[photoptimist]

You are correct regarding specific numbers. Leica T/TL is a consumer-level camera.
However, I was more into principles of digital photography equipment design, which are visible in some new products, but which depart from the Japanese norm of digital photography which emulates analog film cartridge approach.

I am only restating that the buffer → card approach doesn't work and was obsolete the very moment smartphones jumped in.
Proper cameras are slow, their digital design is not worked out.

That's an interesting observation. You are right that built-in memory can be faster than removable SD memory cartridges. And certainly Apple has made the architectural decision to not provide slots for "obsolete" removable memory cards. And as long as one does not take too many photos with a smartphone and has regular broadband access to the cloud, a fixed amount of image memory can work quite well.

But would photographers, especially pro photographers be happy with a camera with no removable memory cards? Even the K-1 with it's pokey 4 frames per second can fill a 128 GB internal memory bank in less than 11 minutes. Then what? You need a removable cartridge plus all the circuits and power to make a second transfer of the images.

But now it takes minutes to clear what has become a giant second buffer. If the ultimate destination for the image is a removable card, then the least cost, least complexity, and least power consuming option is to save the images directly from buffer to card. Adding a second layer of image transfer only makes things worse. So the "buffer -> cartridge" concept is actually the right one for high-end cameras.

But fast cards consume a lot of power. The UHS-II interface for high-speed SD cards can actually require about twice as much power as the Milbeaut processor consumes. There's a reason SD cards get so hot.

The deeper issue isn't that cameras haven't worked out their design yet. The real problem is that the underlying technology trends for data production and data transmission have never been favorable. It's a lot easier for Sony to make a new sensor that pumps out twice as much pixel data than it is for memory card makers to double the data rate of their interfaces.

[noelpolar]

I know exactly what you mean my friend! Add me too at your "I'm quite insufficient for my K-1" group
In fact that would be a nice thread for many K-1 users that seek for some group therapy!

Haha....here ya go...... I'm quite insufficient for my K-1..... and I know it! - PentaxForums.com

[clackers]

So there are some pluses.. to correcting laziness.. with the higher pixel count.

Sure, Mee. I shot an airshow myself the other month and the K-1 was great whether shooting flying planes with a tele and AF-C or doing wide shots of what was happening on the ground with AF-S. Great for action and journalism:

[Uluru]

If I may ask, what technology education/professional experience do you have that gives you authority to draw such a conclusion?

Science, engineering and problem solving. It is not difficult to see the weakest link in a system if one is trained to recognise weakest links that choke the systems and implicate bigger problems.

[Uluru]

That's an interesting observation. You are right that built-in memory can be faster than removable SD memory cartridges. And certainly Apple has made the architectural decision to not provide slots for "obsolete" removable memory cards. And as long as one does not take too many photos with a smartphone and has regular broadband access to the cloud, a fixed amount of image memory can work quite well.

But would photographers, especially pro photographers be happy with a camera with no removable memory cards? Even the K-1 with it's pokey 4 frames per second can fill a 128 GB internal memory bank in less than 11 minutes. Then what? You need a removable cartridge plus all the circuits and power to make a second transfer of the images.

But now it takes minutes to clear what has become a giant second buffer. If the ultimate destination for the image is a removable card, then the least cost, least complexity, and least power consuming option is to save the images directly from buffer to card. Adding a second layer of image transfer only makes things worse. So the "buffer -> cartridge" concept is actually the right one for high-end cameras.

But fast cards consume a lot of power. The UHS-II interface for high-speed SD cards can actually require about twice as much power as the Milbeaut processor consumes. There's a reason SD cards get so hot.

The deeper issue isn't that cameras haven't worked out their design yet. The real problem is that the underlying technology trends for data production and data transmission have never been favorable. It's a lot easier for Sony to make a new sensor that pumps out twice as much pixel data than it is for memory card makers to double the data rate of their interfaces.

I think the worst problem is that Japanese camera companies haven't even tried to come to a more mature solution, even if it doesn't fix the problem forever. Now, while the smartphones eat up their market, they appear to be even less likely to do so, which is strange. Unless an instinct of some sort wakes them up.

They have not set achievable good goals across the range of their cameras, so that the cost of implementing can be shared among models and minimised. However, new specs would create new consumer appeal, and new demand.

Let's illustrate: 8 RAWs deep buffer obviously is a joke for any category today, but what about 50 RAWs /100 JPEGs in lower camera category, and 100 RAWs / 200 JPEGs in higher camera category, both as the new standard for a while? Then work out buffer → internal RAM → SD card best components.

Consumer cameras with one battery and without grip in this case may be built around

6 fps, 32 GB RAM and SDHC only, BUT

even modest 6fps and SDHC becomes formidable, because the choking is taken out of equation. RAM takes care of it. 6fps, 32 GB and SDHC consume less power than 11 fps, 64GB and SDXC/2 from a higher end camera. Hi-end camera have more powerful batteries and grips anyway. RAM storage takes care of sufficient enough writing speed on cards when writing is needed — not before. User notices less problems. Also, reduces the need for additional SD slot, or, even if card(s) are damaged, data is still in RAM. This scenario,

buffer → internal RAM (funnel) → card

is so versatile and better, that a user may be given an option to press a button, and empty the RAM onto his card, when he wants it! Therefore cards can be in power save mode (of the sorts) until the transfer is requested, and not be powered up every time camera records something.

[mee]

That combo is a similar weight to the K1 + dfa 70/200, what support do you use?

I just hand held it. The 120-400mm has a built-in tripod collar and foot though. So I reversed it (rotated it to where it was over the lens) and used it as a handle between shots... almost like a minigun. That worked well since it got the whole contraption out of my way when it was time to shoot a plane pass (so I could actually hold the lens without interference).

[johnmflores]

I think the worst problem is that Japanese camera companies haven't even tried to come to a more mature solution, even if it doesn't fix the problem forever. Now, while the smartphones eat up their market, they appear to be even less likely to do so, which is strange. Unless an instinct of some sort wakes them up.

They have not set achievable good goals across the range of their cameras, so that the cost of implementing can be shared among models and minimised. However, new specs would create new consumer appeal, and new demand.

Let's illustrate: 8 RAWs deep buffer obviously is a joke for any category today, but what about 50 RAWs /100 JPEGs in lower camera category, and 100 RAWs / 200 JPEGs in higher camera category, both as the new standard for a while? Then work out buffer → internal RAM → SD card best components.

Consumer cameras with one battery and without grip in this case may be built around

6 fps, 32 GB RAM and SDHC only, BUT

even modest 6fps and SDHC becomes formidable, because the choking is taken out of equation. RAM takes care of it. 6fps, 32 GB and SDHC consume less power than 11 fps, 64GB and SDXC/2 from a higher end camera. Hi-end camera have more powerful batteries and grips anyway. RAM storage takes care of sufficient enough writing speed on cards when writing is needed — not before. User notices less problems. Also, reduces the need for additional SD slot, or, even if card(s) are damaged, data is still in RAM. This scenario,

buffer → internal RAM (funnel) → card

is so versatile and better, that a user may be given an option to press a button, and empty the RAM onto his card, when he wants it! Therefore cards can be in power save mode (of the sorts) until the transfer is requested, and not be powered up every time camera records something.

RAM is volatile; turn off the camera or run out of battery before transferring photos off your camera and you lose your photos

[photoptimist]

32 GB of RAM in a camera is a horrible idea because RAM requires constant electrical power to maintain -- the camera's battery would die within a 4 to 12 hours if it's just sitting in the bag. And if the user swaps batteries or pulls the battery after a glitch, all the pictures in RAM would be gone. 32 GB of RAM requires too much power to keep alive for some tiny backup battery to handle during a main battery swap. Such a camera would require two full-sized batteries, interlocks to prevent the user from removing both, and still require a fresh battery every 4 to 12 hours (or be plugged in to mains power). And if the photographer forgets to transfer their RAM images to a card, they'll likely wake up in the morning with a dead camera and all the images gone. Buffer -> card really is the best solution.

Setting a "standard" for buffer depth does not solve the problem because the problem is in the underlying semiconductor technologies. A standards body has no magic wand that can change the rules of physics or the state-of-the-art in data transfer interfaces. There's a lot of companies spending billions of dollars trying to make data transfer faster (for smartphones, laptops, PCs, servers, data centers, etc.). The scaling problem between computer's ability to generate lots of data and the limits of memory and network systems to absorb it has been going on for decades. A standard set by a few tiny little camera companies aren't going to have any effect on technological advancements in bandwidth.

Finally, the issue of buffer depth is not what's attracting consumers to smartphones. Consumers are going to buy smartphones anyway for Facebook, Snapchat, phone, navigation, texting, etc. And once they have a smartphone, they quickly realize that the phone's camera is "good enough" (and getting better) for most photography. Offering a deeper buffer isn't going to sell more cameras especially if a deeper buffer requires a bigger camera with bigger batteries.

[Kunzite]

Science, engineering and problem solving.

What kind of science, engineering when you don't know what RAM is?
What kind of problem solving, when you fail to solve the problem?

The solution is the obvious one: use a faster SD controller and increase the buffer. Doubling each would make me happy - even if it won't beat some Sony.
My real world problem is with the buffer clearing speed - which according to you it shouldn't be addressed (because "RAM takes care of it").

[MarkJerling]

Finally, the issue of buffer depth is not what's attracting consumers to smartphones. Consumers are going to buy smartphones anyway for Facebook, Snapchat, phone, navigation, texting, etc. And once they have a smartphone, they quickly realize that the phone's camera is "good enough" (and getting better) for most photography. Offering a deeper buffer isn't going to sell more cameras especially if a deeper buffer requires a bigger camera with bigger batteries.

I agree. I think the majority of people using smartphones as their primary camera are unlikely to ever buy a DSLR. They are simply not in the market for a DSLR and never will be. Not that there's anything wrong with using a smartphone as a camera - I do so, myself, on occasion. I'm sure many do. In my experience, people who buy DSLRs do so because they want the flexibility of interchangeable lenses and the sense of a more professional photographic experience, which no smartphone can provide. The primary purpose of SLR cameras have always been to allow the photographer the opportunity to see what the camera sees. That's the purpose of the prism and mirror. If EVF was up to scratch, I'm sure many would prefer the smaller size and lighter weight of mirrorless cameras. But, EVF is not up to scratch - yet - and may not be for some years. Hence, the DSLR remains the tool of choice for most.

[photoptimist]

I agree. I think the majority of people using smartphones as their primary camera are unlikely to ever buy a DSLR. They are simply not in the market for a DSLR and never will be. Not that there's anything wrong with using a smartphone as a camera - I do so, myself, on occasion. I'm sure many do. In my experience, people who buy DSLRs do so because they want the flexibility of interchangeable lenses and the sense of a more professional photographic experience, which no smartphone can provide. The primary purpose of SLR cameras have always been to allow the photographer the opportunity to see what the camera sees. That's the purpose of the prism and mirror. If EVF was up to scratch, I'm sure many would prefer the smaller size and lighter weight of mirrorless cameras. But, EVF is not up to scratch - yet - and may not be for some years. Hence, the DSLR remains the tool of choice for most.

Exactly!

Yet I think you undersell the OVF.

One advantage of OVFs is they actually go beyond what the camera sees. In particular, the camera's sensor only sees a limited DR and limited RGB color gamut subset of the real world image (and the EVF almost certainly restricts the DR & gamut even further). It's the photographer's challenging task to choose the camera settings that pick the best subset of colors and tonalities from the total scene that their equipment can get (or at least pick a subset they can work with in post processing).

With an EVF one never sees the full possibilities of the real-world scene, only the subset currently being sensed and displayed. Sure, there's ways of working around the limitations of EVF's through trial and error but why bother?

For that reason (and the motion sickness, eye-strain reason), I predict a significant percentage of photographers will continue to pick OVF cameras. And as long as a significant percentage of photographers pick OVF cameras, camera makers will make them. I really doubt that serious photographers will give up OVFs just to save a couple hundred bucks off a high-end camera and that's assuming the good EVFs (with the ultra-high performance sensors required to get the lag down) aren't as expensive as good SLR mechanisms.

[Dan Rentea]

Exactly!

Yet I think you undersell the OVF.

One advantage of OVFs is they actually go beyond what the camera sees. In particular, the camera's sensor only sees a limited DR and limited RGB color gamut subset of the real world image (and the EVF almost certainly restricts the DR & gamut even further). It's the photographer's challenging task to choose the camera settings that pick the best subset of colors and tonalities from the total scene that their equipment can get (or at least pick a subset they can work with in post processing).

With an EVF one never sees the full possibilities of the real-world scene, only the subset currently being sensed and displayed. Sure, there's ways of working around the limitations of EVF's through trial and error but why bother?

For that reason (and the motion sickness, eye-strain reason), I predict a significant percentage of photographers will continue to pick OVF cameras. And as long as a significant percentage of photographers pick OVF cameras, camera makers will make them. I really doubt that serious photographers will give up OVFs just to save a couple hundred bucks off a high-end camera and that's assuming the good EVFs (with the ultra-high performance sensors required to get the lag down) aren't as expensive as good SLR mechanisms.

I would give up to a lot of things if I have to, but never at OVF's. I simply can't get used to EVF's, no matter how much I try it. After 15 minutes shooting with cameras with EVF's my eye starts to give up and I also have headaches.

[MarkJerling]

Indeed. I have big hands so I like the size of my DSLR, especially with the battery grip fitted. So, for me, size is not so much of an issue. EVF would need to be as good as OVF for me to even consider changing.

[Uluru]

RAM is volatile; turn off the camera or run out of battery before transferring photos off your camera and you lose your photos

They would not be lost, because they would be transferred onto the SD card.
When I state RAM, I mean memory disk, or static RAM drive. But memory drive is not drive at all, isn't it? So I have not been totally particular as to an exact choice of a memory device, because of various things possible, but it is presupposed it is kind of memory that may keep data after turning device off.

---------- Post added 05-19-2017 at 09:06 AM ----------

What kind of science, engineering when you don't know what RAM is?
What kind of problem solving, when you fail to solve the problem?

In science of problem solving, brainstorming is fundamental. Unwilling audience shows they are already predetermined in a certain established mindset, and can't be moved. When I stated "RAM", I meant more permanent memory disk. But disk or drive are also wrong expressions, so I kept only RAM. I have not been particular as to an exact choice of a memory device, because I do not posses an exacting patent of application, and because of various things possible.

[MarkJerling]

RAM, whether that be DRAM or SRAM, loses it's data when the device is turned off. What you're describing would have to be a SSD - Solid State Drive for it to retain the data when the device is turned off. Most currently available SSD's have a write speed of about 350-500MB/s.