Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Epson P-2000/P-5000 head-to-head test results:

Reply
Thread Tools

Epson P-2000/P-5000 head-to-head test results:

 
 
MarkČ
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-30-2006
At the request of Roger Clark, I just did some time tests with the new
P-5000 unit and my P-2000 unit.
The results are impressive:

2GB SanDisk Extreme III CF (completely filled with RAW+Large JPEGs from
Canon 5D)
-Full copy to each device:

P-2000 time: 12:49
P-5000 time: 4:35 (!!) -A second copy test rendered the EXACT same time

4GB SanDisk Extreme III CF (completely filled with RAW+Large JPEGs from
Canon 5D)
-Full copy to each device:

P-2000 time: 26:34
P-5000 time: 9:27

*These numbers actually EXCEED the claims by Epson (of 250% copy-speed
increase).
This speed means not only less time, but also more battery life.

Now view image viewing times:
Scrolling and view times are even more impressive:

Rendering the standard screen of 12 thumbnails:

P-2000: 10.5 seconds
P-5000: 1.2 seconds (approximate)

Rendering 64 small thumbnails:

P-2000: N/A
P-2000: 3.2 seconds (and you do NOT have to wait for the screen to
populate...you can keep scrolling quickly to subsequent pages.

*Note: The 64-Thumbnail view is surisingly useful due the amazing
high-definition 4" screen running a full 24bit color scheme.

Rendering full-screen individual images:

RAW files (Canon 5D, 12.8MP files):

P-2000: 8 seconds (painful)
P-5000: 1.2 seconds (!!)

Rendering full-screen JPEG images were the same as above.

*Epson claimed a 500% improvement in rendering speed, but again...they've
EXCEEDED their promise in my tests.

*********************
The bottom line:
After viewing with the new model, you'll be at pains to ever want to browse
with the old one.
It's simply a TOTALLY different experience.

That alone may be reason enough for many to upgrade, but the looong list of
other improvements are extremely significant as well. The timing figures
speak for themselves. No ocmparison. Battery issues...customization...and
on and on.

If anyone was on the fence, take my word for it: You won't be disappointed.

-MarkČ

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by MarkČ at:
www.pbase.com/markuson


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
David J. Littleboy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-30-2006

"MarkČ" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>
> Rendering full-screen individual images:
>
> RAW files (Canon 5D, 12.8MP files):
>
> P-2000: 8 seconds (painful)
> P-5000: 1.2 seconds (!!)


??? I don't understand what you are doing here. On my P2000, displaying an
image full screen takes minimal time (about 1 second). ???

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
=?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-30-2006
David J. Littleboy wrote:

> ??? I don't understand what you are doing here. On my P2000,
> displaying an image full screen takes minimal time (about 1 second).
> ???


LOL! Maybe Mark is just fudging the numbers? I know my transfer rates are
much faster. Admittedly the new P-5000 has a "slightly" faster internal HD,
but it's not going to make that dramatic of a difference. I call BULLSHIT
on this one.






Rita

 
Reply With Quote
 
MarkČ
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-30-2006
David J. Littleboy wrote:
> "MarkČ" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>>
>> Rendering full-screen individual images:
>>
>> RAW files (Canon 5D, 12.8MP files):
>>
>> P-2000: 8 seconds (painful)
>> P-5000: 1.2 seconds (!!)

>
> ??? I don't understand what you are doing here. On my P2000,
> displaying an image full screen takes minimal time (about 1 second).
> ???


If you're getting 5D images to render that quickly, then it is almost
assuredly due to having already viewed them once previously. RE-viewing
images (after the initial rendering view) will be decent on the 2000/4000,
but that's hardly a help when you want to quickly view newly-shot images in
the field.. I'm clicking on a newly-created thumbnail of a full-quality 5D
jpeg or RAW image for the *first* time.

My numbers are accurate, and very closely reflect the numbers claimed by
Epson (actually better than Epson's claims).

-Mark

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by MarkČ at:
www.pbase.com/markuson


 
Reply With Quote
 
just bob
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-30-2006

"MarkČ" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:5uc1h.72$(E-Mail Removed)...
> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>> "MarkČ" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Rendering full-screen individual images:
>>>
>>> RAW files (Canon 5D, 12.8MP files):
>>>
>>> P-2000: 8 seconds (painful)
>>> P-5000: 1.2 seconds (!!)

>>
>> ??? I don't understand what you are doing here. On my P2000,
>> displaying an image full screen takes minimal time (about 1 second).
>> ???

>
> If you're getting 5D images to render that quickly, then it is almost
> assuredly due to having already viewed them once previously.


I'm interested to know what Epson claimed for this operation on P-2000. I
doubt you will find "8 seconds" anywhere on their literature and I would be
****ed if I had bought one.

Thanks for your work on this.


 
Reply With Quote
 
ernie clyma
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-30-2006
While I still have not tried the P-5000 yet, I have run across a Wolverine
ESP 100GB at Costco.com
Are any of you familiar with this viewer/storage device??


 
Reply With Quote
 
MarkČ
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-30-2006
just bob wrote:
> "MarkČ" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
> news:5uc1h.72$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>>> "MarkČ" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Rendering full-screen individual images:
>>>>
>>>> RAW files (Canon 5D, 12.8MP files):
>>>>
>>>> P-2000: 8 seconds (painful)
>>>> P-5000: 1.2 seconds (!!)
>>>
>>> ??? I don't understand what you are doing here. On my P2000,
>>> displaying an image full screen takes minimal time (about 1 second).
>>> ???

>>
>> If you're getting 5D images to render that quickly, then it is almost
>> assuredly due to having already viewed them once previously.

>
> I'm interested to know what Epson claimed for this operation on
> P-2000. I doubt you will find "8 seconds" anywhere on their
> literature and I would be ****ed if I had bought one.
>
> Thanks for your work on this.


According to dpreview.com's review data, a 7MP image-to-image display time
was 3.2 seconds.
When you nearly double that to my 12.8MP 5D images, (adding the possibility
of the resulting decrease in operating memory "head-room" left for system
operations when the image itself eats memory)...it isn't too hard to believe
a time of 6-8 seconds for shot-to-shot views based on dpreview's times. My
P-2000 *could* be a bit slower due to many cycles of use due to Epson's lack
of defragmentation functions...but my numbers are too far off of the
extrapolated guess for a 12.8MP image compared with their tested 7MP image
sample.

See here:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/epsonp2000/page5.asp

As they note...once images have been cached, the view-time is much faster.
But again, this is of little assistance when your purpose is making an
initial assessment in the field.

On the same chart, their card-copy time for a 1GB Sandisk CF card (Ultra II)
is 469 seconds (7 minutes 49 seconds). My P-2000 times for **2GB was
12:49...which is a bit better over-all, but my card was Ultra III.

-MarkČ
--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by MarkČ at:
www.pbase.com/markuson


 
Reply With Quote
 
MarkČ
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-30-2006
ernie clyma wrote:
> While I still have not tried the P-5000 yet, I have run across a
> Wolverine ESP 100GB at Costco.com
> Are any of you familiar with this viewer/storage device??


See Bill Hilton's comments within my other thread, "Epson P-5000 a winner!"
on this forum.
He's happily used one in addition to his P-4000 (which is the P-2000, but
with 80GB instead of 40).

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by MarkČ at:
www.pbase.com/markuson


 
Reply With Quote
 
MarkČ
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-30-2006
MarkČ wrote:
> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>> "MarkČ" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Rendering full-screen individual images:
>>>
>>> RAW files (Canon 5D, 12.8MP files):
>>>
>>> P-2000: 8 seconds (painful)
>>> P-5000: 1.2 seconds (!!)

>>
>> ??? I don't understand what you are doing here. On my P2000,
>> displaying an image full screen takes minimal time (about 1 second).
>> ???

>
> If you're getting 5D images to render that quickly, then it is almost
> assuredly due to having already viewed them once previously. RE-viewing
> images (after the initial rendering view) will be decent
> on the 2000/4000, but that's hardly a help when you want to quickly
> view newly-shot images in the field.. I'm clicking on a
> newly-created thumbnail of a full-quality 5D jpeg or RAW image for
> the *first* time.
> My numbers are accurate, and very closely reflect the numbers claimed
> by Epson (actually better than Epson's claims).
>
> -Mark


Can you verify that it's a cache issue on your device?

See my other post about dpreview's numbers regarding pre-cached
image-to-image viewing.
Here's a link:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/epsonp2000/page5.asp

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by MarkČ at:
www.pbase.com/markuson


 
Reply With Quote
 
MarkČ
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-30-2006
MarkČ wrote:
> MarkČ wrote:
>> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>>> "MarkČ" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Rendering full-screen individual images:
>>>>
>>>> RAW files (Canon 5D, 12.8MP files):
>>>>
>>>> P-2000: 8 seconds (painful)
>>>> P-5000: 1.2 seconds (!!)
>>>
>>> ??? I don't understand what you are doing here. On my P2000,
>>> displaying an image full screen takes minimal time (about 1 second).
>>> ???

>>
>> If you're getting 5D images to render that quickly, then it is almost
>> assuredly due to having already viewed them once previously.
>> RE-viewing images (after the initial rendering view) will be decent
>> on the 2000/4000, but that's hardly a help when you want to quickly
>> view newly-shot images in the field.. I'm clicking on a
>> newly-created thumbnail of a full-quality 5D jpeg or RAW image for
>> the *first* time.
>> My numbers are accurate, and very closely reflect the numbers claimed
>> by Epson (actually better than Epson's claims).
>>
>> -Mark

>
> Can you verify that it's a cache issue on your device?
>
> See my other post about dpreview's numbers regarding pre-cached
> image-to-image viewing.
> Here's a link:
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/epsonp2000/page5.asp


Also notice that my times for thumbnail page creation are right on par with
dpreview's cited number (They cite 11 seconds for initial render...mine was
10.5 seconds)

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by MarkČ at:
www.pbase.com/markuson


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Epson 2200 vs. Epson 4000 Grady R. Thompson Digital Photography 12 12-05-2003 12:34 AM
Need CD for Epson Stylus 1280 with Epson Apps. Paul Resch Digital Photography 1 09-21-2003 04:34 PM
Epson c62 and Epson Photo 900 chalk & cheese? Maze Digital Photography 0 09-03-2003 08:14 PM
Re: Epson printer 2200 - Epson semi-gloss paper nobody nowhere Digital Photography 1 07-13-2003 02:45 PM
test test test test test test test Computer Support 2 07-02-2003 06:02 PM



Advertisments