Lenses or body

Christopher2222 wrote:

WilbaW wrote:

pvicta wrote:

As I'm upgrading due to age, rather than anything esle, and the only contstaint I have found with the 500D is the number of RAW shots in a row before it stumbles, I don't feel like I will be settling for 2nd best with the 760D

Canon say the max. burst of the 500D is 9 at 3.4/s (page 214 of the manual), but the 760D is only 7 at 5/s (page 404), so while the 760D is faster it's buffer is actually shallower.

Just to compare apples to apples, the 500d transfers 599.4 MB shots frames per second and the 760d transfers 927.5 MB shots frames per second.

It's all apples, just different sizes.

Photog 1: "Hey I just got an amazing 927.5MB/s burst!"

Photog 2:"Err, yeah... how many shots?"

Photog 1:"Umm, oh, ah, dunno..."

WilbaW wrote:

Christopher2222 wrote:

WilbaW wrote:

pvicta wrote:

As I'm upgrading due to age, rather than anything esle, and the only contstaint I have found with the 500D is the number of RAW shots in a row before it stumbles, I don't feel like I will be settling for 2nd best with the 760D

Canon say the max. burst of the 500D is 9 at 3.4/s (page 214 of the manual), but the 760D is only 7 at 5/s (page 404), so while the 760D is faster it's buffer is actually shallower.

FALSE

Just to compare apples to apples, the 500d transfers 599.4 MB shots frames per second and the 760d transfers 927.5 MB shots frames per second.

It's all apples, just different sizes.

Photog 1: "Hey I just got an amazing 927.5MB/s burst!"

Photog 2:"Err, yeah... how many shots?"

Photog 1:"Umm, oh, ah, dunno..."

-- hide signature --

Check out the unofficial Rebel Talk FAQ.

Just saying the 760d buffer is not shallower, it's transferring more data per second than the 500d.  The claim that the 760d buffer is slower, is false.

Christopher2222 wrote:

I know, it's the burst rate that matters. I wasn't disputing that fact. I only mentioned it was just interesting to note.

Sure. That's what fascinates me about what can happen here - you never know when you might learn something Quite Interesting.

Indeed the fast burst rate of capturing the grebe in a dive is certainly needed (nice photos!).

Thanks. You can see how even at 5.3 fps I only got one interesting frame per burst.

Being just an interesting fact I can't currently think of any use, where one would require 85 shots as opposed to 46 shots in 30 seconds anyways.

Yeah, I'm still trying to come up with one myself...

Christopher2222 wrote:

WilbaW wrote:

Christopher2222 wrote:

WilbaW wrote:

pvicta wrote:

As I'm upgrading due to age, rather than anything esle, and the only contstaint I have found with the 500D is the number of RAW shots in a row before it stumbles, I don't feel like I will be settling for 2nd best with the 760D

Canon say the max. burst of the 500D is 9 at 3.4/s (page 214 of the manual), but the 760D is only 7 at 5/s (page 404), so while the 760D is faster it's buffer is actually shallower.

FALSE

Just to compare apples to apples, the 500d transfers 599.4 MB shots frames per second and the 760d transfers 927.5 MB shots frames per second.

It's all apples, just different sizes.

Photog 1: "Hey I just got an amazing 927.5MB/s burst!"

Photog 2:"Err, yeah... how many shots?"

Photog 1:"Umm, oh, ah, dunno..."

Just saying the 760d buffer is not shallower,

How is a stack of 9 shallower than a stack of 7? (Think of image files as one pixel thick, so a larger file is wider and longer, not thicker.)

it's transferring more data per second than the 500d.

Sure, but the files are bigger and coming faster so it can't capture as many at the high-speed rate.

The claim that the 760d buffer is slower, is false.

Good thing Canon's data says the opposite then.

WilbaW wrote:

Christopher2222 wrote:

WilbaW wrote:

Christopher2222 wrote:

WilbaW wrote:

pvicta wrote:

As I'm upgrading due to age, rather than anything esle, and the only contstaint I have found with the 500D is the number of RAW shots in a row before it stumbles, I don't feel like I will be settling for 2nd best with the 760D

Canon say the max. burst of the 500D is 9 at 3.4/s (page 214 of the manual), but the 760D is only 7 at 5/s (page 404), so while the 760D is faster it's buffer is actually shallower.

FALSE

Just to compare apples to apples, the 500d transfers 599.4 MB shots frames per second and the 760d transfers 927.5 MB shots frames per second.

It's all apples, just different sizes.

Photog 1: "Hey I just got an amazing 927.5MB/s burst!"

Photog 2:"Err, yeah... how many shots?"

Photog 1:"Umm, oh, ah, dunno..."

Just saying the 760d buffer is not shallower,

How is a stack of 9 shallower than a stack of 7? (Think of image files as one pixel thick, so a larger file is wider and longer, not thicker.)

9 * 15Mb RAW = 135

7 * 22.5Mb RAW = 157.5

9 is shallower than the 7 overall

Christopher2222 wrote:

It is interesting to note that in a speed test that although the 70d does shoot faster bursts it will not capture more frames over 30 sec.

Using the SanDisk extreme pro 95Mb/s 32gb card tests show the 70d capturing only 46 RAW images
while the ......................................................................................T6s capturing ....... 85 RAW images

What this tells us, is that after the buffer is filled there is a longer wait period on the 70d (because of older technology) while it clears it's buffer than there is on the T6s

information found here http://www.cameramemoryspeed.com/canon-70d/fastest-sd-cards/

.

WilbaW wrote:

R2? Would you do a quick test for us?

Hi guys.

I've been using 64 GB (and 32 GB) SanDisk Extreme Pro 95 MB/s UHS-1 cards since I got the camera.

I always get 20 (full size RAW) frames in 3 seconds before slowdown.

The camera will thereafter shoot at a rate of appx 2 FPS ad infinitum.

It takes just under 9 seconds to clear the buffer.

I've posted my results previously...

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53759795

.

I just saw your post WilbaW (    ) and tested again (using the same settings as the guy at CMS).

I got:  20 frames at 7 FPS (until buffer full).  ~ 2 FPS thereafter.  Just under 9 seconds to clear the buffer.

I also did the "30 second" test and got 68 frames using both methods:

1. hold shutter for 30 seconds.

2. shoot burst, clear buffer, shoot burst, clear buffer, shoot burst and hold shutter.

68 frames each time.

Personally I like to shoot bursts (rather than just shoot continuously at 2 FPS) for the same reasons as WilbaW.  People and critters move very fast (even when they're not trying to!).  A fast FPS and deep buffer will simply net you more keepers (yeah, wish I had the 1Dx MkII on some occasions!).

R2

Christopher2222 wrote:

WilbaW wrote:

Christopher2222 wrote:

WilbaW wrote:

Christopher2222 wrote:

WilbaW wrote:

pvicta wrote:

As I'm upgrading due to age, rather than anything esle, and the only contstaint I have found with the 500D is the number of RAW shots in a row before it stumbles, I don't feel like I will be settling for 2nd best with the 760D

Canon say the max. burst of the 500D is 9 at 3.4/s (page 214 of the manual), but the 760D is only 7 at 5/s (page 404), so while the 760D is faster it's buffer is actually shallower.

FALSE

Just to compare apples to apples, the 500d transfers 599.4 MB shots frames per second and the 760d transfers 927.5 MB shots frames per second.

It's all apples, just different sizes.

Photog 1: "Hey I just got an amazing 927.5MB/s burst!"

Photog 2:"Err, yeah... how many shots?"

Photog 1:"Umm, oh, ah, dunno..."

Just saying the 760d buffer is not shallower,

How is a stack of 9 shallower than a stack of 7? (Think of image files as one pixel thick, so a larger file is wider and longer, not thicker.)

9 * 15Mb RAW = 135

7 * 22.5Mb RAW = 157.5

9 is shallower than the 7 overall

The unit of throughput is the image file, not the MB, so while 7 larger files requires more RAM, 9 smaller files is a larger number of deliverable units.

One camera shoots 7 frames at full speed and the other shoots 9 at full speed - which one can shoot the most at full speed? One pistol can shoot 7 large bullets before it has to be reloaded and the other shoots 9 small bullets before it has to be reloaded - which one can shoot the most bullets before it has to be reloaded? One truck can deliver 7 SUVs and another can deliver 9 compact cars - which one can deliver the greatest number of vehicles in one trip? (Insert your own example here.) That's all there is to it.

R2D2 wrote:

I got: 20 frames at 7 FPS (until buffer full). ~ 2 FPS thereafter. Just under 9 seconds to clear the buffer.

I also did the "30 second" test and got 68 frames using both methods:

1. hold shutter for 30 seconds.

So 20/2.9s (7.0/s) plus 48/27.1s (1.8/s) equals 68. Thanks for helping out.

2. shoot burst, clear buffer, shoot burst, clear buffer, shoot burst and hold shutter.

Seems like it all goes through the same bottleneck whichever way you stack 'em up behind it.

Personally I like to shoot bursts (rather than just shoot continuously at 2 FPS) for the same reasons as WilbaW. People and critters move very fast (even when they're not trying to!). A fast FPS and deep buffer will simply net you more keepers (yeah, wish I had the 1Dx MkII on some occasions!).

Nikon have really kicked a goal with the D500 with a 200 shot buffer, so I've heard. Surely adding that much RAM wouldn't break the bank...?

R2D2 wrote:

Christopher2222 wrote:

It is interesting to note that in a speed test that although the 70d does shoot faster bursts it will not capture more frames over 30 sec.

Using the SanDisk extreme pro 95Mb/s 32gb card tests show the 70d capturing only 46 RAW images
while the ......................................................................................T6s capturing ....... 85 RAW images

What this tells us, is that after the buffer is filled there is a longer wait period on the 70d (because of older technology) while it clears it's buffer than there is on the T6s

information found here http://www.cameramemoryspeed.com/canon-70d/fastest-sd-cards/

.

WilbaW wrote:

R2? Would you do a quick test for us?

Hi guys.

I've been using 64 GB (and 32 GB) SanDisk Extreme Pro 95 MB/s UHS-1 cards since I got the camera.

I always get 20 (full size RAW) frames in 3 seconds before slowdown.

The camera will thereafter shoot at a rate of appx 2 FPS ad infinitum.

It takes just under 9 seconds to clear the buffer.

I've posted my results previously...

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53759795

.

I just saw your post WilbaW ( ) and tested again (using the same settings as the guy at CMS).

I got: 20 frames at 7 FPS (until buffer full). ~ 2 FPS thereafter. Just under 9 seconds to clear the buffer.

I also did the "30 second" test and got 68 frames using both methods:

1. hold shutter for 30 seconds.

2. shoot burst, clear buffer, shoot burst, clear buffer, shoot burst and hold shutter.

68 frames each time.

Personally I like to shoot bursts (rather than just shoot continuously at 2 FPS) for the same reasons as WilbaW. People and critters move very fast (even when they're not trying to!). A fast FPS and deep buffer will simply net you more keepers (yeah, wish I had the 1Dx MkII on some occasions!).

R2

Interesting numbers thanks - so the 760D has slower burst speed but clears buffer faster and gets overall better throughput.

Hi all

Thanks very much for all your help, and the excellent discussion on speed, bursts and buffer size

I had a bit of a play with a 70D and 760D and decided on the 760D

I also had a bit more $$$ than I thought I'd have so was able to get the 15-85 as well

There's an open day at the airport here next weekend, so will get to take them out in anger then

In the end, it came down to what features could I use vs what could I do without, as well as feel

Ultimately I thought the newer 760D had more to offer me than the 70D

I wasn't able to track down a 60D to try, but I think I probably would have gone the 70D if I was going that way

Again, thanks very much for your help and suggestions

Paul