kezeka wrote:
Out of curiosity, what are you using GPS for in your workflow or final product?
I've changed my workflow recently in the past months with Lightroom purposely adding GPS data to images in Lightroom by manually selecting a location with the map feature. The big question is whether GPS will drain the battery faster vs using your smartphone + gps tracking log or an inexpensive garmin unit that records gps tracklogs data which can be imported into Lightroom basically getting the same result. One less step would be nice but not going to save me that much time.
adamx12m wrote:
I've changed my workflow recently in the past months with Lightroom purposely adding GPS data to images in Lightroom by manually selecting a location with the map feature. The big question is whether GPS will drain the battery faster vs using your smartphone + gps tracking log or an inexpensive garmin unit that records gps tracklogs data which can be imported into Lightroom basically getting the same result. One less step would be nice but not going to save me that much time.
If battery drain is an issue I guess you could have the gps on at the beginning of the shoot and if you are staying at that location turn it off and later in LR just copy and paste gps coordinates from first image to the rest (is that allowed?). Not sure how gps affects battery life in cameras as I've never had one with this feature.
Haven't seen anyone ooo and awwww on the alleged 170 continuous raw buffer
Personally I'd much rather have WiFi over GPS...so nice to be in a warm sleeping bag/tent while the camera works in the cold and I remote from the warm via a Droid.
adamx12m wrote:
...using your smartphone + gps tracking log or an inexpensive garmin unit that records gps tracklogs data which can be imported into Lightroom basically getting the same result.
A camera can also write into the EXIF what bearing it was pointed at when it took the photo. (I forget whether there's azimuth support too.) An example of a camera that does that is the iPhone 5C.
Not sure why Canon didn't just use dual CFast slots. The buffer onto CFast is 170 RAWs but onto the CF slot is 72 RAWs. Anyone shooting mirrored to both cards would be limited to 72 I guess. The 1DX was the only dual slot camera that didn't have a compromise when shooting to both cards.
arbitrage wrote:
Not sure why Canon didn't just use dual CFast slots. The buffer onto CFast is 170 RAWs but onto the CF slot is 72 RAWs. Anyone shooting mirrored to both cards would be limited to 72 I guess. The 1DX was the only dual slot camera that didn't have a compromise when shooting to both cards.
arbitrage wrote:
Not sure why Canon didn't just use dual CFast slots. The buffer onto CFast is 170 RAWs but onto the CF slot is 72 RAWs. Anyone shooting mirrored to both cards would be limited to 72 I guess. The 1DX was the only dual slot camera that didn't have a compromise when shooting to both cards.
My guess is that Canon went this way because they didn't want to totally disenfranchise folks who are already heavily invested in CF cards.
IMO, a better way to go would have been the approach Nikon has taken with the D5--give purchasers a choice: two of the newer high-speed cards, or two CF cards.
But I think there's lots of room for reasonable people to differ on this.
arbitrage wrote:
Not sure why Canon didn't just use dual CFast slots. The buffer onto CFast is 170 RAWs but onto the CF slot is 72 RAWs. Anyone shooting mirrored to both cards would be limited to 72 I guess. The 1DX was the only dual slot camera that didn't have a compromise when shooting to both cards.
I agree, that is the biggest disadvantage of having one fast and one slow card slot - the huge buffers these days seem to be very dependent on the fastest card technology to get there. No more card backup unless you want to cut your buffer way, way, down. If you want a huge buffer you have to roll the dice with one card - not great for a pro camera.
I certainly may be missing something, but I simply can't imagine hitting the buffer wall of 72 raw images on a fast card. I shoot a fair amount of sports and rapid action, and just can't see needing to hammer the trigger like that. Bursts are usually shorter...10 to 15 frames, and the buffer clears pretty quickly. Jpg files would allow even more and that's often what I'm shooting in high volume situations.
Michael H wrote:
I certainly may be missing something, but I simply can't imagine hitting the buffer wall of 72 raw images on a fast card. I shoot a fair amount of sports and rapid action, and just can't see needing to hammer the trigger like that. Bursts are usually shorter...10 to 15 frames, and the buffer clears pretty quickly. Jpg files would allow even more and that's often what I'm shooting in high volume situations.
Depends what you shoot. 72 RAW's isn't bad but that's only a 4.5 - 5 second burst at max 1DX II FPS. A 10 frame burst isn't even 1 second of shooting, and it's quite common to need more than that. If you're trying to nail very specific poses in a long sequence of say, an athlete or running animal, you are going to hit that cap pretty quickly. The solution is to use only a single card slot or forego any kind of backup, which is pretty risky IMHO.
