Seems like something one of you fancy photog types could use...

Seems like something one of you fancy photog types could use...

Timberwolf
Timberwolf

October 14th, 2011, 11:41 pm #1

Quote
Share

jwigum
jwigum

October 15th, 2011, 2:52 am #2

Those of us with CF format card slots can't use it without an adapter, and SD is slow when compared with our fast CF cards.
Quote
Share

Doc Nickel
Doc Nickel

October 15th, 2011, 10:43 am #3

Fun to use, and astounding what kind of technology they can pack into something that size, but range is kind of limited- plus, the magnesium body of my big 1D apparently acts as a partial Faraday cage.

It's a neat gadget. A buddy has one, and it was a nice way to see the photos on the much larger laptop screen within a few seconds of the shot, but without a tether cable to trip over.

The "infinite storage" part is cool ('tho a bit slow) but really, I can put two cards in my camera- technically, I think my 1D is just old enough it can't use the bigger SD cards without a firmware update, but still, a 64Gb CF and an 8GB SD? Even recording full RAW and a max-rez uncompressed .jpg for every frame, that's still like 5,000 photos.

If I shot the minorly-compressed .jpg-only that I usually do for day-to-day snapshots and whatnot, that's between eighteen and twenty thousand photos. Even with the camera's max of 8.3 frames per second, it'd still take over forty minutes to fill both cards up.

And, if for some reason, that wasn't enough, you can get a 128GB CF, and if I flashed my firmware, I could drop in another 128GB of SD for 256 total, for between sixty-four and eighty thousand frames.

In other words, if I had that capacity five and a half years ago when I first bought the camera, the cards would only be about two-thirds full by now.

Doc.
Quote
Share

Snowtroll
Snowtroll

October 15th, 2011, 2:59 pm #4

Those of us with CF format card slots can't use it without an adapter, and SD is slow when compared with our fast CF cards.
Not that I use CF in my cameras(actually, I prefer B/W analog photography as I'm a bit of a luddite when it comes to photography)

The CF card interface is based on the P-ATA(IDE) standard, and can therefore push rather a lot of data very fast.
SD-cards use either I2C or a bastardised 4bit parallell mode, so clocking over data will be a slower pace if the clock is at the same speed.
and higher speed clocks means higher power usage.

With the tendency to use metal in the body of 'pro' cameras(because pros gets annoyed if a camera falls apart, and also can afford real quality) so that signals are blocked, I cant imagine that real pros would want to use this at all.

It would be much better to save your money and upgrade to a new camera when either high-speed BT or Wireless USB has matured and is implemented in camera bodies.

Until that time, hand me another roll of B/W 120 and a stopwatch...
Quote
Share

J. Cook
J. Cook

October 15th, 2011, 4:18 pm #5

Canon (and nikon as well, I imagine) sell a wireless file transmitter, which does pretty much the same thing as the Eye-Fi, but at a much higher cost. I've seen it in use and was highly impressed.
Quote
Share

Snowtroll
Snowtroll

October 15th, 2011, 8:03 pm #6

If I needed someting like that as it also offers remote triggering.

http://www.canon.co.jp/imaging/wft/wft- ... index.html
Quote
Share

Shalom
Shalom

October 16th, 2011, 12:29 am #7

Not that I use CF in my cameras(actually, I prefer B/W analog photography as I'm a bit of a luddite when it comes to photography)

The CF card interface is based on the P-ATA(IDE) standard, and can therefore push rather a lot of data very fast.
SD-cards use either I2C or a bastardised 4bit parallell mode, so clocking over data will be a slower pace if the clock is at the same speed.
and higher speed clocks means higher power usage.

With the tendency to use metal in the body of 'pro' cameras(because pros gets annoyed if a camera falls apart, and also can afford real quality) so that signals are blocked, I cant imagine that real pros would want to use this at all.

It would be much better to save your money and upgrade to a new camera when either high-speed BT or Wireless USB has matured and is implemented in camera bodies.

Until that time, hand me another roll of B/W 120 and a stopwatch...
120, heck. Gimme a roll of 122 (a.k.a. postcard format, 3-1/4" x 5-1/2"). Yes, I have two cameras that shoot that format, and film to feed them with. Sure it expired in 1983, but so what, it's B&W. Never really expires.
Quote
Share

icouldbeahero
icouldbeahero

October 16th, 2011, 1:13 am #8

Fun to use, and astounding what kind of technology they can pack into something that size, but range is kind of limited- plus, the magnesium body of my big 1D apparently acts as a partial Faraday cage.

It's a neat gadget. A buddy has one, and it was a nice way to see the photos on the much larger laptop screen within a few seconds of the shot, but without a tether cable to trip over.

The "infinite storage" part is cool ('tho a bit slow) but really, I can put two cards in my camera- technically, I think my 1D is just old enough it can't use the bigger SD cards without a firmware update, but still, a 64Gb CF and an 8GB SD? Even recording full RAW and a max-rez uncompressed .jpg for every frame, that's still like 5,000 photos.

If I shot the minorly-compressed .jpg-only that I usually do for day-to-day snapshots and whatnot, that's between eighteen and twenty thousand photos. Even with the camera's max of 8.3 frames per second, it'd still take over forty minutes to fill both cards up.

And, if for some reason, that wasn't enough, you can get a 128GB CF, and if I flashed my firmware, I could drop in another 128GB of SD for 256 total, for between sixty-four and eighty thousand frames.

In other words, if I had that capacity five and a half years ago when I first bought the camera, the cards would only be about two-thirds full by now.

Doc.
Took us a while to get set up, and while nifty, it just wasn't all we were hoping for. Admittedly we were taking pictures of kids on ponies for a neighborhood event and printing 4 x 6s in real time, and it was a little too much to expect the card to be able to transmit far enough to make that feasible.
Quote
Share

Snowtroll
Snowtroll

October 16th, 2011, 10:30 am #9

120, heck. Gimme a roll of 122 (a.k.a. postcard format, 3-1/4" x 5-1/2"). Yes, I have two cameras that shoot that format, and film to feed them with. Sure it expired in 1983, but so what, it's B&W. Never really expires.
Gosh, never even seen that format...

I see my usual shop is full of 135, 120, 220, 4x5", 6x9", 8x10" and other formats(the ones in inches are sheet, not roll, though), but not 122.

I figure that a 6x9 or 6x12 cm negative is large enough for me when messing with pinhole photography. (Using a Holga 120W camera)

I have a Lubitel that also uses 120, but in 4.5x6 or 6x6cm format, a couple of Olympus OM bodies(Anyone havee a 4ti needing a loving home? I'll pay for shipping , and a Zenit Horizon 202 for when I want to really waste film. (Taking good pictures with it is very difficult.)

I really want a 203, but I really can't spend that much on a camera, even if doing 120degree panoramas on 120 film would be neat.(12x6cm negatives. = 6 pictures on ech roll... )

Working(now and then) on fixing an old 70s Zenit-E that I got cheaply on an internet auction. (It came with a 500mm F:8 lens... It's long... very long... )
Quote
Share

Shalom
Shalom

October 16th, 2011, 4:36 pm #10

Kodak used to make a whole lot of roll film formats. The apparent reason was, there weren't any enlargers back then, so everything was contact printed; if you wanted a bigger print, you had to use a bigger negative. 122 is the largest roll I've ever shot, but they once made stuff up to half-plate size (115, 6-3/4" x 4-3/4", discontinued before 1949).

There was a while I went through a phase when I was trying to get my hands on one of every size; wound up with 828, 127, 120/620, 116/616, 130 and 122. Still trying for a 118 (3-1/4 x 4-1/4); the rare occasions when a 123 (4x5 rollfilm) comes up for auction, it's generally out of my price range.

(I also have my grandfather's old Speed Graphic. That uses either 4x5 cut film holders or film packs, but the packs were discontinued following the retirement of the two blind women in their 80s who were last two folks at Kodak who knew how to assemble them...)
Quote
Share