D7100 buffer size - it will fill in one second?!

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
Interesting review from nature photographer Jason Odell. In it he manages to expose something that I looked for and couldn't find - one of the things I was sure Nikon would make sure they didn't let happen...

Frame Buffer: Ok, I had to dig around to find this, as it isn’t on Nikon USA’s website. It is, however in the specs at Nikon.com. The D7100 frame buffer is 6 lossless-compressed 14-bit NEFs, or 7 lossless compressed 12-bit NEFs. That’s really tough to swallow for a camera touted as being fast. I’m afraid that almost kills the D7100 as a birding camera for me.


Pardon me but, "Sonofabitch!!!" It sounds like they upped the sensor size by 33% over the D7000, but kept the same freaking buffer - one that was already too small!! On the D7000, I get about 8 or 9 frames before it starts barfing. Get an eagle flying at you and you'll chew those frames up in 1.5 seconds, and then if you've got a real fast card you'll wait a second and then be lucky to get 1-2 fps after that. With the bigger images you'll fill your buffer in 1 second. ONE SECOND!!! Are they kidding?! If I choose the 1.3x crop then I can get 8, or 12 if I shoot 12-bit, so that's another whole second. It's likely that I'll use one of the User settings specifically for birds in flight, so it becomes less cumbersome to think about changing your resolution settings every time you're aiming at a hawk. But to have do it just so I can get the camera to perform as well as the D7000, which has been knocked for this limitation since it came out, doesn't sit well.

Now some of you will simply say, "Then don't shoot RAW and you'll never have to worry about it." Well, without the anti-aliasing filter there's more of a need to shoot RAW to perform proper sharpening. For gun enthusiasts, it would be like having a significant automatic weapon and a 6 round clip. Or putting a 65mph speed limiter on a Corvette. Crazy!!

I need to pour myself a glass of something and slowly ponder this thing again. Not sure how I missed it the first time out, but the idea of this as my wildlife camera is what made me decide not to go with a second FX camera. And while it's by no means a one trick pony, Nikon managed to limit the one trick I really care about. And they limited it to the extent that I'm seriously considering cancelling the order and reassessing a D800 (where I'll get ~16 lossless RAW images in FX mode buffer) or a second D600 (where I get about the same, and over 30 if I shoot cropped).
 
Last edited:

RockyNH_RIP

Senior Member
Ouch... I did not realize that either (though it is probably less of an issue for me). Goo dluck on having to re-visit all the research/decisions you just made.. that has to be a pain.. Good luck sorting it out Jake!

Pat in NH
 

Scott Murray

Senior Member
Here are the specs from that site.

Approximate frame advance rate

  • JPEG and 12-bit NEF (RAW) images recorded with DX (24x16) selected for image area: CL 1 to 6 fps, CH 6 fps
  • JPEG and 12-bit NEF (RAW) images recorded with 1.3x (18x12) selected for image area: CL 1 to 6 fps, CH 7 fps
  • 14-bit NEF (RAW) images recorded with DX (24x16) selected for image area: CL 1 to 5 fps, CH 5 fps
  • 14-bit NEF (RAW) images recorded with 1.3x (18x12) selected for image area: CL 1 to 6 fps, CH 6 fps
 

Pierro

Senior Member
Ok, its FX I know , but the D3S has the buffer mutha of all muthas. What a birding camera :p

RAW: 40 shots 12 bit uncompressed .... 36 shots 14 bit uncompressed
 

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
The thing is it's not like I was complaining about frames per second. 6 fps is more than fine. I'd even take 4 for my purposes. But to give you a buffer that can't handle more than 6 RAW images is obscene. Particularly, as is pointed out so well in the review, that this is supposed to be the flagship of the DX line. The only thing that has me from running away screaming is the price point. Tack another couple hundred dollars on this camera and it's almost a joke to do what they did. And for absolutely every other use the specs are amazing. I just can't fathom why Nikon not only wouldn't address something that the camera's predecessor was getting knocked for 2 years ago, but exacerbated the problem by using the same small buffer and increasing the file size.
 

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
Here are the specs from that site.
Approximate frame advance rate
  • JPEG and 12-bit NEF (RAW) images recorded with DX (24x16) selected for image area: CL 1 to 6 fps, CH 6 fps
  • JPEG and 12-bit NEF (RAW) images recorded with 1.3x (18x12) selected for image area: CL 1 to 6 fps, CH 7 fps
  • 14-bit NEF (RAW) images recorded with DX (24x16) selected for image area: CL 1 to 5 fps, CH 5 fps
  • 14-bit NEF (RAW) images recorded with 1.3x (18x12) selected for image area: CL 1 to 6 fps, CH 6 fps

And those are the obvious specs. What it doesn't give you is this (column to the far right), which is nowhere to be found on the Nikon USA site...

Memory card capacity The following table shows the approximate number of pictures that can be stored on an 8 GB SanDisk Extreme Pro SDHC UHS-I card at different image quality, image size and image area settings.

DX (24x16) image area


Image qualityImage sizeFile size*[SUP]1[/SUP]No. of images*[SUP]1[/SUP]Buffer capacity*[SUP]2[/SUP]
NEF (RAW), Lossless compressed, 12-bit-22.7 MB1917
NEF (RAW), Lossless compressed, 14-bit-28.5 MB1486
NEF (RAW), Compressed, 12-bit-20.2 MB2609
NEF (RAW), Compressed, 14-bit-24.9 MB2178
JPEG fine*[SUP]3[/SUP]Large Medium Small12.0 MB 7.4 MB 3.8 MB507 853 160033 100 100
JPEG normal*[SUP]3[/SUP]Large Medium Small6.2 MB 3.7 MB 1.9 MB1000 1600 3200100 100 100
JPEG basic*[SUP]3[/SUP]Large Medium Small2.9 MB 1.9 MB 1.0 MB1900 3200 6000100 100 100

1.3x (18x12) image area


Image qualityImage sizeFile size*[SUP]1[/SUP]No. of images*[SUP]1[/SUP]Buffer capacity*[SUP]2[/SUP]
NEF (RAW), Lossless compressed, 12-bit-15.1 MB29512
NEF (RAW), Lossless compressed, 14-bit-18.8 MB2298
NEF (RAW), Compressed, 12-bit-13.4 MB39914
NEF (RAW), Compressed, 14-bit-16.3 MB33411
JPEG fine*[SUP]3[/SUP]Large Medium Small8.2 MB 5.0 MB 2.7 MB764 1200 220073 100 100
JPEG normal*[SUP]3[/SUP]Large Medium Small4.1 MB 2.5 MB 1.4 MB1500 2400 4400100 100 100
JPEG basic*[SUP]3[/SUP]Large Medium Small2.0 MB 1.3 MB 0.7 MB2900 4600 8000100 100 100

*1 All figures are approximate. File size varies with scene recorded.
*2 Maximum number of exposures that can be stored in memory buffer at ISO 100. Drops if optimal quality is selected for JPEG compression, ISO sensitivity is set to Hi 0.3 or higher, or long exposure noise reduction or auto distortion control is on.
*3 Figures assume JPEG compression is set to Size priority. Selecting optimal quality increases the file size of JPEG images; number of images and buffer capacity drop accordingly.
 
Last edited:

Scott Murray

Senior Member
Well there is a bit of leeway by the sounds as this is based at ISO 100, normally for a BIF shot you would be using ISO 400 to keep your shutter speed up. So hopefully it does meet your expectations in FPS at a higher ISO.

*2 Maximum number of exposures that can be stored in memory buffer at ISO 100.



 

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
Well there is a bit of leeway by the sounds as this is based at ISO 100, normally for a BIF shot you would be using ISO 400 to keep your shutter speed up. So hopefully it does meet your expectations in FPS at a higher ISO.

*2 Maximum number of exposures that can be stored in memory buffer at ISO 100.


ISO 100 is native ISO, which is why it's quoted. Buffer capacity is based on capacity in MB's and ISO 400 won't buy you anything with regard to file size. If nothing else, birds in flight are shot against a largely monochromatic background, so you can sometimes squeeze an extra click in before it barfs.

Sambr, I'm curious as to where you saw your information, because this is the first thing I've read that mentions anything about buffer size. All I ever read was fps numbers and file sizes, but nothing to do with buffer size, which is what throttles (or chokes) this bad boy.

As of 5PM, I'm 95% sure I'll be cancelling my order on Monday morning and buying a D800. I get everything it offers, plus what the D7100 offered at normal crop without buffer clogging (in fact, I can go 5+ seconds at DX if I'd like before it barfs). If Nikon wants to draw the line it looks like I'm gonna need to cross it.
 

stmv

Senior Member
well,, too bad they don't have like an option there.. where you could buy the bigger buffer like a 7100S for say 200 dollars more, and a buffer of say 20,,

but, this does seem to be a Nikon trend,, to keep the cameras from eating the more expensive camera models markets.

now, realize, that the buffer fills up fast on the D800 too.. I get about 15 shots in burst before it begins to crawl, tried it right now, yup, my D800 got 15 shots in before choking, but 15 is just enougy I suspect, and I agree, 5 fps is good enough in my book.

actually,, ok, I confess, I love the D800,, so, if you can afford it,, I say go for it. Reason, I feel no urge to upgrade my D7000, is well, the D800 does 80% of all my photos. Only time I use the other comeras is when I want a lighter body, or just have one my backpack when I am up and about, and I want to make sure the camera is around.
 

Geoffc

Senior Member
Looks like my D300s has legs yet. My mate was unhappy with his D600 buffer recently and asked what the D300 was like shooting Raw. He almost cried when he heard it firing! I must admit that I don't use that facility much but it's nice to know it's not a limit.
 

jwstl

Senior Member
Some said when first announced that the D7100 was the replacement for both the D7000 and the D300. But it isn't. I suspect we'll see a D400 shortly.
 

jwstl

Senior Member
I just don't understand why Nikon did not increase the buffer - it's a well known issue with the D7000?

If they increased the resolution then they most likely did increase the buffer in order to stay at the same rate as the previous, lower MP camera. As to why they didn't increase the rate, I imagine the thought is if you need a better buffer you need a different camera.
 

M1A

Senior Member
Thanks for the the extra info, and for the interesting analogies. I wonder how much planning goes into Nikon's marketing to pack a new camera with a punch, but to leave out critical features. I agree, it must be to keep from killing higher end models.
 

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
If they increased the resolution then they most likely did increase the buffer in order to stay at the same rate as the previous, lower MP camera. As to why they didn't increase the rate, I imagine the thought is if you need a better buffer you need a different camera.

That's the thing they didn't touch the buffer!! I get 9 shots with my 16MP D7000. They say 6 shots with the 24MP D7100. Do the math...

9 x 16 = 144
6 x 24 = 144

Same buffer!!

I wouldn't hold your breath on the D400 unless you're very happy with the D300.

As for the D800, I'm not looking to bird in full FX mode. Nikon doesn't have published buffer capacity specs on the D800, but if I do the math I can see that the 1.5 DX crop image is about have the size, so I would expect twice as many images before the buffer chokes. I can live with 30 images around the same size of those I currently get with my D7000.

I do a lot of different shooting, and the need for firing off a constant stream doesn't creep up very often. But it does, as it would for anyone who shoots action photography of any kind. That a company like Nikon would issue a new camera that's cannot shoot full quality for more than 1 second at max frame rate is ridiculous, and even moreso when it's supposedly their "flagship". Everything else about this camera makes so much sense. I'm absolutely stupified that they would do this.
 

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
... it must be to keep from killing higher end models.

But this is their "high end model" when it comes to DX. Anything above this is twice the price, and none of it is DX, so unless they believe that DX shooters don't need to shoot a lot of photos quickly then they are leaving a chunk of the serious amateur market to consider the question, "Am I better off with a Canon?" I came into the market at the D7000 level, and had no previous inclination to shoot one or the other. Were I coming in with the same criteria today, this review alone would likely have me plopping money down on an EOS of some sort. Hard to say, but very true.
 

Eduard

Super Mod
Staff member
Super Mod
But this is their "high end model" when it comes to DX. Anything above this is twice the price, and none of it is DX, so unless they believe that DX shooters don't need to shoot a lot of photos quickly then they are leaving a chunk of the serious amateur market to consider the question, "Am I better off with a Canon?" I came into the market at the D7000 level, and had no previous inclination to shoot one or the other. Were I coming in with the same criteria today, this review alone would likely have me plopping money down on an EOS of some sort. Hard to say, but very true.

 

Sambr

Senior Member
Way too much time wasted on "Buffer size" I still shoot with a D7000, I like the reach with a 300mmF4 & 1.7 TC. Yes I would like a larger buffer - has it stopped me from getting great shots no! I bought the fastest cards I could buy so they transfer quickly and carried on. There was a few times I wish the buffer was bigger. What I am trying to say for my birding & wildlife needs the buffer wasn't that big of a deal. Here are some samples:
osprey_jun2012-XL.jpg


Y%26G1-XL.jpg
 
Top