Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: 1700 Frames: A Four-Day Wildlife and Landscape Sho  (Read 1530 times)
Guest
« on: December 14, 2002, 01:02:40 PM »
ReplyReply

[font color=\'#000000\']I've been using Microdrives since they first came out and have never had a failier. I've used them in +120F and -20F temperatures and from below sea level to 13,000 Ft+. Never a hickup. I've never dropped one though.

I find that if one is taking a single frame they write slightly more slowly than a solid state card. But if you are shooting quickly, or doing bursts, so that the drive can spin up and stay spinning, then they can actually be faster than a solid state card.

Given that 1GB Microdrives are now well under $300 they are a remarkable bargain and I see no need to use anything else, particularly with a DSLR than produces large files.

All Microdrives come from the same factory regardless of whose lable is on them.

Michael[/font]
Logged
Guest
« Reply #1 on: December 14, 2002, 04:58:00 PM »
ReplyReply

[font color=\'#000000\']As I understand it, Canon's RAW file compression algorythm is a bit more efficient than Nikon's. The 6MP Canon D60 produces roughty a 6MP file while the 11MP 1Ds produces roughly an 11MP file. Seems to be about 30% more efficient than what Nikon does.

The dust issue is still a mystery since there's hardly any on the D60 at a variety of apertures, while the 1Ds with a similar technology chip shows it more frequently.

Michael[/font]
Logged
willt
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 31


« Reply #2 on: December 14, 2002, 12:05:07 PM »
ReplyReply

[font color=\'#000000\']Michael,

RE: 1700 Frames: A Four-Day Wildlife and Landscape Shoot In Southern New Mexico With the Canon EOS 1Ds

Two items on your “In The Bag” list were particularly interesting to me: the 1GB Microdrives and the Fujitsu subcompact. I like the idea of this combination much more than CF cards and a digital wallet--so much more functionality.

(1) In terms of Microdrive reliability in the field, what's been your experience? (2) Are the write times sufficiently fast to keep up with the 1Ds? (3) Is there a difference between the IBM branded drives and those branded by Microtech?

Will Tompkins[/font]
Logged
jdemott
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 434


« Reply #3 on: December 14, 2002, 03:38:45 PM »
ReplyReply

[font color=\'#000000\']I use the 1 GB microdrive with a Nikon D100.  I was interested in Michael's comments about the number of shots the 1DS can record on a microdrive.  The D100 produces just over 6 megapixels which yields a RAW file of about 9.7 MB, allowing 107 shots per 1GB microdrive.  The 9.7 MB file size has made sense to me intuitively since there are 6+ million pixels and 12 bits per pixel, plus some formatting and EXIF information.

I'm curious how the 1DS fits 11 megapixels of RAW data in a file size that is just slightly larger than the D100's.  The D100 also has a compressed RAW mode but that slows down the file write times dramatically so I don't use it.

I also read with interest the comments about dust spots on the 1DS sensor.  Dust is also an issue with the D100, so sensor cleaning is just part of the regular routine, like charging the batteries.  Many D100 users say they find that dust spots become more or less visible depending on the lens aperture.   I haven't tried to verify that claim myself but I wonder whether aperture is a factor in explaining Michael's experience of seeing dust spots come and go from frame to frame, without a cleaning in the interim?[/font]
Logged

John DeMott
Roy
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 196


WWW
« Reply #4 on: December 14, 2002, 07:22:08 PM »
ReplyReply

[font color=\'#000000\']
Quote
 The D100 produces just over 6 megapixels which yields a RAW file of about 9.7 MB, allowing 107 shots per 1GB microdrive.  The 9.7 MB file size has made sense to me intuitively since there are 6+ million pixels and 12 bits per pixel, plus some formatting and EXIF information.

I'm curious how the 1DS fits 11 megapixels of RAW data in a file size that is just slightly larger than the D100's.  The D100 also has a compressed RAW mode but that slows down the file write times dramatically so I don't use it.
John,

The D100 compressed raw file is 4.5 to 5 MB. Yes, it is slow to store, but if you are shooting landscapes, for example, that may not be a consideration. You can decide between compressed and uncompressed raw depending on how many files you want to squeeze onto a card and how fast you think you will be shooting. It is easy to change from compressed to uncompressed mode.

Roy[/font]
Logged

Roy
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad