Why DSLR still use CF card?
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: A little nostalgia this morning thinking of old dad
Next: There's an app for that: NNTP news reader for Android
From: George Kerby on 9 Jul 2010 12:58 On 7/9/10 11:15 AM, in article 89p09cFbo6U9(a)mid.individual.net, "ray" <ray(a)zianet.com> wrote: > On Fri, 09 Jul 2010 08:49:40 -0700, John McWilliams wrote: > >> ray wrote: >>> On Fri, 09 Jul 2010 09:07:19 -0500, George Kerby wrote: >> >> >>>> That's "Mac". "MAC" is an acronym for Media Access Control address >>>> (MAC address). Please get it correctly. Thank you. >>> >>> Does the word 'context' mean anything to you? >> >> George is right. Suggesting that context makes an incorrect spelling >> somehow all right is naive. > > Well excuse me. I did not know that Media Access Control was into making > operating systems - I'll try to do better in the future. You are excused. This time only...
From: George Kerby on 9 Jul 2010 12:58 On 7/9/10 11:41 AM, in article 89p1piFbo6U10(a)mid.individual.net, "ray" <ray(a)zianet.com> wrote: > >> >> That's "Mac". "MAC" is an acronym for Media Access Control address (MAC >> address). Please get it correctly. Thank you. > > Technically, I suppose you're right - though I have not checked the > actual copyright to see what apple got rights for. It's also true that, > since Linux is the kernel, all above references should technically be GNU/ > Linux. Since there is no chance for confusion, I don't see a point in > being overly pedantic. ;-)
From: ray on 9 Jul 2010 12:59 On Fri, 09 Jul 2010 11:58:11 -0500, George Kerby wrote: > On 7/9/10 11:15 AM, in article 89p09cFbo6U9(a)mid.individual.net, "ray" > <ray(a)zianet.com> wrote: > >> On Fri, 09 Jul 2010 08:49:40 -0700, John McWilliams wrote: >> >>> ray wrote: >>>> On Fri, 09 Jul 2010 09:07:19 -0500, George Kerby wrote: >>> >>> >>>>> That's "Mac". "MAC" is an acronym for Media Access Control address >>>>> (MAC address). Please get it correctly. Thank you. >>>> >>>> Does the word 'context' mean anything to you? >>> >>> George is right. Suggesting that context makes an incorrect spelling >>> somehow all right is naive. >> >> Well excuse me. I did not know that Media Access Control was into >> making operating systems - I'll try to do better in the future. > > You are excused. This time only... Well gee, thanks. And make sure you only refer to GNU/Linux in the future, since Linux is only the kernel.
From: John Navas on 9 Jul 2010 13:09 On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 08:40:10 -0700, in <4c35f154$0$22163$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>, SMS <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote: >On 08/07/10 1:51 AM, Bruce wrote: >> We both know there are people who are prepared to accept low standards >> in return for cheapness and compactness and who are prepared to accept >> less control over their output through their laziness and ignorance. >> Once again, they demonise themselves without any help from me. > >Actually if you're doing outdoor work, in good light, at low ISO, and >don't need fast auto-focus, long telephoto, or extreme wide-angle, and >don't plan to make poster size prints, you can get very good results >with a compact camera. > >It's when you _do_ need any of those things that you have to move to a >large sensor camera and when you may need the much faster AF that a >D-SLR with PDAF provides. > >[SNIP] You can't actually say one way or the other with any validity, because you have absolutely no experience with the cameras at issue. -- John "Assumption is the mother of all screw ups." [Wethern�s Law of Suspended Judgement]
From: -hh on 9 Jul 2010 16:41
Alan Lichtenstein <a...(a)erols.com> wrote: > > He may have a point. The SanDisk III UDMA is rated at 60mb/s while the > San Disk Extreme Pro is rated at 90 mb/s. Whether you see a difference > may indeed depend on whether or not your camera's buffer can react that > fast. As well as one's 'bandwidth' consumption rate of that in-camera buffer, which when exceeded will cause a "stall". > The new standard is supposed to accommodate the crop of new > cameras coming out with increased buffer speed and volume and HD > capability, or so the literature I read says. However, for the most > part, unless one owns a top of the line current pro model, one would > likely not notice any difference... ....and as stated, be noticable on these higher-end systems. I looked into this topic awhile back when debating the question of picking up some additional memory cards for a CF based 7D system, and instead of buying more CFs to instead consider buying SDHC cards with CF adaptors. Short answer...no. I encountered "stalling" when using an existing (and today, "slow for CF") 133x (~25MB/sec) card. So the solution was to find CF or SDHC cards that are at least the next step faster. There's some marketing BS to wade through, as you will find cards that claim to be much faster than their ratings, because the marketing says "Up To" whereas ratings are based on minimum performance levels. Thus, a Class 10 SD card is only assured for 10MB/sec...whereas a quaint old "133x" CF card delivers twice that rate. In my case, since my gear did differentiate between 133x CF and faster cards, to realistically consider moving over to SD (with an adaptor for today) pragmatically requires that I wait for (and pay the premium for) SD Class 15 (or higher) cards, which simply do not exist yet. -hh |