Buffer Capacity Estimates

[John Sheehy]

In a thread that was recently locked, the topic came up of how many files fit in the R7's buffer, which is rather small for a camera with a "7" in its name, implying that it is the mirror-less "7D2 successor".

So, today I tried with another camera, the R5, to see how camera settings affect estimated buffer size (and card capacity as well), and it was about as simple as can be: nothing but ISO setting, and cRAW vs RAW affected the estimate (well, crop mode on the R5, but the R7 doesn't have that). This means that the estimate can be way, way off.

HTP and changing the shutter mode made no difference to the estimate, and "Auto ISO" assumes the worst case of the highest ISO.

There are things that we know change the compressed file sizes for a given scene; mainly noise and utilization of the tones or bits. You can't change the DR of your scene, but you can change how it is recorded. Under-exposure leaves lots of contiguous, unused most significant bits, and lower analog gains also result in less noise, which makes them easier to compress. HTP (Highlight Tone Priority) does both of these things; ISO 800 with HTP is the same RAW data as ISO 400 with a stop of under-exposure, two steps towards a smaller file. I would suggest to anyone who is going to do actual measurements of how many files the buffer can take before filling, that they explore HTP and maybe even a little bit more underxposure.

I used HTP for years until I realized that the R5's headroom was better than other cameras I used before, and the WYSIWYG "exposure simulation" made HTP less necessary, but if my future R7 gives me buffer grief, I may go back to using HTP.

 

[Alastair Norcross]

In a thread that was recently locked, the topic came up of how many files fit in the R7's buffer, which is rather small for a camera with a "7" in its name, implying that it is the mirror-less "7D2 successor".

People have been saying this, but it seems they have simply forgotten what the buffer on the 7DII is. The 7DII RAW buffer is 31 shots. A lot more in JPEG, obviously. I never, in six years of shooting my 7DII, hit the buffer limit. That's mostly because I did most of my sports shooting in JPEG, to fit more on the card and for ease and speed of editing. But even in JPEG I pretty much never shot bursts of more than 30. But the R7 buffer (at 15fps--50% faster than the 7DII's top speed) is reported at about 51 shots in RAW, over 100 in CRAW, and lots and lots in JPEG. Even the DPR hands-on with R7 claimed the buffer was smaller than the 7DII. But it simply isn't. Whether the R7 buffer counts as small is obviously a matter of perspective. But it's bigger than the 7DII. And I don't recall hearing many (in fact any) complaints about the buffer on the 7DII.

So, today I tried with another camera, the R5, to see how camera settings affect estimated buffer size (and card capacity as well), and it was about as simple as can be: nothing but ISO setting, and cRAW vs RAW affected the estimate (well, crop mode on the R5, but the R7 doesn't have that). This means that the estimate can be way, way off.

HTP and changing the shutter mode made no difference to the estimate, and "Auto ISO" assumes the worst case of the highest ISO.

There are things that we know change the compressed file sizes for a given scene; mainly noise and utilization of the tones or bits. You can't change the DR of your scene, but you can change how it is recorded. Under-exposure leaves lots of contiguous, unused most significant bits, and lower analog gains also result in less noise, which makes them easier to compress. HTP (Highlight Tone Priority) does both of these things; ISO 800 with HTP is the same RAW data as ISO 400 with a stop of under-exposure, two steps towards a smaller file. I would suggest to anyone who is going to do actual measurements of how many files the buffer can take before filling, that they explore HTP and maybe even a little bit more underxposure.

I used HTP for years until I realized that the R5's headroom was better than other cameras I used before, and the WYSIWYG "exposure simulation" made HTP less necessary, but if my future R7 gives me buffer grief, I may go back to using HTP.

--
“When I die, I want to go peacefully in my sleep like my grandfather. Not screaming in terror, like the passengers in his car.” Jack Handey
Alastair
http://anorcross.smugmug.com
Equipment in profile

 

[John Sheehy]

In a thread that was recently locked, the topic came up of how many files fit in the R7's buffer, which is rather small for a camera with a "7" in its name, implying that it is the mirror-less "7D2 successor".

People have been saying this, but it seems they have simply forgotten what the buffer on the 7DII is. The 7DII RAW buffer is 31 shots. A lot more in JPEG, obviously. I never, in six years of shooting my 7DII, hit the buffer limit. That's mostly because I did most of my sports shooting in JPEG, to fit more on the card and for ease and speed of editing. But even in JPEG I pretty much never shot bursts of more than 30. But the R7 buffer (at 15fps--50% faster than the 7DII's top speed) is reported at about 51 shots in RAW, over 100 in CRAW, and lots and lots in JPEG. Even the DPR hands-on with R7 claimed the buffer was smaller than the 7DII. But it simply isn't. Whether the R7 buffer counts as small is obviously a matter of perspective. But it's bigger than the 7DII. And I don't recall hearing many (in fact any) complaints about the buffer on the 7DII.

OK, fair points, but people expect progress; not a static situation. My post never intended to be about the 7D2 or the R7's buffer size in bytes or files per se; it was meant to be about what we can do to get more files inside of any given buffer, triggered by the R7 discussion.
--

Beware of correct answers to wrong questions.
John

http://www.pbase.com/image/55384958.jpg

 

[BirdShooter7]

In a thread that was recently locked, the topic came up of how many files fit in the R7's buffer, which is rather small for a camera with a "7" in its name, implying that it is the mirror-less "7D2 successor".

People have been saying this, but it seems they have simply forgotten what the buffer on the 7DII is. The 7DII RAW buffer is 31 shots. A lot more in JPEG, obviously. I never, in six years of shooting my 7DII, hit the buffer limit. That's mostly because I did most of my sports shooting in JPEG, to fit more on the card and for ease and speed of editing. But even in JPEG I pretty much never shot bursts of more than 30. But the R7 buffer (at 15fps--50% faster than the 7DII's top speed) is reported at about 51 shots in RAW, over 100 in CRAW, and lots and lots in JPEG. Even the DPR hands-on with R7 claimed the buffer was smaller than the 7DII. But it simply isn't. Whether the R7 buffer counts as small is obviously a matter of perspective. But it's bigger than the 7DII. And I don't recall hearing many (in fact any) complaints about the buffer on the 7DII.

So, today I tried with another camera, the R5, to see how camera settings affect estimated buffer size (and card capacity as well), and it was about as simple as can be: nothing but ISO setting, and cRAW vs RAW affected the estimate (well, crop mode on the R5, but the R7 doesn't have that). This means that the estimate can be way, way off.

HTP and changing the shutter mode made no difference to the estimate, and "Auto ISO" assumes the worst case of the highest ISO.

There are things that we know change the compressed file sizes for a given scene; mainly noise and utilization of the tones or bits. You can't change the DR of your scene, but you can change how it is recorded. Under-exposure leaves lots of contiguous, unused most significant bits, and lower analog gains also result in less noise, which makes them easier to compress. HTP (Highlight Tone Priority) does both of these things; ISO 800 with HTP is the same RAW data as ISO 400 with a stop of under-exposure, two steps towards a smaller file. I would suggest to anyone who is going to do actual measurements of how many files the buffer can take before filling, that they explore HTP and maybe even a little bit more underxposure.

I used HTP for years until I realized that the R5's headroom was better than other cameras I used before, and the WYSIWYG "exposure simulation" made HTP less necessary, but if my future R7 gives me buffer grief, I may go back to using HTP.

 

[Alastair Norcross]

In a thread that was recently locked, the topic came up of how many files fit in the R7's buffer, which is rather small for a camera with a "7" in its name, implying that it is the mirror-less "7D2 successor".

People have been saying this, but it seems they have simply forgotten what the buffer on the 7DII is. The 7DII RAW buffer is 31 shots. A lot more in JPEG, obviously. I never, in six years of shooting my 7DII, hit the buffer limit. That's mostly because I did most of my sports shooting in JPEG, to fit more on the card and for ease and speed of editing. But even in JPEG I pretty much never shot bursts of more than 30. But the R7 buffer (at 15fps--50% faster than the 7DII's top speed) is reported at about 51 shots in RAW, over 100 in CRAW, and lots and lots in JPEG. Even the DPR hands-on with R7 claimed the buffer was smaller than the 7DII. But it simply isn't. Whether the R7 buffer counts as small is obviously a matter of perspective. But it's bigger than the 7DII. And I don't recall hearing many (in fact any) complaints about the buffer on the 7DII.

So, today I tried with another camera, the R5, to see how camera settings affect estimated buffer size (and card capacity as well), and it was about as simple as can be: nothing but ISO setting, and cRAW vs RAW affected the estimate (well, crop mode on the R5, but the R7 doesn't have that). This means that the estimate can be way, way off.

HTP and changing the shutter mode made no difference to the estimate, and "Auto ISO" assumes the worst case of the highest ISO.

There are things that we know change the compressed file sizes for a given scene; mainly noise and utilization of the tones or bits. You can't change the DR of your scene, but you can change how it is recorded. Under-exposure leaves lots of contiguous, unused most significant bits, and lower analog gains also result in less noise, which makes them easier to compress. HTP (Highlight Tone Priority) does both of these things; ISO 800 with HTP is the same RAW data as ISO 400 with a stop of under-exposure, two steps towards a smaller file. I would suggest to anyone who is going to do actual measurements of how many files the buffer can take before filling, that they explore HTP and maybe even a little bit more underxposure.

I used HTP for years until I realized that the R5's headroom was better than other cameras I used before, and the WYSIWYG "exposure simulation" made HTP less necessary, but if my future R7 gives me buffer grief, I may go back to using HTP.

With the 7d mk2 in jpeg mode you pretty much couldn’t run out of buffer. I never shoot RAW, partly because of the buffer limitations. When you’re used to having a nice big buffer it’s a little annoying to upgrade to a small one. Not saying you can’t get the job done with the R7 but it sure is nice to not have to worry about buffer.

But my point was that the R7 buffer is actually larger than the 7DII buffer. Why do people keep saying it's smaller? It isn't. It's actually considerably larger. If the upgrade you're talking about is from the 7DII to the R7, you are, in fact, upgrading from a "nice big buffer" to a considerably bigger one. See my post above to John where I give the actual numbers. It's not even close. The R7 is a much much bigger buffer, both in RAW and JPEG, than the 7DII. And when you add the ability to shoot CRAW, which the 7DII doesn't have, the increase in buffer size is even larger. This is one of the few things that we can know without trying out the camera. Just look at the specs.

--
“When I die, I want to go peacefully in my sleep like my grandfather. Not screaming in terror, like the passengers in his car.” Jack Handey
Alastair
http://anorcross.smugmug.com
Equipment in profile

 

[Alastair Norcross]

In a thread that was recently locked, the topic came up of how many files fit in the R7's buffer, which is rather small for a camera with a "7" in its name, implying that it is the mirror-less "7D2 successor".

People have been saying this, but it seems they have simply forgotten what the buffer on the 7DII is. The 7DII RAW buffer is 31 shots. A lot more in JPEG, obviously. I never, in six years of shooting my 7DII, hit the buffer limit. That's mostly because I did most of my sports shooting in JPEG, to fit more on the card and for ease and speed of editing. But even in JPEG I pretty much never shot bursts of more than 30. But the R7 buffer (at 15fps--50% faster than the 7DII's top speed) is reported at about 51 shots in RAW, over 100 in CRAW, and lots and lots in JPEG. Even the DPR hands-on with R7 claimed the buffer was smaller than the 7DII. But it simply isn't. Whether the R7 buffer counts as small is obviously a matter of perspective. But it's bigger than the 7DII. And I don't recall hearing many (in fact any) complaints about the buffer on the 7DII.

OK, fair points, but people expect progress; not a static situation. My post never intended to be about the 7D2 or the R7's buffer size in bytes or files per se; it was meant to be about what we can do to get more files inside of any given buffer, triggered by the R7 discussion.

Yes, I understand, and you've given useful information. I'm just tired of people saying that the R7 buffer is smaller than the 7DII buffer. It isn't. And it's not a static situation, either. The R7 buffer is quite a lot larger than the 7DII buffer. At 15fps in full RAW you get 51 32.5MP frames with the R7. With the 7DII at 10fps you get 31 20MP frames. That's considerable progress. 65% more images that are themselves 60% larger at a shooting speed that's 50% faster. That all adds up to a huge leap forward in buffer. Add in the ability to shoot CRAW with the R7, and you get more than three times the buffer on the R7. With JPEG you get almost twice as many frames with the R7 as on the 7DII. So, if people expect progress, they have gotten it. And lots of it.

 

[PicPocket]

In a thread that was recently locked, the topic came up of how many files fit in the R7's buffer, which is rather small for a camera with a "7" in its name, implying that it is the mirror-less "7D2 successor".

People have been saying this, but it seems they have simply forgotten what the buffer on the 7DII is. The 7DII RAW buffer is 31 shots. A lot more in JPEG, obviously. I never, in six years of shooting my 7DII, hit the buffer limit. That's mostly because I did most of my sports shooting in JPEG, to fit more on the card and for ease and speed of editing. But even in JPEG I pretty much never shot bursts of more than 30. But the R7 buffer (at 15fps--50% faster than the 7DII's top speed) is reported at about 51 shots in RAW, over 100 in CRAW, and lots and lots in JPEG. Even the DPR hands-on with R7 claimed the buffer was smaller than the 7DII. But it simply isn't. Whether the R7 buffer counts as small is obviously a matter of perspective. But it's bigger than the 7DII. And I don't recall hearing many (in fact any) complaints about the buffer on the 7DII.

OK, fair points, but people expect progress; not a static situation.

Maybe this is progress that still costs more money, that makes the body go out of target price range. While they may have figured out a way to provide faster operations (processing, frame rates, AF), adding much larger physical buffer still might be expensive today

In any case, Alastair's point is fairly important to note, at least for RAW shooters

RAW buffer with fast cards:

7D II - 31 shots @ 10fps. you can go around 3 seconds. mechanical shutter

R7:

• 42 shots @ 30fps. you get only 1.4 secs, but triple the frame rate. electronic shutter
• 59 shots @ 15 fps. You get about 4 secs at 1.5x frame rate. You are way ahead of 7D II already now with a choice of mechanical or electronic shutter

R7 still looks progress to me, even though there will be people with even higher expectations

My post never intended to be about the 7D2 or the R7's buffer size in bytes or files per se; it was meant to be about what we can do to get more files inside of any given buffer, triggered by the R7 discussion.

That part is well received. I read the above discussion strictly in terms of what is quoted above, and it seems that R7 can either do the same or improve on 7D II depending on your shooting needs

--
PicPocket
http://photography.ashishpandey.com

 

[pawn]

In a thread that was recently locked, the topic came up of how many files fit in the R7's buffer, which is rather small for a camera with a "7" in its name, implying that it is the mirror-less "7D2 successor".

People have been saying this, but it seems they have simply forgotten what the buffer on the 7DII is. The 7DII RAW buffer is 31 shots. A lot more in JPEG, obviously. I never, in six years of shooting my 7DII, hit the buffer limit. That's mostly because I did most of my sports shooting in JPEG, to fit more on the card and for ease and speed of editing. But even in JPEG I pretty much never shot bursts of more than 30. But the R7 buffer (at 15fps--50% faster than the 7DII's top speed) is reported at about 51 shots in RAW, over 100 in CRAW, and lots and lots in JPEG. Even the DPR hands-on with R7 claimed the buffer was smaller than the 7DII. But it simply isn't. Whether the R7 buffer counts as small is obviously a matter of perspective. But it's bigger than the 7DII. And I don't recall hearing many (in fact any) complaints about the buffer on the 7DII.

So, today I tried with another camera, the R5, to see how camera settings affect estimated buffer size (and card capacity as well), and it was about as simple as can be: nothing but ISO setting, and cRAW vs RAW affected the estimate (well, crop mode on the R5, but the R7 doesn't have that). This means that the estimate can be way, way off.

HTP and changing the shutter mode made no difference to the estimate, and "Auto ISO" assumes the worst case of the highest ISO.

There are things that we know change the compressed file sizes for a given scene; mainly noise and utilization of the tones or bits. You can't change the DR of your scene, but you can change how it is recorded. Under-exposure leaves lots of contiguous, unused most significant bits, and lower analog gains also result in less noise, which makes them easier to compress. HTP (Highlight Tone Priority) does both of these things; ISO 800 with HTP is the same RAW data as ISO 400 with a stop of under-exposure, two steps towards a smaller file. I would suggest to anyone who is going to do actual measurements of how many files the buffer can take before filling, that they explore HTP and maybe even a little bit more underxposure.

I used HTP for years until I realized that the R5's headroom was better than other cameras I used before, and the WYSIWYG "exposure simulation" made HTP less necessary, but if my future R7 gives me buffer grief, I may go back to using HTP.

With the 7d mk2 in jpeg mode you pretty much couldn’t run out of buffer. I never shoot RAW, partly because of the buffer limitations. When you’re used to having a nice big buffer it’s a little annoying to upgrade to a small one. Not saying you can’t get the job done with the R7 but it sure is nice to not have to worry about buffer.

But my point was that the R7 buffer is actually larger than the 7DII buffer. Why do people keep saying it's smaller? It isn't. It's actually considerably larger. If the upgrade you're talking about is from the 7DII to the R7, you are, in fact, upgrading from a "nice big buffer" to a considerably bigger one. See my post above to John where I give the actual numbers. It's not even close. The R7 is a much much bigger buffer, both in RAW and JPEG, than the 7DII. And when you add the ability to shoot CRAW, which the 7DII doesn't have, the increase in buffer size is even larger. This is one of the few things that we can know without trying out the camera. Just look at the specs.

+1

I have both cameras and concurred with the statement above which I bolded

 

[BirdShooter7]

In a thread that was recently locked, the topic came up of how many files fit in the R7's buffer, which is rather small for a camera with a "7" in its name, implying that it is the mirror-less "7D2 successor".

People have been saying this, but it seems they have simply forgotten what the buffer on the 7DII is. The 7DII RAW buffer is 31 shots. A lot more in JPEG, obviously. I never, in six years of shooting my 7DII, hit the buffer limit. That's mostly because I did most of my sports shooting in JPEG, to fit more on the card and for ease and speed of editing. But even in JPEG I pretty much never shot bursts of more than 30. But the R7 buffer (at 15fps--50% faster than the 7DII's top speed) is reported at about 51 shots in RAW, over 100 in CRAW, and lots and lots in JPEG. Even the DPR hands-on with R7 claimed the buffer was smaller than the 7DII. But it simply isn't. Whether the R7 buffer counts as small is obviously a matter of perspective. But it's bigger than the 7DII. And I don't recall hearing many (in fact any) complaints about the buffer on the 7DII.

OK, fair points, but people expect progress; not a static situation. My post never intended to be about the 7D2 or the R7's buffer size in bytes or files per se; it was meant to be about what we can do to get more files inside of any given buffer, triggered by the R7 discussion.

Yes, I understand, and you've given useful information. I'm just tired of people saying that the R7 buffer is smaller than the 7DII buffer. It isn't. And it's not a static situation, either. The R7 buffer is quite a lot larger than the 7DII buffer.

Right but it isn’t larger enough to account for the extra MP and frame rate so users are back to the bad old days of worrying about buffer.

At 15fps in full RAW you get 51 32.5MP frames with the R7. With the 7DII at 10fps you get 31 20MP frames. That's considerable progress. 65% more images that are themselves 60% larger at a shooting speed that's 50% faster. That all adds up to a huge leap forward in buffer. Add in the ability to shoot CRAW with the R7, and you get more than three times the buffer on the R7. With JPEG you get almost twice as many frames with the R7 as on the 7DII. So, if people expect progress, they have gotten it. And lots of it.

 

[BirdShooter7]

In a thread that was recently locked, the topic came up of how many files fit in the R7's buffer, which is rather small for a camera with a "7" in its name, implying that it is the mirror-less "7D2 successor".

People have been saying this, but it seems they have simply forgotten what the buffer on the 7DII is. The 7DII RAW buffer is 31 shots. A lot more in JPEG, obviously. I never, in six years of shooting my 7DII, hit the buffer limit. That's mostly because I did most of my sports shooting in JPEG, to fit more on the card and for ease and speed of editing. But even in JPEG I pretty much never shot bursts of more than 30. But the R7 buffer (at 15fps--50% faster than the 7DII's top speed) is reported at about 51 shots in RAW, over 100 in CRAW, and lots and lots in JPEG. Even the DPR hands-on with R7 claimed the buffer was smaller than the 7DII. But it simply isn't. Whether the R7 buffer counts as small is obviously a matter of perspective. But it's bigger than the 7DII. And I don't recall hearing many (in fact any) complaints about the buffer on the 7DII.

So, today I tried with another camera, the R5, to see how camera settings affect estimated buffer size (and card capacity as well), and it was about as simple as can be: nothing but ISO setting, and cRAW vs RAW affected the estimate (well, crop mode on the R5, but the R7 doesn't have that). This means that the estimate can be way, way off.

HTP and changing the shutter mode made no difference to the estimate, and "Auto ISO" assumes the worst case of the highest ISO.

There are things that we know change the compressed file sizes for a given scene; mainly noise and utilization of the tones or bits. You can't change the DR of your scene, but you can change how it is recorded. Under-exposure leaves lots of contiguous, unused most significant bits, and lower analog gains also result in less noise, which makes them easier to compress. HTP (Highlight Tone Priority) does both of these things; ISO 800 with HTP is the same RAW data as ISO 400 with a stop of under-exposure, two steps towards a smaller file. I would suggest to anyone who is going to do actual measurements of how many files the buffer can take before filling, that they explore HTP and maybe even a little bit more underxposure.

I used HTP for years until I realized that the R5's headroom was better than other cameras I used before, and the WYSIWYG "exposure simulation" made HTP less necessary, but if my future R7 gives me buffer grief, I may go back to using HTP.

With the 7d mk2 in jpeg mode you pretty much couldn’t run out of buffer. I never shoot RAW, partly because of the buffer limitations. When you’re used to having a nice big buffer it’s a little annoying to upgrade to a small one. Not saying you can’t get the job done with the R7 but it sure is nice to not have to worry about buffer.

But my point was that the R7 buffer is actually larger than the 7DII buffer. Why do people keep saying it's smaller? It isn't. It's actually considerably larger. If the upgrade you're talking about is from the 7DII to the R7, you are, in fact, upgrading from a "nice big buffer" to a considerably bigger one. See my post above to John where I give the actual numbers. It's not even close. The R7 is a much much bigger buffer, both in RAW and JPEG, than the 7DII. And when you add the ability to shoot CRAW, which the 7DII doesn't have, the increase in buffer size is even larger. This is one of the few things that we can know without trying out the camera. Just look at the specs.

 

[Steve Fink]

And my point is that with the R7 we’re back to having to worry about buffer when that seemed to be a thing of the past with the 7d mk2. With the 7d mk2, the camera was always ready for the next burst, the R7, not so much.

Why go with the R7 at all than? You should get the R3 than or wait for the R1. That seems like the upgrade for you. I have the 7D MKII and do consider the R7 an upgrade, spec-wise as well as the reviews I've seen. I haven't even used my 7D MKII for quite a while, opting for my 5D MKIV instead most of the time. YMMV

 

[John Sheehy]

And my point is that with the R7 we’re back to having to worry about buffer when that seemed to be a thing of the past with the 7d mk2. With the 7d mk2, the camera was always ready for the next burst, the R7, not so much.

Why go with the R7 at all than? You should get the R3 than or wait for the R1. That seems like the upgrade for you. I have the 7D MKII and do consider the R7 an upgrade, spec-wise as well as the reviews I've seen. I haven't even used my 7D MKII for quite a while, opting for my 5D MKIV instead most of the time. YMMV

You pay in other ways, though, besides the price.

The R3 has much lower pixel density, and it has a little bit more visible noise than the R7 in focal-length-limited and "equivalent" DOF situations.

The visible noise ranking above base ISO when total subject light is the same, as far as I can see, is:

R6 and R7 - the best from Canon

R5 and R3 - the second best group

All others at least a little noisier than the R5 and R3 (except the M6-II and the 90D, which are closer to the R6 and R7).

Even a 1.4x TC puts less pixels-on-subject than the R7; a 2x puts slightly more, but now your AF is dealing with 1/4 the light.

 

[BirdShooter7]

And my point is that with the R7 we’re back to having to worry about buffer when that seemed to be a thing of the past with the 7d mk2. With the 7d mk2, the camera was always ready for the next burst, the R7, not so much.

Why go with the R7 at all than? You should get the R3 than or wait for the R1. That seems like the upgrade for you. I have the 7D MKII and do consider the R7 an upgrade, spec-wise as well as the reviews I've seen. I haven't even used my 7D MKII for quite a while, opting for my 5D MKIV instead most of the time. YMMV

 

[Alastair Norcross]

In a thread that was recently locked, the topic came up of how many files fit in the R7's buffer, which is rather small for a camera with a "7" in its name, implying that it is the mirror-less "7D2 successor".

People have been saying this, but it seems they have simply forgotten what the buffer on the 7DII is. The 7DII RAW buffer is 31 shots. A lot more in JPEG, obviously. I never, in six years of shooting my 7DII, hit the buffer limit. That's mostly because I did most of my sports shooting in JPEG, to fit more on the card and for ease and speed of editing. But even in JPEG I pretty much never shot bursts of more than 30. But the R7 buffer (at 15fps--50% faster than the 7DII's top speed) is reported at about 51 shots in RAW, over 100 in CRAW, and lots and lots in JPEG. Even the DPR hands-on with R7 claimed the buffer was smaller than the 7DII. But it simply isn't. Whether the R7 buffer counts as small is obviously a matter of perspective. But it's bigger than the 7DII. And I don't recall hearing many (in fact any) complaints about the buffer on the 7DII.

OK, fair points, but people expect progress; not a static situation. My post never intended to be about the 7D2 or the R7's buffer size in bytes or files per se; it was meant to be about what we can do to get more files inside of any given buffer, triggered by the R7 discussion.

Yes, I understand, and you've given useful information. I'm just tired of people saying that the R7 buffer is smaller than the 7DII buffer. It isn't. And it's not a static situation, either. The R7 buffer is quite a lot larger than the 7DII buffer.

Right but it isn’t larger enough to account for the extra MP and frame rate so users are back to the bad old days of worrying about buffer.

That's simply not true. You got 3 seconds of full speed RAW shooting with the 7DII. With the R7, using CRAW (and there's simply no reason not to), you get 7 seconds at 15fps. That's more than twice as long.

At 15fps in full RAW you get 51 32.5MP frames with the R7. With the 7DII at 10fps you get 31 20MP frames. That's considerable progress. 65% more images that are themselves 60% larger at a shooting speed that's 50% faster. That all adds up to a huge leap forward in buffer. Add in the ability to shoot CRAW with the R7, and you get more than three times the buffer on the R7. With JPEG you get almost twice as many frames with the R7 as on the 7DII. So, if people expect progress, they have gotten it. And lots of it.

 

[Alastair Norcross]

In a thread that was recently locked, the topic came up of how many files fit in the R7's buffer, which is rather small for a camera with a "7" in its name, implying that it is the mirror-less "7D2 successor".

People have been saying this, but it seems they have simply forgotten what the buffer on the 7DII is. The 7DII RAW buffer is 31 shots. A lot more in JPEG, obviously. I never, in six years of shooting my 7DII, hit the buffer limit. That's mostly because I did most of my sports shooting in JPEG, to fit more on the card and for ease and speed of editing. But even in JPEG I pretty much never shot bursts of more than 30. But the R7 buffer (at 15fps--50% faster than the 7DII's top speed) is reported at about 51 shots in RAW, over 100 in CRAW, and lots and lots in JPEG. Even the DPR hands-on with R7 claimed the buffer was smaller than the 7DII. But it simply isn't. Whether the R7 buffer counts as small is obviously a matter of perspective. But it's bigger than the 7DII. And I don't recall hearing many (in fact any) complaints about the buffer on the 7DII.

So, today I tried with another camera, the R5, to see how camera settings affect estimated buffer size (and card capacity as well), and it was about as simple as can be: nothing but ISO setting, and cRAW vs RAW affected the estimate (well, crop mode on the R5, but the R7 doesn't have that). This means that the estimate can be way, way off.

HTP and changing the shutter mode made no difference to the estimate, and "Auto ISO" assumes the worst case of the highest ISO.

There are things that we know change the compressed file sizes for a given scene; mainly noise and utilization of the tones or bits. You can't change the DR of your scene, but you can change how it is recorded. Under-exposure leaves lots of contiguous, unused most significant bits, and lower analog gains also result in less noise, which makes them easier to compress. HTP (Highlight Tone Priority) does both of these things; ISO 800 with HTP is the same RAW data as ISO 400 with a stop of under-exposure, two steps towards a smaller file. I would suggest to anyone who is going to do actual measurements of how many files the buffer can take before filling, that they explore HTP and maybe even a little bit more underxposure.

I used HTP for years until I realized that the R5's headroom was better than other cameras I used before, and the WYSIWYG "exposure simulation" made HTP less necessary, but if my future R7 gives me buffer grief, I may go back to using HTP.

With the 7d mk2 in jpeg mode you pretty much couldn’t run out of buffer. I never shoot RAW, partly because of the buffer limitations. When you’re used to having a nice big buffer it’s a little annoying to upgrade to a small one. Not saying you can’t get the job done with the R7 but it sure is nice to not have to worry about buffer.

But my point was that the R7 buffer is actually larger than the 7DII buffer. Why do people keep saying it's smaller? It isn't. It's actually considerably larger. If the upgrade you're talking about is from the 7DII to the R7, you are, in fact, upgrading from a "nice big buffer" to a considerably bigger one. See my post above to John where I give the actual numbers. It's not even close. The R7 is a much much bigger buffer, both in RAW and JPEG, than the 7DII. And when you add the ability to shoot CRAW, which the 7DII doesn't have, the increase in buffer size is even larger. This is one of the few things that we can know without trying out the camera. Just look at the specs.

And my point is that with the R7 we’re back to having to worry about buffer when that seemed to be a thing of the past with the 7d mk2. With the 7d mk2, the camera was always ready for the next burst, the R7, not so much.

Given the actual specs, that seems to be just plain false. The R7 has a bigger buffer than the 7DII in all respects, including how long you can shoot at 15fps. As to whether the R7 is always ready for the next burst, I have no idea. I don't have mine yet, and neither do you, so perhaps you should hold off? My 7DII was always ready for the next burst, but I never maxed it out. Given that, I expect I'll never max out my R7 either, which, as I have said repeatedly, has a much bigger buffer than the 7DII. I find it interesting that you first complain that the R7 has a smaller buffer than the 7DII, then, when I point out the easily available fact that it doesn't, complain that there isn't progress, then, when I point out that that it false too, fall back on a claim about it not being 'always ready for the next burst', when you simply have no way of knowing that. If you maxed out your 7DII, it wouldn't have been always ready for the next burst, because there would be times when it was clearing the buffer. If you didn't max out your 7DII, you won't maxing out your R7 at 50% faster burst rates, and definitely not at lower speeds. Why not simply admit that you are just wrong about the buffer of the R7 in comparison with the 7DII? You might still want the R7 to have a larger buffer, but stop making factually incorrect comparisons with the 7DII.

 

[kikimora]

I rarely use true bursts (only for fast asction), most of the time I shoot “semi bursts” – repeated single shots. That's quite a bit slower than max frame rate. With 7DII this pretty much made for infinite buffer, as I was only filling it when doing actual bursts.

I would expect the same with R7 given it has somewhat larger buffer – but every once and then it stops taking photos (in “semi burst”) and displays ”busy” on the bottom of EVF. Since buffer is larger there must be something else screwed-up – perhaps clearing buffer to memory card? But isn't UHS-II SD supposed to be quick enough?

 

[BirdShooter7]

In a thread that was recently locked, the topic came up of how many files fit in the R7's buffer, which is rather small for a camera with a "7" in its name, implying that it is the mirror-less "7D2 successor".

People have been saying this, but it seems they have simply forgotten what the buffer on the 7DII is. The 7DII RAW buffer is 31 shots. A lot more in JPEG, obviously. I never, in six years of shooting my 7DII, hit the buffer limit. That's mostly because I did most of my sports shooting in JPEG, to fit more on the card and for ease and speed of editing. But even in JPEG I pretty much never shot bursts of more than 30. But the R7 buffer (at 15fps--50% faster than the 7DII's top speed) is reported at about 51 shots in RAW, over 100 in CRAW, and lots and lots in JPEG. Even the DPR hands-on with R7 claimed the buffer was smaller than the 7DII. But it simply isn't. Whether the R7 buffer counts as small is obviously a matter of perspective. But it's bigger than the 7DII. And I don't recall hearing many (in fact any) complaints about the buffer on the 7DII.

OK, fair points, but people expect progress; not a static situation. My post never intended to be about the 7D2 or the R7's buffer size in bytes or files per se; it was meant to be about what we can do to get more files inside of any given buffer, triggered by the R7 discussion.

Yes, I understand, and you've given useful information. I'm just tired of people saying that the R7 buffer is smaller than the 7DII buffer. It isn't. And it's not a static situation, either. The R7 buffer is quite a lot larger than the 7DII buffer.

Right but it isn’t larger enough to account for the extra MP and frame rate so users are back to the bad old days of worrying about buffer.

That's simply not true. You got 3 seconds of full speed RAW shooting with the 7DII. With the R7, using CRAW (and there's simply no reason not to), you get 7 seconds at 15fps. That's more than twice as long.

I’m not talking about RAW as I’ve said before. I don’t shoot RAW, largely because of the buffer limitations it imposes. I’m talking about jpeg where the 7d mk2 is pretty much unlimited buffer.

At 15fps in full RAW you get 51 32.5MP frames with the R7. With the 7DII at 10fps you get 31 20MP frames. That's considerable progress. 65% more images that are themselves 60% larger at a shooting speed that's 50% faster. That all adds up to a huge leap forward in buffer. Add in the ability to shoot CRAW with the R7, and you get more than three times the buffer on the R7. With JPEG you get almost twice as many frames with the R7 as on the 7DII. So, if people expect progress, they have gotten it. And lots of it.

 

[BirdShooter7]

In a thread that was recently locked, the topic came up of how many files fit in the R7's buffer, which is rather small for a camera with a "7" in its name, implying that it is the mirror-less "7D2 successor".

People have been saying this, but it seems they have simply forgotten what the buffer on the 7DII is. The 7DII RAW buffer is 31 shots. A lot more in JPEG, obviously. I never, in six years of shooting my 7DII, hit the buffer limit. That's mostly because I did most of my sports shooting in JPEG, to fit more on the card and for ease and speed of editing. But even in JPEG I pretty much never shot bursts of more than 30. But the R7 buffer (at 15fps--50% faster than the 7DII's top speed) is reported at about 51 shots in RAW, over 100 in CRAW, and lots and lots in JPEG. Even the DPR hands-on with R7 claimed the buffer was smaller than the 7DII. But it simply isn't. Whether the R7 buffer counts as small is obviously a matter of perspective. But it's bigger than the 7DII. And I don't recall hearing many (in fact any) complaints about the buffer on the 7DII.

So, today I tried with another camera, the R5, to see how camera settings affect estimated buffer size (and card capacity as well), and it was about as simple as can be: nothing but ISO setting, and cRAW vs RAW affected the estimate (well, crop mode on the R5, but the R7 doesn't have that). This means that the estimate can be way, way off.

HTP and changing the shutter mode made no difference to the estimate, and "Auto ISO" assumes the worst case of the highest ISO.

There are things that we know change the compressed file sizes for a given scene; mainly noise and utilization of the tones or bits. You can't change the DR of your scene, but you can change how it is recorded. Under-exposure leaves lots of contiguous, unused most significant bits, and lower analog gains also result in less noise, which makes them easier to compress. HTP (Highlight Tone Priority) does both of these things; ISO 800 with HTP is the same RAW data as ISO 400 with a stop of under-exposure, two steps towards a smaller file. I would suggest to anyone who is going to do actual measurements of how many files the buffer can take before filling, that they explore HTP and maybe even a little bit more underxposure.

I used HTP for years until I realized that the R5's headroom was better than other cameras I used before, and the WYSIWYG "exposure simulation" made HTP less necessary, but if my future R7 gives me buffer grief, I may go back to using HTP.

With the 7d mk2 in jpeg mode you pretty much couldn’t run out of buffer. I never shoot RAW, partly because of the buffer limitations. When you’re used to having a nice big buffer it’s a little annoying to upgrade to a small one. Not saying you can’t get the job done with the R7 but it sure is nice to not have to worry about buffer.

But my point was that the R7 buffer is actually larger than the 7DII buffer. Why do people keep saying it's smaller? It isn't. It's actually considerably larger. If the upgrade you're talking about is from the 7DII to the R7, you are, in fact, upgrading from a "nice big buffer" to a considerably bigger one. See my post above to John where I give the actual numbers. It's not even close. The R7 is a much much bigger buffer, both in RAW and JPEG, than the 7DII. And when you add the ability to shoot CRAW, which the 7DII doesn't have, the increase in buffer size is even larger. This is one of the few things that we can know without trying out the camera. Just look at the specs.

And my point is that with the R7 we’re back to having to worry about buffer when that seemed to be a thing of the past with the 7d mk2. With the 7d mk2, the camera was always ready for the next burst, the R7, not so much.

Given the actual specs, that seems to be just plain false. The R7 has a bigger buffer than the 7DII in all respects, including how long you can shoot at 15fps. As to whether the R7 is always ready for the next burst, I have no idea. I don't have mine yet, and neither do you, so perhaps you should hold off? My 7DII was always ready for the next burst, but I never maxed it out. Given that, I expect I'll never max out my R7 either, which, as I have said repeatedly, has a much bigger buffer than the 7DII. I find it interesting that you first complain that the R7 has a smaller buffer than the 7DII, then, when I point out the easily available fact that it doesn't, complain that there isn't progress, then, when I point out that that it false too, fall back on a claim about it not being 'always ready for the next burst', when you simply have no way of knowing that. If you maxed out your 7DII, it wouldn't have been always ready for the next burst, because there would be times when it was clearing the buffer. If you didn't max out your 7DII, you won't maxing out your R7 at 50% faster burst rates, and definitely not at lower speeds. Why not simply admit that you are just wrong about the buffer of the R7 in comparison with the 7DII? You might still want the R7 to have a larger buffer, but stop making factually incorrect comparisons with the 7DII.

 

[Steve Fink]

Why go with the R7 at all than? You should get the R3 than or wait for the R1. That seems like the upgrade for you. I have the 7D MKII and do consider the R7 an upgrade, spec-wise as well as the reviews I've seen. I haven't even used my 7D MKII for quite a while, opting for my 5D MKIV instead most of the time. YMMV

You pay in other ways, though, besides the price.

The R3 has much lower pixel density, and it has a little bit more visible noise than the R7 in focal-length-limited and "equivalent" DOF situations.

The visible noise ranking above base ISO when total subject light is the same, as far as I can see, is:

R6 and R7 - the best from Canon

R5 and R3 - the second best group

All others at least a little noisier than the R5 and R3 (except the M6-II and the 90D, which are closer to the R6 and R7).

Even a 1.4x TC puts less pixels-on-subject than the R7; a 2x puts slightly more, but now your AF is dealing with 1/4 the light.

I find it very difficult to believe that a FF sensor camera "more visible noise" in any circumstance. Comparing my 7D MKII and my 5D MKIV is no comparison in noise levels, The 5D MKIV destroy the crop sensor 7D MKII every time.

Yes the R3 has lower pixel density, so what? That has nothing to do with noise levels. The FF sensor will display less noise than a cropped sensor every time. BTW, if I could afford the R3, I'd also buy the 600mm F4 or 500mm F4 lens and get be performance and noise making the comparison a moot point.

 

[kikimora]

Yes the R3 has lower pixel density, so what? That has nothing to do with noise levels.

But it magnifies the noise thus making it more visible.