Rhett Quigley

Just now, Noah0302 said:

Do you want to OC?

Because a 9700k is not that different to a 9900k when both OCed to 5GHz while gaming.

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.

5 hours ago, cc143 said:

Well I assumed that you were talking about a new d7200 in some sense, and tbh didn't know the price difference was that significant, but overall I'd say it is worth it. It takes XQd cards, so has a much deeper buffer, it shoots faster (10 vs 6 fps), has a touchscreen, better dynamic range and amazing high iso capabilities, much better AF system, has bluetooth, illuminated buttons etc. Even though the resolution on the d7200  is slightly larger. 

 

I'd say, if you can afford it, go with the d500. Its basically a mini d5... 

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?

46 minutes ago, cc143 said:

I'd go with the Nikon on this one, that 200-500 is just perfect for this sort of stuff. I don't like the d7200 that much, So if you went with a used d500 it would be the best case scenario period, but the d7200 is fine in general. 

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?

12 hours ago, Radium_Angel said:

If you can afford the 400 prime, then you are golden.

That's a 10k$ lens....

I meant the 400mm f5.6l

3 hours ago, Radium_Angel said:

It's because the 150-600 has highly variable quality control. Sometimes you get lucky, most of the time not. The longer the reach, the more compromises are built-in, unless money is no object. There is a reason the sharpest lenses in the world are primes...

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.

2 hours ago, xQubeZx said:

Both @Radium_Angel and @fatboyslimerr got some half assed advices. 

 

The first question, what is your budget, like the max you will be willing to pay. Secondly, do you have any old lenses you will keep? Personally I’d preffer to go the mirrorless route for a few reasons, however I will not go into those as sadly I don’t think your budget fits any lenses for wildlife. Mirrorless are still lacking some lenses even though Sony really got some awesome stuff now. But getting good tele lenses are still expensive. With either Canon or Nikon there are plenty of used ones. For Sony you are lucky to find a 70-200 f/4 under $1000 used. Seems like once someone buys it they won’t let go. 

 

But hypothetically if you had a large budget I’d get a Sony A9 or A7r iii together with the 70-200 f/2.8 + tele converter and adapt some canon or sigma glass for the moment. Only cheaper Sony body worth getting for wildlife is the A6500. I’d argue the A9 is the best camera for wildlife because it got blackout free burst shooting and really fast tracking AF, if there were more good tele lenses. 

 

I’m not that into panasonic or fuji but I know fuji also lacks in longer tele lenses and they got even worse support for adapting and third partie lens manufactures. Panasonic almost goes away directly for its m4/3 sensor imo. It works good in daylight but as soon as it gets a bit dark its hopeless compared to the others. 

 

If you go Nikon, a used D7200 is very cheap and almost the same specs as a D7500, dual SD cards too which they removed on the D7500. Then get a used 70-200 f/2.8 tamron and sigma may have very good values, especially used. The Sigma 150-600 could work too, a bit slow but it got insane reach. It depends a bit on what you will shoot really. 

 

If you go Canon do not get the 7D, at least a 7D mark ii or a 80D. Lens wise I’d go with the same as above. A 70-200 f/2.8 for most and then one longer lens. 

 

The reason I’m pushing on newver bodies is because for wildlife good low light sensitivity helps a lot. I’d keep away from FF in your budget though as the lenses will be too expensive if you want long reach. In all kits mentioned above you could include a fast wide angle prime id you are lucky to get up close with an animal or just want to get a different perspective. 

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

11 minutes ago, fatboyslimerr said:

Why not go mirrorless? Unless you plan to do a lot of low light photography where the extra sensor size will help, you don't need the extra shallowness of depth of field from a full frame sensor if using zoom lenses. Something like a Lumix G9 or Sony equivalent and a big bright lens. I know Leica have just released a 200mm (400mm full frame equivalent) F/2.8 as well as a 50-200 (100-400mm full frame) F/2.8-4.0 that offer exceptional sharpness and with lens and body stabilization you should be fine up to 1/10 shutter speed. 

 

Mirrorless is the future imo. 

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?

Just now, Energycore said:

I don't have that in my pokedex, sadface

Haha, gotta catch em all!

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

1 hour ago, Energycore said:

Your guys' tanagers belong in Thraupidae to me <3

 

But yeah we do get all the tropical tanagers. Like this one

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.

1 hour ago, Energycore said:

Your guys' tanagers belong in Thraupidae to me <3

 

But yeah we do get all the tropical tanagers. Like this one

1

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