# Light Peak on EOS digital



## Horacio (Feb 24, 2011)

In light of the release of the new mac books pro today, does somebody know about Canon getting into the light peak connectors???


----------



## foobar (Feb 24, 2011)

Would be nice, especially because it also doubles as display connector.
But I wouldn't expect it very soon, if ever, on DSLRs. I certainly hope, though.


----------



## unruled (Feb 24, 2011)

Horacio said:


> In light of the release of the new mac books pro today, does somebody know about Canon getting into the light peak connectors???



whats the point?

I don't see any whatsoever. CF speed is a bigger limiting factor than usb 2 is. Besides, uh... who has lightpeak drives, or capable machines? Yeah, nobody.


----------



## archie.gsy (Feb 24, 2011)

i read somewhere it will be on the nikon D4


----------



## foobar (Feb 24, 2011)

unruled said:


> I don't see any whatsoever. CF speed is a bigger limiting factor than usb 2 is.


Even today, high-end CF cards are about 3 times as fast as USB 2.0 in practice.


----------



## iris chrome (Feb 25, 2011)

archie.gsy said:


> i read somewhere it will be on the nikon D4



It was mentioned on NR yesterday I believe:

http://nikonrumors.com/2011/02/23/nikon-d4-to-support-light-peak.aspx

...although I'm not sure how useful it will be


----------



## foobar (Feb 25, 2011)

Usefulness... well, if you look at how USB is currently used on DSLRs, it would be total overkill.
But it's not about maxing out the capabilities of the interface, but about not being _limited_ by it anymore.

Besides, what you _could_ do with this interface goes far beyond just transfering images.


----------



## scott31270 (Feb 25, 2011)

Intel & Apple have decided on Light Peak/ Thunderbolt as THE solution for the future. Given Apple's weight in the graphic artist/ digital photography world, and Intel's weight in the computer manufacturing world (name any brand who isn't major partner with Intel), there is no doubt a Light Peak connector will be on all major camera brand's high end offerings. However, that could well be years from now (most likely 3 years). By the time range, it is possible high-end dSRL's will have built in Flash memory in addition to card slots. That built in Flash memory could then download at 1000x speed of CF cards via USB. Between now and that time, Canon/Nikon would have to weigh adding another port (since would be hard to drop USB until wide Thunderbolt adoption) versus being the first to be the fastest. 

However, the wildcard is Intel, who could well incent Canon with dollars. Just like they did with the Intel Inside program, where PC manufactures received massive funding (for channel programs, consumer rebate and advertising) by carrying it's chips. Having worked with Intel in the past, I can guarantee you that they have had many meetings with Canon and Nikon on Lite Peak already. Also having worked with Canon in the past, I can assume they will be slow to respond but smart enough to get on board once proven in the market.


----------



## sarge (Feb 25, 2011)

I don't know about you guys but I shoot a lot of video and downloading those clips can take an eternity. 
About the only thing that makes it palatable is the Hoodman firewire 800 CF cardreader I employ - it cuts the transfer time in half. I for one can't wait for Canon to adopt this technology.


----------



## bvukich (Feb 25, 2011)

I don't think I've transfered pictures off a card while it's still in the camera but twice, maybe three times.

I'd rather have a good, fast, card reader that I can use for all my cards/cameras. Why pay extra to integrate it into every camera, if the current USB2 connections are more than adequate for occasional use?


----------



## Admin US West (Feb 25, 2011)

The primary use of the new interface will be monitors and external hard disk drives. We already have card readers based on PCie, so its no faster than existing PCie connections which are limited by the memory card, and not the bus.

Its about twice as fast as USB 3, and thats not enough for me to fork over $$$ for a new port that only does what my esata port does.


----------



## pitt monqui (Feb 25, 2011)

I'm pretty sure that Thunderbolt would be an addition welcomed by HD Video users, although I can't imagine anyone actually NOT wanting it. Having it instead of a mini HDMI connector would mean the USB interface could remain, ensuring no one was left out in the cold.

Regarding card readers: They're great for transferring data while you continue shooting to another card, but I find it ridiculous that you need to actually remove storage media from your camera to get half decent transfer speeds - by putting it in a 3rd party device. People accept this as normal, just as getting out and hand cranking a stalled car used to be normal. At least back then the extra hardware was included.

I welcome this new technology and will adopt it by default when I replace my ageing (mac) computer later this year. How long Canon take to make their decision is another matter...


----------



## Admin US West (Feb 26, 2011)

pitt monqui said:


> I'm pretty sure that Thunderbolt would be an addition welcomed by HD Video users, although I can't imagine anyone actually NOT wanting it. Having it instead of a mini HDMI connector would mean the USB interface could remain, ensuring no one was left out in the cold.



It does not have a fast enough data rate to replace HDMI, which is more than twice the 10Gbps bandwidth of Thunderbolt, it would be a big step backwards.

Where did you see that it would replace HDMI??

Actually, HDMI is 10.2 Gb/sec not including overhead, and 8.16Gb/sec after overhead.

Display Port is bundled in the same cable, which has a 21.6 Gb/sec, which makes it suitable for the future. Computer makers are said to like it, but Entertainment Equipment makers do not seem to be as enthused. The compatibility with DVI and HDMI is built in to the chips, but a adapter is needed to connect a Display Port Cable to DVI or HDMI.

So, aparently, if computers come with Thunderbolt, they will include the adapter so you can drive your monitor, or even daisy chain monitors if the video card allows it.

There is a lot of conflicting information floating around, so it might not all be correct. I got some incorrect information from Wikipedia, and had to search more.


----------



## foobar (Feb 26, 2011)

I'm pretty sure it won't replace HDMI, the same way that Firewire didn't replace USB.
HDMI is a consumer standard, Light Peak targets the professional audience.

The maximum bandwidth of HDMI is 8gbps but normal 1920x1080, even at a progressive 60fps, requires much less than that.

But unlike HDMI, which is mainly a display standard and not much else, you could use Light Peak to stream for example RAW video to an external storage device.


----------



## taperoo2k (Feb 27, 2011)

Lightpeak (renamed Thunderbolt) will be far more interesting once Intel switches it over from copper to fibre optics (they have the fibre version in R&D at the moment). They've gone with copper to save money as there are some issues with supplying power through the fibre optic cables (from what i can gather).

This is how thunderbolt works -
http://www.engadget.com/2011/02/24/intel-thunderbolt-a-closer-look/

Canon will probably take an age in implimenting lightpeak (if it takes off).


----------

