gee, that's pretty much how I feel about those lovely 50 pin CF cards I sorta still use. I mean it has been around since 1994. next year that will be 20 years and all the bit@%in about it for those years.
it's irrelevant. all I need it for is the D4 and now there is 2 sources and that satisfies me for now. from another perspective that is now what seems to be commitment to the format and you have to think how many D4s are out there and this commitment is based on just that one product? I myself can only guess and be happy that there is, for now, 2 sources for me.
the as usual caveat in the case of this card is its overall rated/stated speed is based on "read".
Sandisk is currently working in the CFast arena. actually the CFast II one which is currently "under development". if I am not mistaken CFast I is limited to UDMA 6 speeds and has been around for awhile also and has been already surpassed by UDMA 7 CF cards.
it's all about promises and actual real world delivery. lets see what happens.
Well I may be wrong but I'm pretty sure Betamax hardware and tapes were produced by many companies...Sanyo, Toshiba, Pioneer and others....My point was that Betamax was better tech. than VHS but still didn't make the cut...
Expensive. I'm sure prices will drop over time, but it won't be easy to get a foothold in an already packed market segment at $300 for 32Gb. And it's not like the current tech is seriously lacking in performance for most users.
15Bit wrote:
Expensive. I'm sure prices will drop over time, but it won't be easy to get a foothold in an already packed market segment at $300 for 32Gb. And it's not like the current tech is seriously lacking in performance for most users.
Well the problem is probably a catch 22 situation.
Not enough demand to make them sell in greater quantities (thus cheaper) and price keeps demand low .
And as for the comparison between beta and VHS . That does not really stack up . Memory card formats are just really a store of 1's & 0's . There is no difference to a file stored on a cf/SD/xqd card (or anything else for that matter)
Ther was a real difference between recordings on beta compared to VHS . We had a beta recorder back in the day . Great machine . Had a VHS for the hire stuff and the beta for home recording.
There is a question of how fast we need memory cards to be. How many of us can actually use the 150Mb/sec? Is a 150Mb/sec card really any faster than a 100Mb/sec card in real world use? In 5 years time will we be needing these data transfer rates? I'm not sure we will - i can't imagine sensors are going to be *that* much bigger, nor will we be recording video at such high resolution.
Right now the high-res cameras like the D800 have painfully slow framing rates. Surely if it were possible to obtain 8-10 FPS at 30-50 Megapickles without substantial cost or power penalites that would be done. I expect it will be done in the future as processors improve. The latest CFast would be fine though as it will scale with SATA standards.
Ian.Dobinson wrote:
And as for the comparison between beta and VHS . That does not really stack up . Memory card formats are just really a store of 1's & 0's . There is no difference to a file stored on a cf/SD/xqd card (or anything else for that matter).
The cnmparison was that one format basically died out, not the details of the technology.
EB-1 wrote:
Right now the high-res cameras like the D800 have painfully slow framing rates.
I'm not sure i'd call 4 fps "painfully slow". Still, my back of the envelope calculations put the data readout at about 240MB/sec off the sensor at 4fps so you would need a nippy card to keep up with that, assuming that the onboard processor is capable of running through all that data in real time.
The question remains as to how many folk actually want 30-50 megapixels at 8-10fps. Thats a hell of a lot of data - a D800 at 8fps would give you 480MB/sec, and would fill a 32Gb card in around 68 secs if it could keep up. Summed over a day's shooting i'm guessing you would generate an enormous amount of data, and whilst I know hard disks are "cheap", they aren't that cheap. Do action shooters really want this kind of resolution, and the accompanying data storage and image processing overhead?
we here are referring to still frame rate transfers. it's only part of the equation. soon enough we'll have 4K video being pushed off. progress, ain't it grand.
