[Rico]

@Rico:
What makes the buffer seem too small is that I cannot shoot a full sequence of an airplane executing a low pass without the buffer filling up and the camera consequently slowing down to a crawl.

I'm easily able to debunk your claims just by knowing bits about computer architecture, and what the computers we're talking about actually do.
You should reevaluate your position by:
- stop believing that UHS-II support would solve everything. It's only addressing the card write speed and yes, UHS-II would be desirable for dual card cameras (but irrelevant for cameras like the GR III)
- acknowledge that there are more performance problems than card write speed.
- acknowledge that different performance problems needs different solutions.
- acknowledge that different types of cameras have different performance requirements and thus might need different solutions.

Unlike you, I don't have to read about the GR III's responsiveness on Image Resource or other sites - I own one. Do you know that it doesn't as much as hiccups when I browse the images, stored on an average speed SD card? (not the Extreme Pro, but a Lexar maxing out at about 45MB/sec - below the capabilities of the camera) Of course you don't; you'd have to read about it somewhere.

And... you're not alone in this because we all don't understand you. You're alone in this because the way you see UHS-II as a fix-all-by-itself solution is completely, utterly wrong.

Kunzite your statement debunks nothing the "buffer" fills up so fast while you are taking a full sequence of an airplane exciting a low pass because the UHS-I bus is inadequate to empty the filling "buffer" fast enough. The same sequence with UHS-II you will have trouble filling the "buffer". The crawl doesn't happen because the "buffer" is full. The crawl happens after the first image is captured because it takes over a second to write each file from the "buffer" to the card due to the slow storage bus. It is not that hard to understand here Kunzite. Honestly why the argument? Because you want me to be completely and utterly wrong?

And no Kunzite I am pretty sure I am not alone here. I am just willing to put up with the abuse.

---------- Post added 06-30-19 at 03:32 PM ----------

Fascinating!

No surprise with a post like this from you Mistral. :^)

---------- Post added 06-30-19 at 03:38 PM ----------

*facepalm*




Repeating your personal opinion over and over again doesn't make it a fact. It just makes it look like a very silly opinion.

Where am I repeating my personal opinion beholder3. UHS-II isn't my opinion.

---------- Post added 06-30-19 at 03:42 PM ----------

but actual K-3 users, potential KP and K-1 users, are basically satisfied with their buffers. That is what the KP and K-1 buffering is being compared to. Did Pentax use a faster bus with it??

reh321 is this a joke post?

[Kunzite]

This is pointless; he won't budge, he won't learn. He's even arguing with me about my experience with the K-1 and GR III... as if I couldn't make the difference between RAM and storage
Boriscleto'd.

[biz-engineer]

Kunzite your statement debunks nothing the "buffer" fills up so fast while you are taking a full sequence of an airplane exciting a low pass because the UHS-I bus is inadequate to empty the filling "buffer" fast enough. The same sequence with UHS-II you will have trouble filling the "buffer". The crawl doesn't happen because the "buffer" is full. The crawl happens after the first image is captured because it takes over a second to write each file from the "buffer" to the card due to the slow storage bus. It is not that hard to understand here Kunzite. Honestly why the argument? Because you want me to be completely and utterly wrong?And no Kunzite I am pretty sure I am not alone here. I am just willing to put up with the abuse.

It's a matter of bottleneck in the image data pipeline. Pentax could double the data path and write 2 x slow speed = fast. We are not even there, on the K1, if you select // writing to both SD cards the data rate is divided by 2 (25Mbps max) even with 95Mbps SD cards in both slots. Still using SD to its max spec, the K1 could write 4 x faster when writing in UHS-I slots if the internal memory and SD controllers wouldn't be the bottleneck.

[Rico]

Not sure why there's such a backlash for explaining the advantage of UHS II, it's honestly something that Ricoh does need to put into their cameras at some point because it is a sizable benefit. It's like modern laptops not moving up to the higher speed USB specs at some point just because most people's current USB devices wouldn't see a benefit.

There might be other things they can improve but there is definitely an advantage to having faster bus speeds.

ZombieArmy I don't get it either. And they really pile it on. Best is I am always to blame.

I just want better cameras for that the pitchforks and clubs come out on mass.

[reh321]

but actual K-3 users, potential KP and K-1 users, are basically satisfied with their buffers. That is what the KP and K-1 buffering is being compared to. Did Pentax use a faster bus with it??

reh321 is this a joke post?

Huh??

I have seen post after post in which a K-3 or K-3ii user says something like "If only the KP had a buffer like the K-3 series does".

Please direct me to one which asks for much more.

[Rico]

Huh??

I have seen post after post in which a K-3 or K-3ii user says something like "If only the KP had a buffer like the K-3 series does".

Please direct me to one which asks for much more.

Again reh321 the misunderstanding is the KP needs a "buffer" like the K-3 when what it really needs is UHS-II this is whether or not people are posting about it.

---------- Post added 06-30-19 at 04:30 PM ----------

It's a matter of bottleneck in the image data pipeline. Pentax could double the data path and write 2 x slow speed = fast. We are not even there, on the K1, if you select // writing to both SD cards the data rate is divided by 2 (25Mbps max) even with 95Mbps SD cards in both slots. Still using SD to its max spec, the K1 could write 4 x faster when writing in UHS-I slots if the internal memory and SD controllers wouldn't be the bottleneck.

Yes biz-engineer it is a matter of a bottleneck in the image data pipeline. Isn't it easier to just move to UHS-II instead of creating a raid out of two UHS-I slots? The real solution to getting rid of the bottleneck is moving to UHS-II.

[reh321]

Again reh321 the misunderstanding is the KP needs a "buffer" like the K-3 when what it really needs is UHS-II this is whether or not people are posting about it.

My statement was a fact: most users who have criticized the KP's buffer (*) have said they would be satisfied with the K-3's buffer. That was all I said .... it is a fact, not a joke. No quote marks because buffer is a perfectly normal concept in computing.

(*) I happen to be satisfied with the KP's buffer.

[Rondec]

I'm not sure how this thread morphed into a future full frame thread. My understanding was that it was talking about a K3 II sequel and a possible sensor for that. The most interesting post in this thread was OoKU's saying that it will be at the same level as the D500.

Now, in my experience, OoKU has more information than many of the other posting on this thread. Although clearly he may not know what he is talking about, to create such a camera is going to take significant improvement of all of the innards, not just the UHS bus. And by the way, for what it is worth, I prefer for Pentax to stay with the SD Card form factor, even if the wave of the future is XQD or some such card. I don't need ultimate speed and being able to use my older cards and not ditch them for newer ones, even if Rico says they will solve all of my problems, is worth it to me.

Just my 2 cents.

[Serkevan]

Pretending that UHS-II will make, by itself, make a camera faster than a rocket is like the classic "just change the hard drive for an SSD". Spoilers: it doesn't work for all stuff.


On topic: I have a K-7 so, if I'm honest, at this point literally *anything* they release with 2019-2020 specs would be such an upgrade that there's no point in even making a comparison. Not like I need an upgrade, considering that I mess up far more often than the camera... but shinies are nice to look at.

[alfa75ts]

Pretending that UHS-II will make, by itself, make a camera faster than a rocket is like the classic "just change the hard drive for an SSD". Spoilers: it doesn't work for all stuff.

Yes, Rico's concept is a bit like saying if you put a really big tow hook on a bicycle it will tow shipping containers.

He's not completely wrong, if Pentax upgrade the rest of the processor UHS-II will be of benefit.

[biz-engineer]

On the K1, by counting how many images can fit in the buffer, in crop modes and FF mode, RAW and JPEG, it can be proven that the bottleneck isn't the SD card, it's the image processing engine. Using UHS-II on current K1 architecture would make not difference at all, because the data rate of the image processing engineer can't output enough data to use the data rate capability of UHS-II.

[BROO]

OoKU has more information than many of the other posting on this thread.

OoKU is "The Inner Chambers"

[Larrymc]

ZombieArmy I don't get it either. And they really pile it on. Best is I am always to blame.

I just want better cameras for that the pitchforks and clubs come out on mass.

Well how about that, everyone can agree that we want better cameras. You poor guy everyone is piling on you. What you don't get is what you say, whether you're correct or not, makes no difference in the grand scheme of things. You nor I or anyone else on this forum have absolutely NO influence over what Ricoh/Pentax uses in the cameras they build. You can either buy one and use it or sit around and pontificate about what they should have done. So My Friend, its your choice.

[Rico]

On the K1, by counting how many images can fit in the buffer, in crop modes and FF mode, RAW and JPEG, it can be proven that the bottleneck isn't the SD card, it's the image processing engine. Using UHS-II on current K1 architecture would make not difference at all, because the data rate of the image processing engineer can't output enough data to use the data rate capability of UHS-II.

biz-engineer The "buffer" does not take 15 seconds to clear because of the image processing engine it takes that long because of the slow UHS-I bus. The images are already processed and are waiting in the "buffer". So go ahead prove that the reason already processed files in the "buffer" take so long to write to the SD card because of the image processing engine.

[reh321]

biz-engineer The "buffer" does not take 15 seconds to clear because of the image processing engine it takes that long because of the slow UHS-I bus. The images are already processed and are waiting in the "buffer". So go ahead prove that the reason already processed files in the "buffer" take so long to write to the SD card because of the image processing engine.

What 'processing' are you expecting to be done 'already'?