Ultra high-speed Compact Flash - do you need it?

[DPNow]

Here is a summary or excerpt from an article that has just been published on DPNow:

Are the latest generation of ultra high speed UDMA compact flash cards going to speed up your new DSLR? Maybe yes, maybe no. It's a far from straightforward answer, as we found out when testing a Lexar Professional 300x UDMA card and a standard high speed SanDisk Extreme III with three if the latest DSLRs, the fast shooting Canon EOS-40D, Olympus E-3, and Sony Alpha A700. -+- Ref: 4TFD

More...

[Ian]

Re: Ultra high-speed Compact Flash - do you need it?

Here is a summary or excerpt from an article that has just been published on DPNow:

Are the latest generation of ultra high speed UDMA compact flash cards going to speed up your new DSLR? Maybe yes, maybe no. It's a far from straightforward answer, as we found out when testing a Lexar Professional 300x UDMA card and a standard high speed SanDisk Extreme III with three if the latest DSLRs, the fast shooting Canon EOS-40D, Olympus E-3, and Sony Alpha A700. -+- Ref: 4TFD

More...

Well! The Canon EOS doesn't support the latest UDMA high speed memory card technology, but that didn't stop it from out-gunning UDMA-enabled competitors.

Ian

[yoshi]

Re: Ultra high-speed Compact Flash - do you need it?

Many thanks for this timely and informative news. I happeded to be at large caemra shops in Tokyo last week and asked for prices for these. I did not buy any as I thought they were still expensive. Now I feel glad that I did not buy it, after reading this news. I did not know Canon does not support UDMA or conversely I misunderstand UDMA can be used on any cameras as long as CF cards are used.

I learned at that time that newer SDHC cards are cheaper than older CF cards for the same memory size. I do not understand why. but it does not matter. My camera does not support SDHC.
yoshi

[Ian]

Re: Ultra high-speed Compact Flash - do you need it?

Many thanks for this timely and informative news. I happeded to be at large caemra shops in Tokyo last week and asked for prices for these. I did not buy any as I thought they were still expensive. Now I feel glad that I did not buy it, after reading this news. I did not know Canon does not support UDMA or conversely I misunderstand UDMA can be used on any cameras as long as CF cards are used.

I learned at that time that newer SDHC cards are cheaper than older CF cards for the same memory size. I do not understand why. but it does not matter. My camera does not support SDHC.
yoshi

Hi Yoshi,

Just to clarify things - UDMA compact flash cards are compatible with non-UDMA cameras, but performance may actually be slightly inferior to 'standard' high speed cards rated around 133x.

The market for SD and SDHC is much bigger than Compact Flash so there is economy in the scale of production.

Ian

[Stuart B]

Compressed RAW vs Uncompressed RAW

All your "test" has proven is that when shooting a burst it is better to use compressed RAW than uncompressed RAW.

The Canon 40D only has compressed RAW, whereas the A700 has both. You have shot with compressed RAW for the Canon 40D, and uncompressed RAW for the A700, which should not be compared in this fashion.

If you used the same file format for both cameras, then it would be a fair comparison. The A700 can shoot about 30 cRAW frames with a 300X UDMA card, or about 20 frames with a 133X card.

Seems like a rather fishy "article" to me.

[Stuart B]

Re: Ultra high-speed Compact Flash - do you need it?

Well! The Canon EOS doesn't support the latest UDMA high speed memory card technology, but that didn't stop it from out-gunning UDMA-enabled competitors.

Ian

Try repeating the test, except with like-for-like, rather than comparing different file formats for different cameras ...

[Ian]

Re: Compressed RAW vs Uncompressed RAW

All your "test" has proven is that when shooting a burst it is better to use compressed RAW than uncompressed RAW.

The Canon 40D only has compressed RAW, whereas the A700 has both. You have shot with compressed RAW for the Canon 40D, and uncompressed RAW for the A700, which should not be compared in this fashion.

If you used the same file format for both cameras, then it would be a fair comparison. The A700 can shoot about 30 cRAW frames with a 300X UDMA card, or about 20 frames with a 133X card.

Seems like a rather fishy "article" to me.

There is nothing 'fishy' at all - assuming your data is correct, I'll of course amend the article.

One wonders why the A700 offers uncompressed RAW in the first place?

The Canon 40D may compress its RAW files, but there is no alternative 'uncompressed' RAW file recording mode.

The Olympus E-3 data will be amended because I later discovered that shooting in JPEG Normal as opposed to JPEG Fine allows the camera to shoot indefinitely at full continuous 5fps burst mode.

Ian

[Stuart B]

Re: Compressed RAW vs Uncompressed RAW

There is nothing 'fishy' at all - assuming your data is correct, I'll of course amend the article.

One wonders why the A700 offers uncompressed RAW in the first place?

The Canon 40D may compress its RAW files, but there is no alternative 'uncompressed' RAW file recording mode.

The Olympus E-3 data will be amended because I later discovered that shooting in JPEG Normal as opposed to JPEG Fine allows the camera to shoot indefinitely at full continuous 5fps burst mode.

Ian

Excuse me for my cynicism, and thank you for offering to correct the article.

In terms of buffer-to-memory-cards; the Alpha 700 is a speed king, it is insanely fast, so when I saw an article claiming the Canon 40D was faster I was a little dubious.

As for your question about why the Sony A700 offers both... please see the below FAQ by Sony...

http://support.sony-europe.com/DIME/...f=mod_DSC_A700

If you look at the section entitled "Computer, Operating System, and file format?" they have a Q&A called "Are there any differences in picture quality between cRAW and RAW?".

To my knowledge, Canon has no equivalent FAQ answering why it does not offer uncompressed RAW.

Canon 40D's compressed RAW => about 12MB per file (2/3 compression)
Sony A700's compressed RAW => about 12MB per file (2/3 compression)

Sony A700's uncompressed RAW => about 18MB per file (4272 x 2848 x 12 bits \ 8 bits per byte)
If the Canon 40D had uncompressed RAW it would also be about 18MB per file (3888 x 2592 x 14 bits \ 8 bits per byte)

[Patrick]

Re: Compressed RAW vs Uncompressed RAW

Excuse me for my cynicism, and thank you for offering to correct the article.

In terms of buffer-to-memory-cards; the Alpha 700 is a speed king, it is insanely fast, so when I saw an article claiming the Canon 40D was faster I was a little dubious.

As for your question about why the Sony A700 offers both... please see the below FAQ by Sony...

http://support.sony-europe.com/DIME/...f=mod_DSC_A700

If you look at the section entitled "Computer, Operating System, and file format?" they have a Q&A called "Are there any differences in picture quality between cRAW and RAW?".

To my knowledge, Canon has no equivalent FAQ answering why it does not offer uncompressed RAW.

Canon 40D's compressed RAW => about 12MB per file (2/3 compression)
Sony A700's compressed RAW => about 12MB per file (2/3 compression)

Sony A700's uncompressed RAW => about 18MB per file (4272 x 2848 x 12 bits 8 bits per byte)
If the Canon 40D had uncompressed RAW it would also be about 18MB per file (3888 x 2592 x 14 bits 8 bits per byte)

Your comparisons could also be flawed
The Canon shoots in 14bit, not sure about the Sony do they shoot 12 or 14 bit?
Since the quality difference is claimed to be none between Raw and cRAW the whole question seems to me to be academic for a photographer other than the fact the compressed file will write faster and fit more images on a card.

Patrick

[Stuart B]

Re: Compressed RAW vs Uncompressed RAW

Your comparisons could also be flawed
The Canon shoots in 14bit, not sure about the Sony do they shoot 12 or 14 bit?
Since the quality difference is claimed to be none between Raw and cRAW the whole question seems to me to be academic for a photographer other than the fact the compressed file will write faster and fit more images on a card.

Patrick - Sony A700 is 12-bit.

Indeed; my suggestion is that the difference between compressed and uncompressed is academic, except in regards to the speed test which was performed by DPNow. Comparing the A700 shooting uncompressed RAW to the 40D shooting compressed RAW seems a little unbalanced.

[Ian]

Re: Compressed RAW vs Uncompressed RAW

Patrick - Sony A700 is 12-bit.

Indeed; my suggestion is that the difference between compressed and uncompressed is academic, except in regards to the speed test which was performed by DPNow. Comparing the A700 shooting uncompressed RAW to the 40D shooting compressed RAW seems a little unbalanced.

I think my example would be very typical of many people new to an A700: 'RAW' is unambiguous. 'cRAW' is something unusual and a lot of people would ignore it and simply use RAW. So I'm still tring to figure out what the benefit of uncompressed RAW could be. My theory is that uncompressed RAW would offer better performanc for very long bursts of continuous shooting than compressed RAW, but that would need to be verified through testing.

Ian

[Stuart B]

Re: Compressed RAW vs Uncompressed RAW

An interesting theory but I fail to see your logic. The compressed RAW format is better suited to longer bursts than the uncompressed RAW.

The inclusion of both formats is the same as including different compression options for TIFF files. None of them offer any more detail, yet some of them are smaller than others.

How about showing the results for both compressed and uncompressed RAW on the Sony, rather than picking only one? That way, your readers can make their own minds up which one is best. That would seem a bit more of an impartial and objective way of presenting the true data.

[Ian]

Re: Compressed RAW vs Uncompressed RAW

An interesting theory but I fail to see your logic.

How about showing the results for both compressed and uncompressed RAW on the Sony, rather than picking only one?

The camera went back to Sony on Tuesday, unfortunately. They could only let me have it for two weeks.

The logic is quite clear to me - both in choosing, without prior knowledge, between 'RAW' and 'cRAW' and in the likelihood that compress RAW would likely offer a slower continuous shooting rate after the buffer was saturated. This is exactly what happens with the 40D. More in-camera processing retains the bottleneck before the buffer to card interface once the buffer is filled. The A700 does have the benefit of a faster buffer to card interface thanks to UDMA, so my logic is subject to some verification, of course.

I've just noticed your snipe about 'being paid by Canon'. Frankly, if your attitude is like that, you aren't welcome on this site. For the record - I OWN a Sony Alpha A100 and I OWN a Sony Carl Zeiss 16-80 standard zoom. I find the insinuation that my testing is biased quite insulting and the suggestion that Canon paid me to show how much better the 40D is compared to the Olympus E-3 and Sony Alpha A700 - is just laughable. If you are in the UK you will see that the site is currently plastered with Sony Alpha advertising, I run two separate sites aimed at Olympus users, and if only Canon would advertise here (they never have).

If you want to be welcome on this site again, think carefully before displaying your innate paranoia about how the A700 is tested and making completely uncalled for libellous allegations.

Ian

[Patrick]

Re: Compressed RAW vs Uncompressed RAW

The camera went back to Sony on Tuesday, unfortunately. They could only let me have it for two weeks.

The logic is quite clear to me - both in choosing, without prior knowledge, between 'RAW' and 'cRAW' and in the likelihood that compress RAW would likely offer a slower continuous shooting rate after the buffer was saturated. This is exactly what happens with the 40D. More in-camera processing retains the bottleneck before the buffer to card interface once the buffer is filled. The A700 does have the benefit of a faster buffer to card interface thanks to UDMA, so my logic is subject to some verification, of course.

I've just noticed your snipe about 'being paid by Canon'. Frankly, if your attitude is like that, you aren't welcome on this site. For the record - I OWN a Sony Alpha A100 and I OWN a Sony Carl Zeiss 16-80 standard zoom. I find the insinuation that my testing is biased quite insulting and the suggestion that Canon paid me to show how much better the 40D is compared to the Olympus E-3 and Sony Alpha A700 - is just laughable. If you are in the UK you will see that the site is currently plastered with Sony Alpha advertising, I run two separate sites aimed at Olympus users, and if only Canon would advertise here (they never have).

If you want to be welcome on this site again, think carefully before displaying your innate paranoia about how the A700 is tested and making completely uncalled for libellous allegations.

Ian

I can't help feeling this quarrel escalating unnecessarily. So what if one camera is a few microseconds faster than another to download it really doesn't matter.
I personally cant comment on the Sony, but for Stuarts B benefit I own 40D and its bloody fast (now there is a good scientific description for you ) and I don't doubt the Sony is also bloody fast.
As for uncompressed RAW Sony say there is no difference in quality, why then they have bother with it I can't imagine.
So come on lads calm down and go take a few pictures, much fare more important than download speeds.

Patrick

[Stuart_B]

Re: Compressed RAW vs Uncompressed RAW

The camera went back to Sony on Tuesday, unfortunately. They could only let me have it for two weeks.

You are currently showcasing an article claiming to be cutting edge and informative, backed up by impartial evidence, which says that the 40D bursts for longer than the A700.

You have been given quite reasonable feedback, pointing out that your tests were flawed, and as a consequence biased against the A700, enough such as to invalidate your test results and the conclusions you have made based upon those results.

Yet; despite that feedback, you are continuing to boast the same results and conclusion.

My suggestion to you is; either correct your article, or remove it.

The logic is quite clear to me - both in choosing, without prior knowledge, between 'RAW' and 'cRAW' and in the likelihood that compress RAW would likely offer a slower continuous shooting rate after the buffer was saturated.

An interesting theory indeed but where is your evidence?

This is exactly what happens with the 40D. More in-camera processing retains the bottleneck before the buffer to card interface once the buffer is filled. The A700 does have the benefit of a faster buffer to card interface thanks to UDMA, so my logic is subject to some verification, of course.

The A700 (and A100) have faster buffer-to-card speeds even without UDMA. E.g. with a 133x memory card; the A700 manages buffer-to-memory-card speeds of 15MB/sec with a memory card, whereas the 40D only manages 7MB/sec with the same card. With compressed RAW, the A700 can shoot a little over 1fps, unlimited.

I've just noticed your snipe about 'being paid by Canon'. Frankly, if your attitude is like that, you aren't welcome on this site.
...
...
...
If you want to be welcome on this site again, think carefully before displaying your innate paranoia about how the A700 is tested and making completely uncalled for libellous allegations.

As far as I recall, I have not made any such allegations. I did consider making a witty comment to that effect (in jest) but I decided that you might not take my humour very well.

However, I apologise wholeheartedly for any insinuation I may have made. I accept completely that you have made an honest mistake.

Please now correct that mistake.