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.

I have made a few posts recently about lenses, I tried to narrow it down. The Nikon D500 is a bit too expensive for me, so I would consider the Nikon D7200/D7500 or for the Canon side, the 7d Mark II/80D and maybe a used 7D because of how cheap you can get one used (under $400). So if I went the 7D and 400mm f5.6l (both used) route it would cost roughly $1000-1100 and if I swap the 7D for a 7d Mark II used it would be a total of around $1600. If I went the Nikon route it would cost around $1700 used. I like a good price to performance ratio (much like gaming PC's) so would the cheapest 7D route be not that much worse? I hear the Nikon 200-500 has good image stabilization (400mm f5.6l has none) which equates to low iso photos = less noise = better looking photos. Some say the 200-500 is not as sharp as the 400mm f5.6l, but I would think it is a small difference. Nikon also has no AF filter on their bodies. I intend on taking photos of birds while I go birding, (I currently have a t3i plus a 55-250mm stm, very entry level). If someone has a better option please list it.

According to Dustin Abbott, the Sigma is about as good in IQ as a Canon 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 II, and people have said that the Canon 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 II is as good in IQ or slightly better than the canon prime 400mm f5.6l (e.g., Tony Northrup). So if a Sigma is as good as a prime 400mm f5.6l with the addition of IS and zoom for $400 cheaper then that would be epic. But Abbot says the focus speed is not super good.

I will be taking pictures of birds with it. Which would be better? I also currently have only a t3i body, should I upgrade that first?

I would like someone who actually has used both.

the 1060 will obliterate the gt 710 EDIT: oh you want to for another monitor

Which one is better?

Haha, gotta catch em all!

I updated my profile picture with a photo of mine, a Chestnut-sided Warbler.

I would have been near 100% sure but I wasn't sure if there were other similar species haha. How many birds in Baja California are not in America? When I look at some ebird reports of a Xantus's Hummingbird I mostly find birds that live in America too, although there was a Gray Thrasher too and a Belding's Yellowthroat and another I think. Oh yeah, Yellow-footed Gull.

Blue-gray Tanager I'm pretty sure. They used to consider ours real tanagers but they changed that, but the name is kept haha.