1DMkII - Why the mad excitement?

Roger Nordin · Mar 31, 2004

Furthermore I can't see Sandisk mentioning supporting Write Acceleration or depending on it to reach their 60x vs 66x (9Mb/s vs 10Mb/s) speeds in their UltraII series card. Isn't WA a Lexar proprietary technology alltogether?

http://www.sandisk.com/pdf/retail/ultra_II_euro_eng.pdf

Regards,
Roger

Roger Nordin said:
"Current camera partners supporting Write Acceleration Technology

Kodak Professional

Nikon

Sanyo

Sigma

Pentax

Olympus

Current cameras supporting Write Acceleration Technology

All Kodak Professional cameras and pro camera backs, such as the

DCS Pro Back 645, DCS Pro Back Plus, DCS 720x, DCS 760, DCS 760m
and DCS 14n

Nikon D1x, D1h, D-100 (Requires camera firmware upgrade by Nikon.

See Nikon’s web page for more details) and D2h

Sanyo DSC-MZ3

Sigma SD-9

Sigma SD10

Pentax *ist D

Olympus E1

Olympus C5060"

I can't see Canon mentioned anywhere.

From what I understood reading the Write Acceleration white paper:
http://www.lexarmedia.com/pdf/WA_White_Sheet.pdf
the WA technology prodivdes a more efficent transfer protocol with
less overhead (up to 30 perfect more efficient they claim).
However, the WA technology does not, if I understand things
correctly, have anything to do with the speed rating itself.

A 24x card is still a 24x card, with or without WA support. But WA
enables more of the maximum potiential to be used, allowing for an
up to 30 percent faster effective transfer speed, camera to CF
media. So even a 40x card should be faster then a 16x card in a
camera not supporting WA - it doesn't seem speeds above 16x are
depending exclusively on WA support to be of use. Perhaps you
didn't mean that either.

Of course there are other factors involved, such as the processing
time itself within the camera. At some point, there will be no
point in using a faster media since the media will not be the
bottleneck (when it takes less time to write an image to CF than it
takes to internally process it per image). Does anyone have a link
to a comprehensive test, surely this must have been tested already?

Regards,
Roger

unbound said:

But before I get into that, please keep in mind that putting high
speed cards in a 10D, although it doesn't hurt, it doesn't help
either, since the 10D is NOT 'write acceleration' capable. But
non-WA cards, up to 16x, do perform much better than older cards.

Click to expand...

[...]

--

My on-line albums: http://atb.dyndns.org/photos/index.htm

Rune Moberg · Mar 31, 2004

Roger Nordin said:
Furthermore I can't see Sandisk mentioning supporting Write
Acceleration or depending on it to reach their 60x vs 66x (9Mb/s vs
10Mb/s) speeds in their UltraII series card. Isn't WA a Lexar
proprietary technology alltogether?

Is that Mb or MB? (I assume you meant MB -- MegaByte)

That said, looking at Rob's CF performance database, in particular the Kodak 14n and SLR/n scores, the Lexar WA card performs well, but not quite well enough to match the knockout winner: The 4GB Hitachi drive.

Personally I'd rather have Canon improve their performance vis-a-vis all cards. If they do that I suspect the Hitachi will finally perform well in a Canon body... :->

--
Rune, http://runesbike.com/

Imagemaster · Mar 31, 2004

Who of you that will be buying the Mark II will be selling your 1D?

How much would you expect to sell your 1D for?

I can't afford the Mark II. I am hoping there will soon be many more used 1D's on the market at prices that are lower than they are today.

Tony

Roger Nordin · Apr 1, 2004

That was indeed meant be to Megabyte/second.

Thanks!

Regards,
Roger

Rune Moberg said:
Roger Nordin said:

Furthermore I can't see Sandisk mentioning supporting Write
Acceleration or depending on it to reach their 60x vs 66x (9Mb/s vs
10Mb/s) speeds in their UltraII series card. Isn't WA a Lexar
proprietary technology alltogether?

Click to expand...

Is that Mb or MB? (I assume you meant MB -- MegaByte)

That said, looking at Rob's CF performance database, in particular
the Kodak 14n and SLR/n scores, the Lexar WA card performs well,
but not quite well enough to match the knockout winner: The 4GB
Hitachi drive.

Personally I'd rather have Canon improve their performance
vis-a-vis all cards. If they do that I suspect the Hitachi will
finally perform well in a Canon body... :->

--
Rune, http://runesbike.com/

nvanallens · Apr 1, 2004

Just a personal observation, but I would recommend keeping your 1D if you can, even if you get Mk II. People will look back (if they don't already know) and realize that the combination in the 1D was pretty special - by that I mean the body and all the features, bells and whistles, plus the CCD sensor with extremely large pixels. I have also shot with a 1Ds, and there is something about the 1D images that I really love - just a personal thing, obviously, but nothing to do with speed, sports, action. A smoothness, perhaps. I could not possibly have less interest in a Mk II, but completely understand why others are pretty excited. Enjoy, I'm sure it will get you out shooting more, and hopefully better - just don't part with that classic if you can help it. Mike

Tom O'Neil said:
Sorry if this sounds condescending, but if you've never used a 1D,
you just don't get it. What made the 1D worth 2-3x as much as a
10D? After all, the 1D had fewer pixels. Here's a hint: It
wasn't just the frame rate.

unbound said:

After reading about (and handling a couple of weeks ago) the
1DMkII, I'm still trying to figure out what all the excitement is
all about.

I guess that if you are a professional sports photographer, someone
that makes a living at it, this is really a good tool... but if you
are at all outside that category, why do you need the camera?

Just a couple of things to consider:

a) Pixel count: 8MP. In terms of linear size, that is only an
increase of about 15% in the final print over a 6MP camera. A print
with a 10 inch side goes to 11.5 inches... not a huge increase.

b) Cost: 3x the price of a 10D

Frankly, it seems to me that the major selling point of the 1DMkII
is the frame rate, but how many people really need that kind of
performance?

The noise rating should be similar to a 10D (more pixels in a
larger area = roughly the same size pixels), so there should be
little improvement there.

So does ETTL-2 and more focus points actually justify the extra
$3000 expense if you don't need the frame rate, just so you can
(theoretically) print just a little bit bigger?

Click to expand...

billtoo · Apr 1, 2004

It's the answer.

billtoo

unbound said:
After reading about (and handling a couple of weeks ago) the
1DMkII, I'm still trying to figure out what all the excitement is
all about.

I guess that if you are a professional sports photographer, someone
that makes a living at it, this is really a good tool... but if you
are at all outside that category, why do you need the camera?

Just a couple of things to consider:

a) Pixel count: 8MP. In terms of linear size, that is only an
increase of about 15% in the final print over a 6MP camera. A print
with a 10 inch side goes to 11.5 inches... not a huge increase.

b) Cost: 3x the price of a 10D

Frankly, it seems to me that the major selling point of the 1DMkII
is the frame rate, but how many people really need that kind of
performance?

The noise rating should be similar to a 10D (more pixels in a
larger area = roughly the same size pixels), so there should be
little improvement there.

So does ETTL-2 and more focus points actually justify the extra
$3000 expense if you don't need the frame rate, just so you can
(theoretically) print just a little bit bigger?

--
billtoo
http://www.pbase.com/billtoo

Steven Snyder · Apr 1, 2004

rbmorse said:
Don't confuse surface area with volume

True but the cake with twice the ingrediants would feed twice as many people, unless of couse they each ate twice as much, then it would only feed the same number ;> ).

I think in terms of (surface) area, so an 8 MP sensor will give a print with twice the area of a 4MP sensor providing the pixel density of both prints is the same.

A 4x6 inch print is 1/4th (25%) the size (area) of a 8 x 12 inch print. If anyone believes different, I have some realestate to sell them. ;> )

The numbers 25% and 33% are correct for the 10D compared to the MarkII depending on how you look at it.. The 10D has 75% as many pixels as a MarkII (hence the 25% less) and the Mark II pixels are the 10D pixels plus 1/3 of the 10D pixels (hence 33% more).

I learned this the hard way in the retail business, don't mark something up for a 50% profit and then give someone a 40% discount and think you are still making 10%. $100 plus 50% is $150, take 40% off $150 and it is $90 !!, you just lost 10% on the sale!!!

Steve

billtoo · Apr 1, 2004

Trouble is, I AM an old man.

PhotoMan said:
I feel that we only live once. We never know when may be our last
day. If you derive great pleasure from photography as I do,
enhanced even further by doing so with the true state of the art
(1D2), the pleasure is even further enhanced. Once we leave this
earth.......these opportunities are no longer available to us. (By
the way...I am NOT an "old man".)

Enjoy yourself.....you only go this way once, and once only!!!!
Photo Man.

--
billtoo
http://www.pbase.com/billtoo

Search

1DMkII - Why the mad excitement?

Roger Nordin

Senior Member

Rune Moberg

Senior Member

Imagemaster

Well-known member

Roger Nordin

Senior Member

nvanallens

Active member

billtoo

Senior Member

Steven Snyder

Well-known member

billtoo

Senior Member

Keyboard shortcuts