Latest sample galleries
Latest in-depth reviews
We've been digging around under the hood of the Nikon Z50. We look at what Nikon's first APS-C mirrorless camera does and doesn't offer.
You're method of calculating images per time period could be said for any camera that can take more than 1 picture per shutter press provided that the actual time between images is less than the average time between images based on manufacturer specs. What I am saying is that if you have a manufacturer spec of 4 frames a second which means 0.25 seconds between captures all that needs to happen is only a single frame needs to be faster than 0.25 seconds between it and the previous or next image. This has zero to do with fps (as you've now said in your last post) as you're totally ignoring the 'per second' part of the equation.
It's like running around a track and trying to get a personal best of 10 laps in 10 minutes but not starting the clock until I'm 9/10ths completed the first lap and then exclaiming to everyone, 'I did it, 10 laps in 10 minutes!' it's just silly.
At least it is better or per spec. not worse. Like all these promissed new cars MPG which never come true in real life.
"Keep It Simple Stupid" (a generalized cliche that is not directed at anyone ... but me!)
Open an image which was shot in continuous in View NX-i or Capture NX-D and note the last 2 digits in "Date Shot" ... say it's 05 ... cycle to the next image ... it should be 15, then 25 etc. ... 10 one hundredths of a second between each shot. That would be ten frames per second ... right? You don't even need to see more than two or three images to determine that! ...
But in reality it is not quite that simple, because my D500 at least, does vary some. I shoot a lot of tennis, and the bursts are usually between 4 and 7 shots with an occasional "chase down" sequence that can be more than 20. Sometimes I see a consistent 10/100 between shots, but more often they vary by -1 or -2 to +1 or +2 hundredths. But generally speaking it averages to 10/100 each shot. That's my case, anyway, and I'm satisfied that my 3+ year old D500 is shooting to the spec Nikon claims.
To be shooting 11 FPS it would have to average 9/100 between shots. Because I see a variance, I don't doubt there could be some cameras that are doing that. Whatever condition that makes the numbers vary could simply be consistently -1, -2, 0 or +1, in a sequence that would average 9/100 per shot.
I have always looked at that "Date Shot" line and been satisfied I'm getting 10 FPS. But at the same time, I have always observed a variation. It never concerned me. Should any of us care about plus or minus a hundredth of a second? ... I don't think so. Do I need 11FPS ... uh, that would be 10% more images to go through. Maybe in a weekend I would catch a couple more balls on the racket. But is it worth trudging through two or three hundred more images? Naa ... I'm good.
What we spend on this stuff is equal to the depth of our pockets squared ($²) times what we (j)ustify in our minds as to what we expect to do with our pictures plus (+) the (e)njoyment we experience from using our stuff and sharing the result ... $xxxx=$²(j+e )
First, do you realise that first you shoot to the buffer and then the writing is started and buffer is cleared as you keep shooting but the sensor burst goes directly to the buffer at the camera speed until you fill it up? So card dependence in the first 26-40 shots (depending on your setting) should not be a thing.
Secondly, what times do you acutally subtract? Because if you take a burst of 11 shots and subtract the write time of the 1st one from the 11th one, you are actually counting 10 shots. Because the first's time is the starting time for the 2nd shot. So if you get around 1 second, this is actually correct, because it is 10 shots per second. The first one is written at 0,1 and the 11th at 1,1.
Could you take another experiment?
Check your buffer depth on your current setting, it should be something like r27 or r34 or something like that.
Still, while you get to 27th shot, your camera should have already cleared about 5-10 of them from the buffer to the card. You will see r27 dropping quickly and then actually slowing the countdown down or if the card is fast enough, actually stopping at r10 or something like that, until you reach the buffer limit set in your camera (typically 100 or 200 shots). So shoot a burst until you actually see the buffer drop to r05 and stop. Throw away the first two shots (the camera waking up, looking around, stretching on the track, looking for the running shoes...). Subtract the times recorded in the 3rd and n-th shot and divide by n-3 (n minus the two you threw away and minus the first of the burst which would be the starting time actually).
What do you get now?
The timer starts when you depress the shutter button, not when the first image is captured. Your first image is not zero for time, it is 0.952 or whatever it was.
If you want to use a stopwatch like you are to measure the time it takes for 11 frames to happen then you must take 12 frames and the first images is image 0 and time 0. Counting up from there gives you only 10 frames when the clock hits 1 second.
I understood what you said. However, hear me out please. Let's say, I pressed the shutter while stopwatch is running already and took 15-20 frames burst. Then on my computer I calculate time period between frame #2 and 12 or # 5 and #15, whatever, which is equal to 0.954 sec. (0.981-0.982 sec. with Lexar XQD card) and associated with eleven (11) not virtual fps. but real images.
Probably my OP title is slightly deceiving and incorrect.
I'm sure it wasn't meant to decieve
It did sound like you thought your D500 was shooting unusually fast, but it isn't. Any camera with a frame rate of a touch over 10 fps will always shoot 11 frames within any one-second period.
Actually I don't care about fps. at all. However, I like the fact that my camera at some point is able to document 11 RAW images during less than 1 sec. period of time even, if the very first shot, associated with shutter press is out of scope. Makes sense? And in real life I mostly shoot at least twice shorter bursts.
It should be generated by quartz crystal. Isn't it? How come it is not really accurate for you?
Not really no, a web stopwatch is a piece of software, not a quartz crystal. Again, I'm not trying to call you a liar. It would be cool if you could post images 1 through 11? Or even the first and last in a burst.
You're shooting raw, are you shooting 14bit uncompressed?
There are 1st and 11th images from the sequence:
Yes, I shoot 14 bit RAW, don't remember compressed or uncompressed though. It is too late now to verify.
From these two images, you are showing it’s shooting at a frame rate of 10 fps. That 11th image is just measuring the end of the 10th frame in the burst.
If you aren’t sure on that, consider a two frame burst. The gap between those two frames (probably about 0.1s) shows the cycle time for one frame and not the two you are using to measure the gap. Same thing goes when you extend the burst to get an average across 10 frames; you need 11 to measure it!
The Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark III is a 20MP Micro Four Thirds camera aimed at enthusiast photographers. It shares the same sensor, AF system and 4K-video capture as the flagship E-M1 II and E-M1 X, in a considerably smaller and lighter package.
The Live Planet VR system may look like something out of a science fiction movie, but this stereoscopic, 16-lens camera and its associated cloud platform may be one of the best tools out there for live-streaming events in 360 degrees.
What’s the best camera costing over $2000? The best high-end camera costing more than $2000 should have plenty of resolution, exceptional build quality, good 4K video capture and top-notch autofocus for advanced and professional users. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing over $2000 and recommended the best.
Long-zoom compacts fill the gap between pocketable cameras and interchangeable lens models with expensive lenses, offering a great combination of lens reach and portability. Read on to learn about our favorite enthusiast long zoom cameras.
If you want a compact camera that produces great quality photos without the hassle of changing lenses, there are plenty of choices available for every budget. Read on to find out which portable enthusiast compacts are our favorites.
|Red Eyed Tree Frog by Tallgrass|
from Flash Photography
|IN4A3812 by Rahto|
from A big year - birds 2019
|Cold Ride by DaveN01|
|Bear by matteroner|
from -Super Furry- (dogs in Full Colours Only)
|Boy On Golden Beach by Buzz Lightyear|
from gold challenge