Jump to content

Jean-Claude

Members
  • Posts

    1,410
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Jean-Claude

  1. I took the Z6 and shot high speed 316 RAW pictures on my 64 (Sony) XQD card and downloaded first via XQD reader. Total: 9 minutes.

     

    Then I took the same card with those 316 pictures but downloaded via camera and cable to my PC. Total : 13 minutes (4 minutes more or roughly 50% more !)

     

    The camera download is VERY SLOW !

     

    Finally I took my D610 and shot 140 RAW pictures and downloaded via my usual SD card reader. Total : 2 minutes (or +/- 4.5 minutes for 316 RAW pictures)

     

    This means that the SD cards are twice faster to download than the XQD cards, at least on my USB 2.0 slots.

     

    The question now is: will I be able to download the XQD cards faster if I ask for USB 3.0 slots to be placed on my computer?

     

    Thank you !

  2. You are right !

     

    A test is on the agenda tomorrow morning with both cameras and 2 different type of cards (XQD qnd SD Extreme Pro.

     

    Download in both cases with chronometer, say 100 picyres tale high speed trough the window. Will post results.

     

    My computer is very good but no USB 3 (built on mesure 2012). I didn't know I could add a USB 3 slot. Will contact the guy around the corner.

     

    Thank you very much !

  3. I suspect the no-name XQD reader could the culprit. I am not an expert on card readers, but have experienced that a good reader is faster than directly from the camera.

    My experience stems from an Z6ii with a 125gb Sony Tough CFexpress card. Download speed improved greatly when I started using a well reviewed ProGrade reader. I thought it was expensive for "just a reader", but since I also needed something to read SD UHS-II, I bit the bullet and I have not regretted it.

     

    What is the name of that reader and to which price please? You have an USB 2 or 3 slot?

  4. Maybe somebody builds card readers just up to USB2 specs, as indicated by your download time? The color of the plastic inside the plug could give a hint, USB3 would be blue.

    My USB slot is not blue, so USB2.

     

    How can I make it faster? Change reader I guess?

  5. It took me +/- 30 minutes to download via card reader the 1214 pictures registred on this card (64 gigas)

    It takes far less with 64gigas SD cards in my Nikon D610.

     

    Why this huge difference and how download XQD card faster?

     

    Thank you for your precious help.

  6. Here is a picture of the spire of Notre Dame.

    This was designed in the reign of Louis Phillippe - that is to say, French Victorian Gothic.

     

    It is not and was not an actual Gothic (12th - 16th c) part of the cathedral.

     

     

    Still worse, replacing it with some sort of "Cirque du Soleil" modern structure would be intrusive in the worst sense.

    [ATTACH=full]1292159[/ATTACH]

     

    IMHO

    In a recent article in the Guardian, you can practically see contemporary architects drooling over the opportunity to immortalize themselves. Few seem to be concerned with historical integrity.

    Notre-Dame de Paris : les premiers arbres qui serviront à la reconstruction de la flèche viennent d'être sélectionnés | Connaissance des Arts

  7. 11 hundred Euros for the screen itself is excusable. But 156 Euros for something that could be replaced (funged) with a sheet of black card?

     

    If that's a necessity, then something really ougth to be done about the surface texture of the screen. Or the room lighting/painting.

     

    156€ for a black large piece of plastic is an abuse, yes, but it looks very nice and is very efficient. You prefer to paint your whole room? Not me.

  8. I've experienced the same thing, though I rarely shoot black and white. When the scene says black and white, I don't argue. You made a lot of nice decisions with framing and tonal quality. I've seen these giant jacks in breakwaters, but never lined up like this. It's a very cool scene.

    May I invite you torve a look at my portfolio where I just added a photo with those jacks in breakwaters, not far away?

     

    I gave it a little brownish tone . Why did I take it?

     

    Because of the water, it looks like plenty little leaves, the same as those on the road on the image here above

    • Like 1
  9. Dear Laura,

     

    Coming back to your question "When you saw this scene, what did you think?

     

    In this precise case, I perfectly remember thinking "this a definitively a black and white picture".

     

    1. Because there was no color !

    2. Because the subject is abstract

    3. The grey tones were very nice and I knew I could play with that in post-production.

    4. I had nice clouds in sky (detailled structure in the white parts)

     

    Curious to read your comments and thank you in advance:-)

     

    upload_2021-11-29_20-12-9.thumb.jpeg.3c003b4cb492179f69351aae4f419758.jpeg

  10. To be honest I didn’t think. I was talking to a photographer that asked me a question when I suddenly saw the couple walking towards the sun and with all the leaves on a floor (noticed earlier),I had to hurry to catch the decisive moment.

     

    when I notice something interesting I then start thinking what is needed to MAKE an interesting picture instead of TAKING a picture by just pressing the shutter.

     

    in other words, I act as a hunter and wait for things to in place before shooting, you say in English.

×
×
  • Create New...