first :)

I'm trying to do the math from five years ago.  I bought the 60d for 1100 and sold the lens for 300.  Then I sold the xs I had for 375 resulting in an upgrade for 425.  I needed something with video and I didn't want to spend $200 on a video camera and have to carry two devices around. 

So my cash in pocket was only $425, 225 if I did get a video camera.  And 225 doesn't get us very far when we are talking about lenses. 

I don't want to say I regret going body first... because I simply didn't have the coin to go lenses first.

Pages: 1 ... 38 39 [40] 41 42 ... 145