On Dec 13, 2006, at 6:27 PM, Joseph Tainter wrote:
http://homepage.mac.com/godders/Pentax-DS-150x-timing/
>>>
>>> A valuable test, Godfrey. Interesting that with the K10D the 150x
>>> gives
>>> so little improvement over the 60x. Is the difference due to
>>> different
>>> brands of card? O
Note the smiley, Joe. Others have commented on your negativity - I've
stayed away from that. I was just poking a little fun at the reputation
you've garnered here over the past few months as someone who's frequently
finding fault. We can all learn to laugh at ourselves a bit ...
Why do I give i
Well, we've got to remember that it's Joe making the call ;-))
Shel
-
Shel, why do you feel the need to blurt out a statement like that? And
why do you give in to the feeling?
I expected, perhaps naively, that a card that is 150% faster in its
nominal rating (150x vs 60x) should give some
>> http://homepage.mac.com/godders/Pentax-DS-150x-timing/
>
> A valuable test, Godfrey. Interesting that with the K10D the 150x
> gives
> so little improvement over the 60x. Is the difference due to different
> brands of card? Or is 150x overkill for the K10D?
You're entitled to your opinion
If you did it right (yes, it is a pretty simple test) and these are
the numbers, it shows that you're getting something for your money
over the Transcend 150x cards. I suspected that the Transcend cards
might be rated a bit optimistically.
Of course, I'd like to get my hands on an Extreme II
> http://homepage.mac.com/godders/Pentax-DS-150x-timing/
Thanks for that, very interesting.
I just conducted a similar test (no, I don't have a movie to watch :)
K10D, RAW (DNG) Test, SanDisk Extreme III 2GB SD card:
a.. 75 RAW exposures, 1.25 exp per sec or 0.8 secs per exp average.
a.. finish
Well, we've got to remember that it's Joe making the call ;-))
Today I had a chance to play with the K10D and used both an 80X card and a
133X card. Even without measured tests and movies, it was clear that the
10D was faster with the faster card. Whether one needs the speed is
another matter (I
Joseph Tainter wrote:
> http://homepage.mac.com/godders/Pentax-DS-150x-timing/
>
> -
>
> A valuable test, Godfrey. Interesting that with the K10D the 150x gives
> so little improvement over the 60x. Is the difference due to different
> brands of card? Or is 150x overkill for the K10D?
>
>
LOL ... I like to think that I'm not being innovative, Peter. ;-)
you're welcome.
Godfrey
On Dec 13, 2006, at 1:45 PM, Peter Fairweather wrote:
> Here we have actual evidence from Godfrey. Whatever happened to idle
> speculation and blind prejudice, the mainstay of many a lengthy
> thread!
>
>
On Dec 13, 2006, at 1:27 PM, Joseph Tainter wrote:
>> http://homepage.mac.com/godders/Pentax-DS-150x-timing/
>
> A valuable test, Godfrey. Interesting that with the K10D the 150x
> gives
> so little improvement over the 60x. Is the difference due to different
> brands of card? Or is 150x overki
Here we have actual evidence from Godfrey. Whatever happened to idle
speculation and blind prejudice, the mainstay of many a lengthy
thread!
All I need now is the money for the camera, I already have the 150x card
Thanks Godfrey
Peter
On 12/13/06, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
http://homepage.mac.com/godders/Pentax-DS-150x-timing/
-
A valuable test, Godfrey. Interesting that with the K10D the 150x gives
so little improvement over the 60x. Is the difference due to different
brands of card? Or is 150x overkill for the K10D?
Joe
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
P
I decided to add the performance testing I did with the K10D to the
page I did on the *ist DS bodies last July. Updated and QuickTime
movies of the capture included ... you can see how the cameras'
buffer size and write speed to the cards affects the distribution of
sequence captures explic
13 matches
Mail list logo
