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.
www.imaging-resource.com
