August 20, 2014, 01:16:45 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 ... 42 43 [44] 45 46 ... 149
EOS-M / Re: Why isn't M on refurbished store?
« on: February 27, 2014, 11:09:05 PM »
Maybe people didn't return em... they figure $300 for a back up option... or one for the kids or wife... sure. 

EOS Bodies / Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« on: February 27, 2014, 10:48:55 PM »

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.

Maybe it will click tomorrow... but tonight... I'm enjoying my gambling winnings from a triple overtime game.

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!  :D
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...

The wife washed and dried a 32 GB SD card a few hundred times and it stopped working... so as long as she doesn't do that again it should be the only card that ever failed on me.

EOS Bodies / Re: Hardware Hack for EOS Cameras Coming Soon? [CR1]
« on: February 27, 2014, 09:00:56 PM »
I want practically a new camera for a $1000 mod. 

I want 8 fps, I want a bigger buffer, I want 4k video, and I want self adjust afma that adjusts through the range not just at the wide and at the tele side.

Is that outrageous... no.  And the reason why is that the 5d mkiv will probably have all that and more, so if I sell my body for $2400 (maybe) and the new mkiv might be $4000... so for $1600... I can get the big upgrade.  But I'm just making stuff up now.  And the mkiv won't come out for another 2-3 years...

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. 

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.

they answered with a non answer

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

Yes you can: - 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.  :(

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?

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...

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. :(

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

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...

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...

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!".

Pages: 1 ... 42 43 [44] 45 46 ... 149