tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8868870213262223933.post5607978739438377526..comments2024-03-27T20:46:25.482-07:00Comments on Jeff Cable's Blog: 2012 Summer Olympics: The advantage of having the right equipmentJeff Cable Photography Bloghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11135764067295259155noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8868870213262223933.post-52349933508331013052012-08-19T21:48:37.294-07:002012-08-19T21:48:37.294-07:00Lance,
Sorry - just so busy that it is hard to k...Lance, <br /><br />Sorry - just so busy that it is hard to keep up. The 200-400 is pretty reasonable is both size and weight. Less weight than the 400mm 2.8 I think. The sharpness looked really good, but these are hand built prototypes. I would like to play with the real thing before making any final comment. I did not see any major degradation with the 1.4 switched. It was really awesome to have an effective focal range of 200-560mm. As for your other question, I do, at times, connect both USB 3.0 readers to my new Mac at the same time. And yes, the bandwidth does allow for increased speed. I was downloading 15GB a minute when using both at one time!!!! That was awesome!Jeff Cable Photography Bloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11135764067295259155noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8868870213262223933.post-29835293252614559452012-08-19T19:10:03.839-07:002012-08-19T19:10:03.839-07:00Jeff, interesting workflow. Are you saying that y...Jeff, interesting workflow. Are you saying that you had two Lexar USB 3.0 Card Readers (you just mentioned one in the article and I could only see one in the photo) hooked up to your MacBook Pro when you were downloading? Would this allow you to download two CF cards at the same time? Or why did you have this setup? Or am I misreading this? If you can download two CF Cards on separate CF Card Readers at the same time, that would be something I had never heard of or even thought of. Would running two cards be faster than running one card at a time, or can the USB 3.0 and the computer handle this much download size of images? Please clarify, as I'm looking into getting the same setup to download my CF cards you talk about here, and want to see the possibilities. Thanks so much for the helpful info.<br />P.S. Is there anything you can say in answer to my question above from August 7th regarding the 200-400? I know you may be sworn to secrecy about it, so if you can't say any more, then don't worry about it. But if you can answer some or all of my questions, I would greatly appreciate it.<br />Thanks,<br />LanceUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17383099946199960714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8868870213262223933.post-7478117862654473742012-08-19T16:15:38.334-07:002012-08-19T16:15:38.334-07:00Lance,
I did not have all of the SB 3.0 devices ...Lance, <br /><br />I did not have all of the SB 3.0 devices hooked up at one time. When downloading, I would connect the readers. Then after that, I would connect the Wacom tablet to edit. Finally I would connect one USB 3.0 WD hard drive. Later in the week I would connect 2 hard drives and duplicate the latest one.Jeff Cable Photography Bloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11135764067295259155noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8868870213262223933.post-31613978152227751302012-08-19T14:02:08.630-07:002012-08-19T14:02:08.630-07:00Jeff,
Curious as to how you hook up your USB 3.0 c...Jeff,<br />Curious as to how you hook up your USB 3.0 card reader, and two separate USB 3.0 external hard drives, and your Wacom, when the MacBook Pro only has two USB 3.0 ports. Do you use some sort of USB 3.0 hub? Or how do you have everything you show in the picture of your computer hooked up to this computer?<br />Thanks,<br />Lance KruegerUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17383099946199960714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8868870213262223933.post-59954519493558312182012-08-11T13:30:41.351-07:002012-08-11T13:30:41.351-07:00Excellent blogpost, Jeff. Very informative.Excellent blogpost, Jeff. Very informative.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00685140527695856275noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8868870213262223933.post-84813235202268551722012-08-07T15:47:41.183-07:002012-08-07T15:47:41.183-07:00Jeff,
Thanks so much for your extremely informativ...Jeff,<br />Thanks so much for your extremely informative blog here on your photographic experience here at the Olympics. I really can't believe there are no comments about this blog post, as this is by far my favorite you've posted so far, and I've read all your 2012 Olympics posts. Guess that's because I'm a wildlife photographer that can't wait for much of this equipment to come out that you're using.<br />I'm very interested to know any further thoughts you might have on the Canon 200-400 f/4L IS w/1.4x. There has been a lot of speculation about how large this lens is. Would you compare it in size and weight to the Nikon 200-400? Or is it closer in size and weight to the Canon 300 f/2.8 IS versions I or II? Or closer in size and weight to the 500 f/4 IS versions I or II? Is there any way to weigh and measure this thing in all your down time? ;) Is it well balanced? How would you rate the sharpness compared to Canon's other Super Telephotos (both versions I and II)? Do you notice the typical amount of image degradation using the built in 1.4x extender that you would get with a 1.4x III? Or does it seem sharper than you would expect from an add on 1.4x and more optimized for the 200-400 as many have suspected? <br />Thanks again for your very informative blog posts. Very interesting to read! <br />Thanks, Lance KruegerUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17383099946199960714noreply@blogger.com