Viggo said:
It is. I keep looking for someone to convince me that 7D Mark ii need more megapicles than 1Dx. :NancyP said:
ajfotofilmagem said:It is. I keep looking for someone to convince me that 7D Mark ii need more megapicles than 1Dx. :NancyP said:
Mark D5 TEAM II said:
Maybe you better should be looking for the new 100-400. It should be easier to spot and then there is an 70 - 90 % chance that a 7D2 is attached to the rear end of that one...gjones5252 said:
Honestly I don't think so and the opposite is more likely, but maybe the Three Lions will show us more than expected.AlanF said:
AvTvM said:
jrista said:Don Haines said:jrista said:Don Haines said:
Interesting indeed. Here's what's most interesting:
Assuming a 24mp sensor, which has a "full" pixel count of say 27mp (including masked border pixels, inactive calibration pixel rows and columns, etc. all of which DO get read and which ARE included in every RAW image). Also assuming the ADC is 14-bit. Then, for a 3-second burst:
(3 * 30 * 27,000,000 * 14) / 8 = 4,252,500,000 bytes
In one three second burst at 30fps, you generate 4.2GB worth of data!
Be careful what you wish for...
Storage demands are constantly going up.... I remember buying a hard drive for work $9995 for 10Mbytes and my first digital camera shot 640x400 with 8 bit color... Todays camera storage requirements were unthinkable back then.... two days ago I shot a time lapse on a GoPro that sucked back 48GBytes...
The crazy thing is that storage space doesn't seem to be advancing as quickly as it use to anymore. It was quite a number of years ago that we hit 2Tb....then a few years ago that we hit 3Tb, and now only recently have 4Tb drives have begun to become "affordable" (the ones with TERRIBLE access times are still around $150, and the ones with faster access times are still in the $220-$300 range). There are less than a handful of 6Tb drives on the market, and only LaCie seems to be selling 5Tb hard drives...both of which are at lest $300 a pop if not considerably more expensive.
While larger hard drives, all built with the same semi-reliable technology that has been plaguing computer users for decades, trickle slowly onto the market, our data use needs are RAPIDLY growing. As video, especially 4k video, becomes more accessible, I think 48Gb worth of video files is only the beginning!
Tugela said:jrista said:Don Haines said:jrista said:Don Haines said:
Interesting indeed. Here's what's most interesting:
Assuming a 24mp sensor, which has a "full" pixel count of say 27mp (including masked border pixels, inactive calibration pixel rows and columns, etc. all of which DO get read and which ARE included in every RAW image). Also assuming the ADC is 14-bit. Then, for a 3-second burst:
(3 * 30 * 27,000,000 * 14) / 8 = 4,252,500,000 bytes
In one three second burst at 30fps, you generate 4.2GB worth of data!
Storage demands are constantly going up.... I remember buying a hard drive for work $9995 for 10Mbytes and my first digital camera shot 640x400 with 8 bit color... Todays camera storage requirements were unthinkable back then.... two days ago I shot a time lapse on a GoPro that sucked back 48GBytes...
The crazy thing is that storage space doesn't seem to be advancing as quickly as it use to anymore. It was quite a number of years ago that we hit 2Tb....then a few years ago that we hit 3Tb, and now only recently have 4Tb drives have begun to become "affordable" (the ones with TERRIBLE access times are still around $150, and the ones with faster access times are still in the $220-$300 range). There are less than a handful of 6Tb drives on the market, and only LaCie seems to be selling 5Tb hard drives...both of which are at lest $300 a pop if not considerably more expensive.
While larger hard drives, all built with the same semi-reliable technology that has been plaguing computer users for decades, trickle slowly onto the market, our data use needs are RAPIDLY growing. As video, especially 4k video, becomes more accessible, I think 48Gb worth of video files is only the beginning!
That would be because the need for more storage isn't there for most consumers. And in any case, even if the storage per drive has slowed down, prices have come down a lot as well. The number of SATA ports and drive cages in computers has steadily increased, so for power users who for whatever reason need massive storage (I have two 8x3TB arrays on my network, for example) it is relatively simple to create it.
Lots of agreement from me on how fast you can fill hard drives.... I just burned through 270GB in a week. I was playing with time lapse on a GoPro and a 64GB card was insufficient for a day, and that was at the reduced image size...jrista said:Sorry, but when you start creating GIGS of data PER SECOND, even your RAID arrays are not going to suffice. I have I have an 8TB NAS on my own network, however with my shooting patterns, at 30fps, I would create 8TB worth of images in a mere 5643 seconds, which amounts to 94 minutes of shooting. Eight TERRABYTES of data in a mere hour and a half. That is just ludicrous. The cost of storage hasn't come down even remotely fast nor significantly enough to justify cameras with frame rates of 30fps or higher. These days, at 8fps/18mp or 6fps/22.3mp, I can fill four 16GB CF cards in a couple/few of hours on a burst-heavy day (i.e. lots of flight or other action.) That's 64Gb in an outing. That's already a lot of data, and even after culling the guaranteed bad frames (missfocuses, motion blurred, clipped highlights, etc.), that alone is still a fairly significant storage footprint.
Plus, this is all JUST the storage impact. I don't think people realize the overall impact of having ultra high frame rates like that. There is "cost" everywhere...it requires significantly more time to import all your data (even over USB 3.0), it takes significantly more time to organize it, it takes significantly more time to cull it, etc. There is a reasonable point where diminishing returns in frame rate become negative returns in your overall efficiency as a photographer. I believe 30fps is well over that point, and anything faster....well, then your just plain insane!
jrista said:Don Haines said:jrista said:Don Haines said:
Interesting indeed. Here's what's most interesting:
Assuming a 24mp sensor, which has a "full" pixel count of say 27mp (including masked border pixels, inactive calibration pixel rows and columns, etc. all of which DO get read and which ARE included in every RAW image). Also assuming the ADC is 14-bit. Then, for a 3-second burst:
(3 * 30 * 27,000,000 * 14) / 8 = 4,252,500,000 bytes
In one three second burst at 30fps, you generate 4.2GB worth of data!
Storage demands are constantly going up.... I remember buying a hard drive for work $9995 for 10Mbytes and my first digital camera shot 640x400 with 8 bit color... Todays camera storage requirements were unthinkable back then.... two days ago I shot a time lapse on a GoPro that sucked back 48GBytes...
The crazy thing is that storage space doesn't seem to be advancing as quickly as it use to anymore. It was quite a number of years ago that we hit 2Tb....then a few years ago that we hit 3Tb, and now only recently have 4Tb drives have begun to become "affordable" (the ones with TERRIBLE access times are still around $150, and the ones with faster access times are still in the $220-$300 range). There are less than a handful of 6Tb drives on the market, and only LaCie seems to be selling 5Tb hard drives...both of which are at lest $300 a pop if not considerably more expensive.
While larger hard drives, all built with the same semi-reliable technology that has been plaguing computer users for decades, trickle slowly onto the market, our data use needs are RAPIDLY growing. As video, especially 4k video, becomes more accessible, I think 48Gb worth of video files is only the beginning!
Lee Jay said:ajfotofilmagem said:It is. I keep looking for someone to convince me that 7D Mark ii need more megapicles than 1Dx. :NancyP said:
My primary use for this camera is reach when focal length limited, and for that, the more pixels the better.
Actually, I'd rather have more pixels in a crop body than in a full-frame. I'm usually able to properly frame when using full frame, I use the crop body when I can't. When I can properly frame the 13MP of my 5D is fine. When I can't, sometimes I'm cropping like crazy and the more pixels the better. And that is nearly always with the crop bodies.
dgatwood said:If I could get a full-frame body with the same pixel density as a crop body, I wouldn't need to carry around a crop body.
LetTheRightLensIn said:jrista said:The crazy thing is that storage space doesn't seem to be advancing as quickly as it use to anymore. It was quite a number of years ago that we hit 2Tb....then a few years ago that we hit 3Tb, and now only recently have 4Tb drives have begun to become "affordable" (the ones with TERRIBLE access times are still around $150, and the ones with faster access times are still in the $220-$300 range). There are less than a handful of 6Tb drives on the market, and only LaCie seems to be selling 5Tb hard drives...both of which are at lest $300 a pop if not considerably more expensive.
While larger hard drives, all built with the same semi-reliable technology that has been plaguing computer users for decades, trickle slowly onto the market, our data use needs are RAPIDLY growing. As video, especially 4k video, becomes more accessible, I think 48Gb worth of video files is only the beginning!
Yeah I really wish some of that next generation tech had come to fruition already. We need ultra fast many TB reliable, safe storage, yesterday!
dgatwood said:Lee Jay said:ajfotofilmagem said:It is. I keep looking for someone to convince me that 7D Mark ii need more megapicles than 1Dx. :NancyP said:
My primary use for this camera is reach when focal length limited, and for that, the more pixels the better.
Actually, I'd rather have more pixels in a crop body than in a full-frame. I'm usually able to properly frame when using full frame, I use the crop body when I can't. When I can properly frame the 13MP of my 5D is fine. When I can't, sometimes I'm cropping like crazy and the more pixels the better. And that is nearly always with the crop bodies.
I want the reverse, for the same reason. If I could get a full-frame body with the same pixel density as a crop body, I wouldn't need to carry around a crop body.
