The silly state of dual memory card.

OP
OP
Raymond Lin
Messages
6,603
Name
Raymond
Edit My Images
No
@Raymond Lin

The answer to the dual card slots dilemma you face was posted on the second page of this thread.
If you look at the numbers, it's NOT the speed of the card slots that slows things down, it's writing to BOTH slots at once.

So that is the first point to address - and that, based on discussions I've had with the electronics engineer at work on which version of USB to include on our product, is where things get harder, and more expensive quite quickly.
Then put 2 card slots of the same in there anyway? And then you only have the problem of writing both at the same time to overcome.

5 years between the release of 5D3 to 5D4 with an increase of 7mp. Moore’s law of computing power double every 2 years, that’s at least 4x of more CPU grunt but they can’t solve pushing 30% more pixels? I am struggling to believe that in 5 years they haven’t made enough progress in CPU power to overcome this. Just look how fast the iPhone has gone from the iPhone 6 to the iPhone X.
 
Messages
1,561
Name
Eloise
Edit My Images
Yes
5 years between the release of 5D3 to 5D4 with an increase of 7mp. Moore’s law of computing power double every 2 years, that’s at least 4x of more CPU grunt but they can’t solve pushing 30% more pixels? I am struggling to believe that in 5 years they haven’t made enough progress in CPU power to overcome this. Just look how fast the iPhone has gone from the iPhone 6 to the iPhone X.
Actually Moore’s law is increasingly consider no longer accurate...

I still agree that they should be able to fit 2 UHS-II card slots (or equivalent).
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
Raymond Lin
Messages
6,603
Name
Raymond
Edit My Images
No
Actually Moore’s law is increasingly consider no longer accurate...

I still agree that they should be able to fit 2 UHS-II card slots (or equivalent).
Well I have given the leeway of not counting the 5th year... even if it’s now double every 5 years instead of 2...enough leeway? Then it’s not like an increase of 100% of pixels, it’s 1/3rd. Still plenty of room to work with IMO.

And you know, let’s not forget the fact that the D850 exists. And it has 45.7mp!!!! (que Fraser says, why don’t you get that then?) and that’s £3,000.

All signs points to it’s possible, at the price point of the 5D4.
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
Raymond Lin
Messages
6,603
Name
Raymond
Edit My Images
No
one thing to consider is the 5d series was never really designed as a high speed camera that job was left to the 1d's
bearing that in mind the only thing i can come up with for one card slot being faster than the other is 4k video
the sd slot is only rated at 30 MBs by canon and the CF slot is rated at 100 MBS
the 4K video format canon has chose to use is MJpeg at a rate of 500 mbs which according to canon the sd slot is not capable of sustaining but the cf slot is with the right card

the 1dx 2 uses the same mjpeg format but it's maximum data rate is 800mbs ( 4k 60fps ) and at that rate can only be written to the Cfast card the CF slot cannot cope with the data rate no matter what card you use but it will cope with 4k 30fps with the very fast CF cards the same as the 5d mk4 does

that's my take on the different card types in the canon cameras and yes it is flawed and the OP has come across a situation where it hinders his type of photography but canon do offer a solution in the 1d bodies
like the OP says it one hell of a stretch for a solution that could have easily been rectified with two of the faster slots but then were into 1d territory which i think canon will not want to venture in purely from a financial point of view

just my 2p worth
I’m not after FPS, you can keep you 14fps in the 1D, it’s not what I want. It’s just 2 same card slots. Technology trickle down all the time, and I want this to be the next thing. I’m not after the AF or massive buffer. It’s the principle of it, even if putting in 2 slots do not solve my problem and increase the rate the camera flushed out photos. I like to see this done because both slots should be the same speed. (yes I know how silly that sounds and waste of money but like I said, I think there is enough CPU power to do this, if you tell me it’s not technically possible then I would tell you to look at then D850, D850 is proof with its 45.7mp)

And last I check UHS-II is backwardy compatible do people with UHS-I can still use it. If Fraser is worried or didn’t know.
 
Last edited:
Messages
1,665
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
No
I’m not after FPS, you can keep you 14fps in the 1D, it’s not what I want. It’s just 2 same card slots. Technology trickle down all the time, and I want this to be the next thing. I’m not after the AF or massive buffer. It’s the principle of it, even if putting in 2 slots do not solve my problem and increase the rate the camera flushed out photos. I like to see this done because both slots should be the same speed. (yes I know how silly that sounds and waste of money but like I said, I think there is enough CPU power to do this, if you tell me it’s not technically possible then I would tell you to look at then D850, D850 is proof with its 45.7mp)

And last I check UHS-II is backwardy compatible do people with UHS-I can still use it. If Fraser is worried or didn’t know.
my post wasn't really about what you want out of a camera it was about the reason i think the 2 card slots are of different speeds / formats

maybe the 5d mk5 will cater for your wants but alas the mk4 does not
 
Last edited:
Messages
1,391
Name
Jon
Edit My Images
Yes
I’ve read along the whole thing and nobody has mentioned the 7dii, it’s meant for sports so you would think it would have a high buffer limit, it’s cheaper than the a9 and you wouldn’t have to buy new lenses, I understand it’s not 2 of the same fast card slots but if it takes more pictures in a short amount of time than the 5div then it’s the most viable option as right now that’s the only problem you want to solve?
 
OP
OP
Raymond Lin
Messages
6,603
Name
Raymond
Edit My Images
No
my post wasn't really about what you want out of a camera it was about the reason i think the 2 card slots are of different speeds / formats

maybe the 5d mk5 will cater for your wants but alas the mk4 does not
That’s the entire purpose of this rant, it’s never my intention to change the 5D4 but want the next one to have dual cards of the same speed.

But there are people seemingly think that’s impossible because of cost or technical limitation. All of them have been debunked with the existence of the D850. So it’s baffling why people are telling me I’m wrong to want this. If people don’t want progress in tech then there will be no progress in tech.
 
OP
OP
Raymond Lin
Messages
6,603
Name
Raymond
Edit My Images
No
I’ve read along the whole thing and nobody has mentioned the 7dii, it’s meant for sports so you would think it would have a high buffer limit, it’s cheaper than the a9 and you wouldn’t have to buy new lenses, I understand it’s not 2 of the same fast card slots but if it takes more pictures in a short amount of time than the 5div then it’s the most viable option as right now that’s the only problem you want to solve?
Consistency in files.

Plus shooting cropped and FF side by side is a PITA.

Plus it’s also the principle of it, I want all camera manufacturers to do this, even the ones that I don’t shoot with.
 
Last edited:
Messages
1,298
Name
Jonathan
Edit My Images
Yes
Then put 2 card slots of the same in there anyway? And then you only have the problem of writing both at the same time to overcome.
But there's no point, other than to make a spec sheet look better!

So why make the camera more expensive for no real gain - that makes no business sense?

When the cost of increasing the data bandwidth so both cards can be written to in parallel has dropped (as the halving of buffer depth with both cards active suggests the camera writes to one then the second) to the point it's feasible, price wise, then its' time to add the more expensive (and faster) second card slot.
 
OP
OP
Raymond Lin
Messages
6,603
Name
Raymond
Edit My Images
No
But there's no point, other than to make a spec sheet look better!

So why make the camera more expensive for no real gain - that makes no business sense?

When the cost of increasing the data bandwidth so both cards can be written to in parallel has dropped (as the halving of buffer depth with both cards active suggests the camera writes to one then the second) to the point it's feasible, price wise, then its' time to add the more expensive (and faster) second card slot.
I say this again, the existence of the D850 proves this is both possible for technical reasons and cost reasons.

So I fail to see the argument against it.

Did I not mention the D850 enough?
 
Messages
1,665
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
No
That’s the entire purpose of this rant, it’s never my intention to change the 5D4 but want the next one to have dual cards of the same speed.

But there are people seemingly think that’s impossible because of cost or technical limitation. All of them have been debunked with the existence of the D850. So it’s baffling why people are telling me I’m wrong to want this. If people don’t want progress in tech then there will be no progress in tech.
i don't think it's down to technology limitations i think it's strictly down to marketing
we are drip fed new tech
they give us new / faster / bigger than the last version but only as much as they think they get away with and call it better
the 1dx 2 compared to the 1dx is a prime example, yes it is better but it's not a ground breaking difference between them unless you include the inclusion of 4k video which was already available in the 1dc if you wanted to spend the extra 2 grand to have it

the technology is already there it's how they want to feed it to us
 
OP
OP
Raymond Lin
Messages
6,603
Name
Raymond
Edit My Images
No
i don't think it's down to technology limitations i think it's strictly down to marketing
we are drip fed new tech
they give us new / faster / bigger than the last version but only as much as they think they get away with and call it better
the 1dx 2 compared to the 1dx is a prime example, yes it is better but it's not a ground breaking difference between them unless you include the inclusion of 4k video which was already available in the 1dc if you wanted to spend the extra 2 grand to have it

the technology is already there it's how they want to feed it to us
And that’s my entire point of this thread...sigh, I know this.....I find myself keep repeating things.

Could people stop going on about spending £2k more to upgrade? Because if you say that then I will once again point out the A9, what do you upgrade to?
 
Last edited:
Messages
1,298
Name
Jonathan
Edit My Images
Yes
I say this again, the existence of the D850 proves this is both possible for technical reasons and cost reasons.

So I fail to see the argument against it.

Did I not mention the D850 enough?
We don't have numbers for the test I suggested for the D850, the only numbers we have are for the D500, which DOES have UHS-II for it's 'secondary' card slot.
Based on those, it can be seen that for the D500, there is NO BENEFIT from having as fast second card slot when writing to both cards, as the buffer depth is effectively halved by doing so.

So the D500 gives you what you want (high speed second slot), but the numbers show that if you buy the camera for that reason you are being duped by a marketing decision to beef up the spec sheet, not a technical decision to improve the dual write capabilities.

Canon (and Sony) are, perhaps, being more 'honest' in their approach, and not selling you something that fails to deliver!

Of course, it may be that the D850 DOES have an improved bandwidth for writing to cards, but until someone does the tests (in the same way was we have for the D500), we just don't know, so any claims on the technical capabilities of the D850 are purely speculation.
 
Messages
1,665
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
No
And that’s my entire point of this thread...sigh, I know this.....I find myself keep repeating things.

Could people stop going on about spending £2k more to upgrade? Because if you say that then I will once again point out the A9, what do you upgrade to?
if your reading my posts in a way that you think i'm telling you to spend an extra 2k to get what you want you are not reading them as intended
my intention was to explain in my view why the two card slots are as they are and nothing to do with why you should upgrade or not
 
Messages
2,272
Name
Fraser White
Edit My Images
Yes
Raymond - you had this very same big rant in October last year, why have you brought it up yet again?

https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/t...come-mega-thread.511885/page-530#post-7990116

In the meantime what correspondence have you had with Canon?

i fully agree that discussion forums are for discussing matters but surely not the same complaints again?

I really don't follow what Canon cameras are due for launch but is it likely a new D5 Mk5 is just around the corner?
 
OP
OP
Raymond Lin
Messages
6,603
Name
Raymond
Edit My Images
No
Raymond - you had this very same big rant in October last year, why have you brought it up yet again?

https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/t...come-mega-thread.511885/page-530#post-7990116

In the meantime what correspondence have you had with Canon?

i fully agree that discussion forums are for discussing matters but surely not the same complaints again?

I really don't follow what Canon cameras are due for launch but is it likely a new D5 Mk5 is just around the corner?
I’m not sure of your intention of that post other than of what you’ve done which is search my name against a keyword ? And then trying to prove something. You do know it’s the weekend right and whether I contacted canon or not, am I not allowed to start a thread on the topic?

So I ask you, what is your problem? I get this feeling you are trying to put me down by your Not so funny comments and your snide remakes and insults. Do you have a problem with me or this thread? You do know you don’t have to read this right?

And I know you don’t know Canon from your “prosumer” comment (that was amusing I must say) but whether the 5D5 around the corner or not, it has no relevance of whether I start a thread. Is there?

I tell you what prompted me to start this thread, it’s the new A7III, if you read the OP, which I suspect you hadn’t, I also complain about Sony, not just Canon.

Unless you missed it for first 5 times...what is higher than the Sony A9?

And really, what have you added to this thread apart from insult me and the solution is to “upgrade”.

As I have proven....

Sony put in a bigger battery, progress! Did you tell Sony users just get a DSLR?

Fuji put in IBIS in X-H1, progress! Or didn’t you tell them to get a Sony?

Canon added Log to their 5D4, progress! Or did you tell them to upgrade to a RED camera?

What do you have to say to that?

That is the whole purpose of this, do you get it?
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
Raymond Lin
Messages
6,603
Name
Raymond
Edit My Images
No
We don't have numbers for the test I suggested for the D850, the only numbers we have are for the D500, which DOES have UHS-II for it's 'secondary' card slot.
Based on those, it can be seen that for the D500, there is NO BENEFIT from having as fast second card slot when writing to both cards, as the buffer depth is effectively halved by doing so.

So the D500 gives you what you want (high speed second slot), but the numbers show that if you buy the camera for that reason you are being duped by a marketing decision to beef up the spec sheet, not a technical decision to improve the dual write capabilities.

Canon (and Sony) are, perhaps, being more 'honest' in their approach, and not selling you something that fails to deliver!

Of course, it may be that the D850 DOES have an improved bandwidth for writing to cards, but until someone does the tests (in the same way was we have for the D500), we just don't know, so any claims on the technical capabilities of the D850 are purely speculation.
How does the size of the buffer have anything to do with the speed of the 2nd card slot?

As far as I know, they are independent of each other.

So the answer to your next rebuttal is “make the buffer bigger”
 
Last edited:
Messages
2,272
Name
Fraser White
Edit My Images
Yes
I’m not sure of your intention of that post other than of what you’ve done which is search my name against a keyword ? And then trying to prove something. You do know it’s the weekend right and whether I contacted canon or not, am I not allowed to start a thread on the topic?

So I ask you, what is your problem? I get this feeling you are trying to put me down by your Not so funny comments and your snide remakes and insults. Do you have a problem with me or this thread? You do know you don’t have to read this right?

And I know you don’t know Canon from your “prosumer” comment (that was amusing I must say) but whether the 5D5 around the corner or not, it has no relevance of whether I start a thread. Is there?

I tell you what prompted me to start this thread, it’s the new A7III, if you read the OP, which I suspect you hadn’t, I also complain about Sony, not just Canon.

Unless you missed it for first 5 times...what is higher than the Sony A9?

And really, what have you added to this thread apart from insult me and the solution is to “upgrade”.

As I have proven....

Sony put in a bigger battery, progress! Did you tell Sony users just get a DSLR?

Fuji put in IBIS in X-H1, progress! Or didn’t you tell them to get a Sony?

Canon added Log to their 5D4, progress! Or did you tell them to upgrade to a RED camera?

What do you have to say to that?

That is the whole purpose of this, do you get it?

............Because Raymond in October you were saying exactly the same as you are here - EXACTLY the same and the topic was the Sony A7 III!


https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/t...hing-else-welcome-mega-thread.511885/page-529

You were given EXACTLY the same responses then as you have here so what is the point of continually regurgitating the same old RANTS where you choose to dismiss everyone's advice as not suiting your one minuscule gripe of the confetti shot which you were using back then!

So - have you contacted Canon between October and now.

The situation of 'machine gunning' a shutter for 30 seconds is so rare that they probably would think it isn't really a problem anyway, especially when they sell a Pro level flagship Camera that is designed for high speed work and your email would find the 'trash can' very quickly!

From Canon Website:

Canon said:
EOS-1D X Mark II
Our flagship pro DSLR
It Doesn't mention the 5D as being a flagship?
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
Raymond Lin
Messages
6,603
Name
Raymond
Edit My Images
No
............Because Raymond in October you were saying exactly the same as you are here - EXACTLY the same and the topic was the Sony A7 III!


https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/t...hing-else-welcome-mega-thread.511885/page-529

You were given EXACTLY the same responses then as you have here so what is the point of continually regurgitating the same old RANTS where you choose to dismiss everyone's advice as not suiting your one minuscule gripe of the confetti shot which you were using back then!

So - have you contacted Canon between October and now
And the A7III wasn’t out then, so when companies keep doing this, the A9, RIII and then A7III...you can see why this is frustrating? Oh wait, bet you don’t.

I asked you, am I not allowed to start a thread? Yes I am, so what’s your problem? Apart from some issue with me personally.

And as for Advice? You mean “upgrade the camera”? Like did you tell those who says Sony has a small battery to upgrade their camera too? I think not. Did you tell Fuji users to get a Sony? I think not.

You really don’t understand the meaning of progress. Clearly.

And Ignored my question about the A9, for like the 5th time!

You contributed nothing to this topic except trying to put me down from your first post and continued to do so. You have my answered any of my direct question.

Like...what is higher than the Sony A9?

Canon says “thank you for your feedback, we have passed your comments to our engineers but we don’t release camera spec to the public”

What do you think they’ll say?

/waits for side stepping all that and find another link.
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
Raymond Lin
Messages
6,603
Name
Raymond
Edit My Images
No
IBIS wasn’t needed because people didn’t holding a camera still is a problem anyway.

A no black out EVF wasn’t needed because people never found it to be a problem anyway.

Having 40mp isn’t needed because 8mp is plenty anyway (15years ago)

20fps isn’t needed because 10fps is plenty anyway.

USB is fine for most people, why bother invent USB-C?

A 1080p TV is plenty clear enough, why bother with 4K?
 
Last edited:
Messages
2,272
Name
Fraser White
Edit My Images
Yes
You are quite entitled to start a thread Raymond but why didn't you write:

Here is a link to my thoughts (and plenty of them) on the Sony A7 III I made in October last year - has anyone changed their advice to me since then?

https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/t...hing-else-welcome-mega-thread.511885/page-529

In respect to what I think Canon might say/do with your contact I did mention that in post #218 and several other posts where I answered you directly.

You seem to think I am telling lies in respect to discussing the Sony A7III :

Raymond Lin said:
And the A7III wasn’t out then
,

well here is a quote from you on that thread:

Raymond Lin said:
Ok, more thoughts on the A7R3, the dual card slots.
Great, its finally here, but why is it one USH-1 and the other USH-2?
Similar rant?

Here is your answer for the Sony A9 - yes it is their flagship camera and is capable of recording 200+ images @20FPS - I think Sony, and probably 99.9999...........% of their customers find that more than adequate in 2018 - why increase the cost of the body for what is seen as an unnecessary function or loose profit margin?. (I chose to ignore it because the answer as I have given is obvious).

HTH
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
Raymond Lin
Messages
6,603
Name
Raymond
Edit My Images
No
You are quite entitled to start a thread Raymond but why didn't you write:

Here is a link to my thoughts (and plenty of them) on the Sony A7 III I made in October last year - has anyone changed their advice to me since then?

https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/t...hing-else-welcome-mega-thread.511885/page-529

In respect to what I think Canon might say/do with your contact I did mention that in post #218 and several other posts where I answered you directly.

You seem to think I am telling lies in respect to discussing the Sony A7III :

,

well here is a quote from you on that thread:



Similar rant?

Here is your answer for the Sony A9 - yes it is their flagship camera and is capable of recording 200+ images @20FPS - I think Sony, and probably 99.9999...........% of their customers find that more than adequate in 2018.

HTH
Why do I need to quote myself from months ago? Is that a rule I’m unfamiliar with?

You do know instead of talking about cameras, you’ve gone to great lengths to attack me personally, doing searches for my posts, in which I can only assume and attempt to somehow make this thread seems less important.

I suggest you see somebody about that.
 
Messages
2,272
Name
Fraser White
Edit My Images
Yes
Why do I need to quote myself from months ago? Is that a rule I’m unfamiliar with?

You do know instead of talking about cameras, you’ve gone to great lengths to attack me personally, doing searches for my posts, in which I can only assume and attempt to somehow make this thread seems less important.

I suggest you see somebody about that.
From Page 1 & 2 of this thread in replies to you:

"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results"

©Albert Einstein
IIRC OP sold his Canon gear and went to Fuji. Then he had a rant about Fuji and sold up. Back to Canon. If I'm right there seems to be a pattern here.
Not being flippant but get a Canon body that will do what you need....a 1DxMKII which has a more than adequate buffer (around 170 raw) and isn't slugged by an SD card.
In summary, I tried to help without wasting too much of my time and have apparently done so in the time it took for me to write this response.

I'll leave you and your soap box to it.

Cheers

Ian
My use clearly isn't, no. I get where you're coming from, really I do, but when professional photographers out there make money from shoots regularly cope with the same equipment you're moaning about (or worse in years gone by), maybe stop and consider whether you're doing something different to them which means that you can't manage with these top of the line camera bodies when they can?

If what you want is not available and what is simply doesnt work, what is every other paid photographer out there doing? Something to ponder.

Anyway, I'm out.
I am starting to wonder who actually needs the help?

I keep posting as am trying to 'get you to wake up and smell the coffee'
 
Last edited:

StewartR

Efrem Zimbalist Jr
Advertiser
Messages
11,803
Name
Stewart
Edit My Images
Yes
Wow. 200+ posts and incredibly argumentative. I must be mad to wade in here.

But anyway, I'm going to take issue with one of Raymond's core arguments. Nikon have a camera with two card slots that can run at the same speed, therefore Canon and Sony could too.

I think that's exactly the wrong way round. I think it's Nikon who have gimped their camera. Here's why.

Within any camera, or any piece of digital electronic equipment, there's a limit to how quickly data can be moved around. Exactly how that limit is determined depends on many factors: cost, power consumption, heat dissipation, etc. Different manufacturers might have different priorities for different equipments. But at the end of the day every camera has a limit on its internal data bandwidth.

So for a camera with two card slots, that data bandwidth is going to be fully utilised when you're writing RAW files to both cards in high-speed shooting mode. No image processing that might act as a bottleneck, just get the data off the sensor and shovel it out to the cards as fast as possible.

But what if you're only using one card? If your frame rate hasn't changed, you won't be using the full data bandwidth. You might not be using as little as half; for example I can imagine that with one card the data operations (crudely simplified) are fetch from buffer, write to card, and with two cards it's fetch, write, write, so in that scenario one card uses 2/3rds of the bandwidth. However it works, its clear that using one card doesn't fully tax the system.

So what Canon and Sony do is, they give you a bit extra. If you're only using one card, you can use a higher frame rate. For example two cards at 5 fps, or one card at 7 fps. They give you that choice. Nikon don't. They could make the camera go faster if only one card is bring used, but they deliberately cripple it.

Now, what's so silly about the second slot?
 
Messages
22,614
Name
Phil
Edit My Images
No
I keep posting as am trying to 'get you to wake up and smell the coffee'
I know the pro threads round here can get a bit blunt, but I’ve never read a bunch of rude personal attacks on someone for no good reason.
Your posts over the last week don’t paint you in a particularly good light, I’m sure they’re not really reflective of your attitude. You might want to have a think :).
 
Messages
22,614
Name
Phil
Edit My Images
No
@StewartR has made a very valid point above. Very logical.

I’ll posit the philosophical view.
Every shot missed at a wedding ‘never happened’.

We shoot as a couple, which means we can cover twice as much ground, but there’ll always be ‘moments’ we miss because we’re pointing the camera in the wrong direction. Neither us or Canon can do anything about that.

As for the confetti shot. We generally do 2 passes, with us shooting from 2 positions that gives us far too many shots, and one will land in the album. Frankly, the album wouldn’t be spoiled without it.

I can see where you’re coming from Raymond, you’re a control freak and confetti is random. Your frustration is driven by a lack of control you’d like to replace with an infinite number of chances to choose from. Which you think would balance probability in your favour.

I called it a rabbit hole earlier in this thread, I’m sticking with that.

It really is insignificant Raymond, take the advice to put your energy into things you can change rather than obsessing over things you can’t.
 
Messages
154
Edit My Images
Yes
The simple questions to answer would be:
“Have you contacted Canon about this?” Yes/No
“Have you contacted Sony about this?” Yes/No
“Have you met ANY other wedding photographer who has the same issue?” Yes/No

If the answer to the first two are yes and you’ve had a response please share it here to educate other posters (as well as the fact you’ve got your answer to the big question why)
If the answer to number three is no I would suggest you are making a mountain out of a molehill. You feel you have limitation with your existing body and there is a solution which you don’t want to take.
 
OP
OP
Raymond Lin
Messages
6,603
Name
Raymond
Edit My Images
No
@StewartR has made a very valid point above. Very logical.

I’ll posit the philosophical view.
Every shot missed at a wedding ‘never happened’.

We shoot as a couple, which means we can cover twice as much ground, but there’ll always be ‘moments’ we miss because we’re pointing the camera in the wrong direction. Neither us or Canon can do anything about that.

As for the confetti shot. We generally do 2 passes, with us shooting from 2 positions that gives us far too many shots, and one will land in the album. Frankly, the album wouldn’t be spoiled without it.

I can see where you’re coming from Raymond, you’re a control freak and confetti is random. Your frustration is driven by a lack of control you’d like to replace with an infinite number of chances to choose from. Which you think would balance probability in your favour.

I called it a rabbit hole earlier in this thread, I’m sticking with that.

It really is insignificant Raymond, take the advice to put your energy into things you can change rather than obsessing over things you can’t.
Take away the shot entirely do not remove the fact this happens.

The confetti shot is just what I do. Even if I don’t shoot weddings the camera is still gimped.
 
OP
OP
Raymond Lin
Messages
6,603
Name
Raymond
Edit My Images
No
Wow. 200+ posts and incredibly argumentative. I must be mad to wade in here.

But anyway, I'm going to take issue with one of Raymond's core arguments. Nikon have a camera with two card slots that can run at the same speed, therefore Canon and Sony could too.

I think that's exactly the wrong way round. I think it's Nikon who have gimped their camera. Here's why.

Within any camera, or any piece of digital electronic equipment, there's a limit to how quickly data can be moved around. Exactly how that limit is determined depends on many factors: cost, power consumption, heat dissipation, etc. Different manufacturers might have different priorities for different equipments. But at the end of the day every camera has a limit on its internal data bandwidth.

So for a camera with two card slots, that data bandwidth is going to be fully utilised when you're writing RAW files to both cards in high-speed shooting mode. No image processing that might act as a bottleneck, just get the data off the sensor and shovel it out to the cards as fast as possible.

But what if you're only using one card? If your frame rate hasn't changed, you won't be using the full data bandwidth. You might not be using as little as half; for example I can imagine that with one card the data operations (crudely simplified) are fetch from buffer, write to card, and with two cards it's fetch, write, write, so in that scenario one card uses 2/3rds of the bandwidth. However it works, its clear that using one card doesn't fully tax the system.

So what Canon and Sony do is, they give you a bit extra. If you're only using one card, you can use a higher frame rate. For example two cards at 5 fps, or one card at 7 fps. They give you that choice. Nikon don't. They could make the camera go faster if only one card is bring used, but they deliberately cripple it.

Now, what's so silly about the second slot?
I don’t see it that way. I see it being no technical advancement between bodies.

The silly part is because they are not the same. Because by that definition of yours, Technology Have barely moved passed 2 cards at UHS-1 bandwidth, a decade old tech.

I don’t believe that, do you?
 
Last edited:
Messages
6,323
Name
Riz
Edit My Images
No
Buy a Sony A9 and migrate over to Sony, job done and GAS cured. :D
 
Messages
1,561
Name
Eloise
Edit My Images
Yes
Buy a Sony A9 and migrate over to Sony, job done and GAS cured. :D
While Raymond may or may not have a valid point (at this point the argument is kind of mute) ... how does swapping a camera which has two card slots of different speed for another camera with two card slots of different speeds solve the issue that he feels cameras with card slots of different speeds are “gimped”?

And in Raymond’s “defence” (not that Raymond needs defending) almost every blog post about the announcement of the A9 commented what a “stupid” decision it was for Sony to have one UHS-II slot and one UHS-II slot.
 
Last edited:
Messages
6,323
Name
Riz
Edit My Images
No
While Raymond may or may not have a valid point (at this point the argument is kind of mute) ... how does swapping a camera which has two card slots of different speed for another camera with two card slots of different speeds solve the issue that he feels cameras with card slots of different speeds are “gimped”?

And in Raymond’s “defence” almost every blog post about the announcement of the A9 commented what a “stupid” decision it was for Sony to have one UHS-II slot and one UHS-II slot.
It is what it is, Sony will probably resolve it in the Sony A9 II...... that's how they make money..... just like most tech companies out there... drip-feed us bits of technology or silly specifications to save a few £££ here and there.
The aim being, to try and make sure we buy the latest and greatest :D
 
Last edited:
Messages
2,272
Name
Fraser White
Edit My Images
Yes
I know the pro threads round here can get a bit blunt, but I’ve never read a bunch of rude personal attacks on someone for no good reason.
Your posts over the last week don’t paint you in a particularly good light, I’m sure they’re not really reflective of your attitude. You might want to have a think :).

Thanks for that Phil,

I'll think you'll find in this thread that it is Raymond who has been rude to other posters who have tried to offer him advice , including myself (i've quoted their replies above to show this). I understand why the Pro's on this forum stick together but I come from an industry where people are very blunt with each other and I actually really like that - if someone keeps asking me the same question over and over again or doesn't listen to what others have said they are told in no uncertain terms where to go! (The same discussions aren't had month after month, we move on and accept it is the way it is).

Most people spend considerable time and effort constructing replies - I think it is only reasonable to let them know that this subject has ''been done to death' very recently so that individuals can judge if posting their thoughts is a waste of their time/energy.

I'm sorry if my replies upset you or anyone else and 'rock' the establishment, so yes my replies are reflective of my attitude - I'm not a keyboard warrior; I'm the same in real life and would say to someone's face the same as I post.

Fraser
 
Last edited:
Messages
2,272
Name
Fraser White
Edit My Images
Yes
It is what it is, Sony will probably resolve it in the Sony A9 II...... that's how they make money..... just like most tech companies out there... drip-feed us bits of technology or silly specifications to save a few £££ here and there.
The aim being, to try and make sure we buy the latest and greatest :D

Exactly!! I don't understand why people don't get this :)
 
Messages
1,561
Name
Eloise
Edit My Images
Yes
It is what it is, Sony will probably resolve it in the Sony A9 II...... that's how they make money..... just like most tech companies out there... drip-feed us bits of technology or silly specifications to save a few £££ here and there.
The aim being, to try and make sure we buy the latest and greatest :D
Exactly!! I don't understand why people don't get this :)
So you LIKE the idea that you are forced to *PAY* to upgrade for a feature which could / should have been included in the first generation?
 
Messages
6,323
Name
Riz
Edit My Images
No
So you LIKE the idea that you are forced to *PAY* to upgrade for a feature which could / should have been included in the first generation?
I don't like the idea it but unfortunately this is how most businesses work, no manufacturer is going to build the perfect camera with a spec that everybody will like.
I have gone from the Sony A7 - A7 II, A7R II and now the A9......... now if Sony had made the original A7 with the A9 specification, Sony would have lost a lot of ££££ if they did that.

Imagine your employer turned around to you and said we are going to pay you less, would you accept less pay for the same amount of work?

Now apply this same logic to this thread.... we are asking the manufacturer to add something now rather than later.... they could do that but they might have to accept that it could affect their future sales/profits.....

If somebody came up to me and demanded a specification change, keeping in mind that I would most likely it affect my future sales/profits down the line, I know what I would do. :)
 
Last edited:

StewartR

Efrem Zimbalist Jr
Advertiser
Messages
11,803
Name
Stewart
Edit My Images
Yes
I don’t see it that way. I see it being no technical advancement between bodies.

The silly part is because they are not the same. Because by that definition of yours, Technology Have barely moved passed 2 cards at UHS-1 bandwidth, a decade old tech.

I don’t believe that, do you?
You're not addressing my point. I assert that having one fast slot and one slower slot is actually good design. However fast Slot 2 is, it makes sense for Slot 1 to be faster so that the user has a choice of how best to use the camera's bandwidth. Do you disagree? If so why? Do you think it would be better if Canon and Sony took away your choice, and gimped their cameras so that Slot 1 couldn't work any faster than Slot 2?

But anyway, if you want to discuss the completely separate point as to how much technological progress Canon's 5D series cameras exhibit, it helps if you don't cherry pick your data and exaggerate.
  • The 5D III was launched in 2012 Q1 and the 5D IV was launched in 2016 Q3. So that's a gap of 4½ years, not a decade.
  • The 5D III can write 27 MB RAW files at 6 fps and the 5D IV can write 37 MB RAW files at 7 fps. That's an improvement of 60%.
  • The 5D III can get 950 shots from one battery, according to the usual test protocol, and the 5D IV can get 900 shots. That's a worsenment of 5%.
So in 4½ years Canon has made the 5D series cameras 60% faster, whilst only drawing 5% more power. Is that good? I simply don't know. I think it would be reasonable to compare it with the rate of progress that other comparable manufacturers have made, and I think it would be unreasonable to complain about it unless one had made that comparison.
 
Messages
6,323
Name
Riz
Edit My Images
No
Buy a Sony A9...... 20fps, 241 RAW buffer and amazingly good AF including Eye-AF, EVF and all the other mirrorless goodies :D Job done! :D
 
Messages
2,861
Name
Dominic
Edit My Images
Yes
I think someone hit the nail on the head earlier in the tread, it's all about money and marketing.
Canon could have made the 6d ii better than it is, but then people wouldn't buy a 5d iv. They could make a 5d iv better but then lose sales on 1dx models.
 
Top