On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 08:44:27 GMT, Steve wrote:


On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 00:57:03 -0600, Pente-Champ
wrote:

On 29 Nov 2008 05:47:51 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:

BarryHaps wrote:

Cool, the latest builds of CHDK have speeded up RAW+JPG file saving time now of
1.080 to 1.100 seconds on my camera. It has an option to display the file-write
time on each shot so you can see the speed you are getting. Continuous RAW at
1fps up to the size of the card. Nice.

Sounds perfect for someone who wants to play with gadgets rather than
take pictures.

Tsk tsk tsk ... someone, who prides dslr's RAW file saving speed so as not to
miss any of those "pictures" is now slamming a whole family of inexpensive P&S
cameras that do it even faster with no slow-downs due to having to S-L-O-W-L-Y
dump a dslr's buffer to memory-card every 5 to 15 seconds.

Hate to tell you this, but those times for the P&S are crap compared
to even several year old DSLRs. Mine will shoot raw at 5fps for more
shots than I'll personally every need in a row. And after over 20 raw
images at 5fps, only then will it slow down to what your P&S with CHDK
can only do at it's max rate. If you lift off the shutter button for
a bit, it goes back to 5fps for the next series of shots. But it's
never slower than a P&S even after the camera's buffer is full. And
it never stops shooting just to flush it's internal buffer to the CF
card.

Newer DSLRs that can make use of UDMA cards are even much better.

You've got to try harder because with this post, you've only shown a
glaring deficiency in P&S's compared to DSLRs.

That's okay, you can use that huge RAW file-saving pause, during all the action
that you have to capture, to try to change your lenses in time while that action
moves somewhere else. By the time your subjects are in a new spot you might have
that dslr lens changed in time. Even if taking single-frame shots, how many did
you miss while waiting for that RAW-buffer dump? 10? 20? 30? Really, how many.

You REALLY have absolutely no clue.

Steve

I do have a clue.

How many DSLRs do what you claim? How much will it cost them for practically no
advantages in image quality? And has been clearly proved, image quality can even
be worse in a "good" DSLR compared to a GOOD P&S.

Let's see .... 5fps RAW for 20 shots or 1fps RAW unlimited. $8,000 (camera +
lenses) or $300 (camera + lenses) ... decisions decisions.....

Nikon D90: JPG+RAW burst, 4.5fps, 11 frames, time to buffer full 1.3s, delay
time to next shots 8s. TRUE continuous RAW+JPG speed = 1.1fps. Avg. cost: $1,000
plus $1000-$5000 in lenses.

Canon EOS 5D Mark II: JPG+RAW burst "up to" 3.9fps (not much better than their
S3 P&S when saving JPGs alone), Avg. cost: $2,200 plus $1000-$5000 in lenses.

Canon EOS 50D: JPG+RAW burst 6.3fps, 16 frames, time to buffer full 0.4s., delay
time to next shots 42.3s (LOL!! Yeah, you read that right, nearly a minute of
delay between shots). TRUE continuous RAW+JPG speed = 1 shot every 2.6s (LOL!)
Avg cost: $2,300 plus $1000-$5000 in lenses.

How's that for your "clue"? LOL!!!!!!!!!!