When formatting the 4Gb drive with FAT32, you can significantly improve its
(in-camera) performance by formatting with your PC and specifying a larger
cluster size (64k) than the default. For some reason, Canon chose to use 16k
clusters, meaning 4x the overhead when writing files.
I don't know if
> FAT32 (32 bit addressing): Designed mainly to
> overcome
> the limitatiosn posed by the 16 bit addressable FAT
> system, it enables upto 4 TBytes of storage and
Sorry correction: That should be 2TeraBytes of max
storage
- Harman
__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance
> What's the difference, if any between the two different FAT formats?
Not much. They're both disk-space allocation schemes used in computer file
systems for Microsoft PC operating systems.
FAT actually stands for File Allocation Table. The main difference is that
FAT16, the old FAT, was invent
--- Lawrance Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Howdy group,
>
> I recently bought a 4GB microdrive for my EOS 10D.
>
> When I did a chkdsk (from Windows 2000) onto the
> drive, it says FAT32.
> I then did a chkdsk on my 1GB compact flash card and
> it is just plain FAT.
>
> What's the difference
Hi all:
I've used several brands of filters. I think the lower version of B+W is
single coated instead of uncoated. It's pretty good and the coating is
pretty tough. Hoya HMC and HMC super are good but is difficult to clean (I
have read a few reports on this and the HMC super filter). Helopan
At 05:15 PM 3/27/2004 -0800, Henning Wulff wrote:
I have a Kiron 105/2.8 macro for Nikon, and the 100/2.8 USM Canon lens,
and I really can't tell the results apart. The Kiron is almost as good as
the old 105/4 Nikkor, and better than the 2.8.
Hi Henning,
The 105/2.8 macro is the Kiron that I wa
Howdy group,
I recently bought a 4GB microdrive for my EOS 10D.
When I did a chkdsk (from Windows 2000) onto the drive, it says FAT32.
I then did a chkdsk on my 1GB compact flash card and it is just plain FAT.
What's the difference, if any between the two different FAT formats?
Should I format my
On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 18:30:42
Konstantinos Bibis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - ---
> > What is the difference between the B&W UV uncoated vs the B&W UV multi
> > coated filter? Will it make a difference in picture quality on a Canon
> > consumer EF 75-300 f/4-5.6 III?
> >=20
> > -
Ken,
I've been a D60 user since soon after the introduction of the camera.
Overall, I am very pleased with it, and will only replace it with something
of the caliber of a 1Ds, which is NOT financially feaseable now.
I will say I went through a learning curve with my D60, but can now get VERY
good
At 7:41 PM -0500 3/27/04, Johnny Johnson wrote:
At 03:17 PM 3/27/2004 -0600, Tom Pfeiffer wrote:
Low light AF issues, flash exposure inconsistency and the lack of Kiron
lenses?
;-)
Hi Tom,
Was the reference to Kiron and inside joke between you and Ken?
Reason I wonder is that I've got a Kiron 10
On 28 Mar 2004 at 18:30, Konstantinos Bibis wrote:
> ---
> > What is the difference between the B&W UV uncoated vs the B&W UV
> > multi coated filter? Will it make a difference in picture quality on
> > a Canon consumer EF 75-300 f/4-5.6 III?
> >
> > --
---
> On 28 Mar 2004 at 0:35, Robert W. Meyers wrote:
so I was hopping someone could direct me to some examples.
The only ones i could find:
http://www.photosig.com/go/photos/browse?id=26113
http://www.photosig.com/go/photos/view?id=1098712
All taken with the ts90
You will have
On 28 Mar 2004 at 0:35, Robert W. Meyers wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I was wondering if anyone had any portraits done with the 90mm TS-E
> they would be willing to share? I am wondering about this lens. It
> seems like it really could be a nice addition to my kit, as was
> suggested several months
---
> What is the difference between the B&W UV uncoated vs the B&W UV multi
> coated filter? Will it make a difference in picture quality on a Canon
> consumer EF 75-300 f/4-5.6 III?
>
>
I have a similar question. Some people argue tha
What is the difference between the B&W UV uncoated vs the B&W UV multi
coated filter? Will it make a difference in picture quality on a Canon
consumer EF 75-300 f/4-5.6 III?
In reality, the biggest difference will be that the coated is unlikely to
have
What is the difference between the B&W UV uncoated vs the B&W UV multi
coated filter? Will it make a difference in picture quality on a Canon
consumer EF 75-300 f/4-5.6 III?
Mark
*
***
***
* For list instructions, including unsubs
This afternoon, I was photographing ducks in the sky. I took seven pictures
within three seconds with my 10D, and the second frame is totally black (no
image at all), while the first and five last are perfect.
I was shooting on Automatic at ISO 400, and the exposure says it was the
same for all sev
--- Javier Perez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Call me a slave to form, but I can't
> get myself to appreciate a camrera with a
> built-in flash.
> Javier
>
While it is true that the extrenal flash is much more
powerful than a built in one, a built in flash can be
a saviour for an 'impromptu' s
Javier Perez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote/replied to:
>
>Call me a slave to form, but I can't
>get myself to appreciate a camrera with a
>built-in flash.
>Javier
Oh really. Well my 10d with it's built in flash does a hell of a job
of filling in shadows, especially on faces. I've even used it for f
Keith wrote:
The weekly UK magazine 'Amateur Photographer' reviews the Sigma lens in the
current issue.
I only browsed through it in the newsagents, and did not buy this issue.
They were impressed, and it scored over 90% if I remember correctly.
I must admit, 'though, that all of my lenses are Ca
Hello all,
I was wondering if anyone had any portraits done with the 90mm TS-E they
would be willing to share? I am wondering about this lens. It seems like
it really could be a nice addition to my kit, as was suggested several
months ago in this forum. Now, finances my allow it, so I was hoppi
21 matches
Mail list logo
