Reading mode: Light Dark

Buffer Times

Go to last post
G

george wilson jr

Well-known member
Messages
181
Reaction score
0
Location
US
Helllo all,

A question for those of you who have handled the SD14...

Can you tell me your impression of the speed of the processing?

In other words, what was your impression of the speed of the buffer or how fast it cleared before you could take another shot (Raw or JPEG)?

Also: how fast did it clear when taking multi-shots?

Any input is most appreciated...

Thanks,

geo.
 
george wilson said:
Helllo all,

A question for those of you who have handled the SD14...

Can you tell me your impression of the speed of the processing?
In other words, what was your impression of the speed of the buffer
or how fast it cleared before you could take another shot (Raw or
JPEG)?
Click to expand...
Sorry, I can't really say anything specific about the speed - I did not use a production camera, and so do not really feel comfortable speaking to specifics like speed without having a final unit in-hand.

However I will say that with the Sd-10, you can take another shot even while the camera is still writing the old one - and can continue to do until you hit the limit of the buffer. That s what being a "shooting priority" camera really means, that there is almost nothing that can stop you from shooting when you want instead of when the camera is OK with it (the other major aspect being that no use of menus prevents a picture from being taken).

Most cameras I think with multi-shot modes also at least let you keep shooting while the camera writes, even if they are more modal in other regards.

--
---> Kendall
http://InsideAperture.com
http://www.pbase.com/kgelner
http://www.pbase.com/sigmadslr/user_home
 
I'm very sorry, but those questions drive me crazy: Do we want to make pictures or do we want to make films? I am an old, conservative picture maker. And I am of the opinion, that only dilettants need "continuous shooting" and a buffer for 196 pictures in order to compensate their lacking skills.

Do a right composition, try to see your object from its inner values or behaviour, have calmness and endurance. And then you only need single shots. The "buffer extemists" thrash 95% of their pictures.

Sorry.
--
Johannes

http://www.huegelheim.de/weitzel/SD_10/
http://www.huegelheim.de/weitzel/SD_10-2
 
Amadeus21 said:
I'm very sorry, but those questions drive me crazy: Do we want to
make pictures or do we want to make films? I am an old,
conservative picture maker. And I am of the opinion, that only
dilettants need "continuous shooting" and a buffer for 196 pictures
in order to compensate their lacking skills.

Do a right composition, try to see your object from its inner
values or behaviour, have calmness and endurance. And then you only
need single shots. The "buffer extemists" thrash 95% of their
pictures.
Click to expand...
A quote along these lines I delight dragging out, is that if you are taking pictures at 10 FPS you are still missing 50 pictures a second.

--
---> Kendall
http://InsideAperture.com
http://www.pbase.com/kgelner
http://www.pbase.com/sigmadslr/user_home
 
Amadeus21 said:
I'm very sorry, but those questions drive me crazy: Do we want to
make pictures or do we want to make films? I am an old,
conservative picture maker. And I am of the opinion, that only
dilettants need "continuous shooting" and a buffer for 196 pictures
in order to compensate their lacking skills.

Do a right composition, try to see your object from its inner
values or behaviour, have calmness and endurance. And then you only
need single shots. The "buffer extemists" thrash 95% of their
pictures.
Click to expand...
Maybe even 99% .... but so what ???

One of the advantages of digital is that ability. Or I should say that SHOULD be one of its advantages.

To some extent, the advantage remains with film, cause you could at least take "36" shots non-stop; and maybe even 250 if you had a camera with a large-roll adapter.

There are many, many situations when there is no substitute for rapid sequential exposures; and a camera with a limiting buffer is simply "limiting".
Amadeus21 said:
Sorry.
--
Johannes

http://www.huegelheim.de/weitzel/SD_10/
http://www.huegelheim.de/weitzel/SD_10-2
Click to expand...
--
Thanks for reading .... JoePhoto

( Do You Ever STOP to THINK --- and FORGET to START Again ??? )
 
Hi George,

To answer your question the SD10 could shoot about 3fps and the SD14's specs at dpreview indicate the SD14 has the same 3fps with a buffer depth of 6 frames at the highest image quality mode.

Folks please lets remember what Simon said about posts like this

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1027&message=22120049

reposted here

"If people come to this forum curious about Sigma/foveon technology they may ask questions you find annoying, or have deep misconceptions. The answer is not to immediately shout 'Troll!' and jump on them like a ton of bricks with abuse. The truth is that Sigma is making some bold claims about the SD14 and people from other camps are interested... and possibly dismissive, but it's not worth allowing this forum to degenerate into a flame war because of it. If people come here trolling, report them; we check the reports every couple of hours.
Simon
--
Simon Joinson, dpreview.com"

The burst rate and buffer depth are legitimate questions about a camera, and while this information is easily available at the dpreview blurb about the SD14 that is no reason not to answer this question and move on.
 
Mike Gerstner said:
Tom Rowland said:
Hi George,

To answer your question the SD10 could shoot about 3fps
Click to expand...
Continuous shooting Speed HI: 1.9 fps, MED: 2.4 fps, LOW: 2.5 fps

Maximum number of frames for continuous shooting
HI: 6 frames, MED: 14 frames, LOW: 30frames

http://www.sigma-photo.com/cameras/cameras_cameras_details.asp?id=3256

Mike
Click to expand...
Hi Mike,

Here is the link to the dpreview page I mentioned in my original post where I said I got my data from

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0609/06092605sigmasd14.asp

and a cut and paste of that data

Continuous mode

• High: 3 fps for 7 frames
• Medium: 3 fps for 12 frames
• Low: 3 fps for 24 frames

I am not sure you do anyone any good by snipping my original post where I said I got the specs from dpreview. It seems you are implying I made a mistake in describing the specs, when in fact dpreview and Sigma seem to have different specs.

It is sorta good manners to not snip significant portions of a post without at least indication you snipped. And in this case it really does distort what I posted.

I would also be interested in where Phil got his specs and why they differ from the specs at Sigma.
 
Hi Tom, didn't mean to "snip". just posted what I knew Sigma had on their
SD10 sigma specs page.

No offense meant.......we all make mistakes, just trying to keep the facts straight.

Best , Mike
 
Hello again,

Didn't mean to be annoying, but my original question was to those who may have handled the SD14 and what their impressions of the buffer speed was.

I do know the importance of good technique over dependence on any feature, but you must admit that buffer speeds and write times do add another element to picture taking in certain venues (event photography,
weddings, sports) that wasn't there with film cameras.

Anyway, I thank all who responded, and like all of you, can't wait till we see results from a production cam...

geo.
 
Amadeus21 said:
I'm very sorry, but those questions drive me crazy: Do we want to
make pictures or do we want to make films? I am an old,
conservative picture maker. And I am of the opinion, that only
dilettants need "continuous shooting" and a buffer for 196 pictures
in order to compensate their lacking skills.

Do a right composition, try to see your object from its inner
values or behaviour, have calmness and endurance. And then you only
need single shots. The "buffer extemists" thrash 95% of their
pictures.
Click to expand...
There is only one right way to take pictures and its your way? your approach might be the best for large format and landscape photography, but perhaps not for reportage, sports, wildlife etc etc.

I think there are probably a number of different styles of photography, each as valid as the other. The world is a confusing place, not all black and white, but full of shades of grey. There are very many things I don't know the answer to, but there is one thing I'm always confident of: whenever someone says there's only one correct way to do something, and that is their way - they are always wrong!

BTW, although I find the frame rate and buffer of most cameras I've used quite enough for me, i did find the E20 to be very restrictive. A 4 shot buffer and then at least a minute before you could do anything else.
 
I was wondering if those figures you found were all really for the SD-14, or just SD-10 with a small mistake in copying... it seemed like I could have sworn the official SD-10 spec was a buffer that held six frames.

I still cannot go into specifics, but I can say for sure the FPS of the SD-14 is faster than the SD-10. If the figures above are for the SD-14, then it seems like it has a larger holding ability in terms of image count (we already know the buffer is larger just to hold even the same number of images!).

--
---> Kendall
http://InsideAperture.com
http://www.pbase.com/kgelner
http://www.pbase.com/sigmadslr/user_home
 
george wilson said:
Hello again,

Didn't mean to be annoying, but my original question was to those
who may have handled the SD14 and what their impressions of the
buffer speed was.
Click to expand...
I agree that this part is key - to what degree can the SD-14 take advanatge of higher write speeds? If it can clear a buffer quickly then the buffer size may not matter as much.

I await a production SD-14 to see how it fares in this regard as well, I have a 133x CF card (terribly slow by todays standards I know) and look forward to seeing how that performs. If it does well people might want to think about a few upgrade CF cards.

--
---> Kendall
http://InsideAperture.com
http://www.pbase.com/kgelner
http://www.pbase.com/sigmadslr/user_home
 
It's real simple.. I am done buying the camera because of the sensor it's time to vote with my wallet instead. I will wait for people to get "production" cameras when/if.... And see what the real "truth" is... If the camera is as slow as my SD10 then I simply will sell my remaining Sigma bits and move on to another brand.

In this day and age of CHEAP, FAST memory, there is absolutly NO excuse that Sigma could not have added a DEEP buffer to this camera or at least a system bus that is capeable of the kinds of throughput to match the high speed memory cards so that there is no buffer overflow.

I am quite sure that Foveon would have lent Sigma all the help in the world designing the interior electronics and yet Sigma stuck, verbatim to the schematic provided to them by Foveon (with the SD9/10) and it's likely the same deal with the SD14.

It's a shame really because such small improvements would open the cameras appeal to a very broad audience. Some of us want to be able to shoot for 3FPS for more than six shots, but the worst is shooting 3FPS for six shots and then having to wait for three minutes for the buffer overflow to clear.

If Sigma truly fixed this.... And it can shoot for even 2FPS and clear the buffer overflow before it reaches it's sixth photo (in other words, good throughput) then I will be all over the SD14 because Sigma did make a TON of other improvements!

So here I am waiting with baited breath to see the "Truth".....

--



I am not a Professional but I did stay at Holiday Inn!
Please take a look at my gallery! :)
http://www.westol.com/~brettd/sd10/gallery/
http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9/brett_dimichele
 
Kendall Helmstetter Gelner said:
I still cannot go into specifics, but I can say for sure the FPS of
the SD-14 is faster than the SD-10. If the figures above are for
the SD-14, then it seems like it has a larger holding ability in
terms of image count (we already know the buffer is larger just to
hold even the same number of images!).
Click to expand...
Kendall, I've been tempted to reply before to the same query as you did above, "faster." But what is "faster" to you and to me could well vary from what someone else perceives; it's so individualistic. But I agree 'faster.' ;-)

For Tom Rowland: perhaps I detect in this thread one of the grounds for our misunderstandings. I often "cut" a previous poster's post to quote JUST the section of that post to which I'm reponding. This is normal message board etiquette elsewhere where I post. For example. You might have 10 questions. I have the answer for one. I quote and answer that one, cutting out the other 9. You criticized me several times I recall for 'cutting' Simon's text previously. I only cut the quote because I was only reponding to one section. Just as I cut Kendall's text above.
Best regards, Sandy
[email protected]
http://www.pbase.com/sandyfleischman
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandyflesichmann
 
SandyF said:
SNIP
me several times I recall for 'cutting' Simon's text previously. I
only cut the quote because I was only reponding to one section.
Click to expand...
SNIP

I often cut (or snip) part of quotations, but it is always clear where I have snipped.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top