Re: Why not a SATA SSD the size of a CF card?
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Larry Colen wrote: > Last night, I was thinking about how one performance limitation that I run up > against the most often is write speed to the storage. My first idea was a > camera grip that had a slot for a laptop SSD drive. My second thought was > that a "compact SSD" would be better. Even if storage were limited on the > initial generations of the platform, even 128GB at SATA, or better yet STA-3 > speeds, would be so much better than writing to SD cards. We're talking up > to 1500-3000 MBPS rather than 30-45: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_device_bit_rates > > I expect that in ten years the SATA bandwidth might start proving > claustrophobic again, but it would certainly be a big improvement over SD > cards. Both for the initial write time, and for transferring files to the > computer. > -- > Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est > That's exactly what a CFast card is, SATA rather than PATA Compact Flash. XQD which is PCI Express rather than SATA is also an option. Note that SSD's are the same at the chip level as CF cards. But SD is capable of comparable speeds to current XQD or CFast implementations with the UHS-I cards. The speed rating is pretty irrelevant now, the current next-gen interfaces (CFast, XQD, SDXC) are all capable of significantly more bandwidth than current devices are (with the exception of CF and SDHC, both of which are limited by their interfaces) -- M. Adam Maas http://www.mawz.ca Explorations of the City Around Us. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: D600 vs K-5
On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 8:19 AM, David J Brooks wrote: > On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 3:45 AM, Larry Colen wrote: >> Marco came over to whiskymas for a while tonight, and brought his D600. I >> didn't get a lot of time to play with it but we did spend a few minutes >> doing some low light focus tests, and the K-5 definitely outperformed the >> D600. It was dim light, the K-5 was able to lock focus, albeit with a bit >> of hunt and seek, and the D600 simply wasn't able to lock focus. > > One of the 'Cons' from a few on line reviews was the AF capabilities > of the D600. > Documenting Life in Rural Ontario. > www.caughtinmotion.com > http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/ > York Region, Ontario, Canada > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. That said, the D600 shares the D7000's AF tech, which is considered to be significantly better than the K-5's poor unit by the accepted wisdom (and probably is, when shooting AF-C in good light) -- M. Adam Maas http://www.mawz.ca Explorations of the City Around Us. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
