1D X FPS limiting factor?

[PackLight]

Ok, now I have no idea what you're saying.

But it seems you still didn't understand that the sensor size, crop or not, does _not_ affect the file size, thus it doesn't affect the processing power required.

Please show me the specs of the 21mp crop sensor you are talking about, and which camera it is in. Then we can compare to see how it matches up to Canon's 21mp sensor in the 5D II.

It doesn't exist because Crop sensors were made smaller so the files would be smaller. Of course if you made a FF sensor as dense as the 7D's the file would be huge.

The sensor you speak of may exist in the near future. Why camera makers started making 35mm bodies in the start, isn't the reason they will keep making them. I hope the 7D II does have a larger sensor.

[neuroanatomist]

...Crop sensors were made smaller so the files would be smaller.

Ahhh, so the crop sensor in my 7D will give me smaller files than the FF sensor in my 1D X?  Hmmmmmm...that doesn't seem to be the case. 

[PackLight]

...Crop sensors were made smaller so the files would be smaller.

Ahhh, so the crop sensor in my 7D will give me smaller files than the FF sensor in my 1D X?  Hmmmmmm...that doesn't seem to be the case. 

Sure not, but then the 7d isn't the first crop sensor is it? Amazing what a few years of crop evolution wil produce.

[neuroanatomist]

...Crop sensors were made smaller so the files would be smaller.

Ahhh, so the crop sensor in my 7D will give me smaller files than the FF sensor in my 1D X?  Hmmmmmm...that doesn't seem to be the case. 

Sure not, but then the 7d isn't the first crop sensor is it? Amazing what a few years of crop evolution wil produce.

You seem to be intentionally missing the point.  Sensor size is irrelevant for file size. Only MP count matters.   APS-C crop sensors were made smaller not to produce smaller files, but to produce cheaper sensors - a 10-fold greater yield per wafer.  APS-H was made because, at the time, that was the largest sensor that could be imaged in a single stepper pass during lithography.  Canon has stated those rationales in white papers.

[Mt Spokane Photography]

is there any info on how many pixels per second the digic 5+ can process?
any bandwith specs?

Its not specified.  However, many things tend to be limiting, the shutter speed, the card speed, the processing speed.  In a good design, they all tend to be reasonably close in capability.  For example, a faster processor would eat up battery life and give no benefit, a faster shutter would not help if the processor was incapable of faster speeds, and none of this would matter if Card and internal memory speeds were not fast enough.  .

 

all fine and correct but does not answer my question.

You ask, and I told you its not specified. That means no specs.  Apparently you are hoping someone will fabricate numbers for you?

[Don Haines]

An 18mp sensor produces the same size file if it is a full frame sensor or if it is an APS-C sensor. Smaller pixels do not make smaller bits

Write time to your card is based on lots of factors, but the two main ones are processing delay and the slower of card speed and camera write speed.

Processing delay is not as simple as faster processor beats slower processor.... What is the algorithm?  Does it take the same time for an iso100 image as an iso 51200 image with lots of processing to correct noise.... Does a 60D run a simple algorithm on a clean picture faster than a 1D X on a noisy picture??? This is why there is no answer to how fast can a digic 5+ process pixels.... The answer varies based on the algorithm used.

Write time is the slower of camera write speed and card speed. I don't know how fast the 1D X write speed is to the card, but you can bet that the published specs were with the fastest card available. Nice and simple...... And wrong! After the image is processed it is stored in high speed memory, which is then dumped to the card. The bottleneck occurs when the read/process/dump to high speed memory occurs faster than  you can write to the card.

A 1D X has something like 34 times the processing power of a 60D and we all know how the mighty compact flash beats the tar out of the lowly SDXC cards, yet the 1D X is only able to take 12 frames per second compared to the 5.3 of the 60D....... There are no easy answers here.

[PackLight]

...Crop sensors were made smaller so the files would be smaller.

Ahhh, so the crop sensor in my 7D will give me smaller files than the FF sensor in my 1D X?  Hmmmmmm...that doesn't seem to be the case. 

Sure not, but then the 7d isn't the first crop sensor is it? Amazing what a few years of crop evolution wil produce.

You seem to be intentionally missing the point.  Sensor size is irrelevant for file size. Only MP count matters.   APS-S crop sensors were made smaller not to produce smaller files, but to produce cheaper sensors - a 10-fold greater yield per wafer.  APS-H was made because, at the time, that was the largest sensor that could be imaged in a single stepper pass during lithography.  Canon has stated those rationales in white papers.

Not really intentionally missing the point. My original point was sidetracked intentionally. The "mp determine file size" was a clarification that was made that really didn't matter to the overall point of the original post.

Yes sensor size is a factor in determining file size, take the 7D sensors pixel density and make the sensor FF size. See how that affects file size.

The reason Canon used the APS-H sensors in the 1D bodies is so they could get the increased frame rate and maintain a reasonable IQ. Did the APS-H have fewer pixels than the 1Ds sensors? Did the APS-H have smaller file sizes than the 1Ds sensors? Was the APS-H smaller than the 1Ds sensors?

A question would be why didn't they put a FF sensor in the 1D IV instead? Probably because of IQ and file size. It looks like Canon thought they had the right balance to make the move.

Also your statement that "only MP count matters" for file size. Your 1D X at 18.1 mp lists the large Raw file as 23.2mb, where the 7D at 18mp large Raw file size is 25.1mb. Sounds like there is a few other things involved.

[PackLight]

Write time is the slower of camera write speed and card speed. I don't know how fast the 1D X write speed is to the card, but you can bet that the published specs were with the fastest card available. Nice and simple...... And wrong! After the image is processed it is stored in high speed memory, which is then dumped to the card. The bottleneck occurs when the read/process/dump to high speed memory occurs faster than  you can write to the card.

A point might be, would any of the bodies write to the buffer at 12 fps? Write speed to the card would have nothing to do with the initial frame rate. Other than once you hit the buffer your fps falls to 2 or 3, there about.

[neuroanatomist]

Yes sensor size is a factor in determining file size, take the 7D sensors pixel density and make the sensor FF size. See how that affects file size.

Clouds block the sun. Clouds produce rain. An umbrella blocks the sun, therefore, an umbrella produces rain?  Correlation isn't causation.  The 1DII and 20D were contemporary, same MP count. Same for the 1DIII and 40D. By your logic, where does the relatively tiny 41 MP sensor in the Nokia phone fit into the picture?

FWIW, here's what Canon says:

"With all these benefits, it’s only natural to wonder why all DSLR cameras aren’t full-frame. Ultimately, the issue is money. Research, development, manufacturing and distribution costs are all independent of camera size, so a smaller camera will not cost appreciably less than a larger one for any of these reasons. The end cost difference between small mirrors, mirror boxes, chassis and so forth, and larger ones is not that great. The difference is the sensor."

Not file size, money. Smaller sensors are cheaper.

[neuroanatomist]

Speaking of APS-C sensors evolving, does the much newer T3/1100D APS-C sensor produce smaller files than the older FF 5DII?

[Don Haines]

Write time is the slower of camera write speed and card speed. I don't know how fast the 1D X write speed is to the card, but you can bet that the published specs were with the fastest card available. Nice and simple...... And wrong! After the image is processed it is stored in high speed memory, which is then dumped to the card. The bottleneck occurs when the read/process/dump to high speed memory occurs faster than  you can write to the card.

A point might be, would any of the bodies write to the buffer at 12 fps? Write speed to the card would have nothing to do with the initial frame rate. Other than once you hit the buffer your fps falls to 2 or 3, there about.

Regardless of the card speed, the 1D X is supposed to be able to write 12 frames per second to the buffer.... If the card speed is not enough to keep up, it eventually fills the buffer and then the speed drops to what the card can support.  That's why the 60D starts off at 5.3 but when the buffer fills drops down to  less than 2. Same problem, just a lot more dramatic difference

[Don Haines]

Speaking of APS-C sensors evolving, does the much newer T3/1100D APS-C sensor produce smaller files than the older FF 5DII?

But to further complicate the issue..... Newer cameras MIGHT be running a better compression algorithm....so it is possible that a new 18M camera produces a smaller file than an old 18M camera.... And then there is 14 bit d/a compared to older 12 bit and even 8 bit........

[PackLight]

FWIW, here's what Canon says:

"With all these benefits, it’s only natural to wonder why all DSLR cameras aren’t full-frame. Ultimately, the issue is money. Research, development, manufacturing and distribution costs are all independent of camera size, so a smaller camera will not cost appreciably less than a larger one for any of these reasons. The end cost difference between small mirrors, mirror boxes, chassis and so forth, and larger ones is not that great. The difference is the sensor."

Not file size, money. Smaller sensors are cheaper.

Canon's white paper on FF sensors, August 1st, 2006

Has Canon ever told us one thing at one point then something different a few years later?

This was my original comment on the sensors:
"There was an old article I read a while back, put out by Canon explaining why we have crop sensors at all.  From memory the whole reason was file size and processor performance at the time. Cheaper sensor cost and other things were not an issue initially."

I am not sure if it was one of the Canon books I have, or somewhere on their website. I would like to find it as a curiosity, it really doesn't matter.

[tpatana]

Yes sensor size is a factor in determining file size, take the 7D sensors pixel density and make the sensor FF size. See how that affects file size.

Sensor size does not determine file size. How many times we need to tell you this?

[tpatana]

This was my original comment on the sensors:
"There was an old article I read a while back, put out by Canon explaining why we have crop sensors at all.  From memory the whole reason was file size and processor performance at the time. Cheaper sensor cost and other things were not an issue initially."

Yes, and we've replied you at least 10 times now that you are mistaken, the crop sensor [size] doesn't affect the file size. Either you just remember incorrect, or read incorrect, misunderstood, or the article you read was incorrect. But sensor size doesn't make the file size. It's the MP count (mostly, plus bit-depth and algorithm and stuff, but not sensor size)