D3S owners - does it REALLY get 9 FPS??

[john.mathieson]

<p>Audacity IS a cool little program - I just tested my D300 - batteries freshly charged- with the extra battery pack using an ENEL4a (big fat) battery (the battery alone costs more than a half decent P&S camera)- only got a peak of 5.5 FPS. Advertised is 8 FPS. Using jpeg normal.<br>

Hmmm.<br>

I do appreciate the fact that just pointing a camera and blasting at high frame rates is not exactly fine photographic technique - but at the same time, short bursts at high frame rates can be very useful. If I am going to shell out $5 k for a camera, I would think it should meet advertised specs.<br>

What if you bought a dozen beer, and then found when you opened it, 3 3/4 beers were missing?<br>

I am about to order pizza for dinner. I hope when I open the box there aren't 3 pieces missing !!!!!<br>

Anybody with more measurements on a D3S?</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>John, I have never had any trouble getting 8 or 9 frames/second from the D300, D300S, D700, D3 and D3S. Make sure you are using the base ISO, switch off Active D Lighting, noise reduction, etc.; essentially switch off everything that might take up extra computing time for the on-board computer.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>John, if you can provide one or two shots from a burst sequence with EXIF data intact, perhaps someone here can spot a specific factor that might explain why you're getting less than maximum frame rates. It's very likely that there is some particular setting or settings you've dialed in that are affected the fps.</p>

[john.mathieson]

<p>I used ISO 3200 because this is often what I would use in an indoor gym - data is<br>

A 1/15 F 2.8 ISO 3200 45mm WB A (or PREDd-0 - no difference) 0,0 sRGB VI N 121ND300 DSC_7828 .JPG Normal L 4288x2848</p>

[john.mathieson]

<p>Hmm - just checked through my settings - Active D Lighting is on Normal. I will give it a try with that turned off. I am not sure how that would affect the quality of images - I gather it underexposes the image a bit, and then brightens up the dark areas - is that correct?<br>

Don't most people shoot with it on?<br>

J</p>

[hal_b]

<blockquote>

<p>Don't most people shoot with it on?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Whoa! That's a big assumption. I think SOME people shoot with it SOMETIMES, when the occasion calls for it. D-Lighting takes alot more time, and is definitely slowing down your frame rate. In most situations, it's not necessary, nor does it make a difference. Even in tough contrast situations, the D-Lighting solution might not appeal to alot of photographers, who will prefer to shoot the RAW file and improve lighting contrast in post-processing. There's no rule that says you can't just use it all the time, but it has an effect on all your pictures. It's like shooting everything with your saturation turned up. Sometimes you might want that, but all the time?</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=565182">John Mathieson</a><br>

I used ISO 3200 because this is often what I would use in an indoor gym - data is<br /> A <strong>1/15</strong> F 2.8 ISO 3200...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>John, you've identified the most likely problem: shooting at 1/15th second. You won't get maximum frame rates at a slow shutter speed. Besides the nominal shutter speed there's also a slight delay between cycles as the mirror moves and camera sets for the next shot.</p>

<p>Measure again with a faster shutter speed, around 1/250th or faster. You should get closer to maximum frame rates.</p>

<p>This is probably explained somewhere in the instruction manual, altho' these manuals are getting so dense it's not easy to find some bits of info. A PDF format version would be easier to search for some of these types of questions.</p>

[john.mathieson]

<p>Ahh yes of course - I was just goofing around shooting indoors against a dark wall. I will try that in proper light at 1/250.</p>

<p>Duh!</p>

[derek_thornton1]

<p>Hey Shun and Hal,</p>

<p>I did not mean to offend you guys. I read, somewhere, this Canon user was explaining how he was able to get these shots of an Osprey catching a fish. He said he shoots in JPEG instead of RAW to get the max FPS. If I can ever find this article I will be sure to post it. This is not something I believe, I could care less about FPS. 75% of what I shoot is not going anywhere. Is a matter of fact I plan on getting a 5D2 with 17-40mm lens soon, even though I have 2 Nikon bodies and 8 nikon lenses. Reason, $1,000 cheaper than Nikon D700 and 17-35mm lens.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Derek, there are all sorts of people providing all sorts of information on the web. Just because somebody writes it doesn't mean it is true or even makes sense.</p>

<p>At the risk of getting further off topic, your price comparison is also highly unfair. Nikon's 17-35mm/f2.8 AF-S is almost $1000 more than Canon's 17-40mm/f4 because you are paying a lot of money for that extra stop. If you don't need f2.8, Nikon has a 18-35mm/f3.5-4.5 AF-D lens that is a lot cheaper (in fact cheaper than Canon's 17-40mm/f4). During the film days Nikon's 18-35 was considered to be a fairly good lens also; I don't know how it performs on DSLRs.</p>

<p>Additionally, as I have pointed out before, the PMA is just around the corner. Unless one is in a real hurry, I would wait a few week and see what everybody has to announce, not just Nikon but also Canon (who has already announced a new 70-200mm/f2.8 IS), Sony, Sigma, etc.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Derek, try to find out whether that photographer was referring to maximum frame rates in short bursts or long bursts. Depending on the camera, shooting raw or JPEG won't significantly effect the maximum frame rate in short bursts. It can influence how *many* shots you can take at the highest fps before the buffer fills.</p>

<p>And this information is usually clearly specified by the manufacturers for each model, so there's no need to guess or rely on hearsay. Occasionally manufacturer specs may be a bit optimistic or contain mistakes, but it's usually the best place to start in order to avoid erroneous conclusions based on web lore.</p>

[derek_thornton1]

<p>Shun, I considered the 18-35mm/f3.5-4.5 AF-D but the 17-40mm/f4 seems to rate higher and is built better too. 75% of what I shoot is landscapes so the Canon's extra MP's would be nice also. Sorry to continue off topic.</p>