CHDK RAW file-saving time boosted + DNG option

TrollAmplifier wrote:
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!!!!!!!!!!


Somehow I doubt your figures. I don't have the above cameras
but I do have lesser cameras.
According to my measurements, my Samsung GX10 delivers the
following:
JPG Continuous at 3FPS until card is full.
DNG Continuous at 3FPS for 11 shots, then at card speed
until full (Sandisk blue 4GB, 1.05 FPS, with Sandisk Ultra
II 1.5 FPS)
DNG+JPG Continous at 3FPS for 8 shots then at card speed
until full (Sandisk blue 4GB, .95 FPS, Sandisk Ultra II 1.4FPS)
In all cases if you release the button and press it again it
will take another shot immediately, but won't take a 2nd
until approx 1 sec has elapsed. For every second the button
is released (or less than a second with the faster card),
you get 1 more shot at full speed. It only takes about 10
seconds with a blue card or about 7 seconds with an Ultra II
for the buffer to be completely empty and the camera to be
ready to deliver a full burst again.

My 450D can only deliver 4 Frames (RAW+JPG) or 6 Frames
(RAW) before it slows down, but once it does slow down it's
behaviour is almost identical to the samsung, except that it
doesn't keep the one shot in reserve. Worst case though is
that with the slower blue card you have to wait about 1
second before you can get a shot away. It certainly doesn't
lock you out while it flushes the entire buffer - it only
locks you out until it flushes 1 image.

On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 10:11:18 +0000, Chris H wrote:

In message , TrollAmplifier
writes
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.

No it hasn't Post a link to the proof.

The moon is made of cheese.



Dear Resident-Troll,

Many (new & improved) points outlined below completely disprove your usual
resident-troll bull****. You can either read it and educate yourself, or don't
read it and continue to prove to everyone that you are nothing but a
virtual-photographer newsgroup-troll and a fool.


1. P&S cameras can have more seamless zoom range than any DSLR glass in
existence. (E.g. 9mm f2.7 - 1248mm f/3.5.) There are now some excellent
wide-angle and telephoto (tel-extender) add-on lenses for many makes and models
of P&S cameras. Add either or both of these small additions to your photography
gear and, with some of the new super-zoom P&S cameras, you can far surpass any
range of focal-lengths and apertures that are available or will ever be made for
larger format cameras.

2. P&S cameras can have much wider apertures at longer focal lengths than any
DSLR glass in existence. (E.g. 549mm f/2.4 and 1248mm f/3.5) when used with
high-quality tel-extenders, which by the way, do not reduce the lens' original
aperture one bit. Only DSLRs suffer from that problem due to the manner in which
their tele-converters work. They can also have higher quality full-frame
180-degree circular fisheye and intermediate super-wide-angle views than any
DSLR and its glass in existence. Some excellent fish-eye adapters can be added
to your P&S camera which do not impart any chromatic-aberration nor
edge-softness. When used with a super-zoom P&S camera this allows you to
seamlessly go from as wide as a 9mm (or even wider) 35mm equivalent focal-length
up to the wide-angle setting of the camera's own lens.

3. P&S smaller sensor cameras can and do have wider dynamic range than larger
sensor cameras E.g. a 1/2.5" sized sensor can have a 10.3EV Dynamic Range vs. an
APS-C's typical 7.0-8.0EV Dynamic Range. One quick example:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3142/...7ceaf3a1_o.jpg

4. P&S cameras are cost efficient. Due to the smaller (but excellent) sensors
used in many of them today, the lenses for these cameras are much smaller.
Smaller lenses are easier to manufacture to exacting curvatures and are more
easily corrected for aberrations than larger glass used for DSLRs. This also
allows them to perform better at all apertures rather than DSLR glass which is
usually performs well at only one aperture setting per lens. Side by side tests
prove that P&S glass can out-resolve even the best DSLR glass ever made. See
this side-by-side comparison for example
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Ca..._results.shtml
When adjusted for sensor size, the DSLR lens is creating 4.3x's the CA that the
P&S lens is creating, and the P&S lens is resolving almost 10x's the amount of
detail that the DSLR lens is resolving. A difficult to figure 20x P&S zoom lens
easily surpassing a much more easy to make 3x DSLR zoom lens. After all is said
and done you will spend anywhere from 1/10th to 1/50th the price on a P&S camera
that you would have to spend in order to get comparable performance in a DSLR
camera. To obtain the same focal-length ranges as that SX10 camera with DSLR
glass that *might* approach or equal the P&S resolution, it would cost over
$6,500 to accomplish that (at the time of this writing). This isn't counting the
extra costs of a heavy-duty tripod required to make it functional at those
longer focal-lengths and a backpack to carry it all. Bringing that DSLR
investment to over 20 times the cost of a comparable P&S camera. When you buy a
DSLR you are investing in a body that will require expensive lenses, hand-grips,
external flash units, heavy tripods, more expensive larger filters, etc. etc.
The outrageous costs of owning a DSLR add up fast after that initial DSLR body
purchase. Camera companies count on this, all the way to their banks.

5. P&S cameras are lightweight and convenient. With just one P&S camera plus one
small wide-angle adapter and one small telephoto adapter weighing just a couple
pounds, you have the same amount of zoom range as would require over 15 pounds
of DSLR body + lenses. The P&S camera mentioned in the previous example is only
1.3 lbs. The DSLR + expensive lenses that *might* equal it in image quality
comes in at 9.6 lbs. of dead-weight to lug around all day (not counting the
massive and expensive tripod, et.al.) You can carry the whole P&S kit +
accessory lenses in one roomy pocket of a wind-breaker or jacket. The DSLR kit
would require a sturdy backpack. You also don't require a massive tripod. Large
tripods are required to stabilize the heavy and unbalanced mass of the larger
DSLR and its massive lenses. A P&S camera, being so light, can be used on some
of the most inexpensive, compact, and lightweight tripods with excellent
results.

6. P&S cameras are silent. For the more common snap-shooter/photographer, you
will not be barred from using your camera at public events, stage-performances,
and ceremonies. Or when trying to capture candid shots, you won't so easily
alert all those within a block around, from the obnoxious noise that your DSLR
is making, that you are capturing anyone's images. For the more dedicated
wildlife photographer a P&S camera will not endanger your life when
photographing potentially dangerous animals by alerting them to your presence.

7. Some P&S cameras can run the revolutionary CHDK software on them, which
allows for lightning-fast motion detection (literally, lightning fast 45ms
response time, able to capture lightning strikes automatically) so that you may
capture more elusive and shy animals (in still-frame and video) where any
evidence of your presence at all might prevent their appearance. Without the
need of carrying a tethered laptop along or any other hardware into remote
areas--which only limits your range, distance, and time allotted for bringing
back that one-of-a-kind image. It also allows for unattended time-lapse
photography for days and weeks at a time, so that you may capture those unusual
or intriguing subject-studies in nature. E.g. a rare slime-mold's propagation,
that you happened to find in a mountain-ravine, 10-days hike from the nearest
laptop or other time-lapse hardware. (The wealth of astounding new features that
CHDK brings to the creative-table of photography are too extensive to begin to
list them all here. See http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK )

8. P&S cameras can have shutter speeds up to 1/40,000th of a second. See:
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CameraFeatures Allowing you to capture fast subject
motion in nature (e.g. insect and hummingbird wings) WITHOUT the need of
artificial and image destroying flash, using available light alone. Nor will
their wing shapes be unnaturally distorted from the focal-plane shutter
distortions imparted in any fast moving objects, as when photographed with all
DSLRs. (See focal-plane-shutter-distortions example-image link in #10.)

9. P&S cameras can have full-frame flash-sync up to and including shutter-speeds
of 1/40,000th of a second. E.g.
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/Samples:_...%26_Flash-Sync without
the use of any expensive and specialized focal-plane shutter flash-units that
must pulse their light-output for the full duration of the shutter's curtain to
pass slowly over the frame. The other downside to those kinds of flash units is
that the light-output is greatly reduced the faster the shutter speed. Any
shutter speed used that is faster than your camera's X-Sync speed is cutting off
some of the flash output. Not so when using a leaf-shutter. The full intensity
of the flash is recorded no matter the shutter speed used. Unless, as in the
case of CHDK capable cameras where the camera's shutter speed can even be faster
than the lightning-fast single burst from a flash unit. E.g. If the flash's
duration is 1/10,000 of a second, and your CHDK camera's shutter is set to
1/20,000 of a second, then it will only record half of that flash output. P&S
cameras also don't require any expensive and dedicated external flash unit. Any
of them may be used with any flash unit made by using an inexpensive
slave-trigger that can compensate for any automated pre-flash conditions.
Example: http://www.adorama.com/SZ23504.html

10. P&S cameras do not suffer from focal-plane shutter drawbacks and
limitations. Causing camera shake, moving-subject image distortions
(focal-plane-shutter distortions, e.g.
http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/ch...istortions.jpg
do note the distorted tail-rotor too and its shadow on the ground, 90-degrees
from one another), last-century-slow flash-sync, obnoxiously loud slapping
mirrors and shutter curtains, shorter mechanical life, easily damaged, expensive
repair costs, etc.

11. When doing wildlife photography in remote and rugged areas and harsh
environments, or even when the amateur snap-shooter is trying to take their
vacation photos on a beach or dusty intersection on some city street, you're not
worrying about trying to change lenses in time to get that shot (fewer missed
shots), dropping one in the mud, lake, surf, or on concrete while you do, and
not worrying about ruining all the rest of your photos that day from having
gotten dust & crud on the sensor. For the adventurous photographer you're no
longer weighed down by many many extra pounds of unneeded glass, allowing you to
carry more of the important supplies, like food and water, allowing you to trek
much further than you've ever been able to travel before with your old D/SLR
bricks.

12. Smaller sensors and the larger apertures available at longer focal-lengths
allow for the deep DOF required for excellent macro-photography when using
normal macro or tele-macro lens arrangements. All done WITHOUT the need of any
image destroying, subject irritating, natural-look destroying flash. No DSLR on
the planet can compare in the quality of available-light macro photography that
can be accomplished with nearly any smaller-sensor P&S camera. (To clarify for
DSLR owners/promoters who don't even know basic photography principles: In order
to obtain the same DOF on a DSLR you'll need to stop down that lens greatly.
When you do then you have to use shutter speeds so slow that hand-held
macro-photography, even in full daylight, is all but impossible. Not even your
highest ISO is going to save you at times. The only solution for the DSLR user
is to resort to artificial flash which then ruins the subject and the image;
turning it into some staged, fake-looking, studio setup.)

13. P&S cameras include video, and some even provide for CD-quality stereo audio
recordings, so that you might capture those rare events in nature where a
still-frame alone could never prove all those "scientists" wrong. E.g. recording
the paw-drumming communication patterns of eusocial-living field-mice. With your
P&S video-capable camera in your pocket you won't miss that once-in-a-lifetime
chance to record some unexpected event, like the passage of a bright meteor in
the sky in daytime, a mid-air explosion, or any other newsworthy event. Imagine
the gaping hole in our history of the Hindenberg if there were no film cameras
there at the time. The mystery of how it exploded would have never been solved.
Or the amateur 8mm film of the shooting of President Kennedy. Your video-ready
P&S camera being with you all the time might capture something that will be a
valuable part of human history one day.

14. P&S cameras have 100% viewfinder coverage that exactly matches your final
image. No important bits lost, and no chance of ruining your composition by
trying to "guess" what will show up in the final image. With the ability to
overlay live RGB-histograms, and under/over-exposure area alerts (and dozens of
other important shooting data) directly on your electronic viewfinder display
you are also not going to guess if your exposure might be right this time. Nor
do you have to remove your eye from the view of your subject to check some
external LCD histogram display, ruining your chances of getting that perfect
shot when it happens.

15. P&S cameras can and do focus in lower-light (which is common in natural
settings) than any DSLRs in existence, due to electronic viewfinders and sensors
that can be increased in gain for framing and focusing purposes as light-levels
drop. Some P&S cameras can even take images (AND videos) in total darkness by
using IR illumination alone. (See: Sony) No other multi-purpose cameras are
capable of taking still-frame and videos of nocturnal wildlife as easily nor as
well. Shooting videos and still-frames of nocturnal animals in the total-dark,
without disturbing their natural behavior by the use of flash, from 90 ft. away
with a 549mm f/2.4 lens is not only possible, it's been done, many times, by
myself. (An interesting and true story: one wildlife photographer was nearly
stomped to death by an irate moose that attacked where it saw his camera's flash
come from.)

16. Without the need to use flash in all situations, and a P&S's nearly 100%
silent operation, you are not disturbing your wildlife, neither scaring it away
nor changing their natural behavior with your existence. Nor, as previously
mentioned, drawing its defensive behavior in your direction. You are recording
nature as it is, and should be, not some artificial human-changed distortion of
reality and nature.

17. Nature photography requires that the image be captured with the greatest
degree of accuracy possible. NO focal-plane shutter in existence, with its
inherent focal-plane-shutter distortions imparted on any moving subject will
EVER capture any moving subject in nature 100% accurately. A leaf-shutter or
electronic shutter, as is found in ALL P&S cameras, will capture your moving
subject in nature with 100% accuracy. Your P&S photography will no longer lead a
biologist nor other scientist down another DSLR-distorted path of non-reality.

18. Some P&S cameras have shutter-lag times that are even shorter than all the
popular DSLRs, due to the fact that they don't have to move those agonizingly
slow and loud mirrors and shutter curtains in time before the shot is recorded.
In the hands of an experienced photographer that will always rely on prefocusing
their camera, there is no hit & miss auto-focusing that happens on all
auto-focus systems, DSLRs included. This allows you to take advantage of the
faster shutter response times of P&S cameras. Any pro worth his salt knows that
if you really want to get every shot, you don't depend on automatic anything in
any camera.

19. An electronic viewfinder, as exists in all P&S cameras, can accurately relay
the camera's shutter-speed in real-time. Giving you a 100% accurate preview of
what your final subject is going to look like when shot at 3 seconds or
1/20,000th of a second. Your soft waterfall effects, or the crisp sharp outlines
of your stopped-motion hummingbird wings will be 100% accurately depicted in
your viewfinder before you even record the shot. What you see in a P&S camera is
truly what you get. You won't have to guess in advance at what shutter speed to
use to obtain those artistic effects or those scientifically accurate nature
studies that you require or that your client requires. When testing CHDK P&S
cameras that could have shutter speeds as fast as 1/40,000th of a second, I was
amazed that I could half-depress the shutter and watch in the viewfinder as a
Dremel-Drill's 30,000 rpm rotating disk was stopped in crisp detail in real
time, without ever having taken an example shot yet. Similarly true when
lowering shutter speeds for milky-water effects when shooting rapids and falls,
instantly seeing the effect in your viewfinder. Poor DSLR-trolls will never
realize what they are missing with their anciently slow focal-plane shutters and
wholly inaccurate optical viewfinders.

20. P&S cameras can obtain the very same bokeh (out of focus foreground and
background) as any DSLR by just increasing your focal length, through use of its
own built-in super-zoom lens or attaching a high-quality telextender on the
front. Just back up from your subject more than you usually would with a DSLR.
Framing and the included background is relative to the subject at the time and
has nothing at all to do with the kind of camera and lens in use. Your f/ratio
(which determines your depth-of-field), is a computation of focal-length divided
by aperture diameter. Increase the focal-length and you make your DOF shallower.
No different than opening up the aperture to accomplish the same. The two
methods are identically related where DOF is concerned.

21. P&S cameras will have perfectly fine noise-free images at lower ISOs with
just as much resolution as any DSLR camera. Experienced Pros grew up on ISO25
and ISO64 film all their lives. They won't even care if their P&S camera can't
go above ISO400 without noise. An added bonus is that the P&S camera can have
larger apertures at longer focal-lengths than any DSLR in existence. The time
when you really need a fast lens to prevent camera-shake that gets amplified at
those focal-lengths. Even at low ISOs you can take perfectly fine hand-held
images at super-zoom settings. Whereas the DSLR, with its very small apertures
at long focal lengths require ISOs above 3200 to obtain the same results. They
need high ISOs, you don't. If you really require low-noise high ISOs, there are
some excellent models of Fuji P&S cameras that do have noise-free images up to
ISO1600 and more.

22. Don't for one minute think that the price of your camera will in any way
determine the quality of your photography. Any of the newer cameras of around
$100 or more are plenty good for nearly any talented photographer today. IF they
have talent to begin with. A REAL pro can take an award winning photograph with
a cardboard Brownie Box Camera made a century ago. If you can't take excellent
photos on a P&S camera then you won't be able to get good photos on a DSLR
either. Never blame your inability to obtain a good photograph on the kind of
camera that you own. Those who claim they NEED a DSLR are only fooling
themselves and all others. These are the same people that buy a new camera every
year, each time thinking, "Oh, if I only had the right camera, a better camera,
better lenses, faster lenses, then I will be a great photographer!" If they just
throw enough money at their hobby then the talent-fairy will come by one day,
after just the right offering to the DSLR gods was made, and bestow them with
something that they never had in the first place--talent. Camera company's love
these people. They'll never be able to get a camera that will make their
photography better, because they never were a good photographer to begin with.
They're forever searching for that more expensive camera that might one day come
included with that new "talent in a box" feature. The irony is that they'll
never look in the mirror to see what the real problem has been all along.
They'll NEVER become good photographers. Perhaps this is why these
self-proclaimed "pros" hate P&S cameras so much. P&S cameras instantly reveal to
them their ****-poor photography skills. It also reveals the harsh reality that
all the wealth in the world won't make them any better at photography. It's
difficult for them to face the truth.

23. Have you ever had the fun of showing some of your exceptional P&S
photography to some self-proclaimed "Pro" who uses $30,000 worth of camera gear.
They are so impressed that they must know how you did it. You smile and tell
them, "Oh, I just use a $150 P&S camera." Don't you just love the look on their
face? A half-life of self-doubt, the realization of all that lost money, and a
sadness just courses through every fiber of their being. Wondering why they
can't get photographs as good after they spent all that time and money. Get good
on your P&S camera and you too can enjoy this fun experience.

24. Did we mention portability yet? I think we did, but it is worth mentioning
the importance of this a few times. A camera in your pocket that is instantly
ready to get any shot during any part of the day will get more award-winning
photographs than that DSLR gear that's sitting back at home, collecting dust,
and waiting to be loaded up into that expensive back-pack or camera bag, hoping
that you'll lug it around again some day.

25. A good P&S camera is a good theft deterrent. When traveling you are not
advertising to the world that you are carrying $20,000 around with you. That's
like having a sign on your back saying, "PLEASE MUG ME! I'M THIS STUPID AND I
DESERVE IT!" Keep a small P&S camera in your pocket and only take it out when
needed. You'll have a better chance of returning home with all your photos. And
should you accidentally lose your P&S camera you're not out $20,000. They are
inexpensive to replace.

There are many more reasons to add to this list but this should be more than
enough for even the most unaware person to realize that P&S cameras are just
better, all around. No doubt about it.

The phenomenon of everyone yelling "You NEED a DSLR!" can be summed up in just
one short phrase:

"If even 5 billion people are saying and doing a foolish thing, it remains a
foolish thing."

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.

If nobody liked to play with gadgets then we wouldn't have cameras at
all. It's a dirty job but somebody's gotta do it.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 03:24:35 -0600, TrollAmplifier
wrote:

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.

Falling back on the cost issue... It's already been conceded that to
get all the advantages of a DSLR over a P&S it's going to cost more. I
paid $400 for mine that does what I said above. Of course, that was
used. Which is why it only beats the timings of a P&S by a whole lot.
Newer, more expensive DSLRs beat the timings of a P&S by a whole whole
lot. So to answer your question, just about any pro-sumer and most
pro DSLRs does what I claim above or much better.

And sure, it's not hard to show that the absolute worst image quality
that the cheapest DSLR lens availabe can do might in rare instances be
worse than the image quality that the very best P&S can do. I'll
concede that also. Point proven.

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

Wrong again. You're not doing so good today.

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!!!!!!!!!!

It proves you don't have a clue. Thanks again. Do some more
research. I'll give you the *real* timings for one of them above. The
Canon EOS 50D RAW timings: 6.3 fps for 14 frames, 10 more frames at
4.8 fps for an average burst rate of 5.6fps over 24 frames. After
that, it drops down to 2fps and continues shooting at 2fps, which is
the full buffer rate. It doesn't ever delay 42.3 seconds between
shots. The buffer is flushed after 7.5 seconds, when you can go back
to shooting 14 frames at 6.3fps.

For JPEG only, it shoots at 6.3fps and can write to the card at that
rate, so it never fills the buffer.

I can see where you got your numbers from dpreview, using a crippling
CF card that's not UDMA. Why would you use one of them in a camera
that supports UDMA? Also, you're too stupid to realize that when it
says 42.3s to next burst, that DOESN'T mean the camera is just sitting
there unable to take a picture. The camera will continue shooting
even while the buffer is fool. The 42.3s is just how long it takes
with a slow card before you can do another full burst of 16 frames at
6.3fps. If you wait half that, then you can do 8 frames at 6.3fps
until it's full again.

You really are pretty stupid if you think a DSLR is somehow "locked
up" while it's flushing it's buffer.

As I said, the newer ones do pretty good with UDMA and beat the
figurative pants off any P&S in existance.

Steve

On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 15:04:37 GMT, Steve wrote:


On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 03:24:35 -0600, TrollAmplifier
wrote:

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.

Falling back on the cost issue... It's already been conceded that to
get all the advantages of a DSLR over a P&S it's going to cost more. I
paid $400 for mine that does what I said above. Of course, that was
used. Which is why it only beats the timings of a P&S by a whole lot.
Newer, more expensive DSLRs beat the timings of a P&S by a whole whole
lot. So to answer your question, just about any pro-sumer and most
pro DSLRs does what I claim above or much better.


Oh, well, hell, why don't you just list a DSLR cost as $0 if someone gives it to
you? Didn't you forgot to add in the price of all the lenses you'll need to get
any decent use out of it. Remember, you can't use kit lenses, we already saw
what a mess those a
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Ca..._results.shtml
I forgot, what was the total price again that it would take to make ANY dslr
equivalent to that $340 P&S camera optically? Oh, that's right, just getting
close to that $340 camera's performance would start at $6,500 in a DSLR. Enjoy
trying to get your DSLR useful. What good is 6.3fps if all it can do is capture
blur without a $4000 lens added on? LOL

And sure, it's not hard to show that the absolute worst image quality
that the cheapest DSLR lens availabe can do might in rare instances be
worse than the image quality that the very best P&S can do. I'll
concede that also. Point proven.

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

Wrong again. You're not doing so good today.

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!!!!!!!!!!

It proves you don't have a clue. Thanks again. Do some more
research. I'll give you the *real* timings for one of them above. The
Canon EOS 50D RAW timings: 6.3 fps for 14 frames, 10 more frames at
4.8 fps for an average burst rate of 5.6fps over 24 frames. After
that, it drops down to 2fps and continues shooting at 2fps, which is
the full buffer rate. It doesn't ever delay 42.3 seconds between
shots. The buffer is flushed after 7.5 seconds, when you can go back
to shooting 14 frames at 6.3fps.

And, this is going to help you how? When you're busy changing lenses to get the
right one attached so you don't miss the next burst? How far can that
machine-gun be heard? Mine does it silently if I need to use continuous mode.

Frighten any little children and animals lately with that clattering noise-maker
of yours?


For JPEG only, it shoots at 6.3fps and can write to the card at that
rate, so it never fills the buffer.

I can see where you got your numbers from dpreview, using a crippling
CF card that's not UDMA. Why would you use one of them in a camera
that supports UDMA? Also, you're too stupid to realize that when it
says 42.3s to next burst, that DOESN'T mean the camera is just sitting
there unable to take a picture. The camera will continue shooting
even while the buffer is fool. The 42.3s is just how long it takes
with a slow card before you can do another full burst of 16 frames at
6.3fps. If you wait half that, then you can do 8 frames at 6.3fps
until it's full again.

Oh great! Now I can wait 21.15 seconds between every 8 burst shots! How
convenient!!

LOL



You really are pretty stupid if you think a DSLR is somehow "locked
up" while it's flushing it's buffer.

No, you're pretty stupid if you don't realize that the vast majority of them do
just that. It's only recently they've tried to find work-around (kludgy ones) to
that annoying bottleneck in DSLR operation.


As I said, the newer ones do pretty good with UDMA and beat the
figurative pants off any P&S in existance.

Steve

Doesn't matter one lick. I'll still take all the advantages of a high-quality
P&S over any DSLR, any day. I really should show you the full 100+ reasons
list. 25 proven, indisputable, reasons just doesn't seem to be enough for you.

Now go back to optics class. You're still back in kindergarten over that whole
diffraction-limited issue. Let me know when that 1 microwatt bulb in your head
starts to glow dimly enough for anyone to detect it.

TrollAmplifier wrote:

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.

Turn the resolution down to 6MP to match your S3 & it'll probably never
fill the buffer at 3fps. You're nuts.


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!!!!!!!!!!

On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 09:35:48 -0600, Horace Cantor
wrote:

On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 15:04:37 GMT, Steve wrote:


On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 03:24:35 -0600, TrollAmplifier
wrote:

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.

Falling back on the cost issue... It's already been conceded that to
get all the advantages of a DSLR over a P&S it's going to cost more. I
paid $400 for mine that does what I said above. Of course, that was
used. Which is why it only beats the timings of a P&S by a whole lot.
Newer, more expensive DSLRs beat the timings of a P&S by a whole whole
lot. So to answer your question, just about any pro-sumer and most
pro DSLRs does what I claim above or much better.


Oh, well, hell, why don't you just list a DSLR cost as $0 if someone gives it to
you? Didn't you forgot to add in the price of all the lenses you'll need to get

There you go, blabbering about cost again. I don't think anyone will
have a problem conceding the point that if you want better image
quality (not necessarily artistic quality since there nothing that
says "art" can't be produced by a P&S) that it's going to cost more.

And yes, I added the cost of the lenses. As I said previously,
something like a D200 with a single lens, an 18-200, will blow away
your P&S in terms of image quality, ability to "get the shot", or just
about any other measure of performace you'd like to list *except*
size, weight, cost and comparable focal length at the long end. (not
useable focal length though since P&S images at the long end are such
crap.) It's maybe twice as big, a few times as heavy, and 3-4 times
the cost of your P&S. But for that, you get much better image
quality, responsiveness, creative ability, etc. etc.

any decent use out of it. Remember, you can't use kit lenses, we already saw
what a mess those a
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Ca..._results.shtml
I forgot, what was the total price again that it would take to make ANY dslr
equivalent to that $340 P&S camera optically? Oh, that's right, just getting
close to that $340 camera's performance would start at $6,500 in a DSLR. Enjoy
trying to get your DSLR useful. What good is 6.3fps if all it can do is capture
blur without a $4000 lens added on? LOL

Once again proving you have absolutely no clue about what it costs to
get a decent performing lens and body that's good enough to blow away
a P&S.


And sure, it's not hard to show that the absolute worst image quality
that the cheapest DSLR lens availabe can do might in rare instances be
worse than the image quality that the very best P&S can do. I'll
concede that also. Point proven.

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

Wrong again. You're not doing so good today.

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!!!!!!!!!!

It proves you don't have a clue. Thanks again. Do some more
research. I'll give you the *real* timings for one of them above. The
Canon EOS 50D RAW timings: 6.3 fps for 14 frames, 10 more frames at
4.8 fps for an average burst rate of 5.6fps over 24 frames. After
that, it drops down to 2fps and continues shooting at 2fps, which is
the full buffer rate. It doesn't ever delay 42.3 seconds between
shots. The buffer is flushed after 7.5 seconds, when you can go back
to shooting 14 frames at 6.3fps.

And, this is going to help you how? When you're busy changing lenses to get the
right one attached so you don't miss the next burst? How far can that
machine-gun be heard? Mine does it silently if I need to use continuous mode.

Great! You finally admit to being wrong about your timings and how a
DSLR is really a lot faster than a P&S in shooting RAW images when you
stupidly claimed that a P&S is faster. You're making progress. In
baby steps though.


Frighten any little children and animals lately with that clattering noise-maker
of yours?


For JPEG only, it shoots at 6.3fps and can write to the card at that
rate, so it never fills the buffer.

I can see where you got your numbers from dpreview, using a crippling
CF card that's not UDMA. Why would you use one of them in a camera
that supports UDMA? Also, you're too stupid to realize that when it
says 42.3s to next burst, that DOESN'T mean the camera is just sitting
there unable to take a picture. The camera will continue shooting
even while the buffer is fool. The 42.3s is just how long it takes
with a slow card before you can do another full burst of 16 frames at
6.3fps. If you wait half that, then you can do 8 frames at 6.3fps
until it's full again.

Oh great! Now I can wait 21.15 seconds between every 8 burst shots! How
convenient!!

You can keep shooting at 2fps as long as you want. Which is twice as
fast as your crappy P&S. *If* you choose to wait 21 seconds after
you've already fired off a whole bunch of shots at 6.3fps, you can
then fire off 8 more shots at 6.3 fps. Which is 6 times as fast as
your crappy P&S. The DSLR is NEVER any worse than being TWICE as fast
as your crappy P&S. AND, each image fired off is much better quality.
Your P&S loses at every stage.

You really are pretty stupid if you think a DSLR is somehow "locked
up" while it's flushing it's buffer.

No, you're pretty stupid if you don't realize that the vast majority of them do
just that. It's only recently they've tried to find work-around (kludgy ones) to
that annoying bottleneck in DSLR operation.

Oh, so you're admitting that you really are pretty stupid. Thanks
again.

As I said, the newer ones do pretty good with UDMA and beat the
figurative pants off any P&S in existance.

Steve

Doesn't matter one lick. I'll still take all the advantages of a high-quality
P&S over any DSLR, any day. I really should show you the full 100+ reasons
list. 25 proven, indisputable, reasons just doesn't seem to be enough for you.

Lol... Well, at least you admit you're a moron and were completely
wrong about your RAW write speed comparison. And now, after you tried
to make such a big deal about it and finally realizing you're wrong,
you say it doesn't matter one lick. If it doesn't matter one lick,
then why did YOU bring it up in the first place idiot?

Now go back to optics class. You're still back in kindergarten over that whole
diffraction-limited issue. Let me know when that 1 microwatt bulb in your head
starts to glow dimly enough for anyone to detect it.

The diffraction-limited issue is the same as this raw write speed
issue. You gave up on that one also, after realizing you're an idiot.

On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 17:52:31 GMT, Steve wrote:


On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 09:35:48 -0600, Horace Cantor
wrote:

Oh great! Now I can wait 21.15 seconds between every 8 burst shots! How
convenient!!

You can keep shooting at 2fps as long as you want. Which is twice as
fast as your crappy P&S. *If* you choose to wait 21 seconds after
you've already fired off a whole bunch of shots at 6.3fps, you can
then fire off 8 more shots at 6.3 fps. Which is 6 times as fast as
your crappy P&S. The DSLR is NEVER any worse than being TWICE as fast
as your crappy P&S. AND, each image fired off is much better quality.
Your P&S loses at every stage.

Oh, and BTW, you don't have to even wait 21 seconds to shoot another 8
shot burst at 6.3fps. You only have to wait less than 4 seconds if
you're using a UDMA card. Once again, you're proving yourself to be
an idiot that can't even look up numbers on a table properly or that
would use a crappy CF card in a high end camera.

Then again, you're using a crappy P&S and blabbering about it's better
image quality than a high end DSLR. So I guess there really is no
bottom to the depth of your idiocy.

JT's Keeper wrote:

world anyway) a P&S is better than a DSLR. At which point several
knowledgeable posters will reply to it, pointing out why it has even
more holes than that block of "swiss cheese" that was his original 25
Reasons List.

It would be much easier if people would simply not feed it.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 18:51:22 GMT, JT's Keeper
wrote:

Steve wrote:

On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 17:52:31 GMT, Steve wrote:


On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 09:35:48 -0600, Horace Cantor
wrote:

Oh great! Now I can wait 21.15 seconds between every 8 burst shots! How
convenient!!

You can keep shooting at 2fps as long as you want. Which is twice as
fast as your crappy P&S. *If* you choose to wait 21 seconds after
you've already fired off a whole bunch of shots at 6.3fps, you can
then fire off 8 more shots at 6.3 fps. Which is 6 times as fast as
your crappy P&S. The DSLR is NEVER any worse than being TWICE as fast
as your crappy P&S. AND, each image fired off is much better quality.
Your P&S loses at every stage.

Oh, and BTW, you don't have to even wait 21 seconds to shoot another 8
shot burst at 6.3fps. You only have to wait less than 4 seconds if
you're using a UDMA card. Once again, you're proving yourself to be
an idiot that can't even look up numbers on a table properly or that
would use a crappy CF card in a high end camera.

Then again, you're using a crappy P&S and blabbering about it's better
image quality than a high end DSLR. So I guess there really is no
bottom to the depth of your idiocy.


Yes... there really is a bottom to the depth of his idiocy! It will be
revealed when he posts that "100 Reason List" of his on why (in his
world anyway) a P&S is better than a DSLR. At which point several
knowledgeable posters will reply to it, pointing out why it has even
more holes than that block of "swiss cheese" that was his original 25
Reasons List.

I don't even see his 25 reasons so I'm sure I won't be seeing his 100
reasons. I have them filtered on message size. I'll engage him in
discussions where he actually has something to say, usually wrong of
course. But there's no reason to reply to, or even read his idiotic
"25 reasons" posts anymore. And I just don't feel like downloading or
storing them on my PC anymore.

Steve