April 17, 2014, 06:53:54 PM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Drizzt321

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 110
46
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D MkIII buffer
« on: March 07, 2014, 12:47:01 PM »
I have to say that I do not agree about the SD slot being crippled.  If the camera has been designed to use UDMA 7 CF cards it should have also been designed to accomodate UHS-1 SD cards.  To the best of my knowledge the two specifications came out at about the same time. (Nov 2010 and May 2010 respectively).  As Canon built the ability to save file to the two cards into the camera they should have made it a realistic proposition.

For anyone following this thread, and who is interested, I have formatted my UHS-1 SD cards and this makes no discernible difference to the time taken to the number of burst shots achievable or the time taken to clear the buffer (compared with the cards formatted in my laptop).

Not to worry, the 5DIII is still a brilliant camera.  Pity I can't use it properly!

That is a reasonable point, but unfortunately Canon did not design it that way. The 5D mk3 does not support the faster UHS-1 (ultra high speed) standard for SD cards, which means that no matter which SD card you use the write speed cannot exceed 20MB/sec. What's worse is that if the 5D mk3 detects the presence of an SD card it sets the default write speed to the slower card - so the write speed of your CF card will be limited too. I shoot a lot of sports, and when I bought by 5d mk3 initially I accepted the idea that I needed two cards - in case there was a problem with one of them or so I could keep a RAW and JPEG copy of each file on separate cards. However, I was continually having problems with the buffer filling and I was not able to keep up with the action. Now I have removed the SD card completely and since then I have not had a problem. In my opinion having an SD clot on this camera is a complete waste of space - they would have done better to make two CF slots available.
I use the sandisk UDMA6 CF card which is rated at 90MB/sec. Never tried a UDMA7 card but at the moment I don't need it.

Not so! The SD slot is useful to have a Eye-Fi card and/or other SD card that has MagicLantern installed ;)

I'm not 100% certain on the timing, but at the design & prototyping time I don't think any UHS-I hardware was available, even for testing. I could be wrong about that though. The other question to ask is, can the DIGIC handle 2 very fast cards at the same time? I'd be willing to bet that the DIGIC doesn't even have enough high-speed data lines to support UHS-1 + CF.

47
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D MkIII buffer
« on: March 06, 2014, 07:01:36 PM »
Like you I am a bit paranoid about losing photographs which is why one of the selling points of the 5DIII for me was the ability to write files to two separate cards.  Pity that this function is effectively crippled!  Any way, I'm off to do a low level format on my SD UHS-1 cards and then try them in the 5DIII to see if this makes and difference.  As you say, the proof of the pudding is in-camera performance not in a computer.

And yet again, it needs to be stated that it's not crippled. The functionality works 100%, and as designed based on the technology during the design.

There's nothing stopping you from taking the extra few seconds while it writes to the SD card before taking that 6th & 7th bracketed shots. Nothing is stopping you from that except yourself. The camera will let you take the last shots as soon as the buffer clears enough. Try it. I'm guessing the way you shoot the bracketed shots is via continuous shutter? Set it up, hold down the shutter, and at the end you'll have a pause, and then it'll take another shot (as soon as the buffer clears up).

48
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D MkIII buffer
« on: March 06, 2014, 05:04:50 PM »
mackguyver,  Class 10 write speed is not 30MB/s it's a minimum of 10MB/s.  I have dome a lot of work testing SD and microSD cards mainly because I was stupid enough to buy a SanDisk Ultra card which has 30MB/s emblazoned in large letters on the front.  I was rather perplexed with the slow write speeds that I got so I tested the card.  I used CrystalDiskMark, DiskSpeed.exe, h2testw and Bench32.exe.  The real time write speeds in Windows 7 varied enormously but were mostly less than 10MB/s and averaged 4 to 5MB/s.  The ONLY write speed result from all the tests that I carried out was 10.07MB/s from CrystalDiskMark.  Needless to say SanDisk say that this single marginal and isolated result means that the card is within specification.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CrystalDiskMark 3.0.3 x64 (C) 2007-2013 hiyohiyo
                           Crystal Dew World : http://crystalmark.info/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
* MB/s = 1,000,000 byte/s [SATA/300 = 300,000,000 byte/s]

           Sequential Read :    44.554 MB/s
          Sequential Write :    10.071 MB/s
         Random Read 512KB :     0.000 MB/s
        Random Write 512KB :     0.000 MB/s
    Random Read 4KB (QD=1) :     0.000 MB/s [     0.0 IOPS]
   Random Write 4KB (QD=1) :     0.000 MB/s [     0.0 IOPS]
   Random Read 4KB (QD=32) :     0.000 MB/s [     0.0 IOPS]
  Random Write 4KB (QD=32) :     0.000 MB/s [     0.0 IOPS]

  Test : 1000 MB [G: 91.1% (54.2/59.4 GB)] (x1)
  Date : 2014/03/06 18:46:48
    OS : Windows 7 Home Premium SP1 [6.1 Build 7601] (x64)
    SANDISK_64GB_SDXC

I think that it is of interest that three Samsung Class 6 SD cards gave write speeds of 14-15MB/s and my Toshiba Class 10 microSD card gave a write speed of 14.6MB/s.

Moral:  Don't believe the hype about SanDisk being a top class manufacturer!


The other question to ask...is the card freshly low-level formatted? Or has it been written to previously? With SD cards, you need to low-level format (e.g. clear out all the previously written blocks) if you want to get the highest possible write speeds. Otherwise, it has to go through the ERASE->PROGRAM cycle to write, which is a lot slower than just PROGRAM if you've already performed the ERASE. CF cards too, although with UDMA7 & Trim, you don't necessarily need to do this as, like with SSDs, the camera can tell the card controller that it's deleted a file, and which LBAs, and so it can pre-ERASE those by itself.

49
Black & White / Re: The TRI-X 'look'...
« on: March 06, 2014, 01:40:19 PM »
I love me some Tri-X. Discovered it when I started shooting 120 film this past year. Don't have any handy, but if I remember I'll pull out some scans when I get home :)

50
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D MkIII buffer
« on: March 06, 2014, 01:36:26 PM »
@mikejkay I just did a quick test with the UDMA 7 160MB/s CF card set to raw, and SD card set to JPEG S1, and it really slowed down the buffer for 7 bracketed shots. The camera took all 7 shots, but the 'busy' symbol came up on the screen and there was a definite lag which does not occur when the SD card is removed.
You don't have to remove the SD card, just don't write to it.  It's hardware limited to 30MB/s which is "Class 10", whereas the CF card is UDMA7, so it's MUCH faster.  Canon didn't cripple the SD slot, it was the fastest SD standard available when the camera was designed.

Yup, this exactly. And even if it slows down, you can still take that 7th shot, you just need to wait a few seconds for it to stop being busy and capable of taking another photo for it to then take that 7th bracketed shot. You don't have to have the camera in continuous shutter for the bracketing, and you don't have to take them back to back. You can pause in the middle of each one if you want.

51
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D MkIII buffer
« on: March 05, 2014, 03:17:43 PM »
Thanks ton all.  Looks like UDMA 7 is the way to go.  Pity I spent all my money on the 5DIII...and the 'L' glass.  Sticks in the gullet a bit to spend £100+ on a memory card.  Unfortunately, I carry 1x32GB and 3x16GB as I am aay for several months at a time.

While CF cards are generally more durable than SD cards, they do eventually wear out and do need eventual replacement. Unless you need the CF card as fast as possible, you can just keep using your older ones. Try disabling the JPG to SD, that might free up that last bit of buffer you need to get the full 7 shots.

What's stopping you from just waiting until the buffer clears that for the first image and shooting that last of the bracketed shots? Doing a bracket like that won't help with lots of action, and more for things basically sitting still, which should give you that extra few seconds to make sure to get the last bracketed shot.

52
Chromatropic - great to get some data and many thanks.  Is it possible/likely that Canon will produce a firmware update to "uncripple" the SD card slot?  I already have UHS-1 SD cards, my bottleneck seems to be the older (legacy) 300x CF cards that I use.  Anyway, many thanks for all your effort and for putting it into the public domain.

This is likely a hardware thing. So it's not crippled, it's just the design at the time it was created. I'd be willing to bet that there's only 1 super-fast card 'port' on the DIGIC chip, and the other hangs off of essentially hangs off of the USB bus as a USB card reader, which basically limits it to 60 MB/sec theoretical max bandwidth, but because of the design age they only put in an SDHC (or was it SDXC?) which is the previous spec for SD cards which maxes out at ~30MB/sec theoretical performance.

As mackguyver put it, I'd bet that the camera pulls the RAW into memory, if it's supposed to write as RAW it generates the thumbnail JPG to write into the RAW file, and if it's supposed to write a JPG file it generates the JPG at the size & quality specified. At this point, it writes the file(s) out to the memory cards in parallel, and I'd bet via DMA (at least to the CF slot, which would help free up the CPU to an extent). At this point, if it finishes writing to the CF card, but the SD card is still waiting to finish it's write, it keeps that entire photo in memory (final output to both cards, so if JPG + JPG, the JPG for both, or if RAW + JPG, the RAW to the CF and JPG to the SD). So it essentially holds up a good chunk of your buffer while waiting to finish writing out to the SD slot. Once it's done writing that image, it clears out that particular images space in the buffer and you free up room for another photo in the buffer.

I think this is why, no matter what combination, continuous shooting for RAW+JPG is less than for just RAW. Both because of the extra CPU to generate the JPG, and the extra buffer space needed by the JPG.

And mikejkay, just go ahead and get a newer, higher speed CF card. You can get a quality Transcend 400x (90MB/sec read, 60 MB/sec write) UDMA7 compatible card for less than $40 from B&H. I've got them, use them quite a bit. Works great in my 5d3. It'll also just plain be faster than any SD card unless you regularly do a low-level format on the SD card as the UDMA7 supports TRIM, which lets the CF card clear out the blocks ahead of time instead of waiting until it actually needs to write to them.

53
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D MkIII buffer
« on: March 04, 2014, 06:05:10 PM »
Also try not writing anything to the SD card. Even though it's JPGs, it does take additional CPU to process to JPG, then also write the (moderately large at Large+Fine) JPG files, and the 5d3's SD card is an old spec, and SLOW. Try with just your CF card, and the faster the better. A UDMA7 is best, even if it's not the fastest cards (300-600x), as UDMA7 brings TRIM support which will help keep peak speeds up when you delete/format the card in the camera which can talk UDMA7.

54
Canon General / Re: 19 types of photographers. Which are you?
« on: March 04, 2014, 11:26:49 AM »
Where's the "I don't make a penny off of my photography, but love taking photos of all different types"? So limiting...

55
Canon General / Re: Interview With Canon Executives
« on: March 04, 2014, 11:25:38 AM »
Quote
When you look at the future for photography, is there anything that worries you?

[MM] Not specifically. Maybe if someone invents a potion for eternal life, that will be the day that people will stop wanting to record events. But as long as our lives are limited, I believe that people will continue to want to capture memories.

Personally, I find this response to be the most interesting. Also the least likely, but you never know! We can still hold out hope. Just like for a new 100-400L, or a 24-105L f/2.8 IS that's outstanding. Maybe even a a 135L f/2 IS! Or maybe Canon contributing to MagicLantern a few bits of register documentation with tacit approval to operate on the 1D series. Or maybe a unicorn will come striding down the rainbow that lands at my feet with a leprechaun sitting on top a pile of gold so I can buy Canon and make that a reality.

56
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sony raw files lossy compressed
« on: February 27, 2014, 02:14:29 PM »
lossy-compressed 14 bit raw files from my Nik's survive PP just fine, are Sony's any different?
36MP camera uncompressed raw file is just silly-big without compression

I'm not arguing _lossless_ compression. That's just common sense. It's the fact that the perception of a RAW image format is exactly what the image sensor recorded. I know it's not 100% exactly, as all of the camera makers have a bit of post-processing in the RAW recording pipeline, but my impression is it's very minimal. The Sony format explicitly removes data from what the image sensor records. RAW means, to the vast majority of people, "unprocessed what the sensor captured".

The Sony format breaks that meaning. I'm not arguing that it matters in the vast majority of real-world photos, just that marketing could have easily put that in as an asterisk and at the bottom said something to the effect of "RAW format uses a high quality, lossy storage format to balance high quality & lower storage space". Instead, they just say "14-bit RAW". Which the format literally and figuratively is not 14-bit.

As for saying 36MP raw images are just silly-big, well, that's why you got a 36MP camera, right? You want super-high resolution images. You want smaller file size? Have the camera store a smaller RAW file. Say mRAW or sRAW. You know. Lower resolution files.

57
Lenses / Re: How to protect gear from fine sand?
« on: February 27, 2014, 12:30:00 PM »
I've been to the Page, AZ area a lot over the years, and I'll just flatly state that I think the dust issues & concerns at Antelope (both upper & lower) are waaaaay over blown. By exercising just a little common sense anyone can safely use a camera and even change lenses without a problem. Now there are other slot canyons in the neighborhood, that are more "open on top" then Antelope, where falling sand can be a concern. Interestingly enough, I've found that the falling sand is at it's worst immediately after a big wind-event rather than during the dust-storm up-top. But even then, just the simplest of precautions have always been sufficient, and I am a stickler for sensor dust... So especially if the slot canyons are going to be a once-in-a-lifetime photo opportunity for you, I say don't be shy about your gear or even changing lenses, simply be smart about it. Basically just find a more sheltered corner in which to change lenses, be quick, and always use a clear/UV filter.

What you said is encouraging.  I don't plan on changing lens.  I only hope that the sand or dust doesn't get into the zoom ring and the camera buttons. Maybe I'm just being paranoid.

Maybe a bit paranoid. Unless you're somewhere with a lot of free, loose sand/dust (such as a big desert event where people are crunching up the top, releasing lots of dust), as long as you take a few basic precautions it's not terribly bad.

58
Landscape / Re: Landscape photio advice needed
« on: February 26, 2014, 08:37:14 PM »
...In my opinion the main reason to use tripods for daylight images, is when you want to blur water or other things that are in motion.  Or if you are nuts about shooting everything at ISO 50 or 100.  But if you're that nuts about that, you should be using a D800 and a Zeiss lens...at least until Canon bring out their high MP camera (and even then you'll need a Zeiss lens).

Or, if you're really a purist, you'll insist on a 50 pound wooden tripod with 8x10 film plates with a donkey or two and an assistant to carry it all for you ;)

59
Lenses / Re: How to protect gear from fine sand?
« on: February 26, 2014, 08:34:59 PM »
You can't really. And this is someone who's shot at Burning Man which has the extremely fine, alkaline dust.

What you can do is try and use gaffer's tape at all the seams, including the lens/body interface. If you have a zoom lens...you'll get some dust in there, unless it internally zooms like the 70-200's, or 17-40 (after you add a front filter). You can try a plastic bag, or taping on plastic around the body and/or lens...but just resign yourself to the fact that if you are out shooting more than a few hours, you'll need to send it off to be CLA'd. Especially if you get caught out in a dust storm.

If, on the other hand, you keep it in a bag and take it out only when shooting, and you're not in a big dust storm, don't worry too much. And avoid changing a lens outside if at all possible. That's a great way for dust to get in the mirror box & mess up the mirror or get on the sensor.

Maybe I'll have to use my 17-40 more than my normal zoom then. I'm not too fond of the idea of mailing my lens to be cleaned.

If you pack it properly, it's pretty safe. I've done it before. Lots of bubble wrap. Or if you live close enough to a Canon servicing center, just bring it there.

However, I don't know how dusty it really is in Arizona where you plan to be. There will of course be some, but I don't know how it compares to Burning Man where there are 65,000 people stepping and biking and, in general, making lots and lots of dust that the wind picks up. Without that, there's always a bit but nothing too horribly serious. Except for actual dust storms, that is.

60
Lenses / Re: How to protect gear from fine sand?
« on: February 26, 2014, 01:00:43 PM »
You can't really. And this is someone who's shot at Burning Man which has the extremely fine, alkaline dust.

What you can do is try and use gaffer's tape at all the seams, including the lens/body interface. If you have a zoom lens...you'll get some dust in there, unless it internally zooms like the 70-200's, or 17-40 (after you add a front filter). You can try a plastic bag, or taping on plastic around the body and/or lens...but just resign yourself to the fact that if you are out shooting more than a few hours, you'll need to send it off to be CLA'd. Especially if you get caught out in a dust storm.

If, on the other hand, you keep it in a bag and take it out only when shooting, and you're not in a big dust storm, don't worry too much. And avoid changing a lens outside if at all possible. That's a great way for dust to get in the mirror box & mess up the mirror or get on the sensor.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 110