My D300 wont shoot past 2fps in RAW is this normal?

[daniel_sandlin1]

<p>Ever since I got it I've been having a blast. Especially with the Live View and my 55mm f3.5 Micro. I normally shoot in RAW with a Normal Jpeg. Every year my town throws a 4 day celebration called Bohemia Mining Days the third week of July from Thursday to Sunday. Our town started out as an outpost to supply the Bohemia Gold Mines. Saturday there is a parade I normally shoot and later that day they were doing skits recreating some old west style gun fights. That kinda started out because there used to be a gun fighting gang called Lemati here in the days of yore that would rob banks and miners and the like and just generally terrorize the original town. They used to recreate saloon gunfights and street shootouts, Over the years the whole thing has gone down and down until nowadays your lucky they even do a few skits in a little 40ft roped off section. I tried getting some fast shots in to try and catch the gunfire as it happened and found that the frame rate was severely lacking. Last night I was farting around shooting the camera in different modes and that's how I found it only shoots at faster frame rates when not in RAW mode. Does this mean I need to shoot in TIFF if I want to keep a file that I can work with in editing software?</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>You need to switch to 12-bit RAW capture. The D300/D300S is maximum 2.5 fps only in 14-bit mode.</p>

[owen_omeara]

<p>Same answer as Shun. With my d300 plus grip I was able to shoot about 4-5 fps in 12 bit capture mode.</p>

 

[Wouter Willemse]

<blockquote>

<p>Does this mean I need to shoot in TIFF if I want to keep a file that I can work with in editing software?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Just a sidenote (given that both Shun and Owen already gave the right answer), but it's a misunderstanding to think JPEG files cannot be used in editing software; they're just more tricky as they contain less information than RAW files.<br>

However, I would seriously never ever use TIFF in camera - it gives positively huge files, and just as much as JPEG files, there is the disadvantage of already applying all the in-camera setting to the final file (especially white balance and the picture style). If you want the most freedom afterwards to edit, TIFF is just slightly less bad than JPEG, at the cost of large files that will be slow to write to the memory card.</p>

[daniel_sandlin1]

<p>Is there any particular advantage of 14 bit over 12 bit? I know my D200 shoots 5fps in RAW but its only 12 bit, doesn't 14 bit give me more color and detail? I just need to know so that I can stay in 14 bit until I need to shoot action again.</p>

 

[daniel_sandlin1]

<p>Another question.</p>

<p>When I shoot above 400 ISO I get a blue pixel in shot. Its never in the same place from photo to photo so I don't think I have a dead cell on my sensor. Anyone know what could be causing this. I'll try and see if I can save some crops to show it. Its just that my connection is unstable city wide wifi that isn't very fast compared to other wireless...</p>

[Jerry_]

<p>Do you plan on making large prints or a batch of 4x6 prints? If only 4x6 prints, you might try .jpg images (Large, Fine) and see if you get more speed in the shooting phase of your event(s.)</p>

<p>As noted above: shooting in .TIF mode will only make for a lot of work in getting the .jpg file that most print machines tend to use.</p>

[kohanmike]

<p>I have a D300s and I shoot jpg fine often, even at 1600 ISO, and my images come out very well. I don't have much trouble editing color, noise and exposure using my Mac and iPhoto, Canvas X and Aperture. I even print up to 13 x19 (33 x 48cm). I'm actually shocked sometimes how fast the frame rate is in a concert hall shooting the conductor from behind the orchestra with a shutter speed sometimes as slow as a 30th.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<blockquote>

<p>Is there any particular advantage of 14 bit over 12 bit?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, there is a slight advantage in the amount of colour, less risk of banding and posterisation if/when you perform considerable editing (esp. changing exposure a lot, or extreme curves). However, the key word is "slight"; it's not a tremendous difference (in my experience anyway, but I am not very heavy-handed at editing my photos). Given the D300/D300s slowdown in continuous framerate, and the slower shutter-response (strangely, the camera becomes audibly sluggish), I never really found it worth it on the D300 to use 14-bits. But in critical situation with lots of dynamic range where you know you will need to lift shadows a lot, it could be worth it to retain that extra bit of colour info.<br>

The level of detail recorded is not at all affected by this setting; only affects the amount of colour recorded.</p>

<p>The blue pixel you see sounds like a hot pixel; it's the less serious equivalent of a dead pixel... A lot of RAW editing software (i.e. Adobe) tends to map these out automatically.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Theoretically, 14 bits may give you a slightly better dynamic range. In parctice, I rarely notice any difference. On the D300 and D300S (as well as the D3X), I capture 12-bit RAW so that I get a much faster frame rate. On other bodies from the last 5 years or so, there is no such 12-bit restruction such that I typically capture 14 bits to gain whatever little advantage I may get from it.</p>

[hans_janssen]

<p>Why would 14bits give a better DR as 12 bits? When I put a stair with 12 or 14 steps between floors, the difference between the two floors stays the same.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Hans, you are using a wrong anology. The height for each step does not change. When you add two additional steps between the two floors, you have to push the second floor higher.</p>

[tom_boston1]

<p>Shun - If a sensor site (pixel) has saturated, why would it matter whether the analog to digital conversion is 14 bits or 12 bits? I would think that putting more steps between the floors gives you more details in the shadows. i.e. the ability to differentiate between 1 or 2 more bits in the darkest shadows.<br /><br />So the answer to Hans' question is possibly yes, the difference between the floors is the same, but there is possibly 1EV darker area in the shadows that has detail with the 14 bit capture.</p>

 

[ShunCheung]

<p>I assume you understand that in binary bits, when you right shift all the bits, you are dividing the value by half. For example, if you right shift 01100 to 00110, you are dividing 12 by 2 = 6. That is, you are cutting the value in half or cutting the amount of light in half.</p>

<p>In other words, theoretically, a 12-bit capture can give you a maximum of 12 stops of dynamic range. A 14-bit capture can give you 14 stops. If you are only using 12 bits, there are not enough distinct values from 12 bits to represent 14-stops of dynamic range.</p>

<p>But that is all theoretical.</p>

[tom_boston1]

<p>Shun, that does make more sense to me.<br>

<br />When the sensor is exposed correctly, the brightest white is recorded as "111111111111" (12 1's) which allows the right shift to occur 12 times and the darkest dark is 1/4096 dimmer than the brightest white.<br>

<br />A 14 bit capture allows the right shift to occur 14 times and the darkest dark is 1/16384 dimmer than the brightest white.<br /><br /><br />So I would expect most of the benefit of the higher dynamic is more detail in the shadows. And your earlier analogy of the pushing the 2nd floor higher is perhaps better made as pushing the first floor lower to fit the increased number of steps.</p>

<p> </p>