Scott Stoness
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.2 #19 · p.2 #19 · R5ii Thedigitalpicture re buffer say he got 161 images at 30fps | |
artsupreme wrote:
I believe differences have to do with how busy the scene is and how much noise there is in each image. The busier and noisier the file, the more NR the camera is going to have to do to each file, the larger the file, etc..
I used the settings below, putting the camera on a table and pointed it to a static scene, I turn on the shutter sound so it's obvious when the camera hits the buffer, and then I press and hold until the camera stops. I lift off immediately after it stops and says busy. I think Docysync is doing something similar and our results are similar. For anyone else getting an R5II in their hands soon, try this test with both 15fps and 30fps:
Pre-continuous shooting OFF
AI servo AF
RAW
Auto WB
Auto ISO
1/1250
f/2.8
ISO 1250
15fps and 30fps
50mm lens
Static scene
***a normal scene with detail, not a black scene or white wall
...Show more →
Your hypothesis " differences have to do with how busy the scene is and how much noise there is in each image. The busier and noisier the file, the more NR the camera is going to have to do to each file, the larger the file, etc.." is inconsistent with Yaniv test results.
Manual Focus - 30FPS
ISO 2000 (file size 54MB)
103 files
vs
Manual Focus - 15FPS
ISO 2000 (file size 57MB)
151 files
I note
- 15fps was with bigger files.
- Yaniv used a SanDisk Extreme Pro.
- The likely clear difference between your tests and Yaniv tests was the card - but I still don't know what your card is [cfx?, brand, size, model]
- Your test results were:
- ISO 1250 [similar]
- 15fps [ same]
- 101 RAW files [ way less]
- 53.6MB each. [similar]
Docusync got 109 frames with Delkin Power - which is a slower card than SanDick Extreme Pro?. I know its slower than Delkin Black.
It is also inconsistent with a fixed GB buffer. More processing time would slow fps, but the fixed buffer GB would still have the same GB which enables a fixed number of frames (affected by file size, not processing).
My hypothesis is:
A) The buffer works better with slower fps [ good for R5ii]
B) The buffer works better with lower ISO (smaller files) [logical and expected]
C) The buffer works better with faster sustained write cards (Delkin Black,, SanDisk Extreme PRO) [promising for R5iI because this was not true of R5 when I compared Delkin Black vs Delkin Power]
D) The combination of slower fps and faster cards gets 40% bigger effective buffer [promising for R5II]
But I could be wrong and what frustrates me is that beyond the tests of yourself (thank you) and Yaniv (thank you) who have different cards and settings and subjects- I am speculating. It would be nice if canon was more informative.
If my hypothesis is correct, I will be modestly happy because I have a fast card (Delkin Black), I like to shoot at 15fps to avoid culling as default, and I would really like to achieve >80frames that I get on my R5, and a bigger buffer would make pre capture more viable as default - to justify buying the R5II (which has 1/3 less stop dynamic range, requires $500 in new batteries, and $2000 in buy new/sell old).
[For me (2/3 landscape, 1/3 slower big animals) the big benefits of R5ii over R5 are: precapture when my bears suddenly stand up, 14 bit raw in electronic for handheld landscape because it does not matter at iso 800 and above, and variable fps to manage culling. At the expense of new, batteries, faster bigger card].
Edited on Aug 15, 2024 at 10:08 AM · View previous versions
|
