Does faster CF card make significant difference for D70s?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by k-man, Sep 20, 2006.

  1. k-man

    k-man Guest

    Hi:

    Sorry for asking this type of question; but I couldn't find an
    already-posted answer on this newsgroup for it. Anyhow... I have a
    Nikon D70s. The SanDisk Extreme III compact flash cards are supposed
    to be quite quick. I'm using a 2 GB Kingston Elite Pro. It works, no
    problems. Though, if I use up the buffer, I have to wait for the pics
    to be written to the card before being able to start shooting again (as
    expected when you use up the buffer). How drastically would something
    like the SanDisk Extreme III reduce my wait time for this camera? Big
    difference? Or, is the D70s the bottleneck regardless of whichever
    card I choose?

    Thanks.
    Kevin
    k-man, Sep 20, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Phil Stripling, Sep 20, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. k-man

    Paul Rubin Guest

    "k-man" <> writes:
    > How drastically would something
    > like the SanDisk Extreme III reduce my wait time for this camera? Big
    > difference? Or, is the D70s the bottleneck regardless of whichever
    > card I choose?


    There might be a slight difference. But the Elite Pro card is already
    pretty fast.
    Paul Rubin, Sep 20, 2006
    #3
  4. k-man

    ASAAR Guest

    On 19 Sep 2006 21:42:31 -0700, k-man wrote:

    > Sorry for asking this type of question; but I couldn't find an
    > already-posted answer on this newsgroup for it. Anyhow... I have a
    > Nikon D70s. The SanDisk Extreme III compact flash cards are supposed
    > to be quite quick. I'm using a 2 GB Kingston Elite Pro. It works, no
    > problems. Though, if I use up the buffer, I have to wait for the pics
    > to be written to the card before being able to start shooting again (as
    > expected when you use up the buffer). How drastically would something
    > like the SanDisk Extreme III reduce my wait time for this camera? Big
    > difference? Or, is the D70s the bottleneck regardless of whichever
    > card I choose?


    Dpreview performed some timing tests, but with the D70, not the
    D70s. Four cards were used, a 2 GB SanDisk Ultra II Type I, a 4 GB
    Lexar Pro 40x Type II, a 1 GB IBM Microdrive Type II and a 1 GB
    Viking Type I. Throughput for a burst of 4 RAW images ranged from a
    high of 4,039 KB/sec to a low of 982 KB/sec. You could duplicate
    the test with your Kingston Elite Pro. If you do better than the
    highest speed, you won't really know if the Sandisk Extreme III
    would do any better or not. But if you don't manage to get at least
    4,039 KB/sec, you'll know that the SanDisk Ultra II can do better.
    It still won't tell you whether an Extreme III would be faster, but
    it might be worth getting one if only to use with your next camera,
    or to take advantage of an offer mentioned yesterday in another
    thread by Bill Hilton:

    > You might try Capture One LE, I always thought it was a bargain
    > at $99 (I like it better than RawShooter or Photoshop CSRAW) and
    > now they are offering it free when you buy a SanDisk Extreme III card ...
    ASAAR, Sep 20, 2006
    #4
  5. k-man

    Bill Hilton Guest

    >k-man wrote:
    > Hi:
    >
    > Sorry for asking this type of question; but I couldn't find an
    > already-posted answer on this newsgroup for it. Anyhow... I have a
    > Nikon D70s. The SanDisk Extreme III compact flash cards are supposed
    > to be quite quick. I'm using a 2 GB Kingston Elite Pro. It works, no
    > problems. Though, if I use up the buffer, I have to wait for the pics
    > to be written to the card before being able to start shooting again (as
    > expected when you use up the buffer).



    http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=6007-7906 for your
    camera ... basically your buffer is only 4 deep for RAW files so you
    have to wait for the 5th and subsequent shots if bursting ... they
    tested a 1 GB Kingston Elite Pro and got 3.2 MB/sec xfer rates so if
    your NEF files are say 10 MB that means you wait about 3 sec between
    shots after the buffer is filled. The fastest cards they tested are
    transferring a bit faster than 5 MB/sec so would take about 2 sec
    between shots ...

    > How drastically would something like the SanDisk Extreme III reduce
    > my wait time for this camera? Big difference?


    The Extreme IV and III and faster Lexar and others are all in the 5
    MB/sec range for NEF files, so either 50% faster (which sounds like a
    lot) or from 3 sec to 2 sec (which doesn't sound as fast :).

    > Or, is the D70s the bottleneck regardless of whichever
    > card I choose?


    Would be nice to have a deeper buffer, that's for sure ...

    Bill (glad my 1D M II has a 20 deep RAW buffer :)
    Bill Hilton, Sep 20, 2006
    #5
  6. k-man

    ASAAR Guest

    On 20 Sep 2006 07:21:46 -0700, Bill Hilton wrote:

    > http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=6007-7906 for your
    > camera ... basically your buffer is only 4 deep for RAW files so you
    > have to wait for the 5th and subsequent shots if bursting ... they
    > tested a 1 GB Kingston Elite Pro and got 3.2 MB/sec xfer rates so if
    > your NEF files are say 10 MB that means you wait about 3 sec between
    > shots after the buffer is filled. The fastest cards they tested are
    > transferring a bit faster than 5 MB/sec so would take about 2 sec
    > between shots ...


    You're way off, by about 100%. According to Dpreview the D70's
    RAW .NEF files are 5.4 MB, and it can continue capturing RAW files
    at only 1 second between shots until the CF card is filled, not 2.
    Galbreath also mentions that the delay after the 4th RAW shot
    depends on the card's write speed. If a slow card is used, the
    delay can be more than 4 seconds before the 5th shot can be made.
    If a fast card is used, the delay is only about 1/2 second.


    > Would be nice to have a deeper buffer, that's for sure ...
    >
    > Bill (glad my 1D M II has a 20 deep RAW buffer :)


    That's an entirely different class of camera. Sometimes you get
    what you pay for. The less costly D200 has a 19 deep RAW buffer,
    and is about as fast (8.7MB/s), and the relatively frugal D80
    (albeit with a smaller, 6 shot RAW buffer) is even faster (9.5MB/s),
    according to http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d80/vs-d200.htm and
    Galbreath, who shows at this data for the D80:


    : D80 Write Speeds: fine JPEG RAW .NEF
    > SanDisk Extreme III 2GB 9.414MB/sec 8.341MB/sec
    > SanDisk Extreme III 1GB 9.106MB/sec 7.862MB/sec


    http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=6007-8531


    I don't know the size of the D80's .NEF files, but if they're the
    same size per megapixel as the D70's files, the D80 should be able
    to fill its SD cards with RAW files at a faster rate than the D70's
    one shot per second, after the initial quick burst. With its 8MB
    RAW file size, the EOS 1D MkII is probably slower than the D80 after
    its 20 shot buffer has filled. If you find this limiting and have a
    need for speed, it might not be a good idea to upgrade to Canon's
    EOS 1Ds MkII, since with its larger sensor it can buffer only 11
    shots, not 20, and is even slower than the EOS 1D MkII, taking 1.5
    seconds per shot after its buffer has filled! But if speed lust ever
    grows unmanageable, the humble D80 would make for a wonderfully
    inexpensive upgrade. :)
    ASAAR, Sep 20, 2006
    #6
  7. k-man

    Bill Hilton Guest


    >> On 20 Sep 2006 07:21:46 -0700, Bill Hilton wrote:
    >>
    > > http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=6007-7906 for your
    > > camera ... basically your buffer is only 4 deep for RAW files so you
    > > have to wait for the 5th and subsequent shots if bursting ... they
    > > tested a 1 GB Kingston Elite Pro and got 3.2 MB/sec xfer rates so if
    > > your NEF files are say 10 MB that means you wait about 3 sec between
    > > shots after the buffer is filled. The fastest cards they tested are
    > > transferring a bit faster than 5 MB/sec so would take about 2 sec
    > > between shots ...



    >ASAAR wrote:
    > You're way off, by about 100%.


    No I'm not ...

    >According to Dpreview the D70's RAW .NEF files are 5.4 MB
    >, and it can continue capturing RAW files
    > at only 1 second between shots until the CF card is filled, not 2.


    That's because 5.4 MB is half the size of the 10 MB I used in my
    guesstimate ... half the file size writes twice as fast ... pretty
    simple to understand.

    You seem to think the NEF size is fixed at 5.4 MB but it's a compressed
    file and can be smaller or larger depending on how well it compresses.
    Higher ISO means more noise and larger NEF file size, simpler image
    data (lots of blue sky) means it compresses smaller ... as one example
    with an 8 Mpixel camera I get RAW file sizes from 3 MB to 12 MB
    depending on ISO and what I'm shooting.

    >> Bill (glad my 1D M II has a 20 deep RAW buffer :)


    > That's an entirely different class of camera.


    Gee, do you think so?

    > If you find this limiting and have a
    > need for speed, it might not be a good idea to upgrade to Canon's
    > EOS 1Ds MkII, since with its larger sensor it can buffer only 11
    > shots, not 20


    When I'm ready to upgrade you'll be the first person I check with since
    you seem to know so much ... LOL.

    > But if speed lust ever grows unmanageable, the humble D80 would
    > make for a wonderfully inexpensive upgrade. :)


    But does it do 8 frames/sec? And how well do those Canon lenses work
    with it? What a moron ...

    Bill
    Bill Hilton, Sep 20, 2006
    #7
  8. k-man

    k-man Guest

    I looked at the Rob Galbraith site. Looks like the Lexar 133X shows
    remarkable improvement as well. I hear that Lexar's Write Acceleration
    only works on the D70s for "standard write mode" only. Anyone know
    what "standard write mode" is for Nikon camera?

    Thanks.
    Kevin


    ASAAR wrote:
    > On 19 Sep 2006 21:42:31 -0700, k-man wrote:
    >
    > > Sorry for asking this type of question; but I couldn't find an
    > > already-posted answer on this newsgroup for it. Anyhow... I have a
    > > Nikon D70s. The SanDisk Extreme III compact flash cards are supposed
    > > to be quite quick. I'm using a 2 GB Kingston Elite Pro. It works, no
    > > problems. Though, if I use up the buffer, I have to wait for the pics
    > > to be written to the card before being able to start shooting again (as
    > > expected when you use up the buffer). How drastically would something
    > > like the SanDisk Extreme III reduce my wait time for this camera? Big
    > > difference? Or, is the D70s the bottleneck regardless of whichever
    > > card I choose?

    >
    > Dpreview performed some timing tests, but with the D70, not the
    > D70s. Four cards were used, a 2 GB SanDisk Ultra II Type I, a 4 GB
    > Lexar Pro 40x Type II, a 1 GB IBM Microdrive Type II and a 1 GB
    > Viking Type I. Throughput for a burst of 4 RAW images ranged from a
    > high of 4,039 KB/sec to a low of 982 KB/sec. You could duplicate
    > the test with your Kingston Elite Pro. If you do better than the
    > highest speed, you won't really know if the Sandisk Extreme III
    > would do any better or not. But if you don't manage to get at least
    > 4,039 KB/sec, you'll know that the SanDisk Ultra II can do better.
    > It still won't tell you whether an Extreme III would be faster, but
    > it might be worth getting one if only to use with your next camera,
    > or to take advantage of an offer mentioned yesterday in another
    > thread by Bill Hilton:
    >
    > > You might try Capture One LE, I always thought it was a bargain
    > > at $99 (I like it better than RawShooter or Photoshop CSRAW) and
    > > now they are offering it free when you buy a SanDisk Extreme III card ...
    k-man, Sep 21, 2006
    #8
  9. k-man

    ASAAR Guest

    On 20 Sep 2006 11:57:15 -0700, Bill Hilton wrote:

    >> You're way off, by about 100%.

    >
    > No I'm not ...
    >
    >>According to Dpreview the D70's RAW .NEF files are 5.4 MB
    >>, and it can continue capturing RAW files
    >> at only 1 second between shots until the CF card is filled, not 2.

    >
    > That's because 5.4 MB is half the size of the 10 MB I used in my
    > guesstimate ... half the file size writes twice as fast ... pretty
    > simple to understand.


    You just blew it, bub. Your "guesstimate" was off by the amount
    that I stated, which is why the D70 writes twice as fast as you gave
    it credit for. Trying to avoid admitting your mistake is far worse
    than making it. If you think I didn't perfectly understand your
    mistake, that's your second mistake.


    > You seem to think the NEF size is fixed at 5.4 MB but it's a compressed
    > file and can be smaller or larger depending on how well it compresses.
    > Higher ISO means more noise and larger NEF file size, simpler image
    > data (lots of blue sky) means it compresses smaller ... as one example
    > with an 8 Mpixel camera I get RAW file sizes from 3 MB to 12 MB
    > depending on ISO and what I'm shooting.


    I did not think that the NEF size is fixed, but was well aware
    that it was compressed. If anyone misassumed whether the NEF files
    were fixed in size or compressed, it was you. That's probably why
    your guesstimate was so far off. If you think I'm unaware that
    compression varies, you're grasping at straws trying to save face
    and have blown another assumption. This sloppy thinking on your
    part strongly resembles someone else we both know, and probably
    explains in part the tone of your reply.


    >> That's an entirely different class of camera.

    >
    > Gee, do you think so?


    Quite, but your attempt at a sly, smug insult never got off the
    ground. The resemblance is getting stronger.


    >> If you find this limiting and have a
    >> need for speed, it might not be a good idea to upgrade to Canon's
    >> EOS 1Ds MkII, since with its larger sensor it can buffer only 11
    >> shots, not 20

    >
    > When I'm ready to upgrade you'll be the first person I check with since
    > you seem to know so much ... LOL.
    >
    >> But if speed lust ever grows unmanageable, the humble D80 would
    >> make for a wonderfully inexpensive upgrade. :)

    >
    > But does it do 8 frames/sec? And how well do those Canon lenses work
    > with it? What a moron ...


    Oh, I get it now. You're hinting that Canon lenses wouldn't work
    on a D80. Sorry, but we both understand quite well what I was
    writing, and it was nothing but a gentle tease. All you've done is
    demonstrate that you're another of the rabid Canonistas that has NO
    sense of humor, and that the resemblance is now nearly total, since
    you also all too easily misunderstand when it's most convenient, and
    see fit to engage in insult and personal attack but probably think
    it's you that is the recipient of same. It's a shame. I didn't
    think you'd stoop this low . . .
    ASAAR, Sep 21, 2006
    #9
  10. k-man

    k-man Guest

    Thanks everyone for your replies. It looks like a faster card will
    make a noticable difference.

    Thanks again.
    Kevin


    k-man wrote:
    > Hi:
    >
    > Sorry for asking this type of question; but I couldn't find an
    > already-posted answer on this newsgroup for it. Anyhow... I have a
    > Nikon D70s. The SanDisk Extreme III compact flash cards are supposed
    > to be quite quick. I'm using a 2 GB Kingston Elite Pro. It works, no
    > problems. Though, if I use up the buffer, I have to wait for the pics
    > to be written to the card before being able to start shooting again (as
    > expected when you use up the buffer). How drastically would something
    > like the SanDisk Extreme III reduce my wait time for this camera? Big
    > difference? Or, is the D70s the bottleneck regardless of whichever
    > card I choose?
    >
    > Thanks.
    > Kevin
    k-man, Sep 21, 2006
    #10
  11. k-man

    Bill Hilton Guest


    >> On 20 Sep 2006 11:57:15 -0700, Bill Hilton wrote:
    >>
    >> That's because 5.4 MB is half the size of the 10 MB I used in my
    > > guesstimate ... half the file size writes twice as fast ...


    >ASAAR wrote:
    >
    > You just blew it, bub. Your "guesstimate" was off by the amount
    > that I stated, which is why the D70 writes twice as fast as you gave
    > it credit for.


    Taking 2 sec to write 10 MB (my example) and taking 1 sec to write 5 MB
    (your example) means the transfer rate is the same, 5 MB/sec. Dunno
    why you can't grasp that ...

    Bill
    Bill Hilton, Sep 21, 2006
    #11
  12. k-man

    ASAAR Guest

    On 21 Sep 2006 07:35:46 -0700, Bill Hilton, fighting a clearly lost
    battle, wrote:

    >> You just blew it, bub. Your "guesstimate" was off by the amount
    >> that I stated, which is why the D70 writes twice as fast as you gave
    >> it credit for.

    >
    > Taking 2 sec to write 10 MB (my example) and taking 1 sec to write 5 MB
    > (your example) means the transfer rate is the same, 5 MB/sec. Dunno
    > why you can't grasp that ...


    Playing the fool again, are you? (and this is no exaggeration or
    hyperbole - it's literally true). You're working overtime trying to
    misunderstand. Of course the transfer rate is 5MB/sec. But your
    completely off-base guesstimate allowed you to make the similarly
    erroneous claim that after the buffer filled, the D70 would continue
    saving RAW files at the rate of one shot every 2 seconds, when in
    fact RAW shots could continue at double that rate, one shot per
    second. But I stated this already, and for one who previously said:

    > But does it do 8 frames/sec? And how well do those Canon lenses
    > work with it? What a moron ...


    you appear to value high frame rates, so if you can't grasp the
    difference between 1 second per shot and 2 seconds per shot, we can
    only assume that you also have no clue as to where the moron sits.
    :)
    ASAAR, Sep 21, 2006
    #12
  13. ASAAR wrote:

    > On 21 Sep 2006 07:35:46 -0700, Bill Hilton, fighting a clearly lost
    > battle, wrote:
    >
    >
    >>> You just blew it, bub. Your "guesstimate" was off by the amount
    >>>that I stated, which is why the D70 writes twice as fast as you gave
    >>>it credit for.

    >>
    >>Taking 2 sec to write 10 MB (my example) and taking 1 sec to write 5 MB
    >>(your example) means the transfer rate is the same, 5 MB/sec. Dunno
    >>why you can't grasp that ...

    >
    >
    > Playing the fool again, are you? (and this is no exaggeration or
    > hyperbole - it's literally true). You're working overtime trying to
    > misunderstand. Of course the transfer rate is 5MB/sec. But your
    > completely off-base guesstimate allowed you to make the similarly
    > erroneous claim that after the buffer filled, the D70 would continue
    > saving RAW files at the rate of one shot every 2 seconds, when in
    > fact RAW shots could continue at double that rate, one shot per
    > second. But I stated this already, and for one who previously said:


    There is a simple solution to understanding this problem, and that
    is what are the ranges of D70S raw file sizes? I have some
    D70s NEF, but all are of a uniformly lit blank wall (for
    testing sensor noise) and dark frames. The sizes range up
    to 5.6 MBytes. Real scenes would be larger. The fastest write
    rate on the Galbraith site for the D70s is 5.272 MB/sec, so it is
    simple computation. Perhaps some other D70s users can say how
    big their NEF files are, including the OP. My Canon raw files
    also range be a factor of several in size depending on content.
    The upper limit would be uncompressed, so for a D70s camera,
    at 12 bits/pixel, one would get
    3008 * 2000 *12/8 = 9.02 MBytes + exif data

    >>But does it do 8 frames/sec? And how well do those Canon lenses
    >>work with it? What a moron ...

    >
    > you appear to value high frame rates, so if you can't grasp the
    > difference between 1 second per shot and 2 seconds per shot, we can
    > only assume that you also have no clue as to where the moron sits.


    I know Bill as an excellent and knowledgeable photographer
    and one who contributes a lot of great information to this
    newsgroup. I have learned a lot from him.

    Roger
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Sep 23, 2006
    #13
  14. k-man

    ASAAR Guest

    On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 22:35:56 -0700, Roger N. Clark (change username
    to rnclark) wrote:

    >> You're working overtime trying to
    >> misunderstand. Of course the transfer rate is 5MB/sec. But your
    >> completely off-base guesstimate allowed you to make the similarly
    >> erroneous claim that after the buffer filled, the D70 would continue
    >> saving RAW files at the rate of one shot every 2 seconds, when in
    >> fact RAW shots could continue at double that rate, one shot per
    >> second. But I stated this already, and for one who previously said:

    >
    > There is a simple solution to understanding this problem, and that
    > is what are the ranges of D70S raw file sizes? I have some
    > D70s NEF, but all are of a uniformly lit blank wall (for
    > testing sensor noise) and dark frames. The sizes range up
    > to 5.6 MBytes. Real scenes would be larger.


    Really? Would the D70 and D70s have significantly different file
    sizes? According to a dpreview table for the D70, the approximate
    RAW+JPEG file sizes are 6,100KB and the RAW file sizes come to about
    5,400KB. As 5,400KB is about 5.27MB, and these are approximate file
    sizes for typical files, the D70 might be expected to produce files
    smaller than 5.0MB for shots of a uniformly lit blank wall. Would
    you care to specify the other end of the range that you got? The
    smallest file sizes would be of interest too, you know.


    > The fastest write
    > rate on the Galbraith site for the D70s is 5.272 MB/sec, so it is
    > simple computation. Perhaps some other D70s users can say how
    > big their NEF files are, including the OP. My Canon raw files
    > also range be a factor of several in size depending on content.
    > The upper limit would be uncompressed, so for a D70s camera,
    > at 12 bits/pixel, one would get
    > 3008 * 2000 *12/8 = 9.02 MBytes + exif data


    Are you serious? Do you actually think that the D70 sometimes
    saves compressed RAW files and sometimes saves uncompressed RAW
    files? If not, what were you trying to show here? In my first
    reply to Bill I presented the information that is provided in
    dpreview's review of the D70 (on the Timings & File Sizes page).
    And the table clearly shows that the D70 saves the first 4 frames at
    a 2.9 fps rate, and slows down to 1.0 fps for the remaining RAW
    files, until the CF card is filled. You can play with formulas all
    you want, but the D70 is not a Canon, and as far as I can see it
    never saves RAW files that are over 9.02 MB in size. The rate given
    by dpreview is entirely consistent with the fastest rate shown on
    Galbraith's web site, and doesn't contradict anything I can see on
    dpreview's pages.


    >>>But does it do 8 frames/sec? And how well do those Canon lenses
    >>>work with it? What a moron ...

    >>
    >> you appear to value high frame rates, so if you can't grasp the
    >> difference between 1 second per shot and 2 seconds per shot, we can
    >> only assume that you also have no clue as to where the moron sits.

    >
    > I know Bill as an excellent and knowledgeable photographer
    > and one who contributes a lot of great information to this
    > newsgroup. I have learned a lot from him.


    I agree. And as he's already stated to me, you're both friends
    and he evidently sticks up for you just as you stick up for him.
    And you both are good photographers that are willing to share
    pictures and your experiences. But sometimes you can't see the
    forest for the trees, or put another way, can't see the solution for
    the formulas. Formulas don't lie, unless they're based on false
    data, such as when he stated:

    > if your NEF files are say 10 MB that means you wait about 3 sec
    > between shots after the buffer is filled. The fastest cards they tested
    > are transferring a bit faster than 5 MB/sec so would take about 2 sec
    > between shots ...


    and then it was easy to see where his mistake was. He seems to
    have assumed that since some RAW files are about 10MB, that that's
    what he'd use for the D70s's file size. I don't know where the 10MB
    came from though. His own 1D Mark II has an 8mp sensor and produces
    8MB RAW files, so if he was to guess at the size of the 6mp D70's
    RAW file size, you'd think that 6MB would come to mind before 10MB.
    But since the RAW files are 1/2 the size that he guessed (which Bill
    admitted - "That's because 5.4 MB is half the size of the 10 MB I
    used in my guesstimate"), his calculation of capturing RAW images at
    2 seconds per frame was off. The rate should have been one second
    per frame. No big deal, but when anyone provides a bogus rate that
    erroneously states that a camera is twice as slow as it really is,
    it deserves to be corrected. I'd do the same if it was a Canon that
    was made to look worse than it really is.

    I don't know why you seem to be trying to resurrect Bill's bogus
    file write rate, unless the D70s actually saves uncompressed RAW
    files that are nearly twice as large as those saved by the D70. If
    that's the case, then you and Bill would be correct. But I haven't
    heard that the D70s made that change, and it would seem that if the
    improved version of the D70 took twice as long to write RAW files,
    more than one person would have complained long and loudly.
    ASAAR, Sep 23, 2006
    #14
  15. ASAAR wrote:
    > On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 22:35:56 -0700, Roger N. Clark (change username
    > to rnclark) wrote:
    >
    >
    >>>You're working overtime trying to
    >>>misunderstand. Of course the transfer rate is 5MB/sec. But your
    >>>completely off-base guesstimate allowed you to make the similarly
    >>>erroneous claim that after the buffer filled, the D70 would continue
    >>>saving RAW files at the rate of one shot every 2 seconds, when in
    >>>fact RAW shots could continue at double that rate, one shot per
    >>>second. But I stated this already, and for one who previously said:

    >>
    >>There is a simple solution to understanding this problem, and that
    >>is what are the ranges of D70S raw file sizes? I have some
    >>D70s NEF, but all are of a uniformly lit blank wall (for
    >>testing sensor noise) and dark frames. The sizes range up
    >>to 5.6 MBytes. Real scenes would be larger.

    >
    >
    > Really? Would the D70 and D70s have significantly different file
    > sizes? According to a dpreview table for the D70, the approximate
    > RAW+JPEG file sizes are 6,100KB and the RAW file sizes come to about
    > 5,400KB. As 5,400KB is about 5.27MB, and these are approximate file
    > sizes for typical files, the D70 might be expected to produce files
    > smaller than 5.0MB for shots of a uniformly lit blank wall. Would
    > you care to specify the other end of the range that you got? The
    > smallest file sizes would be of interest too, you know.
    >
    >
    >
    >> The fastest write
    >>rate on the Galbraith site for the D70s is 5.272 MB/sec, so it is
    >>simple computation. Perhaps some other D70s users can say how
    >>big their NEF files are, including the OP. My Canon raw files
    >>also range be a factor of several in size depending on content.
    >>The upper limit would be uncompressed, so for a D70s camera,
    >>at 12 bits/pixel, one would get
    >> 3008 * 2000 *12/8 = 9.02 MBytes + exif data

    >
    >
    > Are you serious? Do you actually think that the D70 sometimes
    > saves compressed RAW files and sometimes saves uncompressed RAW
    > files? If not, what were you trying to show here? In my first
    > reply to Bill I presented the information that is provided in
    > dpreview's review of the D70 (on the Timings & File Sizes page).
    > And the table clearly shows that the D70 saves the first 4 frames at
    > a 2.9 fps rate, and slows down to 1.0 fps for the remaining RAW
    > files, until the CF card is filled. You can play with formulas all
    > you want, but the D70 is not a Canon, and as far as I can see it
    > never saves RAW files that are over 9.02 MB in size. The rate given
    > by dpreview is entirely consistent with the fastest rate shown on
    > Galbraith's web site, and doesn't contradict anything I can see on
    > dpreview's pages.
    >
    >
    >
    >>>>But does it do 8 frames/sec? And how well do those Canon lenses
    >>>>work with it? What a moron ...
    >>>
    >>> you appear to value high frame rates, so if you can't grasp the
    >>>difference between 1 second per shot and 2 seconds per shot, we can
    >>>only assume that you also have no clue as to where the moron sits.

    >>
    >>I know Bill as an excellent and knowledgeable photographer
    >>and one who contributes a lot of great information to this
    >>newsgroup. I have learned a lot from him.

    >
    >
    > I agree. And as he's already stated to me, you're both friends
    > and he evidently sticks up for you just as you stick up for him.
    > And you both are good photographers that are willing to share
    > pictures and your experiences. But sometimes you can't see the
    > forest for the trees, or put another way, can't see the solution for
    > the formulas. Formulas don't lie, unless they're based on false
    > data, such as when he stated:
    >
    >
    >>if your NEF files are say 10 MB that means you wait about 3 sec
    >>between shots after the buffer is filled. The fastest cards they tested
    >>are transferring a bit faster than 5 MB/sec so would take about 2 sec
    >>between shots ...

    >
    >
    > and then it was easy to see where his mistake was. He seems to
    > have assumed that since some RAW files are about 10MB, that that's
    > what he'd use for the D70s's file size. I don't know where the 10MB
    > came from though. His own 1D Mark II has an 8mp sensor and produces
    > 8MB RAW files, so if he was to guess at the size of the 6mp D70's
    > RAW file size, you'd think that 6MB would come to mind before 10MB.
    > But since the RAW files are 1/2 the size that he guessed (which Bill
    > admitted - "That's because 5.4 MB is half the size of the 10 MB I
    > used in my guesstimate"), his calculation of capturing RAW images at
    > 2 seconds per frame was off. The rate should have been one second
    > per frame. No big deal, but when anyone provides a bogus rate that
    > erroneously states that a camera is twice as slow as it really is,
    > it deserves to be corrected. I'd do the same if it was a Canon that
    > was made to look worse than it really is.
    >
    > I don't know why you seem to be trying to resurrect Bill's bogus
    > file write rate, unless the D70s actually saves uncompressed RAW
    > files that are nearly twice as large as those saved by the D70. If
    > that's the case, then you and Bill would be correct. But I haven't
    > heard that the D70s made that change, and it would seem that if the
    > improved version of the D70 took twice as long to write RAW files,
    > more than one person would have complained long and loudly.
    >


    You accuse people of having reading comprehension problems; how ironic.
    Go back and look what I wrote. I computed the UPPER LIMIT to the
    file size. Then I gave real data for flat test scenes of
    5.4 mbytes/raw file, so a lower limit for normally exposed scenes
    (dark frames are lower yet). Reality is likely in between flat test
    scenes and the upper limit. The D70s is what the OP has.

    Get a life, and stop foaming at the mouth!
    Over some simple math you turn this thread into a major attack on people.
    The mark of a troll.

    Roger
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Sep 23, 2006
    #15
  16. k-man

    Bill Hilton Guest

    >ASAAR wrote:
    >
    > then it was easy to see where his (Bill's) mistake was. He seems to
    > have assumed that since some RAW files are about 10MB, that that's
    > what he'd use for the D70s's file size. I don't know where the 10MB
    > came from though.


    Jeez guys, this isn't a big deal ... let me explain where the 10 MB
    number came from (it's not a Canon conspiracy to make Nikon look slow)
    .... the OP asked whether he'll see a big speed up if he switches from
    his Kingston card to a faster one for this camera ... the Galbraith
    data says the closest Kingston he tested has a 3.2 MB/sec xfer rate,
    the fastest other cards a bit faster than 5 MB/sec.

    You might look at that and say "Wow, gotta get a faster card" but if
    you look at actual times it might not seem so appealing, so I made up
    an example for the OP ... I plucked 10 MB out of the air solely because
    it's easily divisible by 5 and 3.2, giving near-integer numbers. The
    actual file size will vary based on ISO and subject and I assumed
    anyone with the camera would look at their average file size and do the
    math for themselves. If the average file is actually only 5 MB then my
    point was that the difference between 1 sec and 1.6 sec for the fastest
    card vs what he already owns might not be enough to warrant speeding
    down to Fry's and buying new cards.

    What a waste of bandwidth ...

    Bill
    Bill Hilton, Sep 23, 2006
    #16
  17. k-man

    ASAAR Guest

    On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 07:44:17 -0600, Roger N. Clark (change username
    to rnclark) wrote:

    >> I don't know why you seem to be trying to resurrect Bill's bogus
    >> file write rate, unless the D70s actually saves uncompressed RAW
    >> files that are nearly twice as large as those saved by the D70. If
    >> that's the case, then you and Bill would be correct. But I haven't
    >> heard that the D70s made that change, and it would seem that if the
    >> improved version of the D70 took twice as long to write RAW files,
    >> more than one person would have complained long and loudly.

    >
    > You accuse people of having reading comprehension problems; how ironic.
    > Go back and look what I wrote. I computed the UPPER LIMIT to the
    > file size. Then I gave real data for flat test scenes of
    > 5.4 mbytes/raw file, so a lower limit for normally exposed scenes
    > (dark frames are lower yet). Reality is likely in between flat test
    > scenes and the upper limit. The D70s is what the OP has.


    Sorry, but all you've done with your inappropriate calculations is
    turn yourself into a sorry parody of yourself. You didn't just
    calculate an UPPER LIMIT, you also attempted to show that the
    published values for the compressed file sizes were wrong, because
    your sizes for what should be highly compressed files (of your
    uniformly lit blank wall NEFs) were larger that the size I mentioned
    for the D70. You then added "Real scenes would be larger". The
    upper limit that you tried to estimate would happen how often in
    real life? There aren't very many available scenes that would
    create the kind of random image which would maximize the file size.
    Most people are aware that their image files aren't all the same
    size, but they vary over a pretty consistent, fairly small range.
    Your purpose in trying to calculate an upper size limit (that
    probably will never be approached by most photographers), while at
    the same time never stating typical file size (which are given by
    review web sites and by manufacturers in their manuals) makes it
    pretty obvious what your purpose was. Once again you value
    calculations made in the service of obfuscation over clarity.

    The entire point of this branch of the thread was to correct a
    simple mistake. Namely, that the rate at which the D70 (or D70s)
    can take and save RAW files is twice as fast as the estimate Bill
    gave. It's true that it might be possible to photograph some scene
    that is so highly random that the D70 couldn't manage to compress
    its RAW files and would then double its writing speed. But you need
    a reality check. Nobody in their right mind (excepting the late
    Andy Warhol) would have any desire to take a sustained burst of such
    images. I also asked if there was any difference between the file
    sizes of the D70's and D70s's RAW files (which I doubt) and that's
    another of the questions that you've ignored. Typical. That's very
    strange, since if the D70s produces larger files it would help make
    your case. If not, though, it raises the question of why your D70s
    NEFs of the uniformly blank wall are larger than the published size
    of typical D70 NEFs. Perhaps you weren't as careful in your tests
    as you thought you were? Perhaps the NEFs included an additional
    JPG image that you weren't aware of?


    > Get a life, and stop foaming at the mouth!
    > Over some simple math you turn this thread into a major attack on people.
    > The mark of a troll.


    <g> You're so obviously describing yourself that it's amusing,
    yet at the same time sad. I'll conclude with one more quote snippet
    from my previous message that gives the lie to this statement of
    yours. Far from foaming at the mouth, or writing in a trollish
    manner, I replied calmly and accurately, and even complimented you
    and Bill at one point. Yet all you can see is a major attack.
    Well, yes, I suppose it might seem that way if you base your entire
    worth on your abilities as a researcher and yet so often produce
    overly complex calculations that make implications leading to false
    conclusions. Then yes, I can understand why you're getting so
    perturbed. But I'm not attacking *you*, I'm just questioning your
    calculations and what you use them to imply.

    >> I know Bill as an excellent and knowledgeable photographer
    >> and one who contributes a lot of great information to this
    >> newsgroup. I have learned a lot from him.

    >
    > I agree. And as he's already stated to me, you're both friends
    > and he evidently sticks up for you just as you stick up for him.
    > And you both are good photographers that are willing to share
    > pictures and your experiences.
    ASAAR, Sep 23, 2006
    #17
  18. k-man

    ASAAR Guest

    On 23 Sep 2006 08:16:58 -0700, Bill Hilton wrote:

    >> then it was easy to see where his (Bill's) mistake was. He seems to
    >> have assumed that since some RAW files are about 10MB, that that's
    >> what he'd use for the D70s's file size. I don't know where the 10MB
    >> came from though.

    >
    > Jeez guys, this isn't a big deal ... let me explain where the 10 MB
    > number came from


    Then we agree about something (at last). If you look a little
    farther down in the paragraph that you quoted, above, you'll see
    that I also said that it wasn't a big deal. Here it is:

    > No big deal, but when anyone provides a bogus rate that
    > erroneously states that a camera is twice as slow as it really is,
    > it deserves to be corrected. I'd do the same if it was a Canon that
    > was made to look worse than it really is.


    Don't you think that if you simply said "Oops, you're right. The
    Nikon does write RAW files twice a fast as I assumed" this thread
    would have been much shorter? Didn't happen, though. An now we
    have your buddy trying to demonstrate that it's theoretically
    possible for a D70s to produce RAW files twice their typical size,
    which in his mind produces a loophole justifying your mistaken
    assumption. There's no need to explain where the 10MB number came
    from. We both agree that it was "no big deal".


    > You might look at that and say "Wow, gotta get a faster card" but if
    > you look at actual times it might not seem so appealing, so I made up
    > an example for the OP ... I plucked 10 MB out of the air solely because
    > it's easily divisible by 5 and 3.2, giving near-integer numbers. The
    > actual file size will vary based on ISO and subject and I assumed
    > anyone with the camera would look at their average file size and do the
    > math for themselves. If the average file is actually only 5 MB then my
    > point was that the difference between 1 sec and 1.6 sec for the fastest
    > card vs what he already owns might not be enough to warrant speeding
    > down to Fry's and buying new cards.


    That's the problem, don't you see? If he agreed and based his
    purchasing decision (or lack of purchasing) based on what you told
    him, it may not have been what he would have done had he known that
    a faster card would have allowed his camera to write up to 100%
    faster than your assumption predicted. I'll even grant that you
    made an honest mistake and were trying to help the OP. But he would
    have been helped even more by being aware of actual test results,
    rather than reading a bad prediction that was due to a "guesstimate"
    which was way off the mark.


    > What a waste of bandwidth ...


    I agree here too. Where we differ is in who we think is most
    responsible for wasting the bandwidth.
    ASAAR, Sep 23, 2006
    #18
  19. ASAAR wrote:

    > On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 07:44:17 -0600, Roger N. Clark (change username
    > to rnclark) wrote:
    >
    >
    >>> I don't know why you seem to be trying to resurrect Bill's bogus
    >>>file write rate, unless the D70s actually saves uncompressed RAW
    >>>files that are nearly twice as large as those saved by the D70. If
    >>>that's the case, then you and Bill would be correct. But I haven't
    >>>heard that the D70s made that change, and it would seem that if the
    >>>improved version of the D70 took twice as long to write RAW files,
    >>>more than one person would have complained long and loudly.

    >>
    >>
    >>You accuse people of having reading comprehension problems; how ironic.
    >>Go back and look what I wrote. I computed the UPPER LIMIT to the
    >>file size. Then I gave real data for flat test scenes of
    >>5.4 mbytes/raw file, so a lower limit for normally exposed scenes
    >>(dark frames are lower yet). Reality is likely in between flat test
    >>scenes and the upper limit. The D70s is what the OP has.

    >
    >
    > Sorry, but all you've done with your inappropriate calculations is
    > turn yourself into a sorry parody of yourself. You didn't just
    > calculate an UPPER LIMIT, you also attempted to show that the
    > published values for the compressed file sizes were wrong, because
    > your sizes for what should be highly compressed files (of your
    > uniformly lit blank wall NEFs) were larger that the size I mentioned
    > for the D70. You then added "Real scenes would be larger". The
    > upper limit that you tried to estimate would happen how often in
    > real life? There aren't very many available scenes that would
    > create the kind of random image which would maximize the file size.
    > Most people are aware that their image files aren't all the same
    > size, but they vary over a pretty consistent, fairly small range.
    > Your purpose in trying to calculate an upper size limit (that
    > probably will never be approached by most photographers), while at
    > the same time never stating typical file size (which are given by
    > review web sites and by manufacturers in their manuals) makes it
    > pretty obvious what your purpose was. Once again you value
    > calculations made in the service of obfuscation over clarity.
    >
    > The entire point of this branch of the thread was to correct a
    > simple mistake. Namely, that the rate at which the D70 (or D70s)
    > can take and save RAW files is twice as fast as the estimate Bill
    > gave. It's true that it might be possible to photograph some scene
    > that is so highly random that the D70 couldn't manage to compress
    > its RAW files and would then double its writing speed. But you need
    > a reality check. Nobody in their right mind (excepting the late
    > Andy Warhol) would have any desire to take a sustained burst of such
    > images. I also asked if there was any difference between the file
    > sizes of the D70's and D70s's RAW files (which I doubt) and that's
    > another of the questions that you've ignored. Typical. That's very
    > strange, since if the D70s produces larger files it would help make
    > your case. If not, though, it raises the question of why your D70s
    > NEFs of the uniformly blank wall are larger than the published size
    > of typical D70 NEFs. Perhaps you weren't as careful in your tests
    > as you thought you were? Perhaps the NEFs included an additional
    > JPG image that you weren't aware of?
    >
    >
    >
    >>Get a life, and stop foaming at the mouth!
    >>Over some simple math you turn this thread into a major attack on people.
    >>The mark of a troll.

    >
    >
    > <g> You're so obviously describing yourself that it's amusing,
    > yet at the same time sad. I'll conclude with one more quote snippet
    > from my previous message that gives the lie to this statement of
    > yours. Far from foaming at the mouth, or writing in a trollish
    > manner, I replied calmly and accurately, and even complimented you
    > and Bill at one point. Yet all you can see is a major attack.
    > Well, yes, I suppose it might seem that way if you base your entire
    > worth on your abilities as a researcher and yet so often produce
    > overly complex calculations that make implications leading to false
    > conclusions. Then yes, I can understand why you're getting so
    > perturbed. But I'm not attacking *you*, I'm just questioning your
    > calculations and what you use them to imply.
    >
    >
    >>>I know Bill as an excellent and knowledgeable photographer
    >>>and one who contributes a lot of great information to this
    >>>newsgroup. I have learned a lot from him.

    >>
    >> I agree. And as he's already stated to me, you're both friends
    >>and he evidently sticks up for you just as you stick up for him.
    >>And you both are good photographers that are willing to share
    >>pictures and your experiences.


    If you go back and READ, you will see I did not take
    sides. I simply stated my observations from the data
    I had and that the answer was likely in between the two bounds.

    I would think the OP would see the simple differences
    in published card speeds and calculate for the types of images
    he makes, what the speed difference would be.

    My D70s test data show:

    iso200, uniformly lit wall, all pixels saturated giving one value:
    nef file = 4,081,448 bytes (the jpeg is only 127 kbytes)

    iso200, uniformly lit wall unsaturated exposure: 5,496,832 bytes
    (jpeg = 804 kbytes)

    iso1600 1/8000 second dark frame: 5,742,592 bytes
    (jpeg = 779 kbytes) Note this frame looks black when displayed.

    The maximum uncompressed file slightly more than 9 mbytes.

    Normal images would likely fall between the the ~5.5 mbytes and 9 mbytes.
    That is all I said. I made no implications as to which end I thought
    images come out at.

    But again, you seem to feel a need to go off the deep end.
    Perhaps if you approached people differently, you might get
    better reactions.

    Roger
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Sep 23, 2006
    #19
  20. k-man

    ASAAR Guest

    On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 13:22:59 -0600, Roger N. Clark (change username
    to rnclark) wrote:

    > If you go back and READ, you will see I did not take
    > sides. I simply stated my observations from the data
    > I had and that the answer was likely in between the two bounds.
    >
    > I would think the OP would see the simple differences
    > in published card speeds and calculate for the types of images
    > he makes, what the speed difference would be.
    >
    > My D70s test data show:
    >
    > iso200, uniformly lit wall, all pixels saturated giving one value:
    > nef file = 4,081,448 bytes (the jpeg is only 127 kbytes)
    >
    > iso200, uniformly lit wall unsaturated exposure: 5,496,832 bytes
    > (jpeg = 804 kbytes)
    >
    > iso1600 1/8000 second dark frame: 5,742,592 bytes
    > (jpeg = 779 kbytes) Note this frame looks black when displayed.
    >
    > The maximum uncompressed file slightly more than 9 mbytes.
    >
    > Normal images would likely fall between the the ~5.5 mbytes and 9 mbytes.
    > That is all I said. I made no implications as to which end I thought
    > images come out at.
    >
    > But again, you seem to feel a need to go off the deep end.
    > Perhaps if you approached people differently, you might get
    > better reactions.


    No, you're quite wrong. I didn't go off the deep end anywhere.
    It's you that resorted to the ranting that you once tried to accuse
    me of doing. You still don't have a clear understanding of what
    Bill and I were discussing. It was only about how long it would
    take for the D70s to write RAW image files to the flash card in the
    camera. Determining how large the images would be in the computer's
    memory when expanded is completely irrelevant and adds nothing to
    the discussion, other than to show that you have some experience
    performing tests and measuring things. Thank you for this time
    adding that these test shots included bundled jpeg images. When
    they're subtracted from the total NEF file size, the *all* are
    noticeably smaller than the 5.4MB size I got from dpreview. (Note:
    dpreview may have actually used 5,400kb which is smaller still, but
    still larger than your results).

    If getting a better reaction from you was of any concern to me I
    might ignore your irrelevant and misleading replies. But it's not.
    Your overreaction just makes you look bad and does little for your
    reputation. Why you think it's important to show that a compressed
    RAW file will be expanded in the computer's memory is a mystery that
    only you can explain. It may be an interesting factoid, but it's
    nothing that we didn't already know, and it did nothing to support
    the mistaken claim that the D70s would take 2 seconds to write its
    RAW files. You may say that you didn't intend to support the claim
    that way, but if you didn't, then what was the purpose of that bit
    of irrelevancy? Anyone reading this thread with an open mind can
    come to their own conclusions, and they probably already have.
    Maybe to stir the pot and hope that I'd overreact the way you have?
    ASAAR, Sep 23, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    666
  2. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    866
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
  3. Ferd.Berfle

    Re: U.N. Climate Panel to Announce Significant Changes

    Ferd.Berfle, Feb 24, 2010, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    471
    Ferd.Berfle
    Feb 25, 2010
  4. §ñühw¤£f

    Re: U.N. Climate Panel to Announce Significant Changes

    §ñühw¤£f, Feb 24, 2010, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    400
    Ferd.Berfle
    Feb 25, 2010
  5. Ferd.Berfle

    Re: U.N. Climate Panel to Announce Significant Changes

    Ferd.Berfle, Feb 25, 2010, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    439
    Ferd.Berfle
    Feb 25, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page