D7100 Buffer

[rajivgarg]

<p>Hi,<br>

Recently purchased Nikon D7100 (Body). It stops processing after few shots because of it's buffer limitation. I think it can be improved just like Canon did for EOS 7D firmware update in 2012 and Improved it's maximum burst for RAW images (up to 25).<br>

Rajiv Garg</p>

[marypar4]

Get a good high speed sd card I use the extreme pro sandisk 95s

[owen_omeara]

<p>I second what Mary had to say.</p>

<p>-O</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>.....or they could have just spent a few more $$$ and fitted a usefully sized buffer in the first place.</p>

<p>....unless they didn't want to for 'commercial' reasons.</p>

[elliot1]

<p>how many is a few?</p>

[joseph_smith3]

<p>There is a Utube video that shows how the buffer works. It supports the comments that RAW capture in high speed mode is pretty limited. I believe a link to it is included in a D 7100 post here on Photo.net close to when the camera was first shipped. I do not believe a fast card will overcome the limitations of this small buffer if you shoot RAW. I have not read anything about whether this can be overcome with a firmware change. Joe Smith </p>

[keith reeder]

<p>7 to 9 frames, Elliot - not a lot.</p>

<p>Joe, Rajiv is right about Canon increasing the buffer of the 7D with its latest firmware - no idea how they do it, but I've benefited from this update myself: the 7D's Raw buffer has increased from c. 15 (which was pretty good anyway) to c. 25 frames.</p>

<p>http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/7/3225153/canon-7d-firmware-update-2-0-release</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>RAM isn't expensive for PCs, even the madly fast stuff......maybe buffer RAM is different? PC RAM comes in GigaByte blocks, which is HUGE compared to camera RAW file size... Need informed help here!! </p>

<p>7 - 9 frames is a bit of a bad joke for the <strong><em>'Flagship'</em></strong> DX mode.</p>

<p>Canon's 15 to 25 buffer is considerably more useful.</p>

<p>More than enough room for the D7100S.............:-)</p>

[grh]

<p>I believe that buffer ram is in the same class as cache memory on a processor chip. Which is much faster than system memory. And it's size and expense impact the cost of a processor greatly. (Using my D5100 as an example) I get 16MB x 9 images or just under 150MB of ram. If the D7100 can do 9 images that's 24MB x 9, or 216MB. That's a lot of very fast memory. Yes, it would be nice to have more, but you're going to pay for it; it's a cost point on matter how you look at it. It's not a cheap, slow commodity like the memory on DIMMs.</p>

<p>It's important to consider the parameters of a situation before deciding something is wrong. Or that it can be changed just because you say so.</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>Good info Gary.....Just what kinda $$$ are we talking here? $50 or $100?</p>

<p>The 'cost parameters' here mean if you want a bigger high-speed buffer that will do >7fps for more than 9 frames of RAW, you need go and buy a D4....or, if old tech is OK, a D3 or D3S.......or wait a minute a D300s or D700....:-)</p>

<p>...but if it's new kit, not such a long list....just...err D4 it is.</p>

[Hector Javkin]

<blockquote>

<p>I do not believe a fast card will overcome the limitations of this small buffer if you shoot RAW.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What do you base this on? It is certainly true on the D7000: I found a big improvement after I moved to cards at 30 MB/s or faster.</p>

[DawsonPointers]

Buffer size D7100. Everyone looking for a reason not to purchase this body will use this excuse. Put it in perspective

and then move on. Geeze.

[francisco_salaquanda]

<p>They don't want pro's being able to be satisfied using the D7100 for $1300 when Nikon wants them to spend at least $2k. Nikon has been pretty clear, by words and implications that they want to migrate DX pro's and top end consumers to FX.<br>

There is a school of thought that says there won't be a D400 as it would have to be priced between the D7100 and the D600.</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>John, the '<em>perspective</em>' is that the fast capabilities of the previous 'Flagship' DX camera, the D300S, have been degraded in the newer 'Flagship' model.</p>

<p>Lower frames per second and, more importantly, a considerably smaller buffer have made this unsuitable for burst sports/action photography whereas the D300S, with MB-D10 grip, were ideal.</p>

<p>More pixels and a top-of-the-range AF module are brilliant, but it's potential users are not the same as D300S Sports users looking to upgrade to a new camera....their only route is go FX and a D3S or D4....plus having to buy some new glass.</p>

<p>14-bit RAW for the D300S is quoted as <strong>30</strong> for lossless or <strong>45</strong> compressed....that puts the D7100's <strong>6</strong> or <strong>7</strong> in some '<em><strong>perspetive</strong></em>'.</p>

<p>If people don't understand <em>why</em> anyone should ever need this fast frame rate/big buffer combo, <em>they</em> obviously don't need it!<br>

________________</p>

<p>Out of interest Nikon describes the D7100 as.. <strong><em>As a middle-class DX-format D-SLR</em></strong>... here.<a href="http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d7100/">http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d7100/</a></p>

[mag_miksch]

<p>"If people don't understand <em>why</em> anyone should ever need this fast frame rate/big buffer combo, <em>they</em> obviously don't need it!"<br>

+1<br>

frustrated waiting for a D300 replacement</p>

[derek_thornton1]

<p>The D300 will get 30-45 RAW photos? There must be something wrong with mine. The most I have ever got out of my D300 was 16/17 shots before it would stop. On the other hand my D200 would go forever. I never got a number on the D200 because it never stopped shooting as long as my finger was on the trigger. 6 to 7 shots is awful, there is no way that would work at the drag races. </p>

[keith reeder]

<blockquote>

<p>Everyone looking for a reason not to purchase this body will use this excuse</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>It's not an "excuse", it's a <em>limitation</em>.</p>

<p>Just because you don't understand the need for a deep, fast buffer, that doesn't mean the need doesn't exist.</p>

<p>Try spending a day shooting stuff like<a href="http://www.kazemisu.me.uk/images/croft_1200_1.jpg"> this</a> with a shallow buffer and then get back to us.</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>Derek, one of the improvements of the D300<strong>S </strong>was a bigger buffer....but only for certain versions of RAW lossless(or not) or (un) compressed 12 or 14-bit etc.</p>

<div></div>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>and for comparison..... I tried to put it in one table but Coffee's running low! Maybe <em>Bigger</em> Buffer is the wrong term, better compression on-the-fly maybe?</p><div></div>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Mike Halliwell, the tables you posted are highly misleading. You should include their exact definition of "buffer capacity." For example, there is absolutely no way that the D300S' buffer for 12-bit lossless compressed (12.1 MB) is 18 frames while the buffer for the larger 14-bit lossless compressed (14.9 MB) is much higher at 30 frames. That does not make sense at all.</p>

<p>Any difference between the D300 and D300S tables is due to the different types of memory cards used, Extreme 3 for the D300 and Extreme 4 for the D300S. Since the D300 and D300S can only capture 14-bit RAW files at 2.5 fps, that slow frame rate leaves more time for the faster Extreme 4 to off load more images from the buffer, thus you can capture 30 frames before the buffer is full. It is not that the D300S' buffer is deeper.</p>

<p>Had they used cards with the same speed on the D300 and D300S, they would have gotten essentially the same buffer capacity.</p>

<p>In any case, if you need a deep memory buffer on the D7100, just shoot JPEG fine. With a fast SD cards such as the Extreme Pro, you can capture at the maximum 6 fps and the D7100 can dump those images onto the SD cards as fast as they are captured, up to the 100 frame limit.</p>

<p>P.S. I tested the D300 and D3 back in 2007/2008. It takes those cameras about 1 second to dump a 12-bit lossless compressed RAW file onto the Extreme 4 and about 1.5 second onto the slower Extreme 3. For comparison, the D7100 can now write 3 12-bit RAW files per second to the SanDisk Extreme Pro, not to mention that the D7100's 24MP RAW files are twice as big as the D3/D300's 12MP.</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>Shun, don't mean to sound unhelpful or mislead anyone, but they are, as I'm sure you can see, Nikon's own tables. How else is one to make comparisons?</p>

<p>If the numbers are wrong and make no sense, I guess Nikon's got it wrong. Sorry about that! :-)</p>

<p> </p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>How else is one to make comparisons?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>One should make comparisons with exactly the same memory card. If you use the Extreme 3 on one and the Extreme 4 on another, you are comparing apples to oranges.</p>

<p>There is nothing really wrong with Nikon's tables, but they are apparently measuring the number of consecutive frames you can capture at the highest frame rate before the memory buffer is full. Therefore, you can capture more frames with a faster Extreme 4 card, as expected. You can also capture more frames when the frame rate is lower, as in the case of 14-bit capture on the D300 and D300S, as well as D3X.</p>

<p>What is wrong is the conclusion that the D300S has a deeper memory buffer than the D300, which is not the case.</p>

 

[mike_halliwell]

<p>Shun, do you have any theories as to <em>why </em>Nikon actively decided to incorporate a considerably shallower buffer than the previous DX flagship model?</p>

<p>Can it really be an attempt to push Action Sports DX users that want high IQ (and therefore take RAW) to the FX D4? An upgrade to a D3 or D3S is not going to make Nikon any $$$, they're surely secondhand by now. The D800 killed off the D3X.</p>

<p>I gather it's a more expensive type of RAM, but does anyone have a price as to how much it would have cost to double the depth? </p>

<p>I'm sure people would be happy to pay an extra $50. It would have avoided <em><strong>ALL</strong></em> of this small-buffer internet chat!</p>

<p>Without wanting to mislead anyone, the D90's buffer could manage 9 frames of RAW writing to a 2 GB Panasonic Pro HIGH SPEED...a <em>very</em> 'old & slow' card by current spec.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>I am afraid that people are greatly underestimating memory cost. We are not dealing with desktop computer memory but instead minature memory that fits inside a small DSLR powered by an EN-EL15 battery.</p>

<p>Recall that back in 2008, Nikon provided an optional memory upgrade for the D3, prior to the Beijing summer Olympics: <a href="/nikon-camera-forum/00QLnt">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00QLnt</a><br />And on Nikon USA's site: <a href="http://support.nikonusa.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/15997">http://support.nikonusa.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/15997</a><br />The upgrade cost was $500, but that was additional work with some labor cost, shipping, etc. And that would increase the D3's RAW buffer from around 16 frames to 36 frames, depending on your setting.</p>

<p>Memory is probably cheaper now compared to it was in 2008, but you also need to keep in mind that the D7100 has twice as many pixels as the D3 so that file sizes would double. In other words, the D7100 probably has roughly the same memory buffer size (in terms of number of bytes) as the original D3 had in 2007/2008, but since the D7100 is 24MP instead of the D3's 12, the number of frames the D7100's buffer can hold is cut in half. If you want to double that size, we are probably talking about adding another $200 to the D7100's price. Another problem is that once you do that, people are going to use the D7100 as a big time sports/action camera. I kind of doubt that the D7100 can hold up for that kind of abuse.</p>

<p>As I said, I have been using the D7100 for close to a month mainly on birds in flight, and I can work with its buffer as it is. For hummingbirds, I miss is 10 fps.</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<blockquote>

<p>I kind of doubt that the D7100 can hold up for that kind of abuse</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Indeed!</p>

<p>More than enough room for a tougher DX flagship then? Maybe a 16MP sensor to keep frame size and noise down, the D7100's AF Module and a 30 frame RAW buffer for $1800?</p>

<p>OK, I get your maths. It's as if the buffer frame <strong>count</strong> stays more-or-less the same but, as you say, the frame <strong>size</strong> goes up.</p>

<p>I guess we'll just keep waiting...and hoping!</p>