Yes, it will be slow. This is why you should always start out with a freshly formatted card and not delete files from in-camera.
In my experience, it isn't. I always delete files rather than reformatting each time (reformatting resets the folder number to 0000, I store my images on disk with the same directory/filename as the card, so resetting the folder number to 0000 would wreck everything, and having to create new folders each time would be a big hassle). I've not seen this, but I don't protect images. I gave Alastair a few other suggestions for experiments to try to better characterize things.
That shouldn't really matter (it has to anyway, as soon as there are any images on the card). It may be related to the protection mechanism.
Try Prograde SD cards, V90 series. I am confident it will solve your buffer challenges.
Well, I don't actually have any buffer challenges anymore. As I wrote, after reformatting my Sony Tough card, it took a whopping 4 seconds until it was ready to shoot again, and a total of 6 seconds to completely clear the buffer. Two Prograde SD V90 128gb cards would cost me $300. How many seconds would I save for that extra $300?
No. That's something to try. But if I'm going to erase them anyway, why not simply reformat the card? I know that works. I suppose this might satisfy our curiosity as to what causes the slowdown. But now that I know how to get the buffer to clear in 6 seconds, I think I'll stick to that technique.
I could try that. But the whole point of protecting them in camera was so that I didn't have to download 3000 images to my computer, before erasing them. Or did you mean that I should attach the card to the computer, and delete them off the card that way? Without downloading all the ones I don't want to the computer?
That can and does matter, depending on the write algorithm. While it has to be done, the efficiency of doing so can change
Are the V90 Prograde cards immune to the slowdown shown in OPs experiment? Have you tested it?
If you confirm that similar slowdown doesn’t happen in same conditions, it may very well be a solution. But if it does, it may be an expensive way to discover that control matters in an experiment
I suggested it as an experiment to try to better characterize the behavior (I suppose I could try that too, since I have an R7). I'm a software engineer, so I think in terms of debugging like that.
I meant the latter (attach it to your computer and delete them there, using a file manager or command line, not DPP or some other Canon-specific tool). Again, as an experiment.
Conceivably, but I'm pretty sure exFAT is designed a bit more intelligently, and someone would have to go far out of their way to muck the implementation up that badly.
With flash memory there's little reason to worry about fragmentation, especially with files as big as images are. JPEG, RAW, and CRAW files are all on the order of 10 MB, which are much bigger than the 4K or so block size of the filesystem.
That's why I suggested deleting images from the card on a computer, and without using DPP, which might fix up the protection information itself (unless the protection is relying on file permissions). I know that there are a few small files in another directory (CANONMSC, as I recall) that look like they could contain something like that.
Not yet, but I’ll have an opportunity this weekend, so maybe I’ll give it a try.
Good point. I have zero lag, no delay due buffering. Essentially I call that peace of mind
I've made a decision to buy a third Prograde V90 SD card as a result (second for the R7).I am not sure what you mean. Do you mean you are able to shoot RAW or CRAW indefinitely on R7 without a pause? Beyond the specified 187 shot limit too?
RAW shooting almost indefinite. I don't get a lag until around 200-250 shots later. I was surprised myself.
Is this at max fps (15 or 30)?
15fps on EFCS and 30fps on ES. Using the RF24mm and the EF100-400mm Mii.
