Because I'm fairly certain the buffer is being emptied as more shots are coming in even in continuous mode.. The reason I believe this is that when I use a 95 mb/sec CF on my D800 and shoot in continuous mode I never fill the buffer up but when I use a 45 mb/sec the buffer will fill. So I'm thinking the camera does not wait until the buffer is full before it starts writing to the CF.
D7100 buffer size - it will fill in one second?!
- Thread starter BackdoorArts
- Start date
BackdoorArts
Senior Member
It's correct, Dave. In Continuous it will not write until the shutter button is released or the buffer is full. Once the buffer is full it will empty enough to allow additional shots to be fired at which point an exchange continues, write-shoot-write-shoot, with the number of shots taken between writes dependent on the file size and card speed (smaller files + faster card means more shots available). Once you release the shutter button it will immediately begin to write, but will allow you to shoot again before the buffer flushes entirely, only you'll have fewer shots available before it fills again.
AxeMan - Rick S.
Senior Member
I found this video interesting. At 5:58 the test is done in crop mode and RAW. I find you're waiting on the buffer but really not that much. You have to ask yourself are you really going to be shooting burst mode for ten seconds?
After watching this video I'm not going to worry about the buffer filling up if I'm using this card.
Yes it might be a walk around, but it will work for me in my book.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqv-AldrnM0
After watching this video I'm not going to worry about the buffer filling up if I'm using this card.
Yes it might be a walk around, but it will work for me in my book.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqv-AldrnM0
Last edited:
Johnathan Aulabaugh
Senior Member
interesting video
BackdoorArts
Senior Member
To answer your question, am I going to be shooting in burst mode for more than 10 seconds? Can't think of why I would. Will I do it for 3-4 seconds? You bet.
As I've said, I've dealt with this when I purchased the D7000 and shot birds in flight. You get a hawk or eagle circling above and it's almost probable that I'm going to hold that button down as long as they're near. If all I get is 3 seconds at 6 fps I'd be satisfied, because I'm bound to get something in 18 pics. But when I get 9-10 pics and then 1 or 2 per second after that, I've missed 1/2 of what I paid for, and that's with the fastest card I can find. With a Class 6 card I'm waiting at least a second before I get my 10th shot, and then I'll get 1-2 frames every other second. It's a problem for this type of photography, as it would be for some sports. Not always a problem, but when you put out a camera that advertises 6-7 fps and limit the buffer to 1 second (and don't tell me that I can do better if I go cropped because the sensor already IS cropped) then you've made a bad design choice. The least they could have done was drop the frame rate if they weren't willing to spend the pennies on a bigger buffer.
In other words, I shouldn't have to compromise what and how I shoot just to make up for a design flaw.
Last edited:
romandesign
Senior Member
You know, you can actually drop the framerate in the menus. It's adjustable ("low" position can have 1fps to 6fps setting), so I imagine if you'd be OK with 4 fps - you'll probably shoot longer until the buffer is full.
BackdoorArts
Senior Member
Right. But you're still shooting with a camera advertised at 6 fps where the 's' is not intended to be plural. My issue in posting was never about having a workaround, it was from a D7000 owner who already experienced a buffer issue (one that had been repeatedly complained about to Nikon on the web) on that camera wondering how in God's name they could upgrade the sensor (and associated file size) and not touch what was already an undersized buffer? Ridiculous in my book. Perhaps even thoughtless?
romandesign
Senior Member
No, I think it was done on purpose. Memory is cheap now, so they could not have just "forgot" to add it. They packed so much bang for the buck and offered an amazing camera for the price, if it would also have a large buffer they might have endangered their more expensive models. Tests show that up to ISO 1600 it's virtually identical to FX sensor SLRs in quality and noise. It's known that manufacturers deliberately slim down some features so they could maintain attractiveness of more expensive models. I can't be angry about that, it's just business, and this is still a great camera. They just made sure that a pro sport shooters would not be satisfied and bought more expensive cameras instead. Before that, they kept FPS in the "meh..." range to do the same, I like D7100 approach better. Most people would almost never need 6fps for more than a second, and usually there are pauses between such bursts, so buffer has time to empty.
Unless they are chasing a kid, a pet. . . . the freaking Nikon 1's are faster and have a larger buffer than the D7100. Just sayin'.
Unless they are chasing a kid, a pet. . . . the freaking Nikon 1's are faster and have a larger buffer than the D7100. Just sayin'.
I agree, it's hard to fathom why Nikon would bump up the mega-pixel count yet shrink the buffer down. It almost seems like they purposely refuse to make the "perfect" camera and keep out one or two items so that you'll consider buying another camera with that item. But alas, that camera will also have something lacking....and the cycle begins again.
Horoscope Fish
Senior Member
I guess I can kind of see both sides of this coin: on a practical level, the buffer issue does not concern me. The camera is spec'ed to hit 6 FPS, and it does just... Not for very long (due to the buffer size) when shooting RAW. So you've got Nikon saying,effectively, there is no problem; we said you can have 6 FPS and you can.
Then too I understand that by saying the camera will shoot at 6 FPS, without any sort of modifier or caveat attached to that statement, it's fair to assume the spec' means the camera will not only be capable of 6 FPS but will also functionally maintain that rate of shooting. And it certainly appears it will not. At least not when shooting RAW.
So yeah, Nikon never promised "Continuous 6 FPS in RAW" but neither was there an asterisk, footnote or fine print indicating what they meant by 6 FPS, exactly. It's a toughie... And yes, I think the blame falls on Nikon for not being a little more forthcoming about the details of the shooting rate. They've been doing this for a while now so I don't believe no one at Nikon considered the fact that a camera body that breaks well into the fourth digit, price-wise, is going to be asked to shoot RAW at full speed for longer than one or two seconds. I smell a bean counter at work... Somewhere between design and final release specifications
Then too I understand that by saying the camera will shoot at 6 FPS, without any sort of modifier or caveat attached to that statement, it's fair to assume the spec' means the camera will not only be capable of 6 FPS but will also functionally maintain that rate of shooting. And it certainly appears it will not. At least not when shooting RAW.
So yeah, Nikon never promised "Continuous 6 FPS in RAW" but neither was there an asterisk, footnote or fine print indicating what they meant by 6 FPS, exactly. It's a toughie... And yes, I think the blame falls on Nikon for not being a little more forthcoming about the details of the shooting rate. They've been doing this for a while now so I don't believe no one at Nikon considered the fact that a camera body that breaks well into the fourth digit, price-wise, is going to be asked to shoot RAW at full speed for longer than one or two seconds. I smell a bean counter at work... Somewhere between design and final release specifications
Last edited:
romandesign
Senior Member
They didn't shrink the buffer down, it's the same buffer size. And yes, that's what I'm saying, they deliberately made camera "not perfect". It was always like this, nothing new. It's just more obvious. At least they chose an area that's not critically important for most.
BTW I've been "chasing a kid" with 3.5 FPS with no problems. 6 is much better. I think if one has no idea to frame his photo with a kid within a second of continuous shooting, he'd better just shoot video anyway. It's a bit ridiculous to keep shooting 6fps for several seconds to get one good photo, that's not how good photos are made. I can understand the pro sports photos made for a paper and paid for, but that warrants different DSLR altogether. Still, if you want to get someone kicking the ball, you should be able to keep the target within a second. Otherwise shoot a video. Just saying
BTW I've been "chasing a kid" with 3.5 FPS with no problems. 6 is much better. I think if one has no idea to frame his photo with a kid within a second of continuous shooting, he'd better just shoot video anyway. It's a bit ridiculous to keep shooting 6fps for several seconds to get one good photo, that's not how good photos are made. I can understand the pro sports photos made for a paper and paid for, but that warrants different DSLR altogether. Still, if you want to get someone kicking the ball, you should be able to keep the target within a second. Otherwise shoot a video. Just saying
BackdoorArts
Senior Member
Then they should have made the top frame rate 4 fps!! I never said it wasn't purposeful, just thoughtless. They were underbuffered already and said, "Screw it - we're not changing any of it", when it was an acknowledged deficiency (I spoke with several Nikon reps about it in NY last fall and they all acknowledged the buffer on the D7000 was undersized).
I shoot birds in flight. Get an eagle flying by and you want 3-4 seconds to have a shot at the image. Shoot motorsports, one second isn't enough. You want to get the kid kicking the ball, sure. You want to get the soccer player running down the field with the ball, not quite. Sure you could compromise, but why, because you bought a camera advertised at 6fps specifically for that purpose!! It may be ridiculous to assume you have to shoot at 6 fps all the time to get a good shot, but in certain genres of photography it's certainly not ridiculous to want to when you have a camera that's supposed to be able to do it!! You may be more than happy to settle for that, or for shooting a video. Not all of us are just looking to take snapshots of our kids, and that's a point you just can't seem to latch onto.
The fact is, Nikon doesn't have a DX camera introduced in the last 2-3 years that will do either well. Not one!! There is no choice other than to compromise. And that's a problem. Everything else is a one-sided compromise by the consumer. I will continue to cry BS, particularly because I've had extended conversation with folks from Nikon about this problem since the D7000 was still a puppy.
I shoot birds in flight. Get an eagle flying by and you want 3-4 seconds to have a shot at the image. Shoot motorsports, one second isn't enough. You want to get the kid kicking the ball, sure. You want to get the soccer player running down the field with the ball, not quite. Sure you could compromise, but why, because you bought a camera advertised at 6fps specifically for that purpose!! It may be ridiculous to assume you have to shoot at 6 fps all the time to get a good shot, but in certain genres of photography it's certainly not ridiculous to want to when you have a camera that's supposed to be able to do it!! You may be more than happy to settle for that, or for shooting a video. Not all of us are just looking to take snapshots of our kids, and that's a point you just can't seem to latch onto.
The fact is, Nikon doesn't have a DX camera introduced in the last 2-3 years that will do either well. Not one!! There is no choice other than to compromise. And that's a problem. Everything else is a one-sided compromise by the consumer. I will continue to cry BS, particularly because I've had extended conversation with folks from Nikon about this problem since the D7000 was still a puppy.
romandesign
Senior Member
I'm not saying that it's not a deficiency, it is. But I guess this camera is just not for pro sport shooters or dedicated bird shooters then. Get more expensive camera if that's the case. Nikon decided to make a bottleneck here. Not much sense complaining, that was a conscious decision... And every camera has a limit of RAW continuous shooting until buffer fills. It can be 1.5 or 2 sec, but it happens. Canon 7D which is more expensive than D7100 can squeeze 15 RAW files until the buffer fills (vs 6) but it's 18Mp so the files are smaller. Yes, it's a pity that new D7100 is inferior to older 7D in that respect, but I'd be "sorrier" if they decided to cripple autofocus or picture quality instead.
BackdoorArts
Senior Member
Which only means you're not shooting it under the conditions where it is a problem. Toggle over to RAW for sports and you're singing a different tune - and that's the only real point of this thread. There are a million situations where this isn't a problem. But in those where it is, it flies in the face of the way in which Nikon labeled the camera.
BackdoorArts
Senior Member
Nothing new here. You can always go longer with smaller file sizes, which is what all that he's doing here. But it comes at a (potential) price in terms of image quality. How much of a quality difference you get between 14-bit lossless RAW and 12-bit compressed RAW is a subject of debate in many forums (my take is that in extreme lighting you lose some IQ), so sure, it's a way of getting more frames before it fills. But it's still just a band-aid over a wound that was designed into the camera (or more correctly, not addressed from the previous version). If you don't shoot wildlife or sports predominantly than it's a perfectly viable workaround. If that's your bread and butter, it's a compromise, and you should never have to compromise on a new tool.
iamntxhunter
Senior Member
I shoot a D7k and I have 2 cards in it one for RAW SanDisk 32gig /95mb/s and a 16 @ 80mb/s for jpwg large/fine. I just burned of 18 shots before it caught up to itself.