5DIV can only do 3 sec. continous shooting ?!

[Maiaibing]

From my experience FPS has to be taken in conjunction with burst capability as well... if a subject takes say 3-6 seconds to move across the FOV and you fill the buffer after 2-3 seconds at 7fps then wait another 5 seconds for the buffer to clear than that's not very good....would prefer a lower fps and higher burst rate. Still with the iV you can lower the FPS to cover the FOV.

Do you realize all of the recent xD models from Canon have menu options for the user to set the frame rate for high speed continuous and low speed continuous shooting? The 7D Mark II, for example, allows anywhere from 2 to 10 fps for HSC and anywhere from 1 to 8 fps for LSC. It won't let the two overlap, so if you set HSC at 6 fps the fastest you can set LSC would be 5 fps. If LSC is set to 7 fps the slowest you can set HSC is 8fps.

If you want to stretch 20 or so frames to 5 seconds total time, reduce the HSC rate to 5fps.

Good point to remember. Wonder if the 5DIV can do eg. 5 fps for much longer because buffer gets just a little time to clear.

 

[Loswr]

Ok, now back to my question.

Would you say that 8 fps is fast enough for action shots or do you need 14? Please answer with either "Yes" or "no."

Ok, now back to my question.

Would you say that the DIGISUPER 75 is a camera? Please answer with either "Yes" or "No."

If you're not going to answer others' questions, why should you expect they'll answer yours? :

Like I said, nobody wants to be wrong (or admit to it)

Clearly, you're the poster child for not admitting your (frequent) mistakes, or learning from them.

 

[Don Haines]

One of the most intriguing questions I have about the 5D4 is whether or not it'll supplant my 7D2 for wildlife. Between the all-over F/8 autofocusing, improved resolution that makes it on par with the crop cameras for pixels/duck, and the quieter shutter, it'll be an interesting competition.

Pixels/duck must be the most practical unit I found regarding resolution. Kudos to you.

However, the calculation is not exactly right, made the same mistake myself previously. To get the same 1.6 magnification from cropping out the the 5D4 you'll end up with roughly 12MP (30.4MP/1.6/1.6, or use the fact that an APS-C sensor is roughly 40% the size of an FF sensor, so 30.4MP x 0.4 = 12MP).

Nothing to sneeze at, but far from the 20MP of the 7D2, so less pixels/duck.

Have to go up to 5DS/R sensor to change the pixel/duck balance.

Darn! My camera is rated as pixels/squirrel.... guess it's time for an upgrade!

 

[Loswr]

Darn! My camera is rated as pixels/squirrel.... guess it's time for an upgrade!

Can't we all just get along?

 

[Don Haines]

Darn! My camera is rated as pixels/squirrel.... guess it's time for an upgrade!

Can't we all just get along?

Have you tried resetting your camera to the factory settings?

 

[Donkey_Kong]

Should I expect better buffer/write speed performance from the CF or SD slot, when using 5DIV?
I would expect CF..but I have a selection of very fast SD cards, so I'm hopeful that I can utilise those without sacrificing any write speed.

 

[tron]

Should I expect better buffer/write speed performance from the CF or SD slot, when using 5DIV?
I would expect CF..but I have a selection of very fast SD cards, so I'm hopeful that I can utilise those without sacrificing any write speed.

Hopefully they will be close.

 

[rrcphoto]

Quite surprised at the shallow RAW shooting ability of the 5DIV. Its single processor + CF slot can only push 21 full raw frames in one burst limiting continuous shooting time to 3 sec. Almost half of the 5DIII(!!).

Canon could have used a processorset-up like the 5DS/R or CFast to change this - even if I'd prefer not to deal with yet a third card format myself.

Now, I very seldom shoot long bursts, but if I where to get a 5DIV to supplement my 5DS/R that actually makes its far less of an obvious upgrade for action shots to me.

Even the 5DS/R will shoot for ~3.7 sec @ 5fps (18-19 shots) before slowing down. 5DIV has 40% more fps, but the 5DS has >20% longer time to follow the action when that's important. For me its mostly short bursts 3-4 pictures and once in a while (very seldom) long bursts - but these few times I really want the burst to be as long as possible. YMMV.

5DIII could keep shooting much longer reaching ~5.2 sec @6fps with a fully charged battery - or for even longer as fps drops as the 5DIII battery level drops (I know it can only do 6fps as long as you do not use both card slots and forgo the added safety...).

First and most importantly, the specs of the 5d mark iii is 13-18 shots.

The buffer on the 5ds is 14.

CIPA burst rate is underrated.

 

[StudentOfLight]

I'm interested to see how good mRAW looks. At about 17MP it is pretty close to what a couple of pro sports shooters were using just a few months ago in the 1DX and D4s. I suspect that mRAW would deepen buffer significantly and if the quality is not compromised then perhaps that is the way to go.

 

[tron]

I'm interested to see how good mRAW looks. At about 17MP it is pretty close to what a couple of pro sports shooters were using just a few months ago in the 1DX and D4s. I suspect that mRAW would deepen buffer significantly and if the quality is not compromised then perhaps that is the way to go.

Depends on how it makes it. If it creates first a RAW and then converts is to mRAW we are out of luck. Otherwise this is an interesting idea to extend buffer length.

 

[Loswr]

I'm interested to see how good mRAW looks. At about 17MP it is pretty close to what a couple of pro sports shooters were using just a few months ago in the 1DX and D4s. I suspect that mRAW would deepen buffer significantly and if the quality is not compromised then perhaps that is the way to go.

mRAW and sRAW are demosaiced in-camera, so you lose some of the advantages of a proper RAW conversion (can't automatically map out hot pixels, less effective NR, etc).

 

[StudentOfLight]

I'm interested to see how good mRAW looks. At about 17MP it is pretty close to what a couple of pro sports shooters were using just a few months ago in the 1DX and D4s. I suspect that mRAW would deepen buffer significantly and if the quality is not compromised then perhaps that is the way to go.

mRAW and sRAW are demosaiced in-camera, so you lose some of the advantages of a proper RAW conversion (can't automatically map out hot pixels, less effective NR, etc).

Perhaps I was being too vague when I said "compromised"
I should have said: "compromised to such an extent that the image would be unusable for my purposes"

 

[StudentOfLight]

I'm interested to see how good mRAW looks. At about 17MP it is pretty close to what a couple of pro sports shooters were using just a few months ago in the 1DX and D4s. I suspect that mRAW would deepen buffer significantly and if the quality is not compromised then perhaps that is the way to go.

Depends on how it makes it. If it creates first a RAW and then converts is to mRAW we are out of luck. Otherwise this is an interesting idea to extend buffer length.

I might be wrong, but I was under the impression that the bottleneck was the memory card writing speed.

 

[StudentOfLight]

Some back-of-the-envelope calculations for mRAW buffer (16.9 MP files):
CF - 75-80 shots (possibly 11s of continuous shooting)
SD - 70-75 shots (possibly 10s of continuous shooting)

TDP usually only publish RAW and JPEG buffer in their camera reviews but in this case I think it mRAW might be a viable option for occasional sports shooters. I've asked Bryan at TDP to test mRAW buffer so hopefully we can have some solid numbers soon.

 

[tron]

I'm interested to see how good mRAW looks. At about 17MP it is pretty close to what a couple of pro sports shooters were using just a few months ago in the 1DX and D4s. I suspect that mRAW would deepen buffer significantly and if the quality is not compromised then perhaps that is the way to go.

Depends on how it makes it. If it creates first a RAW and then converts is to mRAW we are out of luck. Otherwise this is an interesting idea to extend buffer length.

I might be wrong, but I was under the impression that the bottleneck was the memory card writing speed.

Now that I read it again I understand that I didn't express it correctly. Of course the bottleneck is the memory I was just worrying about processing delays that could pose another bottleneck before write but these must be negligible...