will there ever be CFast in DSLRs?

[spedi]

Cards are out at reasonable prices but so far, now one bothers  and plans to put them in a new camera or even other devices.
Is CFast dead before it really started?

I dont think that SDHC or SDXC will ever be as fast as normal CF or even CFast.
Megapixel won't drop in the future as well as fps... so speed will always be an issue.

What do you think?

[Mt Spokane Photography]

From wikipedia:  As you can see, its very murky.

In November 2010, Sandisk, Sony and Nikon proposed a next generation card format targeted at high-definition camcorders and high-resolution digital photo cameras; not backward compatible, the proposed format would come in a similar form factor as CF/CFast but be based on PCI Express instead of ATA and would offer read speed of 500 Mbyte/s and storage capabilities beyond 2 TiB.[7] It remains unclear, if the CFA will adopt this proposal, as CF 5.0 already supports media up to 128 PiB and CF 6.0 adds speeds up to 167 Mbyte/s, while the SATA-based CFast already defines speeds up to 300 Mbyte/s.

.

[AdamJ]

Let's face it - DSLR's have nowhere near the resolution of film; that is not their forte; there just aren't enough professional photographers out there to justify building a professional camera. DSLR's are about semi=professionals or wealthy amateurs and CONVENIENCE, the same as the difference in clarity, sharpness, color trueness of "prime" lenses compared to monstrous 12 x 1 zooms; CONVENIENCE

Really?

[pinnaclephotography]

Let's face it - DSLR's have nowhere near the resolution of film; that is not their forte; there just aren't enough professional photographers out there to justify building a professional camera.

I think you might need to be a bit more specific than just saying "fim".  Film size plays a HUGE role in the level of resolution.  Whether you were referring to Medium/Large format, or 35mm would need clarification before insisting that film is unilaterally better in resolution.  I know many pros who make a living off digital in landscape work where film has traditionally had the advantage, where the speed advantages of digital are seldom required.

35mm sized film has been surpassed by digital.  Resolution win => digital

Medium Format: Under ideal circumstances for both sides (best lens/sensor/film combinations) film can still pull ahead, but just barely so.  5-10 years ago this wasn't the case, but even with good film, such as Fuji Velvia, medium format holds a rather trivial edge in resolution.  A 5D mkII with the proper lenses (Zeiss 2.8/21, 2/35, 2/50, 2/100, etc.) leaves the playing field pretty even.  Sure, film still has advantages in dynamic range but the resolution difference is pretty small these days.  My 20x30" prints (from 5D classic) have held up rather well when compared to MF.

Large Format: having a equivalent "sensor" size that large makes this a rather unfair comparison.  Apples & Oranges.

[J. McCabe]

Let's face it - DSLR's have nowhere near the resolution of film; that is not their forte; there just aren't enough professional photographers out there to justify building a professional camera.

I think you might need to be a bit more specific than just saying "fim".  Film size plays a HUGE role in the level of resolution.  Whether you were referring to Medium/Large format, or 35mm would need clarification before insisting that film is unilaterally better in resolution.  I know many pros who make a living off digital in landscape work where film has traditionally had the advantage, where the speed advantages of digital are seldom required.

35mm sized film has been surpassed by digital.  Resolution win => digital

Doesn't ASA / grain size play a part ? AFAIK, Low ASA / fine grain film should have more resolution / could be enlarged more than high ASA / large grain film.

That's beside lens limitations.

[pinnaclephotography]

Let's face it - DSLR's have nowhere near the resolution of film; that is not their forte; there just aren't enough professional photographers out there to justify building a professional camera.

I think you might need to be a bit more specific than just saying "fim".  Film size plays a HUGE role in the level of resolution.  Whether you were referring to Medium/Large format, or 35mm would need clarification before insisting that film is unilaterally better in resolution.  I know many pros who make a living off digital in landscape work where film has traditionally had the advantage, where the speed advantages of digital are seldom required.

35mm sized film has been surpassed by digital.  Resolution win => digital

Doesn't ASA / grain size play a part ? AFAIK, Low ASA / fine grain film should have more resolution / could be enlarged more than high ASA / large grain film.

That's beside lens limitations.

Yeah, fine grain usually translates to a higher effective resolution.  For that reason, I described Fuji Velvia as the reference film in my description.

[Edwin Herdman]

We'll have a better idea about the future of CFast, at least in terms of Canon-land, if there are any cameras to be released later this year (perhaps in the coming month even).  I think it's pretty clear that classic Compact Flash, with its 80s-era PCMCIA-based pin interface, is nothing to crow about anymore.  SD media has been making progress in leaps recently, but there still is a need for something between those small cards, and full size hard drives (ExpressCard flash drives might qualify; I haven't looked at the dimensions).  Also, there was at least one laptop announced earlier this year that should be shipping with a CFast slot, from HP.  There may be more by now.

[gmrza]

film size is not relevant, grain would be ASA / ISO to same and still misses the point -- film is inherently many times better resolution than digital and will be for a very very long time

If you don't understand this - get an enlarger, enlarge a 35mm film negative out to 3 ft by 4 ft - then try doing the same for digital at 9600 dpi -- you could kind of stitch this together with a gigapan but that gives the game away; to do this in digital you have to take many many shots and stitch them together

Please can you back this statement up with some quantitative analysis of the subject.

While a lot of criticism has been levelled at the comparison between the 1Ds and Pentax medium format on the Luminous Lanscape (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml), some other comparisons have shown a slight edge on the part of the "next size up" film format.  For instance, read http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/Cramer.shtml which compares medium format digital with large format film.  In this instance, the large format film had a slight edge, but it wasn't large.

Digital cameras are and always were convenience cameras; that is their reason for existence (raispn d'etre)

Yes there are people selling digital images - printed at 300 dpi on special papers and inks so they last more than a few years; no these really do not match a similar film picture in quality but that isn't the point

Please back this up with facts.

Yes film sees 10 - 11 f stops while digital sees only 4 (which is why we have HDR programs to fake more by combining pictures)

It is pointless getting into a debate about the usable dynamic range of film vs digital, but this is one of the last areas where film still wins over digital by a clear margin.  Digital cameras just do not have the dynamic range of film.  This is not proving a major impediment, although it would very useful to have better DR available in digital.

What all this is getting to is this: digital is not for professionals if you are looking for quality but so few are (think! The iPhone is the most widely used "camera" these days, smart phones with cameras vastly outweigh all other cameras. But this is NOT about popularity, it is about quality)

Yet again - back this up with some facts please.  Show us some verifiable statistics about the percentages of professional photographers who use film vs digital.
Off the top of my head, the main area I can think of, not backed up by facts, where film is still king is in large format landscape photography.  The likes of Ken Duncan just have no choice but to use film for that kind of work.

If you can't come back with some verifiable facts, I will just have to assume you are trolling.

[Lawliet]

The main use for film would be motion picture.
Just for the record: I need the various DR/contrast control techniques first with film, a good 35mm digital handles that better Thats if you get the metering right, film is more forgiving if your technique is bad. Same goes for resolution - the advent  of those digital 35mm's raised the bar for makeup and set, they show flaws film glossed over.