Prev: Not great for Nikon PR I'd say
Next: Dpreview post many have waited for
From: Charles G on 25 Nov 2009 19:47
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 22:40:39 GMT, James Egan <jegan473(a)comcast.net> wrote:

>On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 12:19:45 -0600, Better Info wrote:
>
>>
>> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/CanonSX1IS/page10.asp
>
>
>Thanks, that's definitely a contender.

Seems there's quite a few in the Panasonic Lumix line that also do 1080p.
From their new interchangeable micro-4/3 format to the waterproof compacts.



From: David J Taylor on 26 Nov 2009 05:10
"Fred McKenzie" <> wrote in message
news:fmmck-0B6C36.18505125112009(a)freenews.netfront.net...
[]
> I understood the rationale for a 4GB limit, was that was how much would
> fit on a DVD. I wonder if the DVD limit was based on the FAT
> Filesystem?
>
> Fred

No, the CD and DVD format is a separate one, CDFS and UDF respectively:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_9660

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Disk_Format

Cheers,
David

From: Wolfgang Weisselberg on 26 Nov 2009 05:48
Fred McKenzie <fmmck(a)aol.com> wrote:

> I understood the rationale for a 4GB limit, was that was how much would
> fit on a DVD.

Actually, you can fit 4,38 GiB (4.7 GB in marketing speech or
'hard disk size') on a single side, single layer, 12 cm DVD,
7,92 GiB (8,5 GB) on a single side, dual layer DVD and 15,84 GiB
(17 GB) on a double side, dual layer DVD ...

> I wonder if the DVD limit was based on the FAT Filesystem?

So, nope, the limit is not based on FAT.

-Wolfgang
From: Pete D on 27 Nov 2009 14:27

"Randal L. Schwartz" <merlyn(a)stonehenge.com> wrote in message
news:867htf4yef.fsf(a)blue.stonehenge.com...
>>>>>> "ransley" == ransley <Mark_Ransley(a)Yahoo.com> writes:
>
> ransley> Maybe next year. I dont know of any yet in your price range you
> will
> ransley> be happy with, a Canon Rebel does 1080p but only at 20 frames a
> ransley> minute. The 5 D does it for near 3000.00 tax included at a good
> frame
> ransley> rate.
>
> My Canon 7D does 1080p at 30 or 24 frames per second (my choice) until the
> 4GB
> boundary is hit (stupid MSDOS FAT filesystem), which means about 12
> minutes
> per take. And it's a bit cheaper than the 5D. :)
>
But not very close to the OPs $700 budget..........

From: Better Info on 27 Nov 2009 17:35
On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 06:27:23 +1100, "Pete D" <no(a)email.com> wrote:

>
>"Randal L. Schwartz" <merlyn(a)stonehenge.com> wrote in message
>news:867htf4yef.fsf(a)blue.stonehenge.com...
>>>>>>> "ransley" == ransley <Mark_Ransley(a)Yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>> ransley> Maybe next year. I dont know of any yet in your price range you
>> will
>> ransley> be happy with, a Canon Rebel does 1080p but only at 20 frames a
>> ransley> minute. The 5 D does it for near 3000.00 tax included at a good
>> frame
>> ransley> rate.
>>
>> My Canon 7D does 1080p at 30 or 24 frames per second (my choice) until the
>> 4GB
>> boundary is hit (stupid MSDOS FAT filesystem), which means about 12
>> minutes
>> per take. And it's a bit cheaper than the 5D. :)
>>
>But not very close to the OPs $700 budget..........

Plus the Canon 7D DSLR doesn't even produce image quality as good as P&S
cameras today. The G9 from two years ago and G11 P&S camera from this year
both surpass this year's 7D DSLR in image performance.

http://darwinwiggett.wordpress.com/2009/11/11/the-canon-7d/
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: Not great for Nikon PR I'd say
Next: Dpreview post many have waited for