Nikon D7100 buffer capacity issues
- Thread starter Dave_W
- Start date
The other poster has a valid point. What was the sd card used during his test?
The link below are the tested and approved SD cards for this camera.
Nikon | Imaging Products | Specifications - Nikon D7100
The link below are the tested and approved SD cards for this camera.
Nikon | Imaging Products | Specifications - Nikon D7100
I've been blasting the old D5K all day today in sort of sucky lighting playing with all kinds of ISO and ADL trickery. I would like to have a D7100...I don't care about the buffer stuff I don't shoot action anyway. The weird but cool (somewhere between DX and FX) crop and the resolution and the high ISO would do it for me I bet.
He uses vague references with little to back up anything he says.
Here is a link to something with a bit more substance Discussion Forums @ Nikonians - D7100 Buffer Test Updated with Sandisk Extreme Pro UHS-1 95mb/s
Put a 95 mbs card in, and it looks OK to me, I would be happy with that. Anyone that thinks they needs more should look at a different camera, simple.
Here is a link to something with a bit more substance Discussion Forums @ Nikonians - D7100 Buffer Test Updated with Sandisk Extreme Pro UHS-1 95mb/s
Put a 95 mbs card in, and it looks OK to me, I would be happy with that. Anyone that thinks they needs more should look at a different camera, simple.
BackdoorArts
Senior Member
There's a link in the original discussion where they try various SD cards in the D7100, and at uncropped RAW with the 95 mbs card you will get a 6 shot burst and then one or two shots per second after that. They do show that if you drop to the cropped mode you will get almost 2 full seconds of shooting, and then nearly 3 fps after. So it's possible to overcome certain aspects of this issue - though I still contend that it's an absolute design blunder to offer a 6 fps camera with a buffer that fills in a second. For birds in flight, cropped mode probably won't hurt you either.
BackdoorArts
Senior Member
That doesn't seem right at all!! Even at the highest resolution possible you should get 6 shots before the buffer fills.
AC016
Senior Member
This is a quote from Scott Kelby's site:
"Hi Chris: It definitely feels faster shoot high-res JPEGs (though I didn't time it to compare the two) and the buffer doesn't fill nearly as fast shooting JPEGs (for example, when shooting Raw + JPEG I only got about a 4-frame burst before it started to choke, whereas when shoot just JPEG Fine mode I got to around 20 shots before filling the buffer). The 6 fps really didn't bother me --- it felt considerable faster then the D600, even though I think it's only 1 or 2 fps faster. For $1,200 it's pretty amazing (though I wish it had to option to get up to 7 or 8 by adding a battery grip like the old D300). Hope that helps.
"
I'm not saying the buck stops with him, but he seems to be happy and accepts what the D7100 delivers. I can understand (somewhat) shooting RAW when birding or doing sports, but don't expect machine gun like quickness. Is this really an issue or are people expecting more from a camera than what is advertised??
"Hi Chris: It definitely feels faster shoot high-res JPEGs (though I didn't time it to compare the two) and the buffer doesn't fill nearly as fast shooting JPEGs (for example, when shooting Raw + JPEG I only got about a 4-frame burst before it started to choke, whereas when shoot just JPEG Fine mode I got to around 20 shots before filling the buffer). The 6 fps really didn't bother me --- it felt considerable faster then the D600, even though I think it's only 1 or 2 fps faster. For $1,200 it's pretty amazing (though I wish it had to option to get up to 7 or 8 by adding a battery grip like the old D300). Hope that helps.
"I'm not saying the buck stops with him, but he seems to be happy and accepts what the D7100 delivers. I can understand (somewhat) shooting RAW when birding or doing sports, but don't expect machine gun like quickness. Is this really an issue or are people expecting more from a camera than what is advertised??
BackdoorArts
Senior Member
Good point - I neglected to think about shooting RAW + high quality JPEG to the same card. That could barf around 4 images.
BackdoorArts
Senior Member
I have to say an emphatic "No", only because they advertise 6 fps. If that's what you're advertising, and there's no additional disclaimer stating that this level of performance may vary depending on image format and card speed then that's what you should expect ... and expect it for more than 1 second. You want to barf at 2 seconds at max resolution, I'm actually OK with that. But don't say "frames per second" when you can barely make "frames for one second".
AC016
Senior Member
Okie dokie. I just wanted to know because i have not read enough reviews of the camera. Also, i find that it only takes a few people to bad mouth something that really is not an issue and then it becomes an issue... you know how the interweb works. Though, i will take your word for it because i beleive you tested the cam out, right? Thanks
BackdoorArts
Senior Member
Granted, it's not going to be an issue for most, but it was a deal breaker for me (based on spec and field reports - I had one preordered and cancelled it). I raised the issue as soon as someone posted the buffer size numbers, which were suspiciously and conspicuously missing from the Nikon USA site, so if anything I may be responsible for hyping the issue (another blog pointed to my original post here about it). I totally agree that some of this stuff can get out of hand quickly, and I don't like to bash products based on rumor and speculation. I don't think this is a bad camera, just a badly spec'd one. They mismatched fps and buffer size and should have adjusted one down or the other up, because it just doesn't make sense paired as is.