Visit MPB Visit MPB Visit MPB

SD Card Compatibility

dmchadderton
Posted 06/05/2006 - 09:23 Link
I'll start the thread with 2 cards that work with my *ist DL2.

NB. The numbers in brackets after the card relate to the number of images stored in RAW and JPEG-HI at full resolution (6MP), ie (46/166)



Here are my contributions;

Sandisk 512mb Ultra II (46/166)
Sandisk 2Gb Extreme III (186/689)


(Edited the 2Gb figures after checking again - thought I'd formatted the card, but apparently not! - thanks to those who pointed out my ineptitude!!)
__
Dave

*ist DL2 + 18-55 + 50-200
... and tons of other cameras!
alfpics
Posted 06/05/2006 - 09:37 Link
Dave,

The number of RAW for a 2 Gb card seems very low to me. My 2Gb CF card for *istD holds 144 RAW images. Also from your own figures, a 2GB card should hold approx 4x that of the 512Mb card!

Andy
George Lazarette
Posted 06/05/2006 - 09:57 Link
I wonder if something else is stored on the 2GB card, limiting its capacity for images.

Nowadays, many cards come pre-loaded with software for recovering lost files. It needs to be moved to the main computer.

G
Keywords: Charming, polite, and generally agreeable.
Ammonyte
Posted 06/05/2006 - 21:43 Link
I use 3 one GB SD cards, pqi Hi-Speed 60x, Kodak and Dane-elec. They hold between 93 and 97 6MP RAW images. I can't check which one holds the most at the moment as my camera is in Sick bay in Langley

But it does demonstrate that different brands have slightly different capacities. All have been formatted in the camera.

I'd therefore expect a 2GB card to hold around 180+
Tim the Ammonyte
--------------
K10D & sundry toys
http://www.ammonyte.com/photos.html
Don
Posted 07/05/2006 - 01:43 Link
I wonder if the differences in capacity are due to diferent brands, or perhaps bad (unreadable) sectors on individual cards..or different images use up more space due to pixels and color data....I know some jpegs with alot of blank sky take up less memory than something with alot of detail,s like feilds of flowers....but those are compressed....
somebody smarter than me please throw in a difinitave answer before I hurt my witto bwain...
Fired many shots. Didn't kill anything.
Daniel Bridge
Posted 09/05/2006 - 14:29 Link
Don,

The jpegs will vary in size, my D estimates 122 available shots on a 512Mb CF card when formatted, but can easily accommodate 200 if the conditions are right. Likewise, the RAW image filesize will vary because, as far as I'm aware, there's an embedded jpeg within the file, which is used for previews in some software I guess. Hence this jpeg will vary in file size, and therefore the RAW will too.

What I have noticed from these posts is that the D saving to CF gets around 36 RAW files per 512Mb, whereas the DS/DL saving to SD get around 45+. Any ideas why?

Dan
alfpics
Posted 09/05/2006 - 20:33 Link
Quote:
What I have noticed from these posts is that the D saving to CF gets around 36 RAW files per 512Mb, whereas the DS/DL saving to SD get around 45+. Any ideas why?

I believe that the newer cameras have a better lossless compression applied to the RAW files

Andy
Daniel Bridge
Posted 11/05/2006 - 11:03 Link
Thanks Andy, amazing what can be done - a 25% reduction in file size seems huge. I wonder if it is truly lossless, or just not too noticable. Just about impossible to try out, but if you could compare identically composed images from the D and DS, would there be a slight reduction in quality due to the compression? (D owners nod knowingly )

But then, better in-camera processing probably more than makes up for that if there is. (D owners look a little less smug )

Dan
MattMatic
Posted 11/05/2006 - 11:51 Link
As far as I am aware, none of the current Pentax cameras have any form of compression in the RAW format (I know because I've looked through the source code of dcRAW). Lossless compression, like the Huffman encoding in DNG, is something I've been hoping Pentax will produce for the next run of DSLRs, and that should give something like 50%.

For RAW it could be: a) a difference in the way the thumbnails are created, b) differences in the CF & SD technologies.

I'll let you know about the differences - have a D already, and a DS arriving today. I'll try and set something up.

I do know that CF and SD technologies are very different. It might be down to how the spare data is used in the flash blocks. You see each page of 512 bytes (or 204 has an extra chunk of information that's used for the filesystem linking, ECC (error correction), and the like. I'd have to double check the details as I mainly work with bare NAND-flash chips (which is what xD and SmartMedia cards are).

In addition, all flash media has bad blocks (either shipped, or acquired). Normally you don't know about those blocks, except perhaps that when you check the exact size of the card it isn't quite what you expect

Edit: Have tried a few shots with the *ist-DS. My guess is that the thumbnail JPG isn't as large in the DS PEF, compared to the D PEF.
And also - what a completely different shutter sound they have! I thought they'd be the same. Even the grip is a bit more "definite" on the DS, though the grip part at the rear is a bit "sharp".

Matt
Daniel Bridge
Posted 12/05/2006 - 20:33 Link
Hi Matt,

Seems like quite a big difference for a smaller jpeg - I'm guessing the DS PEFs are around 10.5Mb? My D ones are usually about 13Mb.

I recently tried the DL2(?) to see what the 50-200 was like, and the grip did seem better than the D, although no vertical grip option is a big no-no for me. The lens seemed to be quite slow in focusing, compared to any of my lenses on the D - just seemed sluggish, not so much hunting as taking its time to get anywhere. Is this normal on the DL, or a dodgy lens, or just the way the lens is geared?

Dan
MattMatic
Posted 12/05/2006 - 20:37 Link
Daniel,
I'll check out the DS vs D format in dcRAW when Iget half a chance.

Yes, the DS is achingly slow at focus compared to the D. I don't think it's the lens at all, but the body. The grip is mire 'positive', and the shutter is 'softer'. Still prefer the D overall

Matt
Daniel Bridge
Posted 12/05/2006 - 20:44 Link
It made me think there was something wrong with it. The only thing I really prefer on the newer models is the 4-way rocker switch on the back - but then they go and spoil it by putting the AF point selection options in a menu!

Oh, and the LCD's better.

And that grip of course...

Dan
MattMatic
Posted 12/05/2006 - 22:11 Link
The D motor is much more powerful. I just checked with an SMC-F 50/1.7 and the D really whips it round. The DS is infinitely more leisurely and can be stopped fairly easily.
They probably expected you to be using huge lenses on the D.

Let's hope they put the power AF motor on the new D replacement...

Incidentally, getting back on track - I received an SD-CF adapter from DigitalEra in the UK. Speedy delivery, and works exactly as it says. I shoved a 256Mb SD card in the adapter and put it in the *ist-D. No problems.

Can't give you any timing tests... will have to wait until I get the faster SD cards delivered.

Matt
Daniel Bridge
Posted 12/05/2006 - 23:26 Link
It would be interesting to know how many RAW files you'll get on the SD card in the D, at least that way we can see if how many files you can fit on a card is all down to the camera, or at least partly due to the card.

Dan
Daniel Bridge
Posted 12/05/2006 - 23:28 Link
Incidentally, your mention of speed made me think. How many shots do you get on the D before the buffer's full? The literature claims six, but I think mine always stops after 5. I use PQI 512Mb 60x CFs, although I've got a no-name 1Gb on the way from 7dayshop.

Dan

Add Comment

To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.