Continous shooting challenge in RAW ...

[BackToSlr]

Are you sure you are testing at 3fps? I've done this test on many
different cards, though with only one A100. I have used everything
up to Sandisk Extreme IV but not the Transcend 120X which some
people mention, as that's not a brand sold generally in the UK.

David I am not aware of any means to choose if i shoot 3fps, or 2fps...

It is whatever it gives me. I only keep the button pressed. It yields me the rate which is the function of exposure e.g

With nearly all normal subjects, maximum speed in maintained for 9
frames with the fastest card and then the rate falls to approx
1.5fps continuous, not 3 fps. The best I have had was 19 frames,
and that was a mainly black frame with a window in the middle - not
a typical subject for raw file compression.

I will do a controlled experiment with my card. Thank you for your data.

RAW+JPEG, I've never exceeded the stated quota (can't remember
whether it was 3 or 6) but having found how much extra time the
JPEG process involved, I have begun to stop shooting JPEG - I never
use the JPEG files and many thousands of them are just occupying
space on my machine.

It is the same for me. Raw + jpeg stops. You can feel the change in the shutter tempo. But with plain raw i dont feel any change in tempo. I am certain it will vary a bit.

I time until the very first sign of any change in shooting rate.
The get a full 3 fps, you must disable autofocus, anti shake and
you should switch to manual exposure as well at a shutter speed
faster than 1/60th. If you have AF, AS, auto exposure all turned on
then you don't get much better than 2.8 fps.

My settings were 1/100, AS off (i am guessing that AS is actually parked for continous exposures...else there are too many ifs, how does it reinitialize the sensor, etc...), AF-C (manual focus is much faster), and in A mode. M mode will only improve my numbers

Thanks for sharing your settings.

Cheers,

N

--
It is funny how, everyone who agrees with you seems so much smarter

 

[andrewD2]

I think no one needs it...but why not test the limits of the camera

Because your shutter might die?

??? And why would that be? It is rated for 150000
actuations...Anyway, i dont believe it will. If it were there would
be a throttle on max continous actuations.

The rating is based on continous shooting? I would imagine it is based on more normal usage.

Andrew

Cheers,

N

--
It is funny how, everyone who agrees with you seems so much smarter

 

[andrewD2]

The OP asked "how long before it stops , not how long it will keep
going at 2.7 FPS or whatever the maximum speed is...

Based on my experience, it never stops, it just keeps going and
going and going and going and....

Exactly!

Of course it does, but if you hold your finger down and it shoots a
shot every ten seconds its not that useful.
Its how many shots you can take and the camera still be ready to
take at full frame rate that matters.

Lol, it it doesnt slow down to that it does way better than 2fps.
In fact i couldnt tell if it had slowed down. I will do a
controlled experiment instead of making wild guesses, and we will
see if the rate changes from first 6 frames or should it be 3 since
that is what it is rated for.

If you are trying to capture a moment precisely then if it changes from 3fps to 2fps you are still going to miss the shot. 2fps is too slow to "machine gun" and hope for the best. I have a camera that shoots 8fps and you can still end up with shots where the inbetween frame position would have been better.

Also what matters much more for me is if you take a burst, of say 5
shots, how responsive is playback, including magnification?
Thats a much more common senario than shooting 100 frames when
you can't say for sure when the next shot will take.

Huh? It is irrelevant to current discussion.

Sure, maybe it is irrelevent to a discussion about a type of shooting that is irrelevant to 99.999% of people. You are the 0.001%

Andrew