Maybe people didn't return em... they figure $300 for a back up option... or one for the kids or wife... sure.
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.
Depth of field is affected by two things: aperture and subject distance.
No, dof is affected by two things, aperture size (not number) and subject magnification.
A 17mm and 200mm shot from the same place with the same aperture value have different dof, your statement says they would be the same.
Ok good point. I was taking FL as static, basically trying to distinguish lens from sensor. But that is more accurate, I will edit.
Well we still aren't quite there. If you take the same picture from the same place with the same lens and settings and on a crop and ff cameras, then make two prints the same size, the image is different (obviously) and the dof is less in the crop camera image.
If you have two different sized prints, such that the subjects were the same size then the dof would be the same from both cameras.
DOF is dependent on magnification, to get a same sized print you have to enlarge the crop camera more so it has less dof.
It isn't until people accept that dof is subjective and dependent on magnification, that it clicks that crop cameras can have, more, less, or the same, dof as a ff camera.
I know - but for me, I've only ever had an issue with one SD card, while I have frequently run out of space on a card in the middle of a shoot. Also, there's no reason you can't download from the card and leave the images on the card for a while if you don't need the whole space for a while...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.But is that really true? I've wondered about the catastrophic failure rate versus card size. If you lost a big card while on a trip, you could lose thousands of images. Smaller cards, no one failure loses very many images. Could be a tradeoff curve if the catastrophic failure rate is sufficiently high, but I don't know much about how often that happens.
Oh gosh, and now I've probably left you wondering what's behind door number three. Oh... Monty, Monty, Monty!
QuoteUnfortunately 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
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.
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.
Maybe, can't confirm yet .
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:
A 160/4.5 IS
A 112-320/6.3 IS
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!".