I bought a 95 mB/s card and it works. Now I see they have a
Max. Read Speed: 280 MB/s
Max. Write Speed: 250 MB/s
version available in the newsletter from B&H.
B&H # SAEPSDU16GBQ ■ Mfr # SDSDXPB-016G-A46
.
Any experience on buffer clearing speed? I know it looks like a huge leap, but does the D7100 become limited before you reach the promised max card speeds?
.
Expensive, but I would spring for them if they do in fact dump the buffer.
"I think you will find the problem is the camera, not the card."
.
Well when I upgraded to the 90 mB/s it made a huge difference.
.
Have you, runamuck, used this super fast card in a D7100 or are you just thinking?
.
I think we all know what the current cards will do ... this is a new card that is FAST!
BobSam wrote:
I bought a 95 mB/s card and it works. Now I see they have a
Max. Read Speed: 280 MB/s
Max. Write Speed: 250 MB/s
version available in the newsletter from B&H.
B&H # SAEPSDU16GBQ ■ Mfr # SDSDXPB-016G-A46
.
Any experience on buffer clearing speed? I know it looks like a huge leap, but does the D7100 become limited before you reach the promised max card speeds?
.
Expensive, but I would spring for them if they do in fact dump the buffer.
Try this first. With the 95 mb/s card shooting raw try dropping down to 12 bit compression from the 14 bit you most likely have set now. By doing this I can get 11 frames before the buffer jams up. If I really want to machine gun exposures when they are not critical you I can drop down to jpg. medium and 1/3 crop no back up card and fire off 25-30 frames continuous. If you really need more than that you need to get a D4.
unclemikey wrote:
...drop down to jpg. medium and 1/3 crop no back up card and fire off 25-30 frames continuous. If you really need more than that you need to get a D4.
Who wants to shoot jpg medium @ 1/3 crop? The next logical step is a D4? So the best upgrade to a $1,100.00 body is a $6K body. You might want to re-think that.
Well I have a D3, but the smallness of the D7100, with a grip, has stolen my heart, so no D4s in my future. :-) High school gym lighting has improved to where I am happy with what I have.
.
AND the speed of these cards is close to a spinning hard drive when using a usb3 card reader. I think. :-) And thus will reduce my download time to my computer. If time was that important to me now.
Jim8EL wrote:
Who wants to shoot jpg medium @ 1/3 crop? The next logical step is a D4? So the best upgrade to a $1,100.00 body is a $6K body. You might want to re-think that.
That comment was sarcasm. I never shoot in jpg any more...ever. I'm just saying that I can get adequate quantity of shots in 12 bit raw but if you want your camera to sound like a machine gun then one can make this happen with the D71K.
Don't shoot me Jim, I'm friendly.
The speeds advertised with "UHS-II" cards are not possible in a D7100. The camera will work just fine with the card, but it will not support the full advertised speed of the card.
Why is this? Simple. "UHS-II" cards have a second row of pins behind the first which are also used to achieve full "UHS-II" speeds. It's backwards compatible with devices that take "UHS-I" cards (like the D7100) but it will only operate at "UHS-I" speeds over the single row of pins.
Upgrading to the 90MB/s card probably made a difference because "UHS-I" supports those speeds. A "UHS-II" card that advertises 300MB/s will probably also get you around 90MB/s while running at the lower "UHS-I" speeds. So upgrading won't make sense for you, unless you buy a new camera that takes "UHS-II" cards.
I think the D7000 and D7100 buffer size is the same. So, regardless what cards you use, the most you can get is 14 shots before the buffer filled up (with 12bit, no NR, no Auto distortion, and compressed raw). Most people can get about 10 to 11 with 14bit, lossless raw compression, and with NR. BTW, with auto distortion enabled, it takes up a lot of memory space on each RAW shot. With it enable, I get about 8 shots. With it disabled, I can about 10. Also, the ISO settings do not affect the buffer size at all.
You should try the 95mb/s cards. They are all I use in my D7100 and D600. I don't know anything about the specs, but the buffer clears far more quickly than with the 30mb/s cards or even the 45mb/s cards (I have some of both).
unclemikey wrote:
...That comment was sarcasm. I never shoot in jpg any more...ever. I'm just saying that I can get adequate quantity of shots in 12 bit raw but if you want your camera to sound like a machine gun then one can make this happen with the D71K.
Don't shoot me Jim, I'm friendly.
No sarcasm intended... well maybe just a little . To be honest, I found the suggestion that the OP spend 5K to get reasonable buffer performance little bit flippant. Just goes to show that we have to be careful how we state things in print as it doesn't always come off just right.
The real issue is that IMO Nikon's lineup has a big hole for sports/wildlife shooters that hasn't been addressed. That one would have to spend big $$$ and move to FF to get decent buffer performance while maintaining quality output seems absurd to me. Cheers
Jim8EL wrote:
No sarcasm intended... well maybe just a little . To be honest, I found the suggestion that the OP spend 5K to get reasonable buffer performance little bit flippant. Just goes to show that we have to be careful how we state things in print as it doesn't always come off just right.
The real issue is that IMO Nikon's lineup has a big hole for sports/wildlife shooters that hasn't been addressed. That one would have to spend big $$$ and move to FF to get decent buffer performance while maintaining quality output seems absurd to me. Cheers
Jim, the sarcasm I referred to was mine, not yours. Plus my comment was flipent to be sure. How many threads have we read regarding things we would like in a camera but aren't going to get? It's just not in the marketing profile.
Certainly I would love to have the same buffer in my D7100 and my D800e that the D4 or new D4s has but if Nikon did that what need would a pro or any photographer need to spend $7,000 on a camera body? As I read here on FM many of us are using $5-7000 glass already and if we can we'll spend that on lenses. Therefor, why should Nikon presume the same folks wouldn't spend that on the body? I understand bodies come and go every couple of years and lenses can bridge those new bodies for a much longer period of time. I'm my thinking Nikon has to consider who they are pandering to with new cameras and what they are willing to spend to get everything needed for their type of shooting. After all most of the prosumer bodies are not used to make a living. Just my thoughts on this but I'm a photographer in a particular niche market and don't shoot with the requirements of using more than the D7k or D800e's. With manipulation of the included program they are fast enough for me.
??
. To be honest, I found the suggestion that the OP spend 5K to get reasonable buffer performance little bit flippant. Just goes to show that we have to be careful how we state things in print as it doesn't always come off just right.