Sigma SD1 - 7-fps not bad

Started May 19, 2011 | Discussions
Paul North
Senior MemberPosts: 1,605
Like?
Sigma SD1 - 7-fps not bad
May 19, 2011

So I have seen lots of news on the SD1 and I am very intrigued about this camera, I have a 7D now that I use and love but would not mind switching to a SD1 if it could keep up in the sports area. I sent an email to Sigma yesterday and received a reply today saying this ans I quote.
Paul,

Thank you for choosing Sigma products.

I am being told it is 7 FPS.

Now if this is true, that is not bad for shooting sports as well as studio work.

Paul.
--
check out my pics...
http://www.northactionshots.com
http://www.northphoto.net

DMillier
Forum ProPosts: 17,441
Like?
Re: Sigma SD1 - 7-fps not bad
In reply to Paul North, May 19, 2011

7 frame buffer, I suspect.

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
katate
Regular MemberPosts: 135
Like?
Re: Sigma SD1 - 7-fps not bad
In reply to Paul North, May 19, 2011

There are several articles about the SD1 in Japanese magazines.

According to them, the frame rate is 5pics/sec 7 pictures at High resolution and 6pics/sec 15 pictures at Mid and Low resolution.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
mike earussi
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,683
Like?
Re: Sigma SD1 - 7-fps not bad
In reply to katate, May 19, 2011

A 7 frame buffer is not good. That's what the SD14 has and I run into it all the time--really frustrating. Sigma is still making compromises with the SD1, the small buffer is one example as is the very slow file write time, again almost as long as the SD14. The 470K screen is another compromise as the common standard for semi-pro and pro cameras is 920K.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
petr marek
Regular MemberPosts: 169
Like?
Re: Sigma SD1 - 7-fps not bad
In reply to mike earussi, May 19, 2011

And we talk about jpegs... RAW x3f speed is the most important and I am worried...

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
AdamT
Forum ProPosts: 56,232Gear list
Like?
Re: Sigma SD1 - 7-fps not bad
In reply to mike earussi, May 19, 2011

A 7 frame buffer is not good. That's what the SD14 has and I run into it all the time--really frustrating. Sigma is still making compromises with the SD1, the small buffer is one example as is the very slow file write time, again almost as long as the SD14.

this has always been the issue - the SD14 takes longer to write a 4.6Mp X3F than an ancient SD9 takes to write a 3.3Mp one same for the DP series (in otherwords, there's no card write speed improvement since 2003) - If the SD1 takes as long to write a 15Mp X3F then it's actually gained write speed, an unbelievably fast card interface would be needed to pot colossal SD1 X3Fs at the same speed as even something like a 1DS MK3 or D3X RAW and I doubt Sigma have the technology .

How fast is the Pentax 645D - that's the kind of file and buffer it needs to be compared to

-- hide signature --

A Problem is only the pessimistic way of looking at a challenge

 AdamT's gear list:AdamT's gear list
Sigma DP1 Fujifilm X-S1 Canon PowerShot G1 X Nikon Coolpix P330 Olympus OM-D E-M5 +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
rick decker
Forum ProPosts: 11,603
Like?
Wrong
In reply to Paul North, May 19, 2011

A good example of how incorrect/inaccurate data gets bandied around from well-intentioned people. The specs on fps and buffer size have been published before. Just look them up.

R
--
http://www.lightreflection.com
http://www.silveroaksranch.com
http://www.pbase.com/rickdecker

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
mike earussi
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,683
Like?
Re: Wrong
In reply to rick decker, May 19, 2011

And just what inaccurate data are you talking about. The buffer size of 7 raw files has been quoted several times.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
stanislaw stitchanow
Senior MemberPosts: 1,956Gear list
Like?
Not the interface
In reply to AdamT, May 19, 2011

it is is the processor.

When you compare a 5DMKII, which writes 1 RAW in 1 sec. With a 3 year old Interface, than the SD1 should theoretically write 1 RAW in 2 sec.

I believe the bottleneck are the TRUE Porcessors which might be to slow (Or the RAW developement much more complicted than with Bayer data), and it is also for sure not easy to optimize multiprocessor programms that they get the maximum out of both processors.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
rick decker
Forum ProPosts: 11,603
Like?
Wasn't aimed at you
In reply to mike earussi, May 19, 2011

7 fps - the OP. Other inaccurate stuff going around. All to be revealed soon.

R
--
http://www.lightreflection.com
http://www.silveroaksranch.com
http://www.pbase.com/rickdecker

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
SandyF
Forum ProPosts: 14,875Gear list
Like?
Re: Wasn't aimed at you
In reply to rick decker, May 19, 2011

rick decker wrote:

7 fps - the OP. Other inaccurate stuff going around. All to be revealed soon.

I found a post which gave a fps a/o a February trade show,
although this info is not in Sigma published specs
http://www.sigma-sd.com/SD1/leaflet.html

Indeed this is the problem with advance 'info' and specs cited before release. Specificationsof prototypes and betas as of any given time point may not be the final release specs.
Best regards, Sandy
sfleischmann@gilder.com
http://www.pbase.com/sandyfleischman (archival)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandyfleischmann (current)

 SandyF's gear list:SandyF's gear list
Sigma DP2 Sigma DP1 Sigma DP2 Merrill Canon EOS 5D Mark II Sigma SD9 +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Paul North
Senior MemberPosts: 1,605
Like?
Re: Wasn't aimed at you
In reply to SandyF, May 19, 2011

HUH, I didn't think it was a trick question to Sigma ? I asked what the FPS would be, meaning Frames Per Sec not buffer size. I didn't think they would confuse the two.

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
SandyF
Forum ProPosts: 14,875Gear list
Like?
Re: Wasn't aimed at you
In reply to Paul North, May 19, 2011

Paul North wrote:

HUH, I didn't think it was a trick question to Sigma ? I asked what the FPS would be, meaning Frames Per Sec not buffer size. I didn't think they would confuse the two.

There may be such variables too such as RAW+JPEG vs JPEG vs solely RAW vs variations of resolution within RAW. It's been noted that the SD1 is expected to have various settings IN RAW, ie Hi vs Med vs Low. Current cameras do not; earlier cameras (SD9/10) did.

Such variables can lead to misunderstandings and mis-information too. We're (people posting on this forum) are expecting rather large file sizes too... 40MB to even 60MB with fine detail, highest res... so that's lots of data to push around. I just bought a new 8GB CF card to use on my SD14 now and on the SD1 later. I'm showing about 500 shots in RAW on the SD14... it certainly won't be that number on the SD1 LOL.

I have no idea of frames per second in the various settings, I'm just saying (and I think Rick too) that we'll know when the specifications are officially announced.
Best regards, Sandy
sfleischmann@gilder.com
http://www.pbase.com/sandyfleischman (archival)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandyfleischmann (current)

 SandyF's gear list:SandyF's gear list
Sigma DP2 Sigma DP1 Sigma DP2 Merrill Canon EOS 5D Mark II Sigma SD9 +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads