Re: Researching which media to use for my new *ist D
On 23 Jan 2004 at 9:52, Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote: > The fastest cards on *istD are undeniably Sandisk Ultra II and Extreme. So I > bought Sandisk Ultra II 512 as the one having good price/performance ratio. > Lexars despite having utilised by *istD Write Acceleration feature, are much > slower and more expensive than those which were faster... See results of tests > here: http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=6007-6432 I just tested my CF cards for RAW write performance using the criterion set at the Rob Galbraith page (http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=6007-6432) and found that my new Ridata 2GB 52x Pro cards deliver 1758kB/s which puts them just slightly behind the Sandisk Ultra II and Extreme in his table. My old 512MB CF cards were spec'd at 20x and came in at 1566kB/s. I'd be interested to see what difference if any the new Write Acceleration technology might make. What it boils down to is that if you need to engage in continuous shooting in RAW past the 5 image buffer you'll be looking at about 7seconds at the very least between subsequent images even using the fastest CF cards. If you need to keep the buffer empty you need to shoot JPEG. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Researching which media to use for my new *ist D
The Pentax photo lab (PPL) white balance is very nice, but I only need it so often. I haven't had quite as much luck as Bill with the manual white balance. That indoor swimming pool (where I have done most of my manual balancing) has the most troublesome lights. I also wonder if the lighting changes from one end to the other. Anyway, the PPL with raw fixed that well, so if I suspect a difficult white balance I switch to raw. Most times, however, ***L works fine. As for exposure, I admit I'm not quite good enough with that Curves-style tool to make those fine adjustments worth while. I practice when I can, however, and hope springs eternal . . . Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 01/23/04 05:38PM >>> On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Steve Desjardins wrote: > I also shoot ***L (*ist D for highest quality/res jpeg). It's easily > sufficient unto the task. If I need better, I can switch to Tiff or Raw > on the fly. To be honest, however, unless I'm also using a tripod there > probably isn't much point. I have one Lexar 1GB card, 1 GB IBM > microdrive and a 256 MB eFilm card. If I were going on a trip, I'd > probably buy a few more 1 GB cards. There is a big point to RAW besides extra resolution that you might get from avoiding compression artificacts. RAW saves 12 bits of data per pixel (instead of 8) and the data hasn't been run through the white balance or exposure code yet. As a result you can make sweeping white balance changes and better exposure changes than you can make to a JPEG file. alex
Re: Researching which media to use for my new *ist D
shoot at the same rate in film and you will end up paying a lot more. it's the initial cost. film gets you one roll at a time. Herb - Original Message - From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, January 23, 2004 10:04 AM Subject: Re: Researching which media to use for my new *ist D > Hey, if the cards are such a good deal, if shooting digital > is such a good deal, there should be no hesitancy in getting > as many cards as you can afford and shooting at the highest > resolution possible. And of course, if need be, some kind > of portable storage device to hold the image information. > Maybe I'm obtuse, but it sure seem that the comments in this > thread are counter to the comments made by some of the same > people in the earlier thread.
Re: Researching which media to use for my new *ist D
You're probably right, but I've had no problems with either pre-set white balance or manual white balance. Bill > There is a big point to RAW besides extra resolution that you might > get from avoiding compression artificacts. RAW saves 12 bits of data > per pixel (instead of 8) and the data hasn't been run through the > white balance or exposure code yet. As a result you can make sweeping > white balance changes and better exposure changes than you can make to > a JPEG file. > > alex > >
Re: Researching which media to use for my new *ist D
On 23 Jan 2004 at 17:31, Steve Desjardins wrote: > I also shoot ***L (*ist D for highest quality/res jpeg). It's easily > sufficient unto the task. If I need better, I can switch to Tiff or Raw > on the fly. To be honest, however, unless I'm also using a tripod there > probably isn't much point. I've found RAW to be an advantage WRT brightness range and shadow detail in some specific instances (ie hand held low light shooting) however I can generally get away with saving JPEG in camera. I really can't see any clear advantage in saving TIFF in camera. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Researching which media to use for my new *ist D
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Steve Desjardins wrote: > I also shoot ***L (*ist D for highest quality/res jpeg). It's easily > sufficient unto the task. If I need better, I can switch to Tiff or Raw > on the fly. To be honest, however, unless I'm also using a tripod there > probably isn't much point. I have one Lexar 1GB card, 1 GB IBM > microdrive and a 256 MB eFilm card. If I were going on a trip, I'd > probably buy a few more 1 GB cards. There is a big point to RAW besides extra resolution that you might get from avoiding compression artificacts. RAW saves 12 bits of data per pixel (instead of 8) and the data hasn't been run through the white balance or exposure code yet. As a result you can make sweeping white balance changes and better exposure changes than you can make to a JPEG file. alex
Re: Researching which media to use for my new *ist D
On 23 Jan 2004 at 7:04, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > Hey, if the cards are such a good deal, if shooting digital > is such a good deal, there should be no hesitancy in getting > as many cards as you can afford and shooting at the highest > resolution possible. And of course, if need be, some kind > of portable storage device to hold the image information. I'm not complaining about the absolute cost of digital storage (it has saved me cash and will continue to do so) but more so about the relative cost of the highest capacity cards. I'd always prefer a few larger cards than a pocket full of little ones. 4GB cards are disproportionately expensive, next year they will be affordable. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Researching which media to use for my new *ist D
I also shoot ***L (*ist D for highest quality/res jpeg). It's easily sufficient unto the task. If I need better, I can switch to Tiff or Raw on the fly. To be honest, however, unless I'm also using a tripod there probably isn't much point. I have one Lexar 1GB card, 1 GB IBM microdrive and a 256 MB eFilm card. If I were going on a trip, I'd probably buy a few more 1 GB cards. And that's something I really do like. Everything that it can do (res, storage, sensitivity, etc.) I can get anytime I need it. Except that tripod, of course. ;-) Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 01/23/04 01:25PM >>> On 23/1/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: >Hey, if the cards are such a good deal, if shooting digital >is such a good deal, there should be no hesitancy in getting >as many cards as you can afford and shooting at the highest >resolution possible. And of course, if need be, some kind >of portable storage device to hold the image information. >Maybe I'm obtuse, but it sure seem that the comments in this >thread are counter to the comments made by some of the same >people in the earlier thread. > >So, what am I missing here, folks ;-)) Shel, I have never hidden the fact that I shoot large/fine jpeg. My criteria for selecting a suitable resolution for the vast majority of my shooting were these: What level of quality would be required to produce good inkjet prints at a maximum of 16"X11"? What was the trade-off between RAW and large/fine jpeg WRT how many pics would fit in a reasonable space of memory (CF cards). Two test prints, side by side, illustrated to me that there was no visible difference between RAW and large/fine jpeg, so the answer was clear cut for me. BTW, I have never said that shooting digital is a good deal. I have always said that I have enjoyed it - it is a hobby, and as such I don't have to be able to justify the cost, like anyone doing it for money would have to. I've got half-gig cards and that's all I want to pay. For me it's all about having fun and not justifying anything! LOL. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: Researching which media to use for my new *ist D
On 23/1/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: >Hey, if the cards are such a good deal, if shooting digital >is such a good deal, there should be no hesitancy in getting >as many cards as you can afford and shooting at the highest >resolution possible. And of course, if need be, some kind >of portable storage device to hold the image information. >Maybe I'm obtuse, but it sure seem that the comments in this >thread are counter to the comments made by some of the same >people in the earlier thread. > >So, what am I missing here, folks ;-)) Shel, I have never hidden the fact that I shoot large/fine jpeg. My criteria for selecting a suitable resolution for the vast majority of my shooting were these: What level of quality would be required to produce good inkjet prints at a maximum of 16"X11"? What was the trade-off between RAW and large/fine jpeg WRT how many pics would fit in a reasonable space of memory (CF cards). Two test prints, side by side, illustrated to me that there was no visible difference between RAW and large/fine jpeg, so the answer was clear cut for me. BTW, I have never said that shooting digital is a good deal. I have always said that I have enjoyed it - it is a hobby, and as such I don't have to be able to justify the cost, like anyone doing it for money would have to. I've got half-gig cards and that's all I want to pay. For me it's all about having fun and not justifying anything! LOL. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: Researching which media to use for my new *ist D
On 22/1/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: >A. The MicroDrives, if so which brand as I've seen and IBM and maybe one >other. >OR >B. CF, I've seen that these have some of Accelaration feature which the >*ist D has support for. Personally I wouldn't touch a microdrive. CF all the way for me. They say that dropping one shouldn't damage it inside, but I'm not going to test that theory out with my storage. Stands to reason that something with moving parts inside might be more susceptible to damage.. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: Researching which media to use for my new *ist D
On 22 Jan 2004 at 21:45, Bill Owens wrote: > Bet you were shooting RAW. I shoot max jpg. Yep, and I would have filled it sooner shooting TIFF. I wish 4GB cards weren't so costly. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Researching which media to use for my new *ist D
on 23.01.04 2:33, Paul Stenquist at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Is anyone using the Lexar 1 gig CF card? I see B&H offers it for $299. You'd better buy Sandisk Ultra II or Extreme cards - they are simply faster on *istD: http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=6007-6432 -- Best Regards Sylwek
Re: Researching which media to use for my new *ist D
on 22.01.04 23:23, lazarus at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > A. The MicroDrives, if so which brand as I've seen and IBM and maybe one > other. They are quite delicate, you have to handle them with care. Also they are slower than fast CFs, and startup time of *istD will be 3-4 s. instead of 1 s. > OR > B. CF, I've seen that these have some of Accelaration feature which the > *ist D has support for. > The fastest cards on *istD are undeniably Sandisk Ultra II and Extreme. So I bought Sandisk Ultra II 512 as the one having good price/performance ratio. Lexars despite having utilised by *istD Write Acceleration feature, are much slower and more expensive than those which were faster... See results of tests here: http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=6007-6432 -- Best Regards Sylwek
Re: Researching which media to use for my new *ist D
Bet you were shooting RAW. I shoot max jpg. Bill - Original Message - From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 9:11 PM Subject: Re: Researching which media to use for my new *ist D > On 22 Jan 2004 at 17:32, Bill Owens wrote: > > > I have 2 256Mb CF cards, and have never filled one up in an evening of > > shooting. I also don't use the camera for downloading image, I use a card > > reader. > > Har, I filled a 2GB card last night in an hour. Changing CF cards in the *ist D > in the dark is not fun (tipping and catching the card was not an option). > > Rob Studdert > HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA > Tel +61-2-9554-4110 > UTC(GMT) +10 Hours > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ > Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 > >
Re: Researching which media to use for my new *ist D
the specs on the MicroDrive and CompactFlash show that the Microdrive draws about 7 times as much power when writing and about the same when reading. at idle, the MicroDrive draws slightly less, but then has about a half second delay from the time the camera signals it wants to write until it is ready to write during which time it draws the write current. Herb - Original Message - From: "Bruce Dayton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Bill Owens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 6:28 PM Subject: Re: Researching which media to use for my new *ist D > I have toyed around with considering a microdrive (IBM now sold to > Hitachi). There is the MagicStor drive also, but seems to get enough > bad press to be risky. I believe the microdrive does use more power > and is susceptible to damage from dropping, etc. Can anyone verify > that?
Re: Researching which media to use for my new *ist D
Is anyone using the Lexar 1 gig CF card? I see B&H offers it for $299. On Jan 22, 2004, at 9:14 PM, Rob Studdert wrote: On 22 Jan 2004 at 19:49, John Francis wrote: As for damage: as long as you don't drop the camera while the drive is spinning, and avoid pounding the card with a hammer, you should be OK. All the regular motorsports shooters I know use nothing but microdrives (probably because, until recently, they were *much* cheaper than CF), and these guys don't baby their cameras like we do. I've heard of microdrives suffering damage during removal and handling too, best handled by the edges gently. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Researching which media to use for my new *ist D
On 22 Jan 2004 at 19:49, John Francis wrote: > As for damage: as long as you don't drop the camera while the drive is > spinning, and avoid pounding the card with a hammer, you should be OK. > All the regular motorsports shooters I know use nothing but microdrives > (probably because, until recently, they were *much* cheaper than CF), > and these guys don't baby their cameras like we do. I've heard of microdrives suffering damage during removal and handling too, best handled by the edges gently. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Researching which media to use for my new *ist D
On 22 Jan 2004 at 17:32, Bill Owens wrote: > I have 2 256Mb CF cards, and have never filled one up in an evening of > shooting. I also don't use the camera for downloading image, I use a card > reader. Har, I filled a 2GB card last night in an hour. Changing CF cards in the *ist D in the dark is not fun (tipping and catching the card was not an option). Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Researching which media to use for my new *ist D
> > I have toyed around with considering a microdrive (IBM now sold to > Hitachi). There is the MagicStor drive also, but seems to get enough > bad press to be risky. I believe the microdrive does use more power > and is susceptible to damage from dropping, etc. Can anyone verify > that? The Microdrive draws about twice the current of a CF card. That said; I've put over 300 images onto microdrives (some RAW, some JPEGs) using one set of 2100mAh NiMH rechargeable batteries. As for damage: as long as you don't drop the camera while the drive is spinning, and avoid pounding the card with a hammer, you should be OK. All the regular motorsports shooters I know use nothing but microdrives (probably because, until recently, they were *much* cheaper than CF), and these guys don't baby their cameras like we do. Tanya & Frank should probably stick with CF cards, though :-)
Re: Researching which media to use for my new *ist D
I have 2 256Mb CF cards, and have never filled one up in an evening of shooting. I also don't use the camera for downloading image, I use a card reader. Bill - Original Message - From: "lazarus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 5:23 PM Subject: Researching which media to use for my new *ist D > Hello, > I'm about a week or two away from ordering my *ist D and I've got > another question for the group. Simply said, which Media is preferred > by you guys: > > A. The MicroDrives, if so which brand as I've seen and IBM and maybe one > other. > OR > B. CF, I've seen that these have some of Accelaration feature which the > *ist D has support for. > > I've seen a few specs on the Microdrive claiming 45mb/sec and 9mb/sec > on the CF cards with accelaration. I'd prefer to have the larger > capacity item as I'd rather not have to deal with downloads in the > middle of a party or while I'm out on the boat/lake. However, I'm > wondering how this affects battery life on the camera since initially > I'm not getting the grip since I've heard so many things about battery > issues. > > Any input would be greatly appreciated! Thanks! > Rod > >
