p.9 #1 · Nikon unveils the highly anticipated Z8 camera!
kaplah wrote:
Fast card is an Angelbird 1TB AV Pro MK2 CFexpress 2.0 Type B. Slow card is a Delkin Devices 1TB POWER CFexpress Type B Memory Card.
Performance I would characterize as "good enough" - when I'm copying a folder from card 1 to card 2, it works fine from a workflow perfpective, at least in my so far limited experience.
Your question caused me to be curious, so I pressed Continous High @ 120fps for a few seconds on card 1, then copied it to card 2. 320 JPGs, 808MB, took about 15.5 seconds. I'm told that cards slow down as they fill, so this may go down as the day goes on.
Thanks, that's helpful. I looked up a review of the Delkin POWER (non-BLACK model) and it reported around 900 MB/s sustained minimum write speed on a computer using Black Magic's speed test (128GB model). Your in-camera copying results work out to around 52 MB/s. I agree that's still workable. Would be great if Nikon could add a background copy feature that copied the files during idle periods.
p.9 #2 · Nikon unveils the highly anticipated Z8 camera!
snapsy wrote:
Thanks, that's helpful. I looked up a review of the Delkin POWER (non-BLACK model) and it reported around 900 MB/s sustained minimum write speed on a computer using Black Magic's speed test (128GB model). Your in-camera copying results work out to around 52 MB/s. I agree that's still workable. Would be great if Nikon could add a background copy feature that copied the files during idle periods.
Note that copying to SD by these metrics would be 3x as slow with a 300mb UHS-II. Combine that with RAW files instead of JPEG...might not be workable. Will be interesting to see.
I'm struggling to see why someone would opt for a V90 in the Z8 if they don't already have a 256gb or greater card. The price per gig is terrible compared to CFE, considering the performance gap.
You won't be able to record intense video to the SD. You won't be able to duplicate burst rates to SD. All it becomes then is a slow backup slot as described, so speed doesn't really warrant the price.
p.9 #3 · Nikon unveils the highly anticipated Z8 camera!
RoamingScott wrote:
Note that copying to SD by these metrics would be 3x as slow with a 300mb UHS-II. Combine that with RAW files instead of JPEG...might not be workable. Will be interesting to see.
I'm not certain it's safe to assume that card bandwidth is the bottleneck for the copy feature. My guess it's firmware overhead, which means SD copies might perform about the same.
p.9 #4 · Nikon unveils the highly anticipated Z8 camera!
snapsy wrote:
I'm not certain it's safe to assume that card bandwidth is the bottleneck for the copy feature. My guess it's firmware overhead, which means SD copies might perform about the same.
I have 2 Delkin Blacks...give me a bit and I'll test on the Z9.
edit: 143 HE* raw files, 4.8gb, copied from slot 1 to slot 2 in 8 seconds. I pushed 5x the data in half the time of the previous test. Maybe not super fair since the Black cards are basically as good as you can get.
p.9 #5 · Nikon unveils the highly anticipated Z8 camera!
RoamingScott wrote:
I have 2 Delkin Blacks...give me a bit and I'll test on the Z9.
edit: 143 HE* raw files, 4.8gb, copied from slot 1 to slot 2 in 8 seconds. I pushed 5x the data in half the time of the previous test. Maybe not super fair since the Black cards are basically as good as you can get.
Have you made sure that you’re using a USB 3.2 Gen 2 cable when transferring via cable to your laptop? The speeds you’re reporting of around 53MB/s are very very very close to the exact realistic speeds achieved over a USB 2 480mbps connection… the Z9 has a USB-C port with USB 3.2 Gen 2 capabilities, meaning support for 10gbps connections, plenty fast enougg to transfer at much higher speeds than you’re seeing.
Snapsy is right that it might just be a software issue, but it’s worth verifying you’re using a 10gbps capable USB-C cable.
Apologies if I missed a prior post where you explained you already checked the cable!
p.9 #6 · Nikon unveils the highly anticipated Z8 camera!
Jesse Evans wrote:
Have you made sure that you’re using a USB 3.2 Gen 2 cable when transferring via cable to your laptop? The speeds you’re reporting of around 53MB/s are very very very close to the exact realistic speeds achieved over a USB 2 480mbps connection… the Z9 has a USB-C port with USB 3.2 Gen 2 capabilities, meaning support for 10gbps connections, plenty fast enougg to transfer at much higher speeds than you’re seeing.
Snapsy is right that it might just be a software issue, but it’s worth verifying you’re using a 10gbps capable USB-C cable.
Apologies if I missed a prior post where you explained you already checked the cable! ...Show more →
We're talking about in-camera file transfers from slot 1 to slot 2, not to a computer.
Were you referencing my older post about how I use USB instead of a card reader to transfer?
p.9 #7 · Nikon unveils the highly anticipated Z8 camera!
snapsy wrote:
Would be great if Nikon could add a background copy feature that copied the files during idle periods.
That's a mild stroke of genius and would be a selling point, taking most of the sting out of the "no dual CFExpress" without impacting the upgrading crowd using SD cards. And then we can use our laptops' built-in SD card readers in the field. And Nikon isn't in the high-speed card market, so why not? I've emailed Hogan, perhaps he'll take it up effectively with Nikon.
p.9 #8 · Nikon unveils the highly anticipated Z8 camera!
RoamingScott wrote:
We're talking about in-camera file transfers from slot 1 to slot 2, not to a computer.
Were you referencing my older post about how I use USB instead of a card reader to transfer?
Yes, I was referencing the overall issue of slow cable transfer, rather than the exact test you were running in that post.
Edit: sorry, I just reread the post snapsy was quoting and realize that was internal card to card transfer. Whoops. I thought you were doing card to card to prove a point.
p.9 #9 · Nikon unveils the highly anticipated Z8 camera!
kaplah wrote:
That's a mild stroke of genius and would be a selling point, taking most of the sting out of the "no dual CFExpress" without impacting the upgrading crowd using SD cards. And then we can use our laptop's built-in SD card readers in the field. And Nikon isn't in the high-speed card market, so why not? I've emailed Hogan, perhaps he'll take it up effectively with Nikon.
Thanks. You can toss him this idea too, which I wrote on dpreview back in 2012:
Pro bodies and now more recently prosumer bodies (D7000) have dual card slots. Camera firmware provides different options on how the two cards are utilized:
* Redundancy (write images to both cards)
* Dedicated purpose (raw on one, jpeg on other)
* Capacity aggregation (when one card fills up, camera siwtches/overflows to the second card).
How about a parallel distribution option, where every image alternates to the other card, producing a 2x increase in buffer drain throughput and thus an effective increase in buffer capacity? Originally I had thought RAID 0 to stripe each image across the two cards but since fast buffer drain is only needed for continuous shooting it's simpler to just distribute entire images across the cards. Plus there's inherent redundancy in alternating on an entire-image basis as it would likely be used for continuous shooting and so even if a card fails you'll have every other image on the non-failing card from the same shooting sequence.
Performance scaling would be 2x when the cards of equal speeds, even if one is CF and the other SD. If there is a speed differential between cards then firmware could alter the image ratio accordingly to balance the throughput. This could be done on a dynamic basis to accommodate asymmetry in card performance resulting from:
* Base throughput differences between the cards
* Different image sizes (worst-case distribution of image sizes in a sequence)
* Outlier latencies on an individual card due to internal flash operations
Regarding hardware support for this, I don't think there's an internal bandwidth or DMA serialization issue since it's clear the camera's hardware logic supports concurrent writing to both cards, as needed to support the existing dual card modes.
Implementation would be trivial but my guess is Canon/Nikon would limit it to pro bodies since those are primarily differentiated by their buffer capacity.
p.9 #10 · Nikon unveils the highly anticipated Z8 camera!
Jesse Evans wrote:
Yes, I was referencing the overall issue of slow cable transfer, rather than the exact test you were running in that post.
Edit: sorry, I just reread the post snapsy was quoting and realize that was internal card to card transfer. Whoops. I thought you were doing card to card to prove a point.
All good. I'm curious about CFE to SD transfer speed in the same method with a slower UHS-I card. It could be an end-of-day activity where time doesn't really matter, and gives you the peace of mind that your files are backed up without needing anything external. Your camera is totally useless during the copy so I wouldn't want to run it anywhere near a situation where I might want to shoot on quick notice again.
p.9 #11 · Nikon unveils the highly anticipated Z8 camera!
EltonTeng wrote:
I was trying to figure out the market segment for the Z8 as well. Looks like a great camera with a crippled battery.
Just acquired a Z9 so I am back to Nikon again.
Don't buy those "official" shots. We saw that the Z6 II had a quoted 300 shots per charge yet people got WELL over 1,000. Even the Z9 numbers were far under estimated with people getting 3000-4000 shots per charge.
p.9 #13 · Nikon unveils the highly anticipated Z8 camera!
snapsy wrote:
Thanks. You can toss him this idea too, which I wrote on dpreview back in 2012:
Pro bodies and now more recently prosumer bodies (D7000) have dual card slots. Camera firmware provides different options on how the two cards are utilized:
* Redundancy (write images to both cards)
* Dedicated purpose (raw on one, jpeg on other)
* Capacity aggregation (when one card fills up, camera siwtches/overflows to the second card).
How about a parallel distribution option, where every image alternates to the other card, producing a 2x increase in buffer drain throughput and thus an effective increase in buffer capacity? Originally I had thought RAID 0 to stripe each image across the two cards but since fast buffer drain is only needed for continuous shooting it's simpler to just distribute entire images across the cards. Plus there's inherent redundancy in alternating on an entire-image basis as it would likely be used for continuous shooting and so even if a card fails you'll have every other image on the non-failing card from the same shooting sequence.
Performance scaling would be 2x when the cards of equal speeds, even if one is CF and the other SD. If there is a speed differential between cards then firmware could alter the image ratio accordingly to balance the throughput. This could be done on a dynamic basis to accommodate asymmetry in card performance resulting from:
* Base throughput differences between the cards
* Different image sizes (worst-case distribution of image sizes in a sequence)
* Outlier latencies on an individual card due to internal flash operations
Regarding hardware support for this, I don't think there's an internal bandwidth or DMA serialization issue since it's clear the camera's hardware logic supports concurrent writing to both cards, as needed to support the existing dual card modes.
Implementation would be trivial but my guess is Canon/Nikon would limit it to pro bodies since those are primarily differentiated by their buffer capacity....Show more →
Raid with only 2 "drives" is just setting you up for heartache. Take it from a guy that's seen his share in IT in 20 years.
p.9 #16 · Nikon unveils the highly anticipated Z8 camera!
ArizonaImage wrote:
Don't buy those "official" shots. We saw that the Z6 II had a quoted 300 shots per charge yet people got WELL over 1,000. Even the Z9 numbers were far under estimated with people getting 3000-4000 shots per charge.
The actual shot numbers mean nothing. One could pick up a Z8 and hold down the shutter at 20FPS in HE* and fill their card with 1000s of images in just a few mins. The battery would barely tick down a few %.
What is useful is the relative number between cameras. Whatever someone is getting regularly out of Z9, they will probably get less than half of that out of a Z8.
p.9 #17 · Nikon unveils the highly anticipated Z8 camera!
arbitrage wrote:
What is useful is the relative number between cameras. Whatever someone is getting regularly out of Z9, they will probably get less than half of that out of a Z8.
That may be true since the Z9 and Z8 are basically the same cameras, but I don't find this to be true in general. If I remember correctly the Z7 is rated to have worse battery life than the Sony A7r and there is no way that is true for me and the way I use the cameras.
p.9 #18 · Nikon unveils the highly anticipated Z8 camera!
arbitrage wrote:
The actual shot numbers mean nothing. One could pick up a Z8 and hold down the shutter at 20FPS in HE* and fill their card with 1000s of images in just a few mins. The battery would barely tick down a few %.
What is useful is the relative number between cameras. Whatever someone is getting regularly out of Z9, they will probably get less than half of that out of a Z8.
Agreed. The Z9's CIPA rating is about 2x the Z8. CIPA takes a photo every 30 seconds while leaving the EVF or LCD on (Nikon quotes both) between each photo. They cycle power after every 10 shots.
p.9 #19 · Nikon unveils the highly anticipated Z8 camera!
snapsy wrote:
Agreed. The Z9's CIPA rating is about 2x the Z8. CIPA takes a photo every 30 seconds while leaving the EVF or LCD on (Nikon quotes both) between each photo. They cycle power after every 10 shots.
I was always interested in what their exact methodology was, thanks.
p.9 #20 · Nikon unveils the highly anticipated Z8 camera!
snapsy wrote:
Agreed. The Z9's CIPA rating is about 2x the Z8. CIPA takes a photo every 30 seconds while leaving the EVF or LCD on (Nikon quotes both) between each photo. They cycle power after every 10 shots.
Would you be kind enough to post a couple of links so that I (we) can understand all of that?
