Rhett Quigley

Yeah, I plan to OC. Sounds like the i7 9700k is a much better value so that sounds like the right route to take.

Ahh thanks. Is it worth upgrading from an i7 4790 to an i7 9700k?

How much better is the i9 vs the i7 9700k for 240hz gaming? I play at low settings to maximize fps and the cpu becomes more important to squeeze all the fps out of my gpu.

I removed the CMOS battery and placed it back in, nothing. Then I thought I maybe installed the i7 wrong so I removed it and then placed that back in. Now it works. Not sure what I did wrong before. All is good now.

I sold my old i5 4690k and bought a i7 4790. Now my computer doesn't work. I heard that the bios may need to be updated but I don't have the old cpu to do that. What do I do?

Sounds like a good point, either way I'll pay for it with my research money from Shepherd University. I'll make over $3000 dollars this summer and I would like to save what I can apart from this camera setup, but its not like I need to buy something else. If the d500 is that much better I'll consider it. What about a sigma 100-400 lens? I hear it is as good as the Canon 100-400 II so perhaps the Nikon 200-500 also.

The d500+200-500mm route is $2300, the original routes I mentioned were $1600. That is a $700 dollar difference. If you were to compare the images side by side of the three set ups, could you pick out which one is which? Or is the main benefits in AF?

A used d7200 is $650, a used d500 is $1300. Is it worth double the price?

For birds primarily. Also some butterflies and moths. From what I understand the canon combo has better AF and the nikon combo has better IQ. Could someone tell me which is best for my scenario?

I meant the 400mm f5.6l

Ok, watching this video made me consider the canon 400mm prime. Despite the shorter focal length the lens is sharper when cropped according to this video. 10:28 mark.

I'm going cheap lol, What I really want is more reach. The logic then would be to go for the highest zoom like a tamron 150-600. People say it is not very sharp, but many people say its good, flickr pictures of many songbirds look good, and the difference is probably small. I can find a used tamron for around $700 or less. A 7D is about the same as a t3i in image quality, you would be getting a better autofocus system and more frames per second, not a big deal. I could spend tons of money for little benefit in image quality, not worth it. I guess this is the best bang for buck.

I would say the max I would want to pay is $2000 for both body and lens.

Sounds interesting, I will look into it.

My profile picture was taken with my t3i and the 55-250stm I mentioned. I got really close to the Chestnut-sided Warbler so it looks really good, I hear that many mediocre lenses can give really good results when you get close.