D7100 buffer size - it will fill in one second?!
- Thread starter BackdoorArts
- Start date
BackdoorArts
Senior Member
There are always compromises to make to work around bad technology. I have one of the fastest cards available, and all that means is that I now get 2 or 3 shots every other second after the buffer hits capacity instead of 1 or 2.
Have I missed great shots, as Sambr asks? I don't know because I was too busy being frustrated by my D7000 bugger being full to really notice what I was missing in the viewfinder. In other words, I've had my finger depressed on the shutter with a bird in the viewfinder but the camera stalled, so while I cannot guarantee that what I did not get would have been better than the shots I did get, I would have to answer your question with an "Absolutely!!".
There was an interesting post in Nikon Rumors last night regarding the Flagship status of the D7100. From the post...
A dpreview forum member contacted Nikon Europe and asked them about the new D7100 being described as the "new flagship of Nikon's DX-format HD-SLR lineup" on Nikon USA website (the D7100 is described as "enthusiast-level DX format camera" in Europe). This is Nikon's answer:
"I can assure you that the D7100 is not positioned to replace the D300s as Nikon's flagship DX-format camera - such is the information received from Nikon Japan on the matter."
This now gives me even more food for thought. Maybe I'll just stick with the bodies I have for a while and see what comes out to replace the D300, as was suggested. Certainly I don't need to rush things. I've been talking about the Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 for a while and that may just make more sense in the long run, particularly with the latest innovations on the lens and the idea that a 1.7-2X converter leaves me with a longer and brighter (and much heavier) lens than my 150-500mm. Good glass is always good, right?
Johnathan Aulabaugh
Senior Member
No, when the D7000 launched Nikon flat said it was NOT the D90 successor and continued to make the D90. The big uproar with the release of the D7000 was how is it NOT the replacement. Now 2 years later the D7000 is the DX camera to have for most enthusiasts and IS obviously the D90 replacement. It was a marketing ploy to keep people buying the D90 at the time since price had dropped and there was no real decent cameras under the D90. The D300s is and has always been firmly seated above the D7000 because of build and AF although on paper the D7000 does appear to be the contender... ( http://www.bythom.com/nikond7000review.htm Under picture of D7000 )
Good Find on the Buffer. That would be the straw that broke the camels back for me as well. I could not find much info on the D800 buffer except for one spot that said 14frames in 14bit lossless. I heard on one review that the catch up for the buffer to card can be quite extensive on the D800. I will try to find it... Did find the D600 buffer. Seems like a hell of a choice.
As for the over hype? probably because once everyone figures out the quarks of the D7100 such as the buffer etc, Nikon might be in for a little razzing.
Good Find on the Buffer. That would be the straw that broke the camels back for me as well. I could not find much info on the D800 buffer except for one spot that said 14frames in 14bit lossless. I heard on one review that the catch up for the buffer to card can be quite extensive on the D800. I will try to find it... Did find the D600 buffer. Seems like a hell of a choice.
As for the over hype? probably because once everyone figures out the quarks of the D7100 such as the buffer etc, Nikon might be in for a little razzing.
Last edited:
BackdoorArts
Senior Member
I've got a D90 and a D7000, and if one does not follow the other then Nikon has simply dropped the idea of anything following that model (they ran out of numbers, perhaps?) and let the 3K, 5K and 7K fill the void with a trio of choices.
The D800 is the one model with no specific buffer size information, but 14-15 is the number I seem to be hearing from actual users. More than enough. Catchup is obviously an issue driven by the size of the files going to the card more than anything else, so even with the fastest card you can get it's going to take a while to write a file that size.
The D800 is the one model with no specific buffer size information, but 14-15 is the number I seem to be hearing from actual users. More than enough. Catchup is obviously an issue driven by the size of the files going to the card more than anything else, so even with the fastest card you can get it's going to take a while to write a file that size.
Johnathan Aulabaugh
Senior Member
I have both as well. Edited above post with link My reference to it this far out was in scarcasm like I said about it is Obvious at this point that the D7000 was in fact the D90 replacement... I honestly do not see a D400 in the works but we will see considering the huge oversight on the D7100
I had almost bought the D600 a few months ago but can not seem to get past the "Idea" of the 1.5 crop... ultimately I would like to have a FF for portraits and a DX for my wildlife but there is the mental block I seem to be having since I do not like to crop in post processing beyond a slight straighten. Physically with a 24 or 36 MP camera I can crop down with little or no problems for printing or clarity. So it comes down to speed and buffer I suppose now. Like many like me I prefer to fill the frame in camera so if I make the jump I will also need some bigger glass.
BackdoorArts
Senior Member
The thing is, the 1.5 crop on the D600 yields an image with the same crop factor as a DX camera with no crop at all. The main difference is that the D600's resolution at 1.5 crop is lower than the D90, D300 and D7000 (about 10MP's). The D800 cropped at 1.5 will give you an image equivalent to the D7000. So, unless your subject is close enough that it would more than fill the viewfinder in the DX camera you're not going to be cropping out anything you'd get with the DX. Look at this image...
Assume the full image represents the what you see in the D600 view finder. Take the exact same lens and put it on a DX camera an the yellow box represents what you will see in the viewfinder - assuming you have not moved. It's also what you'd get if you set the FX camera to 1.5 crop DX mode. So, a 150-500mm lens acts like a 225-750mm on a DX camera, which is what makes it so great for wildlife.
What made the D7100 so attractive is that if the full frame above represented what you saw in the viewfinder, the red box is what you'd get in 1.3x crop mode, turning the 150-500mm into not a 225-750mm at 24MPs, but something more akin to a 293-975mm lens at 16MP's. Talk about a great advantage for the wildlife photographer!!
Except for that dang buffer...
BackdoorArts
Senior Member
Here's a great comparison of DX vs. FX as well, with a better photo showing what the smaller sensor buys you.
Nikon DX vs FX
Nikon DX vs FX
RockyNH_RIP
Senior Member
Excellent, thanks for sharing... I learned a bit more than I knew and I thank you!
Pat in NH
Johnathan Aulabaugh
Senior Member
So I am not one to look to the crop to fill the frame. Never have been. What appealed to me with the D7100 was the sensor itself. It seems that with the 24mp sensors and above, a new depth in color has been reached. Be it Fx or Dx. Couple that with a slightly faster FPS and for me it looked like a great option. Again the buffer kills it. I fully understand how FF and crop works except for in this instance the math does not seem to add up lol. How does a 24MP sensor cut relatively in half? 24mp / 1.5 = 10mp
View attachment 28970
Johnathan Aulabaugh
Senior Member
found this on another thread from you and it was also something I had overlooked myself. I have not heard of noise being to bad in other Dx 24mp cameras so not real sure it is as worrisome now as it was 4-5 years ago.
BackdoorArts
Senior Member
"Bad" is all a matter of degrees. I never thought the D7000 was "bad", but when I saw the high ISO performance of the D600 it was impossible to go back to the D7000 and not notice the add'l noise. All relative and part of getting to know a camera and how to use it.
yes, and what limitation/range per camera. I mean with my D80,, I would hardly push it pass ISO 400 or the noise would just ruin it for me, but I still love my D80.
I worry less about which camera I have, and just think about the shot, staying within the limits of whatever camera I hold in my hands.
Time will tell if the 7100 is something magical with the new sensor design without the antialias filter.
I am putting a lot of wear on my D800, so,, I see in a couple of years, a D800e or its replacement. I really would like to get away from the anti-alias
filter.
On the other hands, my shots tend to be sharp enough already, we do get obsessed with detail..
I have actually had a few people say that the shot had an oversharpen look,, just because the D800 captures so much detail.
I worry less about which camera I have, and just think about the shot, staying within the limits of whatever camera I hold in my hands.
Time will tell if the 7100 is something magical with the new sensor design without the antialias filter.
I am putting a lot of wear on my D800, so,, I see in a couple of years, a D800e or its replacement. I really would like to get away from the anti-alias
filter.
On the other hands, my shots tend to be sharp enough already, we do get obsessed with detail..
I have actually had a few people say that the shot had an oversharpen look,, just because the D800 captures so much detail.
Last edited:
So to get back on topic here, one thing that was overlooked is the speed at which the camera can write to the card. This is currently unknown, but we can assume that the EXPEED 3 processor has upped the write time at least a little. The speed of your sd card also matters.
I found some useful data on this here: Discussion Forums @ Nikonians - D7100 buffer guesstimates
Buffer-emptying rate (BER) in fps is calculated as card speed/file size. The file sizes I used are the ones from the D7100 spec sheet for the modes chosen.
Buffer-usage rate (BUR) in fps is the rate at which the buffer is filled minus the rate at which it is emptied (BER). Since the frame rate of the camera is taken to be 6 fps, this becomes simply:
BUR = 6 - BER
Finally, the time-to-buffer-full (TBF) is calculated as buffer size (in frames) divided by the BUR. The buffer size for each mode is also taken from the D7100 spec sheet.
In these tables, I show these values for the worst-case raw scenario of lossless-compressed 14-bit (28.5-MB files, buffer = 6) and the best-case raw scenario of lossy-compressed 12-bit (20.2-MB files, buffer = 9.)
14-bit lossless (28.5 MB files, 6-frame buffer)
I highly doubt you're going to get 90 mb/s into the sd card, but if you can get 60, that means you could get a 3 seconds of continuous shooting at 12 bit lossy compression before the buffer starts to slow you down. Otherwise you'd be seeing 1.5 seconds until the buffer fills at 42 mb/s
I found some useful data on this here: Discussion Forums @ Nikonians - D7100 buffer guesstimates
Buffer-emptying rate (BER) in fps is calculated as card speed/file size. The file sizes I used are the ones from the D7100 spec sheet for the modes chosen.
Buffer-usage rate (BUR) in fps is the rate at which the buffer is filled minus the rate at which it is emptied (BER). Since the frame rate of the camera is taken to be 6 fps, this becomes simply:
BUR = 6 - BER
Finally, the time-to-buffer-full (TBF) is calculated as buffer size (in frames) divided by the BUR. The buffer size for each mode is also taken from the D7100 spec sheet.
In these tables, I show these values for the worst-case raw scenario of lossless-compressed 14-bit (28.5-MB files, buffer = 6) and the best-case raw scenario of lossy-compressed 12-bit (20.2-MB files, buffer = 9.)
14-bit lossless (28.5 MB files, 6-frame buffer)
| Write Speed | BER (fps) | BUR (fps) | TBF (sec) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 42 MB/s | 42/28.5 = 1.5 | 6-1.5 = 4.5 | 6/4.5 = 1.3 |
| 60 MB/s | 60/28.5 = 2.1 | 6-2.1 = 3.9 | 6/3.9 = 1.5 |
| 90 MB/s | 90/28.5 = 3.2 | 6-3.2 = 2.8 | 6/2.8 = 2.1 |
I highly doubt you're going to get 90 mb/s into the sd card, but if you can get 60, that means you could get a 3 seconds of continuous shooting at 12 bit lossy compression before the buffer starts to slow you down. Otherwise you'd be seeing 1.5 seconds until the buffer fills at 42 mb/s
BackdoorArts
Senior Member
That assumes that the buffer clears as it fills. It doesn't, which is really the problem. The buffer doesn't begin writing until it's full. When the camera fires again, and how many times, is a function of how quickly the buffer clears, which is where the card speed comes in.
With my D7000, by going to the fastest card I could find/afford I was able to go from a 2 second delay for 1 or 2 add'l shots to a 1 second delay for 2 or 3 add'l shots and then 2 or 3 every other second after the buffer fills.
With my D7000, by going to the fastest card I could find/afford I was able to go from a 2 second delay for 1 or 2 add'l shots to a 1 second delay for 2 or 3 add'l shots and then 2 or 3 every other second after the buffer fills.
BackdoorArts
Senior Member
That's what I'm talking about, John. And that's a fast card.
Doonhammer, in single shot mode it writes immediately. In continuous mode it holds the images to allow for the additional captures and won't write until the shutter button is released or the buffer is full.
Doonhammer, in single shot mode it writes immediately. In continuous mode it holds the images to allow for the additional captures and won't write until the shutter button is released or the buffer is full.
That doesn't seem right, are you sure about this?