February 26, 2015, 07:57:02 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 - dolina

Pages: 1 ... 26 27 [28] 29 30 ... 78
406
EOS Bodies / Re: Will the next xD cameras do 4k?
« on: February 28, 2014, 02:39:27 AM »
5D Mark IV will probably get compressed 4K resolution.

407
I had 15 memory cards that spans 1 decade. I have started to sell all of them to consolidate my cards to one 64GB capacity per body.

Reliability has improved so much that mishandling and misplacing these cards are more of a problem to me. Another problem is missing out on the decisive moment due to the memory cards filling up too fast or due to clearing the buffer.

My preference are 128GB cards but no one sells them for under-$150.

408
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon's Medium Format
« on: February 11, 2014, 07:21:30 PM »
Buying a current MF brand is more feasible than Canon doing it from scratch. There is more money in Cinema EOS than MF.

409
EOS Bodies / Re: Will the next xD cameras do 4k?
« on: February 11, 2014, 07:20:27 PM »
If the next xD has CFast 2.0 then it probably will.

410
PowerShot / Re: 200x zoom on SX50
« on: February 10, 2014, 07:04:53 PM »
Based on your images and the images of others if I had the chance to redo the hobby again I would go with this instead.

It would mean an easier out.

411
Canon EF Prime Lenses / Re: Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II USM
« on: February 10, 2014, 07:02:48 PM »
Morlin,

Tripod Head
http://stores.4gdphoto.com/m-3-6-gimbal-tripod-head/
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/404536-REG/Wimberley_WH_200_Gimbal_Type_Tripod_Head.html/c/product/#inpage:IN+STOCK

Tripod Legs
(BH says it's good for 500mm only but Gitzo says it's good for 600mm)
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/846215-REG/Gitzo_GT4542LS_GT4542LS_6x_4_SECTION_SYSTEMATIC.html

(BH says it's good for 600mm only but Gitzo says it's good for 800mm)
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/846220-REG/Gitzo_GT5542LS_GT5542LS_6x_4_SECTION_SYSTEMATIC.html

Above combination is very pricey but considering the 600mm is about $12,800 and does not include the body and other accessories attached then it becomes commensurate to the purchase.

A lousy tripod leg & head will increase the likelihood of garbage shots and an increase of preventable accidents. It will require extra effort & diligence to keep steady. If you value your time like everyone else then go with this combination. Trust me, you do not want to waste a weekend just because you can save $1000.

Another option to add is a replacement lens foot that affords a lower center of gravity and lighter lens. Just be mindful if the clearance for your fingers will fit your fingers.

http://www.reallyrightstuff.com/s.nl/sc.26/category.3554/.f
http://stores.4gdphoto.com/canon-is-ii/
http://www.naturescapes.net/store/naturescapes.net-clf-456-lens-replacement-foot.html

412
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Camera porn (SFW)
« on: February 08, 2014, 11:58:30 PM »
Thank God it aint a Sigma. I'd get erectile dysfunction if you did.

413
Sports / Re: Cars cars cars (and some bikes)
« on: February 05, 2014, 05:51:40 PM »
Photographed at the Batangas Racing Circuit.


Track Day 2014 by 500px.com/dolina, on Flickr

414


240GB Crucial M500 with firmware MU03 on a 2010 13-inch Macbook Pro with Superdrive through SATA 3Gb/s (300MB/s) interface. Clean install of 10.9.1 + other updates. TRIM not enabled as it was recommended by a Crucial employee that the built-in Garbage Collecting is sufficient.


240GB Crucial M500 in 2010 13-inch Macbook Pro by 500px.com/dolina, on Flickr

I was able to source a 2nd HDD bracket so I can make a Fusion Drive.

415
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in Q2? [CR1]
« on: February 05, 2014, 03:05:54 AM »
It appears that I may be in error. By using PCIe 3.0 overhead is largely reduced or even eliminated to allow for ~2GB/s.

But then again we are talking about a spec rather than practical application.

I just installed a 240GB Crucial M500 SSD onto a 2010 Macbook Pro with a SATA 3Gb/s interface. Feels like having a new computer all over again!

I could imagine how it'll be like with 10x or so faster data transfers. ^_^

agreed.

My point is the transfer rate does not change. It is kind of like ethernet..... packets are sent at the same speed.... it's how many packets per second that gives you the transfer rate.  A fast memory card and a slow memory card both transfer data at the same block speed. A faster memory card is ready sooner with the next block and that's what makes it faster.

416
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in Q2? [CR1]
« on: February 03, 2014, 01:17:24 PM »
What people care about are read/write speeds. Rare if you ever see anyone talk about block transfers.

Yes but the transfer rate and the throughput rates are different. If we assume that they are using block transfers, the transfer rate is 2GB/sec. That rate remains the same no matter what the read or write speed of the card is....

For example, if the read rate of the card is 200MB/sec, the data is transferred in pulses of 2GB/sec... the line is only active 10 percent of the time. Get a 500MB/sec card and the data is still transferred in pulses of 2GB/sec, but the pulses are more frequent and the line is now active for 25 percent of the time.

417
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in Q2? [CR1]
« on: February 02, 2014, 04:49:16 PM »
Is the transfer synchronous (8 bits per byte and no framing) where 16Mbits/sec = 2Mbytes per second?
Is it asynchronous (8bits per byte plus 2 framing) where 16Mbits/sec = 1.6Mbytes per second?
Is it asynchronous block (256bytes of 8 bits per byte plus 8 bits framing) where 16Mbits/sec = 1.9998Mbytes per second?
Based on industry practices it appears that they are quoting raw throughput.

See explanation contained http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/271146-32-since#6004346

790-800MB/s is achievable using a PCIe SSD but no one can hit 768MB/s with SATA 6Gb/s SSD.

That is how I came about 1.6GB/s ceiling for a 16Gb/s SATA Express SSD.

I do not expect SATA Express SSDs that are below $1/GB @ 1.6GB/s sequential read/writes in 2014 based on this 2008 headline. It took them more than 5 years to get a $1/GB @ faster than 500MB/s sequential read/writes out the door. I would expect mainstream SATA Express SSDs by 2020.

Maybe by then 4K resolution *IPS displays will cost less than $1,000. The ones being peddled now at below $2,000 are TN displays.

418
Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: February 02, 2014, 03:30:04 PM »
lion rock I do hope your camera insurance covers accidents.

419
Canon EF Prime Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM
« on: February 02, 2014, 04:59:21 AM »

420
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in Q2? [CR1]
« on: February 02, 2014, 04:58:56 AM »
I account for overhead. SATA 6Gbps would be 768 MB/s but no SSD I know off can consistently hit 600MB/s whether read or write.

Serial ATA International Organization interpreted 16Gb/s of SATA Express to 2GB/s. I would more likely believe 1.6GB/s to cover overhead.

I am also speculating where future unannounced versions could lead to.

XQD and CFast are based on PCIe and SATA technologies. As such are restricted by the same limitations. Like SATA rev 3.0 peaks at 600MB/s and PCIe rev 3.0 peaks at 800MB/s.

You're being a little imprecise there.  PCIe peaks at 985 MB/s of bidirectional bandwidth per lane.  However, PCIe allows you to aggregate (bond) up to 32 lanes.  An x32 PCIe bus, therefore, maxes out at almost 16 gigabytes per second in each direction.  Mind you, XQD currently provides only a single lane, but you could trivially turn it into a much faster standard just by throwing enough additional pins at the problem (four extra pins per lane, ignoring any ground pins that might be required to prevent crosstalk).

For a data card standard, unless I'm missing something, you could easily do away with all but three of the first 22 pins in the PCIe standard (the two SMBUS pins and one 3.3V rail).  The next 14 would probably be required, though perhaps not all of the grounds.  So you're at about 17 pins for the first lane, and possibly fewer.  If you then add more lanes using the same ground-opposite-data scheme that PCIe connectors use, add 8 pins per additional lane.

So if you used the same 50-pin connector that CF cards use, for example, you ought to be able to do 4x PCIe with nine pins to spare (assuming that you either require everything to do 4x or require the mode to be negotiated over the SMBUS instead of using detect pins).  If you use those nine pins as detect pins in some particularly smart way, you might even be able to achieve backwards compatibility with CF in both directions....

Pages: 1 ... 26 27 [28] 29 30 ... 78