Re: Upcoming 10 Mpixel DSLR
Usually, when I transfer data from my card to my PC, I do a move rather than a copy. Why? Easier. Never had a problem like it wouldn't work unless I format in the camera or whetever. So I move PEFs. Move means deleting which means writing as well (tiny little data but a write is a write). That way I know that a card I emptied, is also always void (mm is void a correct english term? C programming is getting in the party ;) If I mention all this story is because as everyone know we (this list) are always nitpicking about everything: well, the truth is this one. Does it make any different to anybody? Dunno. You know yourself better than I do. It's for the sake of education :) Regards -- Thibouille -- *ist-D,Z1,SFXn,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ...
Re: Upcoming 10 Mpixel DSLR
Yes, void is an English word that can be used as a verb or noun. A void is an empty space, to void something is to zero or empty it. What you're doing with a move or delete on flash memory is almost invariably simply voiding the file entry in the FAT directory structure, not writing zeros to every location that the file occupied on the media. Even a format instruction to most flash memory drivers simply deletes the FAT tables and recreates them after checking for bad blocks, specifically to minimize writes to the media and prolong its life. In most flash memory implementations of mass storage drivers, the only way to write to locations on the media is to specifically use the file write instructions. Formatting is best done with the camera or other device that is going to use the media as that way you are ensured that the specific foibles of that device's FAT implementation are expressed correctly in bad block analysis and FAT structure creation. Deleting, however, is rarely a problem as all the host device is doing is calling a standard function to void that FAT entry, which uses the existing structure. Godfrey On Mar 21, 2006, at 7:47 AM, Thibouille wrote: Usually, when I transfer data from my card to my PC, I do a move rather than a copy. Why? Easier. Never had a problem like it wouldn't work unless I format in the camera or whetever. So I move PEFs. Move means deleting which means writing as well (tiny little data but a write is a write). That way I know that a card I emptied, is also always void (mm is void a correct english term? C programming is getting in the party ;) If I mention all this story is because as everyone know we (this list) are always nitpicking about everything: well, the truth is this one. Does it make any different to anybody? Dunno. You know yourself better than I do. It's for the sake of education :)
Re: Upcoming 10 Mpixel DSLR
Yes, void is an English word that can be used as a verb or noun. A void is an empty space, to void something is to zero or empty it. Good to know , thanks ! What you're doing with a move or delete on flash memory is almost invariably simply voiding the file entry in the FAT directory structure, not writing zeros to every location that the file occupied on the media. Even a format instruction to most flash memory drivers simply deletes the FAT tables and recreates them after checking for bad blocks, specifically to minimize writes to the media and prolong its life. In most flash memory implementations of mass storage drivers, the only way to write to locations on the media is to specifically use the file write instructions. Yes I figured that which is why I implied it would be a write but a pretty simple one, really. Anyway, looking at the time it takes to format a card (being in the card reader on in the camera) there is no way it could be full format. Formatting is best done with the camera or other device that is going to use the media as that way you are ensured that the specific foibles of that device's FAT implementation are expressed correctly in bad block analysis and FAT structure creation. Deleting, however, is rarely a problem as all the host device is doing is calling a standard function to void that FAT entry, which uses the existing structure. Yes I know it is more secure to format with the camera. But as I didn't have any problem (so far) I prefer that way. Godfrey -- Thibouille -- *ist-D,Z1,SFXn,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ...
Re: Upcoming 10 Mpixel DSLR
I wouldn't want more than 4GB on a single card, even with RAW files
of 20GB or so (which is what I'm anticipating for the new camera).
Err - make that 20 *MB* or so. Sheesh.
I'll be disappointed in they don't add lossless compression on the
RAW file format for the new camera. It's stuningly stupid to waste 50%
space in *every* RAW file. If they add compression, the new 10MP camera's
raw should be about the same size as a D{S,L,S2,L2}'s files... 10 MB or
so.
-Cory
--
*
* Cory Papenfuss*
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
*
Re: Upcoming 10 Mpixel DSLR
- Original Message - From: Brian Dipert Subject: Re: Upcoming 10 Mpixel DSLR My reason for earlier asking about the storage card format of the upcoming 10 Mpixel DSLR is that I just bought a new *ist D on clearance from Amazon for $1199, as a backup for my existing *ist D. Here's where I'm torn: 1) 10 Mpixel resolution will certainly be helpful when doing extreme enlargements, or said another way enlargements of a small portion of a captured image, and I've given this some thought, I'm not thinking the linear pixel count will be enough to make a huge difference over 6mp. If i want enlargablility combined with finde detail, large pieces of film still seem the way to go. 2) the *ist DS/DS2 on which I assume the new camera will be based makes some feature advancements over the *ist D, albeit with a few features discarded along the way (I admit I'm a bit fuzzy on how the *ist D compares to the *ist DS/DS2, and would welcome folks' feedback on this), but The new camera will more likely be a new chassis. It's very unlikely it will be a Ds chassis. 3) Especially for those of us that primarily shoot RAW, CompactFlash storage capability, versus SD card, is desireable both from an absolute capacity standpoint and cost/GByte standpoint (esp when MicroDrives are factored into the mix). SD cards are getting up in capacity now. I've not ever considered anything bigger than 1gb cards as being desirable. Too many eggs in one basket for my taste. So what do folks think? The newer cameras are cheaper, and arguably better-featured (again, data and opinions are welcomed), but only work with capacity-deficient SD cards. Does it make sense to pay more simply for CompactFlash capacity? I have a feeling that the new camera will not be cheaper. Odds are it will have several cool features that none of the present Pentax DSLRs will have. It will use what it will use for storage, it will be up to individual buyers as to whether card type is a deal breaker or not. William Robb
Re: Upcoming 10 Mpixel DSLR
On 20 Mar 2006 at 6:50, William Robb wrote: SD cards are getting up in capacity now. I've not ever considered anything bigger than 1gb cards as being desirable. Too many eggs in one basket for my taste. The RAW eggs will be bigger than the *ist D's though. 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: Upcoming 10 Mpixel DSLR
Rob Studdert wrote on 20.03.06 15:17: The RAW eggs will be bigger than the *ist D's though. On D200 compressed RAW (NEF) takes approx. 15.8 MB - not that much more than RAWs from *istD ;-) I guess if new D would save RAWs in .DNG format these files would be even smaller than that. -- Balance is the ultimate good... Best Regards Sylwek
Re: Upcoming 10 Mpixel DSLR
Hi Rob, I guess everyone has their preferences ;-)) At this point, even if the new D files were 20mb, I'd be happy with a 2GB card as a max That's still around 100 exposures or so - plenty on a single card as far as I'm concerned. While I can't say I'd ~never~ use a 4GB card, I don't think it miss not having one. Shel [Original Message] From: Rob Studdert The RAW eggs will be bigger than the *ist D's though. SD cards are getting up in capacity now. I've not ever considered anything bigger than 1gb cards as being desirable. Too many eggs in one basket for my taste.
Re: Upcoming 10 Mpixel DSLR
Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote: Rob Studdert wrote on 20.03.06 15:17: The RAW eggs will be bigger than the *ist D's though. On D200 compressed RAW (NEF) takes approx. 15.8 MB - not that much more than RAWs from *istD ;-) I guess if new D would save RAWs in .DNG format these files would be even smaller than that. Even with the ist-D RAW files, a 2 Gig card is my standard now.
Re: Upcoming 10 Mpixel DSLR
On 20 Mar 2006 at 10:31, Mark Roberts wrote: Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote: On D200 compressed RAW (NEF) takes approx. 15.8 MB - not that much more than RAWs from *istD ;-) I guess if new D would save RAWs in .DNG format these files would be even smaller than that. Even with the ist-D RAW files, a 2 Gig card is my standard now. Me too, purchased not long after I purchased my *ist D, I also ran a 4GB Microdrive for a while, I often filled a 2 and 4GB card during a concert shoot. 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: Upcoming 10 Mpixel DSLR
Mark Roberts wrote on 20.03.06 16:31: Even with the ist-D RAW files, a 2 Gig card is my standard now. Mine too, and actually Sandisk Ultra II SD 2GB is now a bit cheaper in Poland than the same as CF ;-) -- Balance is the ultimate good... Best Regards Sylwek
Re: Upcoming 10 Mpixel DSLR
On Mar 19, 2006, at 8:53 PM, Brian Dipert wrote: My reason for earlier asking about the storage card format of the upcoming 10 Mpixel DSLR is that I just bought a new *ist D on clearance from Amazon for $1199, as a backup for my existing *ist D. Here's where I'm torn: 1) 10 Mpixel resolution will certainly be helpful when doing extreme enlargements, or said another way enlargements of a small portion of a captured image, and Yes, it's a useful plus for wide angle work and when you are producing prints at the largest sizes. 2) the *ist DS/DS2 on which I assume the new camera will be based makes some feature advancements over the *ist D, albeit with a few features discarded along the way (I admit I'm a bit fuzzy on how the *ist D compares to the *ist DS/DS2, and would welcome folks' feedback on this), but If I read the interview that was posted correctly, the new body is not based on any of the current models at all. All of the current models (*ist D and *ist DS/DL etc) are considered low-end *ist based, where the new body is considered a mid-range design. Its included image stabilization and other features necessitates a rather different design. 3) Especially for those of us that primarily shoot RAW, CompactFlash storage capability, versus SD card, is desireable both from an absolute capacity standpoint and cost/GByte standpoint (esp when MicroDrives are factored into the mix). CF storage cards still have an advantage in terms of available capacity, but SD is coming up fast with both 2 and 4 Gbyte cards now easily available. Prices, at least here in the US, show little bias one way or the other (CF and SD with the same performance specifics run very very close in price; there are more cheap, slow CF cards available though). Microdrives are only available in CF form factor, but their capacity/price and speed advantage has been compromised by recent flash developments, while their disadvantages in terms of mechanical fragility and power consumption have not changed. So what do folks think? The newer cameras are cheaper, and arguably better-featured (again, data and opinions are welcomed), but only work with capacity-deficient SD cards. Does it make sense to pay more simply for CompactFlash capacity? Given the above responses, I'm not sure the question makes much sense. I have not felt like I was constrained by card capacity with the DS model camera. A 1G card holds 93-97 RAW exposures, which is a comfortable amount of pictures per card change for me. (My Sony R1, with RAW files twice as big as the DS, really needs 2G cards for the same capacity per storage unit.) The *ist D feature set was targeted at a higher market position than the DS, although I have never missed the additional features. The DS/DL/et al are slightly faster, which is welcome. At this point in time, I still buy and use both CF and SD media due to the cameras that I own. I'm satisfied with 2G CF and 1G SD with my present cameras, and I'll likely add more 2G SD with the new Pentax body. I don't see it as a big deal because by Fall the price of 2G SD will be even better, and I can use the SD cards in the CF camera by use of an SD-CF adapter too. Godfrey
Re: Upcoming 10 Mpixel DSLR
Microdrives are only available in CF form factor, but their capacity/price and speed advantage has been compromised by recent flash developments, while their disadvantages in terms of mechanical fragility and power consumption have not changed. Very true but keep in mind that if long term is what we try to look at (or heavy usage) that flash tech has another big problem: a limited read/write cycles life. In theory, a hard drive has none. Of course hey are mechanical parts but one know BOTH techs have their problems. That being said I agree that flash is probably beter in majority of cases. -- Thibouille -- *ist-D,Z1,SFXn,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ...
Re: Upcoming 10 Mpixel DSLR
On Mar 20, 2006, at 8:26 AM, Thibouille wrote: Microdrives are only available in CF form factor, but their capacity/price and speed advantage has been compromised by recent flash developments, while their disadvantages in terms of mechanical fragility and power consumption have not changed. Very true but keep in mind that if long term is what we try to look at (or heavy usage) that flash tech has another big problem: a limited read/write cycles life. In theory, a hard drive has none. Of course hey are mechanical parts but one know BOTH techs have their problems. That being said I agree that flash is probably beter in majority of cases. Most consumer flash is designed for MTBF of around 100,000 read/write cycles before a particular bit location fails. Somehow, I think that filling and emptying a flash card 100,000 times, even if it failed completely on the 100,000th cycle, allows for a very reasonable use- value return on its cost. I hardly consider this a big problem. For instance, lets say that filling a flash card and emptying it put every location on the media through 2 read/write cycles, and that no remapping of bad blocks was possible on a reformat operation (formatting normally does remap bad blocks...). For a 1G card, this means 93 exposures in RAW format has incurred 2 full read/write cycles on a 1G card. That's 50,000 uses of 93 exposures, or 4,650,000 exposures per card before its life is ended. Even if the read/write cycles were 10x that guess, that's STILL 465,000 exposures in the life of the card. How many exposures per year do you make? Hard drives are not rated for longevity by read/write cycles, although it is surely not infinite either. They're rated for longevity of the mechanical components, which are far more fragile than the flash memory's electronic wear limits. Godfrey
Re: Upcoming 10 Mpixel DSLR
On Mar 20, 2006, at 8:26 AM, Thibouille wrote: Microdrives are only available in CF form factor, but their capacity/price and speed advantage has been compromised by recent flash developments, while their disadvantages in terms of mechanical fragility and power consumption have not changed. Very true but keep in mind that if long term is what we try to look at (or heavy usage) that flash tech has another big problem: a limited read/write cycles life. In theory, a hard drive has none. Of course hey are mechanical parts but one know BOTH techs have their problems. That being said I agree that flash is probably beter in majority of cases. Most consumer flash is designed for MTBF of around 100,000 read/write cycles before a particular bit location fails. Somehow, I think that filling and emptying a flash card 100,000 times, even if it failed completely on the 100,000th cycle, allows for a very reasonable use- value return on its cost. I hardly consider this a big problem. For instance, lets say that filling a flash card and emptying it put every location on the media through 2 read/write cycles, and that no remapping of bad blocks was possible on a reformat operation (formatting normally does remap bad blocks...). For a 1G card, this means 93 exposures in RAW format has incurred 2 full read/write cycles on a 1G card. That's 50,000 uses of 93 exposures, or 4,650,000 exposures per card before its life is ended. Even if the read/write cycles were 10x that guess, that's STILL 465,000 exposures in the life of the card. How many exposures per year do you make? Hard drives are not rated for longevity by read/write cycles, although it is surely not infinite either. They're rated for longevity of the mechanical components, which are far more fragile than the flash memory's electronic wear limits. Godfrey
Re: Upcoming 10 Mpixel DSLR
Which depends on your use. Don't forget you have to empty the cards too. But I agree a normal user shouldn't worry. Now, we aren't here, normal users, so we still should know about that. Don't forget an MTBF is just that ... an MTBF. Regards ;) -- Thibouille -- *ist-D,Z1,SFXn,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ...
Re: Upcoming 10 Mpixel DSLR
On Mar 20, 2006, at 10:27 AM, Thibouille wrote: Which depends on your use. Don't forget you have to empty the cards too. Not sure I understand. Reading from flash memory does not affect the life of the components as the energy involved is very small compared to writing, all you're doing is sensing the state of a given location's charge. It's writing that takes its eventual toll as it has to change the charge state. Gdofrey
Re: Upcoming 10 Mpixel DSLR
- Original Message - From: Brian Dipert Subject: Upcoming 10 Mpixel DSLR Judging from the photos here: www.dpreview.com/articles/pma2006/Pentax/ I'm guesstimating the upcoming (??) 10 Mpixel DSLR from Pentax/Samsung will take SD cards, NOT CompactFlash cards (and, therefore, not MicroDrives). Anyone concur/disagree? It's a pretty safe bets that you don't want to invest heavily in CF cards if the next camera interests you. William Robb
Re: Upcoming 10 Mpixel DSLR
That's the consensus opinion. It'll work. Paul On Mar 19, 2006, at 7:59 PM, Brian Dipert wrote: Judging from the photos here: www.dpreview.com/articles/pma2006/Pentax/ I'm guesstimating the upcoming (??) 10 Mpixel DSLR from Pentax/Samsung will take SD cards, NOT CompactFlash cards (and, therefore, not MicroDrives). Anyone concur/disagree? Regards, == Brian Dipert Senior Technical Editor: Mass Storage, Multimedia (audio, displays, 2-D and 3-D graphics, and still and video imaging), PCs and Peripherals EDN Magazine: http://www.edn.com My blog: http://www.edn.com/briansbrain 5000 V Street Sacramento, CA 95817 (916) 760-0159, fax (781) 734-8038 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit me at http://www.bdipert.com
Re: Upcoming 10 Mpixel DSLR
On 3/19/06 7:59 PM, Brian Dipert, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm guesstimating the upcoming (??) 10 Mpixel DSLR from Pentax/Samsung will take SD cards, NOT CompactFlash cards (and, therefore, not MicroDrives). That's what most of the folks in Japan concluded. Works for me :-). Ken
Re: Upcoming 10 Mpixel DSLR
On Mar 19, 2006, at 4:59 PM, Brian Dipert wrote: Judging from the photos here: www.dpreview.com/articles/pma2006/Pentax/ I'm guesstimating the upcoming (??) 10 Mpixel DSLR from Pentax/ Samsung will take SD cards, NOT CompactFlash cards (and, therefore, not MicroDrives). Anyone concur/disagree? Agree. The media bay door is too small for CF. Godfrey
Re: Upcoming 10 Mpixel DSLR
I have 9 GB of CF cards, and am seriously peeved at Pentax for treating those of us who stepped forward and bought the *ist D in this way. Pentax could have designed the camera to take both CF and SD. Joe
Re: Upcoming 10 Mpixel DSLR
I have a lot of CF cards. They will suffice for my backup camera. Not a problem. Paul On Mar 19, 2006, at 10:00 PM, Joseph Tainter wrote: I have 9 GB of CF cards, and am seriously peeved at Pentax for treating those of us who stepped forward and bought the *ist D in this way. Pentax could have designed the camera to take both CF and SD. Joe
Re: Upcoming 10 Mpixel DSLR
That's what I like about Canon when they come out with improvements on their DSLRs - they maintain the CF card useage. I bought into a *ist D and got a few 512 CF cards. Looks like Pentax doesn't care for the *ist D users and the investments they made for that camera. Jim A. Judging from the photos here: www.dpreview.com/articles/pma2006/Pentax/ I'm guesstimating the upcoming (??) 10 Mpixel DSLR from Pentax/Samsung will take SD cards, NOT CompactFlash cards (and, therefore, not MicroDrives). Anyone concur/disagree? Regards, == Brian Dipert Senior Technical Editor: Mass Storage, Multimedia (audio, displays, 2-D and 3-D graphics, and still and video imaging), PCs and Peripherals EDN Magazine: http://www.edn.com My blog: http://www.edn.com/briansbrain 5000 V Street Sacramento, CA 95817 (916) 760-0159, fax (781) 734-8038 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit me at http://www.bdipert.com
Re: Upcoming 10 Mpixel DSLR
On Mar 19, 2006, at 10:00 PM, Joseph Tainter wrote: I have 9 GB of CF cards, and am seriously peeved at Pentax for treating those of us who stepped forward and bought the *ist D in this way. Maybe Pentax doesn't think you're going to throw away your *ist D? If you sell your D when you upgrade, you can probably sell the CF cards too. -Aaron
Re: Upcoming 10 Mpixel DSLR
Storage cards are a commodity. What you paid $200 for last year is worth $60 new today, less really since they're used now. They'll be worth less next year too. If you didn't get your $200 value out of them already, well, that's not Pentax' fault. Whatever you have isn't worth what you paid for it anymore, anyway. I have plenty of CF, SD and Memory Stick PRO cards because various cameras required them. I've just purchased a few more CF cards, 2G capacity, for one of my cameras, and I'll likely buy a few more SD cards when the new Pentax is delivered. It's just not an issue. I expect fast 2G SD cards will be plentiful and cheap by the Fall, they're darn cheap already. Godfrey
Re: Upcoming 10 Mpixel DSLR
On 3/19/06 10:00 PM, Joseph Tainter, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Pentax could have designed the camera to take both CF and SD. Maybe, but I shiver every time I peep into the CF card slot with all the forest of thin gold pins sticking up. The CF slot of my G3 suddenly crushed just a couple of pins (strange !) one day. It's been repaired but the compartment cover etc became loose (it was not fitted back properly). Since then, I do not quite trust CF cards. SD cards have solid contacts and their speed and the capacity kept increasing. Way to go for me. Ken
Re: Upcoming 10 Mpixel DSLR
On 19 Mar 2006 at 20:00, Joseph Tainter wrote: I have 9 GB of CF cards, and am seriously peeved at Pentax for treating those of us who stepped forward and bought the *ist D in this way. Pentax could have designed the camera to take both CF and SD. No point saying that here unless you get joy from having other people tell you how to spend your money. 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: Upcoming 10 Mpixel DSLR
My reason for earlier asking about the storage card format of the upcoming 10 Mpixel DSLR is that I just bought a new *ist D on clearance from Amazon for $1199, as a backup for my existing *ist D. Here's where I'm torn: 1) 10 Mpixel resolution will certainly be helpful when doing extreme enlargements, or said another way enlargements of a small portion of a captured image, and 2) the *ist DS/DS2 on which I assume the new camera will be based makes some feature advancements over the *ist D, albeit with a few features discarded along the way (I admit I'm a bit fuzzy on how the *ist D compares to the *ist DS/DS2, and would welcome folks' feedback on this), but 3) Especially for those of us that primarily shoot RAW, CompactFlash storage capability, versus SD card, is desireable both from an absolute capacity standpoint and cost/GByte standpoint (esp when MicroDrives are factored into the mix). So what do folks think? The newer cameras are cheaper, and arguably better-featured (again, data and opinions are welcomed), but only work with capacity-deficient SD cards. Does it make sense to pay more simply for CompactFlash capacity? == Brian Dipert Senior Technical Editor: Mass Storage, Multimedia (audio, displays, 2-D and 3-D graphics, and still and video imaging), PCs and Peripherals EDN Magazine: http://www.edn.com My blog: http://www.edn.com/briansbrain 5000 V Street Sacramento, CA 95817 (916) 760-0159, fax (781) 734-8038 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit me at http://www.bdipert.com
Re: Upcoming 10 Mpixel DSLR
buy an imagetank, or an ipod, or something like that and stop worrying about CF vs SD vs whatever. much more cost effective too. 1GB gard in either format will set you off by about $50-60 these days. buy two, and swap them as needed -- that's about $120 (or 10% of *istd price, basically, the sales tax in NYC) on top of the camera price tag. i wouldn't pay more for either sd or cf storage, unless i already had 10GB worth of it. best, mishka On 3/19/06, Brian Dipert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My reason for earlier asking about the storage card format of the upcoming 10 Mpixel DSLR is that I just bought a new *ist D on clearance from Amazon for $1199, as a backup for my existing *ist D. Here's where I'm torn: 1) 10 Mpixel resolution will certainly be helpful when doing extreme enlargements, or said another way enlargements of a small portion of a captured image, and 2) the *ist DS/DS2 on which I assume the new camera will be based makes some feature advancements over the *ist D, albeit with a few features discarded along the way (I admit I'm a bit fuzzy on how the *ist D compares to the *ist DS/DS2, and would welcome folks' feedback on this), but 3) Especially for those of us that primarily shoot RAW, CompactFlash storage capability, versus SD card, is desireable both from an absolute capacity standpoint and cost/GByte standpoint (esp when MicroDrives are factored into the mix). So what do folks think? The newer cameras are cheaper, and arguably better-featured (again, data and opinions are welcomed), but only work with capacity-deficient SD cards. Does it make sense to pay more simply for CompactFlash capacity? == Brian Dipert Senior Technical Editor: Mass Storage, Multimedia (audio, displays, 2-D and 3-D graphics, and still and video imaging), PCs and Peripherals EDN Magazine: http://www.edn.com My blog: http://www.edn.com/briansbrain 5000 V Street Sacramento, CA 95817 (916) 760-0159, fax (781) 734-8038 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit me at http://www.bdipert.com
Re: Upcoming 10 Mpixel DSLR
Hi! buy an imagetank, or an ipod, or something like that and stop worrying about CF vs SD vs whatever. much more cost effective too. 1GB gard in either format will set you off by about $50-60 these days. buy two, and swap them as needed -- that's about $120 (or 10% of *istd price, basically, the sales tax in NYC) on top of the camera price tag. i wouldn't pay more for either sd or cf storage, unless i already had 10GB worth of it. Har! I second that. Either way, two 1 GB cards and a mobile hard drive should be sufficient for any reasonable style of shooting. Boris
Re: Upcoming 10 Mpixel DSLR
I think you're making a couple of very questionable assumptions. First, and most important - the new camera will in no way be based on the *ist DS. You might just as well say it will be based on the *ist-D, as it has two control wheels (and, most believe, will have an accessory grip). That wouldn't be true, either, but it's at least as accurate as saying it will be based on the DS. Secondly, you won't be paying more for a D (with compact flash) than for the new camera - Pentax have made it pretty clear that the new body will be aimed at a price point above the D (and way above the DS); I expect it to cost around the same as the D200 - maybe a little more. SD cards are beginning to get almost as cheap as CF cards, and are already available in 2GB (and even 4GB) sizes. By the time the new camera gets to the stores I expect the difference in price between CF and SD will be negligible, and that higher capacities will be available. I wouldn't want more than 4GB on a single card, even with RAW files of 20GB or so (which is what I'm anticipating for the new camera). And by now I'm not sure it makes sense to buy Microdrives - I got a couple of 2GB CF cards a while back, and retired my Microdrives. Finally - if you're shooting RAW, there's very little to choose between a D and a DS. The DS has a larger rear LCD screen (and the DS2 has one even larger), and a better four-way controller. Other differences are mostly in the ergonomics - the DS only has a single control wheel (vs. the two on the D), and has different things available directly via dedicated buttons (as opposed to being set via menu settings). The later cameras also have a larger buffer (and write to the memory cards much faster), and can visually show highlight warnings superimposed on the display. There are, supposedly, some differences in the default settings for JPEG conversion - I haven't been able to confirm this myself. On Sun, Mar 19, 2006 at 08:53:09PM -0800, Brian Dipert wrote: My reason for earlier asking about the storage card format of the upcoming 10 Mpixel DSLR is that I just bought a new *ist D on clearance from Amazon for $1199, as a backup for my existing *ist D. Here's where I'm torn: 1) 10 Mpixel resolution will certainly be helpful when doing extreme enlargements, or said another way enlargements of a small portion of a captured image, and 2) the *ist DS/DS2 on which I assume the new camera will be based makes some feature advancements over the *ist D, albeit with a few features discarded along the way (I admit I'm a bit fuzzy on how the *ist D compares to the *ist DS/DS2, and would welcome folks' feedback on this), but 3) Especially for those of us that primarily shoot RAW, CompactFlash storage capability, versus SD card, is desireable both from an absolute capacity standpoint and cost/GByte standpoint (esp when MicroDrives are factored into the mix). So what do folks think? The newer cameras are cheaper, and arguably better-featured (again, data and opinions are welcomed), but only work with capacity-deficient SD cards. Does it make sense to pay more simply for CompactFlash capacity? == Brian Dipert Senior Technical Editor: Mass Storage, Multimedia (audio, displays, 2-D and 3-D graphics, and still and video imaging), PCs and Peripherals EDN Magazine: http://www.edn.com My blog: http://www.edn.com/briansbrain 5000 V Street Sacramento, CA 95817 (916) 760-0159, fax (781) 734-8038 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit me at http://www.bdipert.com
Re: Upcoming 10 Mpixel DSLR
On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 01:02:40AM -0500, John Francis wrote: I wouldn't want more than 4GB on a single card, even with RAW files of 20GB or so (which is what I'm anticipating for the new camera). Err - make that 20 *MB* or so. Sheesh.
