drew_pickard1

Favorite lens is probably my 100mm f/2.8 Macro . . . thing just has beautiful color and sharpness. Plus it's a portrait lens.

Second is my 50mm f/1.4 - but that recently broke . . . need some repair, unfortunately.

I have the 24-70mm f/2.8 L but for some reason . . . I don't like it as much as other people do. I'm not sure why. :)

(Canon 40D)

I prefer Aperture myself as I can make multiple version of things without ever having to

worry about the original. (plus i never worry about file management)

Only problem is that the flow to Photoshop and back isn't as smooth as I would like.

But, in general, most of my shooting doesn't involve Photoshop so it doesn't bother me

too much at this point.

However, Aperture doesn't yet have a 'vignetting' option for when I want to create that

effect. :(

<em>USB 2.0 speed is 480 Mbps which is about 48 Mbyte/sec and this is enough to make

something else the bottleneck</em>

<br><br>

480Mbits a second is actually 60 MegaBytes per second<br>

bits (little b) means you have to divide by 8 to get Bytes (big B)

<br><br>

Additionally, USB 2 will almost never reach that theoretical limit as there are many layers

of overhead in a USB2 bus depending on what you're conencted to, how you're conencted,

what else is on the chain and in what order the things are chained together.

<br><br>

If you're plugged straight in to a HD most of those things won' matter, but I'd be surprised

if you would get anywhere near max transfer rate as USB requires an external processor to

manage the data transfer. I'm guessing that the WFT-E3A itself has a processor in it that

would handle that, and I doubt that it is very powerful.<br>

(USB2 is usually managed by your computers main processor)

<br><br>

All this to say, Ethernet has a much higher theoretical max transfer rate (especially if it's

gigabit ethernet with a theoretical max of 125 MegaBytes/sec ).<br>

So if you want the max possible transfer rate: Ethernet is the way to go, IMO.

<br><br>

Eventually, the camera's buffer and processor will end up being the bottleneck.

<br><br>

//Drew