On Jan 23, 2004, at 2:59 PM, Robert Meier wrote:
Data transfer is a major problem for most digital cameras. I wonder why nobody did come up with a dual memory card slot on high-end, i.e. already expensive, DSLRs. The bottle neck seems to be getting the data onto the storage device and not getting it off the sensor. The later could be easily scaled. While this doesn't eliminate the memory buffer it could ease the requirement for it and/or increase the max burst length and/or the resolution.
I'm amazed that no one is putting iPod-like hard drives into DSLRs. Toshiba's 1.8" drives look like they're good for up to 20 MB/sec, which is a huge boost over any camera's CF speed. Even if it's only good for 10 MB/sec, you'd be able to sustain 3 MB JPEGs at 3 FPS for over an hour with a 40 GB drive. It'd add $500 or so to the cost of the camera, but you'd save at least that much on CF cards. Switching to RAW, at 7-ish MB each, you'd still be able to sustain over 1 FPS easily (and up to 3 FPS at the 20 MB/sec end of the drive) for a long, long time.
There are battery life and size issues, but I doubt either is fatal (the drive itself is PCMCIA-sized, but if you make it non-removable, then you save the space used for the CF rails, eject button, and door; the iPod can run it for hours on a dinky battery). It'll make the camera more fragile, but all in all, it'll probably be *more* durable then a DSLR plus CF cards.
Scott
* **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
