I think he's bi- now 
Why was I under the impression that the 1D-X could shoot 4k video?
Why was I under the impression that the 1D-X could shoot 4k video?
'cause the 1D-C can? (Cynic in me says same hardware with different firmware and +3K price delta)
That's the one. Thanks!
It also has a larger heatsink for continuous use.
I'm none too happy with the Nikon I bought in August.
I think he's bi- now
Why was I under the impression that the 1D-X could shoot 4k video?
I have been since 2000 actually, but even before that if you count different film formats in the 1970s.
The 1D-X has worked out well. I should have made a purchase earlier. Despite having only 18 MP, the images are very clean and highly enlargeable. The color quality at high ISO is noticeably better than any other Canon bodies, even the 5D III. 
Of course the 43+ frame buffer and 10-12 FPS are quite nice too.
Of course the 43+ frame buffer and 10-12 FPS are quite nice too.Stereodude
Not really a
Not yet. I did give up on the 7D II, but will wait until the summer to see if a 1DX replacement is on the way.
Meanwhile, I'm also considering the rumored Sony A9 to see if it resolves the major limitations of the A7r.
Stereodude
Not really a
So I bought a few SD cards during the various Black Friday deals. I got 32gB and 64gB Sandisk Extreme Plus and 32gB and 64gB Samsung Pro cards. I ran CrystalDiskMark benchmarks on the cards in a PCIe and a USB3 reader.
Using the internal PCIe reader in my HP Elitebook:
32gB Samsung Pro
64gB Samsung Pro
64gB Samsung Pro (microSDXC)
32gB Sandisk Extreme Plus
64gB Sandisk Extreme Plus
Two from the Transcend USB 3.0 reader: (as a point of comparison to the internal PCIe reader)
64gB Samsung Pro
64gB Sandisk Extreme Plus
FWIW, the Transcend USB 3.0 reader was slightly slower than the PCIe reader for all the cards. That's why I'm not going to post them all.
Using the internal PCIe reader in my HP Elitebook:
32gB Samsung Pro
64gB Samsung Pro
64gB Samsung Pro (microSDXC)
32gB Sandisk Extreme Plus
64gB Sandisk Extreme Plus
Two from the Transcend USB 3.0 reader: (as a point of comparison to the internal PCIe reader)
64gB Samsung Pro
64gB Sandisk Extreme Plus
FWIW, the Transcend USB 3.0 reader was slightly slower than the PCIe reader for all the cards. That's why I'm not going to post them all.
Stereodude
Not really a
What part is strange? These aren't Extreme Pro cards.
Stereodude
Not really a
I doubt anyone else here is even going to receive a single copy of the lens, let alone multiples.
I am supposed to get a refurb RX100 MkII before Christmas though.
I am supposed to get a refurb RX100 MkII before Christmas though.
It is still the next lens on my list. I've procrastinated long enough that a new version has been released. I may actually order it before the III comes out.
Let's hope there is no III. The 100-400 II should have been 80mm at the wide end given that the Sony 70-400 has been around for a few years and then the 80-400 Nikkor was updated last year. The IQ better be very good to justify the critical loss at the wide end. That creates significant grief as there is a gap to any of the 24-70 lenses. The 24-105 is not so hot, especially at the wide end. Now that Canon has updated the 100-400, they really do have an excellent group of zoom lenses: 16-35/4 IS, 24-70/2.8 II, 70-200/2.8 IS II, 100-400 IS II, and 200-400/4 IS w/1.4x. I'll include the 70-200/4 IS in the list, although it is a bit older lens.
Stereodude
Not really a
I very rarely use my DSLRs anymore. I have mostly been using my Powershot S90 and more recently the refurb S100 I picked up. The pocketable form factor is much more convenient when traveling/sight seeing. That's the big reason why I bought the refurb Sony RX100 MkII. Even better image quality in the same form factor.
Yes, I'm a cheap bastard buying refurbished cameras.
Yes, I'm a cheap bastard buying refurbished cameras.
I'd probably not buy a fine DSLR as a refurb, but I'll buy a refurb Canon lens as it has the same warranty and typically has been tested/adjusted.
DSLRs seem to be a rarity nowadays with all the MILCs and such, but they can't be beaten for action with the long teles.
Yeah, everyone knows you are cheap.
Stereodude
Not really a
I don't think I would buy a refurb DSLR. The S100 came with a 1 year warranty despite being a refurb. It was only $110 so I'm not going to cry if it doesn't last a long time.
The Sony was a lot more at $390 with a 32gB card and some sort of case and 90 day warranty. I've been waiting for a while for the Mk II price to drop under $400. Buying a new one last year was a nonstarter at $750. I held off on a refurbished Mk I last year around the $375 price since I wanted the better image quality of the BSI sensor of the Mk II.
The Sony was a lot more at $390 with a 32gB card and some sort of case and 90 day warranty. I've been waiting for a while for the Mk II price to drop under $400. Buying a new one last year was a nonstarter at $750. I held off on a refurbished Mk I last year around the $375 price since I wanted the better image quality of the BSI sensor of the Mk II.
Do you normally get more than one of the main lenses? Do you try to keep them identified (label?)
I have 3x100-400, 3x24-70/2.8 (two original and one II), 3x16-35/2.8 (one original and two II), three 1.4x converters (two-II and one III), 3x1Ds III, 2x5D III, etc.
Some other lenses are not exactly the same, but the same focal length, e.g., 300/4 non-IS, 300/4 IS, 300/2.8 IS or 400/5.6 and 400/4 DO.
Yeah, I should identify them. A couple of the 100-400s look the same; the third has the older switches and no CE mark. I do put the Brother labels on the prisms of identical camera bodies (1, 2, or 3).
The new 100-400 II should be able to replace at least three lenses, including the old 100-400, 300/4 IS and 400/5.6.
Some other lenses are not exactly the same, but the same focal length, e.g., 300/4 non-IS, 300/4 IS, 300/2.8 IS or 400/5.6 and 400/4 DO.
Yeah, I should identify them. A couple of the 100-400s look the same; the third has the older switches and no CE mark. I do put the Brother labels on the prisms of identical camera bodies (1, 2, or 3).
The new 100-400 II should be able to replace at least three lenses, including the old 100-400, 300/4 IS and 400/5.6.
I received the second 100-400 II now. That makes five 100-400s altogether. 
The IS on these new lenses is really impressive. I'm not very stable anymore, but 1/30 at 400mm is just fine. I'd expect that the younger people can go to slower speeds.
The IS on these new lenses is really impressive. I'm not very stable anymore, but 1/30 at 400mm is just fine. I'd expect that the younger people can go to slower speeds.
I received the second 100-400 II now. That makes five 100-400s altogether.
The IS on these new lenses is really impressive. I'm not very stable anymore, but 1/30 at 400mm is just fine. I'd expect that the younger people can go to slower speeds.
Would you say this is a better lens than a 70-200 2.8L IS from the perspective of IQ and weight?
Stereodude
Not really a
You are talking physically right? :wink:
Well it's been a few years since I was tested. The cognitive test scores were very good, above average for my age group.
They tell you to remember some objects and places and then go through some other test and ask to recall them later - I scored 100%.
The math and some other general questions were trivial. Of course I know the President due to the TV, but who gives a crap about the Governor?
I just say some rich guy that has a sleazy look on his face. Apparently that was not the right answer.
Sometimes I forget people's names if I only work with them occasionally. And I forget actors names sometimes.
I'm not so sure about some of the other questions. I never know what to say as I don't want to placed on some list.
The short answer is that the lenses are really different enough in FL and aperture that they are not directly comparable.
The 70-200/2.8 IS is a fine lens, but I have not had one in some years, so I cannot directly compare it. At equal apertures they are probably similar.
I have been using the 70-200/2.8 II more recently, so I'll comment about that as well. The 100-400 II is not quite in the same league optically as the 70-200/2.8 IS II. Many users felt that a good copy of the 70-200/2.8 IS II was so sharp that a 2x III converter would produce equal IQ to the 100-400. Although that was not really true, the 100-400 II increases the gap.
Although the 100-400 II is listed as being significantly heavier than the original version, the size is about the same and it does not feel noticeably heavier. The original 70-200/2.8 IS is narrower and a little lighter than the 100-400 II. The 100-400 II is closer to the same general size/weight category as the 70-200/2.8 IS II.
I need some serious DSLR education.
After nearly two decades me and a friend want to "get back into" photography. Mostly landscape/nature and macro photography.
A little background. Time frame was early 80s to mid 90s. Camera/lenses: Minolta XG-1 with Minolta 50mm f/1.7 (my setup) and a Minolta X-700 with Minolta 45mm f/2 and older Vivitar 19mm f/3.8 lens (his setup). We shared the 19mm. The 19mm was "meh" IQ wise but we loved it for landscape shots. We shot B&W film. We bought Plus-X (mostly) and Tri-X film in bulk and loaded it into individual cassettes to save money. I had a darkroom at home to process film and make prints. My friends friend pretty much does photography full time now. His sites here and here. We don't want or expect to do any paid/professional work but continually seeing his site gets us in the mood to go out and shoot. Plus I need to go outside and get some exercise so taking a nature trail and shooting some pixs will help.
Equipment. We want DSLRs. Two bodies either both Canon or both Nikon so we can swap lenses. Probably full-frame so the wide angle lenses will stay wide. Decent megapixel but want quality over simply megapixel (Ex. great 18MP vs OK 24MP). Lenses. One macro lens, one wide angle (or perhaps a wide-zoom) and one normal or short tele/zoom lens. My friend will probably get the macro lens, I'll get the normal/short tele/zoom lens and we will both get a wide lens. We want quality gear/glass.
What recommendations do you have on a $1000, $1500-$2000, $2000-3000 budget? Obviously can't get everything we want for $1000, but if that was all we had to spend right now, how would you spend it? Upgrade-ability? Get this, then this, then this? Any suggestions as to an upgrade path?
Obviously I have a lot of work/studying/google'ing to do but I'd like to purchase this gear before a two week early April trip we'll take to Grand Canyon, Zion, Bryce, Canyonlands and Arches National parks.
Much thanks in advance for any/all advice.
After nearly two decades me and a friend want to "get back into" photography. Mostly landscape/nature and macro photography.
A little background. Time frame was early 80s to mid 90s. Camera/lenses: Minolta XG-1 with Minolta 50mm f/1.7 (my setup) and a Minolta X-700 with Minolta 45mm f/2 and older Vivitar 19mm f/3.8 lens (his setup). We shared the 19mm. The 19mm was "meh" IQ wise but we loved it for landscape shots. We shot B&W film. We bought Plus-X (mostly) and Tri-X film in bulk and loaded it into individual cassettes to save money. I had a darkroom at home to process film and make prints. My friends friend pretty much does photography full time now. His sites here and here. We don't want or expect to do any paid/professional work but continually seeing his site gets us in the mood to go out and shoot. Plus I need to go outside and get some exercise so taking a nature trail and shooting some pixs will help.
Equipment. We want DSLRs. Two bodies either both Canon or both Nikon so we can swap lenses. Probably full-frame so the wide angle lenses will stay wide. Decent megapixel but want quality over simply megapixel (Ex. great 18MP vs OK 24MP). Lenses. One macro lens, one wide angle (or perhaps a wide-zoom) and one normal or short tele/zoom lens. My friend will probably get the macro lens, I'll get the normal/short tele/zoom lens and we will both get a wide lens. We want quality gear/glass.
What recommendations do you have on a $1000, $1500-$2000, $2000-3000 budget? Obviously can't get everything we want for $1000, but if that was all we had to spend right now, how would you spend it? Upgrade-ability? Get this, then this, then this? Any suggestions as to an upgrade path?
Obviously I have a lot of work/studying/google'ing to do but I'd like to purchase this gear before a two week early April trip we'll take to Grand Canyon, Zion, Bryce, Canyonlands and Arches National parks.
Much thanks in advance for any/all advice.
Well I did some quick early morning Googling and discovered that full-frame cameras are going to be out of my friends price range and most likely out of my price range as well. Having to multiply by 1.5 or 1.6 is gonna kill the selection of ultra wide angle lenses, as I'd like a 20mm (full-frame equivalent) lens. OR am I not understanding the DX to FX conversion?
Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5G ED $810.
Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 12-24mm f/4G IF-ED $1100.
Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM $650.
Canon EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM $300.
The Canon 10-22 is a fine enough lens, but I don't find myself using it much. The 17-40 and 24/1.4 have so much better IQ that I'd rather recompose than compromise.
Stereodude
Not really a
I'm confused. What is he using for his full time photography if he needs a DSLR too?
Ultimately you're buying into a family of lenses. Pick the lenses you want to use (Canon or Nikon) and then buy the appropriate body to use them.
Based on your apparent landscape requirements I'd tell you to get a Full Frame Canon and the 17-40 F4 L. The 24-105 "kit" lens for the Canon 5D/6D is pretty nice too. For landscape type work the 5D II or 6D should be just fine. They're fairly reasonably priced these days.
A $1k budget is really the bare minimum entry IMHO. It will get you a third-tier body with a kit lens or a third-tier lens. I'd recommend a 60D with the 18-135.
I prefer second-tier bodies and top-end glass, but even $2k might be a stretch for that. 6D with the 24-105 kit lens is currently $2400. Add on the 17-40 (or 16-35 if you are really hungry for wide stuff) and a 100mm Macro (I prefer the 180mm, but it ain't cheap). You find yourself about $3500 poorer but with a good range. Provided you already have the support stuff (tripods, bags, memory cards, etc).
I prefer second-tier bodies and top-end glass, but even $2k might be a stretch for that. 6D with the 24-105 kit lens is currently $2400. Add on the 17-40 (or 16-35 if you are really hungry for wide stuff) and a 100mm Macro (I prefer the 180mm, but it ain't cheap). You find yourself about $3500 poorer but with a good range. Provided you already have the support stuff (tripods, bags, memory cards, etc).
Stereodude
Not really a
You can get a 6D with a kit lens for under $2k via eBay. Not sure if they're gray market or simply unauthorized though.
Are you using the 10-22mm on a FX or DX body? A 24mm lens on a DX body would be about 35mm or so on an FX body. That's not wide enough for what I want to do, or think I want to do.
Sorry for the confusion. Me and a friend want to get back into photography. My friend's friend is doing the photography work. Different person. My friend's friend uses 8"x10" and 11"x14" view cameras then has the film developed and drum scanned at 11,000 dpi, edits with photoshop, then prints on high-end wide format Epson printers.
Exactly. I figured the lenses would come first, then pick the appropriate body. I want a full-frame (equivalent) 20mm or so wide angle lens but if I go with a DX body I'll have limited selections but FX is on the pricey side.
Yeah, as soon as I hit SUBMIT I realized that $1000 is a joke of a budget if I wanted a DSLR body + 1 lens + quality. I'm pretty much thinking along the same lines as you, aka decent body + top glass.
Seems that Canon is getting all the recommendations. Does Canon have the best glass overall or does it really depend on a particular lens. Canon better for lens X but Nikon better for lens Y? Is Nikon just overpriced but as good as Canon?
I guess I should consider stepping outside of the Nikon/Canon systems if we only need ultra wide and macro lenses. Any third-party glass that's as good/better than the two biggies?
Anything on the immediate horizon, aka quarter one 2015 that I should wait for?
Thanks for all the options. Things are very slowly coming into focus.
Last edited:
I'm recommending Canon because that is what I know. There could be better options on the Nikon side, but I don't know them at all. Of the photo folks on here I think most are Canon with one Olympus and Lunar running both Canon and Nikon gear.
If you are starting from scratch and don't plan on spending a huge amount of money eventually you might even consider some of the mirrorless systems out there (Sony?). Of course, once you leave the big two you have put yourself in a very small pool of lenses.
If you are starting from scratch and don't plan on spending a huge amount of money eventually you might even consider some of the mirrorless systems out there (Sony?). Of course, once you leave the big two you have put yourself in a very small pool of lenses.