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

[Stuart_B]

Re: Compressed RAW vs Uncompressed RAW

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

If the accuracy of the results and validity of the conclusion of the article are so irrelevant, then what was the point of the article in the first place?

1. both cameras measure up pretty equally with 133x memory cards; the 40D has a larger buffer, whereas the A700 has a faster buffer-to-card speed

2. the A700 is significantly faster with 300x memory cards; the 40D does not improve much, whilst the A700 improves a great deal

E.g. A700 can take 30 cRAW frames at 5fps, with a Lexar 300X UDMA card, which is about one-and-a-half-times as many as the Canon 40D can take at 6.5fps.

[Ian]

Re: Compressed RAW vs Uncompressed RAW

If the accuracy of the results and validity of the conclusion of the article are so irrelevant, then what was the point of the article in the first place?

1. both cameras measure up pretty equally with 133x memory cards; the 40D has a larger buffer, whereas the A700 has a faster buffer-to-card speed

2. the A700 is significantly faster with 300x memory cards; the 40D does not improve much, whilst the A700 improves a great deal

E.g. A700 can take 30 cRAW frames at 5fps, with a Lexar 300X UDMA card, which is about one-and-a-half-times as many as the Canon 40D can take at 6.5fps.

I made considered amendments to the article (on the test results page) earlier in the day - maybe you hadn't noticed this?

I can't publish test data for cRAW because I haven't done the test and I don't have an A700 any more to do that test. If I did, I'd have run the test immediately - but I have promised to do the test when Sony can provide me with another camera.

In the mean time, the article is honest and as clear as it can be in the circumstances. It is not misleading in any way either. I am not going to take it down.

What I feel has been highlighted is that there probably doesn't appear to be any requirement for the standard uncompressed RAW mode. The Olympus E-3 uses a compressed RAW mode by default but Olympus feels no need to call it 'compressed RAW' and offer an uncompressed alternative. In which case, Sony is inviting its users to reduce the performance of their camera for no apprently good reason.

Anyway, I look forward verifying your data as soon as I get the opportunity.

Ian

[Patrick]

Re: Compressed RAW vs Uncompressed RAW

If the accuracy of the results and validity of the conclusion of the article are so irrelevant, then what was the point of the article in the first place?

1. both cameras measure up pretty equally with 133x memory cards; the 40D has a larger buffer, whereas the A700 has a faster buffer-to-card speed

2. the A700 is significantly faster with 300x memory cards; the 40D does not improve much, whilst the A700 improves a great deal

E.g. A700 can take 30 cRAW frames at 5fps, with a Lexar 300X UDMA card, which is about one-and-a-half-times as many as the Canon 40D can take at 6.5fps.

If and I repeat if its inaccurate, Ian wouldn't be the first nor will he be the last to make a mistake. As to the niceties of the figures claimed by the manufacturers, these are often inaccurate in practical use as they cherry pick the way they are quoted.
As matter of interest all the reports I have read on the 40D state it runs faster than Canon claim until the buffer is almost filled then it slows down.

Personally and I bet this applies to most readers I couldn't give a S*** which is the faster, they are both good cameras giving top class results, the rest is for anoraks.

Patrick

[Ian]

Re: Compressed RAW vs Uncompressed RAW

If and I repeat if its inaccurate, Ian wouldn't be the first nor will he be the last to make a mistake. As to the niceties of the figures claimed by the manufacturers, these are often inaccurate in practical use as they cherry pick the way they are quoted.
As matter of interest all the reports I have read on the 40D state it runs faster than Canon claim until the buffer is almost filled then it slows down.

Personally and I bet this applies to most readers I couldn't give a S*** which is the faster, they are both good cameras giving top class results, the rest is for anoraks.

Patrick

I agree entirely - but just for the record, I haven't made a mistake. Every statement in the article is technically correct. All that's been brought to light is that if you use the camera differently, the results may be different.

I don't see any need to add to this thread until I get to do additional tests! Thanks for your interest!

Ian

[Unregistered]

Re: Compressed RAW vs Uncompressed RAW

I agree entirely - but just for the record, I haven't made a mistake. Every statement in the article is technically correct. All that's been brought to light is that if you use the camera differently, the results may be different.

I don't see any need to add to this thread until I get to do additional tests! Thanks for your interest!

Ian

Except the Sony doing 12 MP images does them endlessly in full speed and you compared a 10 MP compressed RAW with an 12 MP uncompressed raw then state the camera that all your testing methodoligy favored impressed you.

Doing fair tests is takes some research..

[Stuart_B]

Re: Compressed RAW vs Uncompressed RAW

Personally and I bet this applies to most readers I couldn't give a S*** which is the faster, they are both good cameras giving top class results, the rest is for anoraks.

Well; I guess then that Sandisk, Sony, Nikon, Olympus, Lexar, and a lot of other manufacturers have made a serious goof themselves - because they are trying to market high-speed memory when nobody (except for anoraks) really wants it.

Oh well!

Thankfully, it seems like high speed memory cards sell like gold dust. So there must be an awful lot of anoraks out there. So many anoraks out there, in fact, that Dpnow has writen this very article, about an issue which nobody else really cares about.

[Patrick]

Re: Compressed RAW vs Uncompressed RAW

Well; I guess then that Sandisk, Sony, Nikon, Olympus, Lexar, and a lot of other manufacturers have made a serious goof themselves - because they are trying to market high-speed memory when nobody (except for anoraks) really wants it.

Oh well!

Thankfully, it seems like high speed memory cards sell like gold dust. So there must be an awful lot of anoraks out there. So many anoraks out there, in fact, that Dpnow has writen this very article, about an issue which nobody else really cares about.

Read what I said, I didn't care which was faster not that cameras in general shouldn't be faster.

Its the difference between the two that is for anoraks.

Cameras are for making pictures not for fussing over which is a micro second faster than another.

Patrick

[Ian]

Re: Compressed RAW vs Uncompressed RAW

Read what I said, I didn't care which was faster not that cameras in general shouldn't be faster.

Its the difference between the two that is for anoraks.

Cameras are for making pictures not for fussing over which is a micro second faster than another.

Patrick

One of the reasons I produced the article was to inform people that they didn't necessarily have to go for the latest 300x cards and so they could save a fair bit of money. At the same time, people whose cameras could benefit from UDMA technology could be happy that their choice of investing in such cards may be of benefit when shooting RAW.

Saving money or getting value for money is always important in my book

Ian

[Bearface]

Re: Compressed RAW vs Uncompressed RAW

Well; I guess then that Sandisk, Sony, Nikon, Olympus, Lexar, and a lot of other manufacturers have made a serious goof themselves - because they are trying to market high-speed memory when nobody (except for anoraks) really wants it.

Oh well!

Oh well!

Are these the same kind of anoraks who join up to photography forums and immediately employ extreme pedantry to split hairs over an in-house article on memory cards, instead of participating positively to the site and perhaps even benefitting from it..?

Some people have just got too much time on their hands, eh Stuart? And as for caring whether or not the Sony A700 has a faster buffer than the Canon 40D.........well, obviously that's really important to technoge.....sorry, I mean those of us who are actually into serious photography.

Still, I'm sure these anoraks already have a place to argue (incessantly...) over the finer points of er.......camera's buffer speeds and all that nonsense.......a place where the pedants can take delight in correcting or criticizing semantics or what they perceive to be fundamental errors in other people's postings. Still, I'll bet it's a very worthy and fulfilling pastime...

Sadly I doubt such folk have much time left over for that joyous pursuit that I like to call "photography".

[Patrick]

Re: Compressed RAW vs Uncompressed RAW

Oh well!

Are these the same kind of anoraks who join up to photography forums and immediately employ extreme pedantry to split hairs over an in-house article on memory cards, instead of participating positively to the site and perhaps even benefitting from it..?

Some people have just got too much time on their hands, eh Stuart? And as for caring whether or not the Sony A700 has a faster buffer than the Canon 40D.........well, obviously that's really important to technoge.....sorry, I mean those of us who are actually into serious photography.

Still, I'm sure these anoraks already have a place to argue (incessantly...) over the finer points of er.......camera's buffer speeds and all that nonsense.......a place where the pedants can take delight in correcting or criticizing semantics or what they perceive to be fundamental errors in other people's postings. Sadly I doubt such folk have much time left over for that joyous pursuit that I like to call "photography".

Well said

Patrick

[Stuart_B]

Re: Compressed RAW vs Uncompressed RAW

One of the reasons I produced the article was to inform people that they didn't necessarily have to go for the latest 300x cards and so they could save a fair bit of money. At the same time, people whose cameras could benefit from UDMA technology could be happy that their choice of investing in such cards may be of benefit when shooting RAW.

Saving money or getting value for money is always important in my book

Ian

I am sorry then, I must have completely mistook your meaning before, when you said...

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

... because from that it sounded like there was a competition to be had, and you had declared Canon to be the winner.

[Unregistered]

Re: Compressed RAW vs Uncompressed RAW

Oh well!

Are these the same kind of anoraks who join up to photography forums and immediately employ extreme pedantry to split hairs over an in-house article on memory cards, instead of participating positively to the site and perhaps even benefitting from it..?

Some people have just got too much time on their hands, eh Stuart? And as for caring whether or not the Sony A700 has a faster buffer than the Canon 40D.........well, obviously that's really important to technoge.....sorry, I mean those of us who are actually into serious photography.

Still, I'm sure these anoraks already have a place to argue (incessantly...) over the finer points of er.......camera's buffer speeds and all that nonsense.......a place where the pedants can take delight in correcting or criticizing semantics or what they perceive to be fundamental errors in other people's postings. Still, I'll bet it's a very worthy and fulfilling pastime...

Sadly I doubt such folk have much time left over for that joyous pursuit that I like to call "photography".

Talking about lame insults

They might just be the type who spend their hours shooting frames at blank walls so that they can say one camera is faster than another camera... Or, the type who actually spend their days reading about other people who spend hours shooting at blank walls...

Zzzzzzz...

Are you done being childish yet?

[Bearface]

Re: Compressed RAW vs Uncompressed RAW

Talking about lame insults

They might just be the type who spend their hours shooting frames at blank walls so that they can say one camera is faster than another camera... Or, the type who actually spend their days reading about other people who spend hours shooting at blank walls...

Zzzzzzz...

Are you done being childish yet?

Well it certainly prompted an angry response from you, didn't it..?

Sorry "unregistered", I'm only able to enter into a battle of wits with individuals who are armed with some in the first place. Plus, I refuse to engage with anyone who ducks registration and posts anonymously...

[csb]

Re: Compressed RAW vs Uncompressed RAW

Hello,

I would like to see if I can add to this in a way that clears up a bit of the confusion. I am a Nikon user, and have owned a D100, a D200, and now have a D300. For both Nikon and Canon, who have been making DSLR's with large image file sizes and raw modes for a while, the reason for a lot of this complexity is two-fold, IMHO.

First, the reason for having the option of compressed vs. uncompressed raw files has a lot to do with the limits of the early cameras and cards. Raw file formats, with a few exceptions, are proprietary to the camera maker, and the specific version of the Nikon Electronc Format (NEF) raw file used by the D100, and I am pretty certain the D200 as well, did lose just a small amount of quality when compressed, because the compression was very slightly lossy. The compressed file size was about half the uncompressed size, and this was a big deal when a 1 GB CF card cost $200. At the same time, the buffer was much smaller by today's standards, and the camera's electronics were slower.

In addition, the D100 could also be used tethered to a computer with lots of storage, and did not have to have a card installed for this.

In this context, it made sense to give the user the option of compressed or uncompressed raw, so they could decide which compromise hurt the least- to shoot uncompressed, which was faster on the D100 because the compression was the bottleneck, not the card write speed, or shoot compressed, which was slower but got twice as many shots on a card (not an issue with tethered operation).

Even back then (2002?), there was a narrowly adopted standard called Write Accelleration supported by some cameras (including the D100) and some vendors (I think Lexar started it) but it never really took off. It was an early attempt to do the same thing as UDMA.

The other reason for a choice between compressed and uncompressed raw formats is that shooting raw means using raw conversion software, and if your favorite raw converter did not support the compressed format, your only option was to use uncompressed raw.

Newer cameras have been able to bypass all of this legacy, and for example have only one raw format, with no choice for the user between compressed or uncompressed. The raw conversion software adopts this one format from the outset.

The D300 and D3X even go so far as to let the user choose between 12 bit NEF and 14 bit NEF through the menu, but this is really more of a pro-level feature.

As the pixel counts have gone up, the image sizes have gotten bigger. The image processors have gotten faster (and Canon sometimes boost performance by using more than one of them), the buffers bigger, and the card interface faster. The high end cameras also have much higher maximum frame rates, with 6 to 10 fps now common.

This is why hands-on testing is so helpful. For a given UDMA compatible camera, configured a certain way, shooting at a certain rate, using a UDMA card may or may not help, because it may or may not be the bottleneck. An ordinary card may be more than fast enough shooting JPEG at a moderate rate. UDMA is more likely to help when a fully compatible camera with a high pixel count shoots uncompressed raw at 8 or 10 fps for a long burst. Remove any of these factors and a high quality non-UDMA card may be just fine.

All this still leaves me wondering how fast any card has to be before it will not slow down my D300 shooting 14 bit uncompressed NEF's at 6 fps.

On the software side, only the very most recent update of Lightroom, for example, even supports this camera.