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.

.

 

[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.

 

[dolina]

Nikon's backing XQD and Canon and ARRI are backing CFast.

I see the transition to start this year with the 1-Series bodies. My guess would be it would be a CFast & CF slots like how Nikon did it with their D4's XQD and CF slots.

 

[jiphoto]

I think "ever" is probably the wrong word here. Look at Nikon's XQD format - many people (me included) had never heard of the thing before Nikon surprised us, so if we're discussing whether CFast will ever show up in a camera, then yes, it definitely will. Whether it appears because video needs a higher write speed, or because Canon makes a camera that can shoot 10fps continuously... who knows? But I'd be willing to bet that the next Cinema EOS cameras and probably Canon's next flagship dSLRs will have CFast capability built in. If there's anywhere Canon should try CFast first, the professional video department would be a safe bet. Dolina also points out that ARRI backs CFast, which makes the idea that Canon would debut CFast in a video a oriented or video-dedicated device more plausible, as the pro video community would already be prepared to use CFast in their workflow.

 

[jdramirez]

I don't plan on upgrading my body for several years, but if I get a really fast compact flash card, I don't want it to be obsolete in a year.

As for film v digital... good Lord. Are you also backing the stream locomotive as the best way to travel over cars or planes?

What about stream water over modern day plumbing?

The land line telephone over a 4g lte smartphone?

A letter via the pony express over the internet?

I'm done... there are advantages to all older tech, but usually they are nullified by the advantages of newer tech.

 

[surapon]

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.

THANKSSSS, Dear gmrza
" 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), "
This Link make me Super Proud of my 2002 -Old/ Classic 1DS.
Thanks again.
Surapon

PS, The Photo below = Canon 1DS, with Canon EF 24-70 mm F/ 2.8 L USM and B+W CPL Filter.
F = 9.0, SS = 1/320 sec., ISO = 100

 

[Don Haines]

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.

Actually... film size does not matter for resolution.... If you are shooting 35mm or if you are shooting large format, a particular film has the same resolution (lines per millimeter). Of course, with an 8X10 large format camera you get a LOT more millimeters...

 

[Don Haines]

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.

Velvia 50 is rated to resolve 160 lines per mm.... that would be the equivalent of 320 pixels per mm...

An FF Sensor is 36 x 24 mm. Equivalent resolution would be 11,500 x 7680 or 88 megapixels.

Equivalent pixel count from an APS-C sized sensor would be 34.5 megapixels

Equivalent pixel count from an iPhone sized sensor would be 1.6 megapixels

So the answer is yes, film does have higher resolution than digital in large sensor cameras but it does not for small format sensors.

Plus, with FF sized film, even though it can have higher resolution when shooting with 50 speed film, what happens when you jump up to ISO400? What about 1600? And even if we shoot at ISO50 with the best film known to mankind, where are you going to get a lens that sharp?

<EDIT> I found this online.... it rates film a lot lower than my simple calculations.....
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/film.vs.digital.summary1/index.html

 

[jiphoto]

This is fascinating, Don! Thanks for sharing! I'd be particularly curious to see an updated version comparing, say, 7D, D800, 5D3, 1DX, D5300, etc., with film, to see how much improvement there is now over older cameras like the original 1Ds. Would the modern cameras show a resolution advantage over the older models with equal pixel counts?

 

[dolina]

I think "ever" is probably the wrong word here. Look at Nikon's XQD format - many people (me included) had never heard of the thing before Nikon surprised us, so if we're discussing whether CFast will ever show up in a camera, then yes, it definitely will. Whether it appears because video needs a higher write speed, or because Canon makes a camera that can shoot 10fps continuously... who knows? But I'd be willing to bet that the next Cinema EOS cameras and probably Canon's next flagship dSLRs will have CFast capability built in. If there's anywhere Canon should try CFast first, the professional video department would be a safe bet. Dolina also points out that ARRI backs CFast, which makes the idea that Canon would debut CFast in a video a oriented or video-dedicated device more plausible, as the pro video community would already be prepared to use CFast in their workflow.

Here is last year's press release on sandisk arri and canon supporting cfast standard.

http://www.sandisk.com/about-sandisk/press-room/press-releases/2013/sandisk-launches-world’s-first-cfast-20-memory-card/

Lexar joins the cfast platform this year with their 3333x cfast card.

http://petapixel.com/2014/01/07/lexar-announces-cfast-2-0-card-claims-worlds-fastest-memory-card-title/

I think even transcend made a commitment as well.

 

[Don Haines]

This is fascinating, Don! Thanks for sharing! I'd be particularly curious to see an updated version comparing, say, 7D, D800, 5D3, 1DX, D5300, etc., with film, to see how much improvement there is now over older cameras like the original 1Ds. Would the modern cameras show a resolution advantage over the older models with equal pixel counts?

I think that the real limit is the glass. People talk about the good old days, but the reality is that the quality and resolution of lenses now exceeds what was around in the good old days of film. As a group we like to fixate over the image sensor and we forget that a camera is a system, the image quality is a combination of sensor, lens, focusing system, image stability, AA filters, image processing, and speed.

 

[dolina]

I think that the real limit is the glass. People talk about the good old days, but the reality is that the quality and resolution of lenses now exceeds what was around in the good old days of film. As a group we like to fixate over the image sensor and we forget that a camera is a system, the image quality is a combination of sensor, lens, focusing system, image stability, AA filters, image processing, and speed.

+100

 

[surapon]

This is fascinating, Don! Thanks for sharing! I'd be particularly curious to see an updated version comparing, say, 7D, D800, 5D3, 1DX, D5300, etc., with film, to see how much improvement there is now over older cameras like the original 1Ds. Would the modern cameras show a resolution advantage over the older models with equal pixel counts?

I think that the real limit is the glass. People talk about the good old days, but the reality is that the quality and resolution of lenses now exceeds what was around in the good old days of film. As a group we like to fixate over the image sensor and we forget that a camera is a system, the image quality is a combination of sensor, lens, focusing system, image stability, AA filters, image processing, and speed.

Yes, Sir + 100 for me too. We need to see the whole system plus, we, as Photographers, We must improve our Photographic Skill too.
Surapon