| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/25/2008 02:23:25 PM · #1 |
Has anyone performed their own test to determine their camera's actual rapid-fire, burst mode speed (frames-per-second)?
Some owners tested their own Canon 40d and it was shooting at 7 fps, complete with visual proof. One person with a Canon 1D Mark IIn got just under 9 per second.
Of course, there are many other variables involved than just pointing your camera at a stopwatch and firing away. Read about these tests here.
|
|
|
|
03/25/2008 02:32:12 PM · #2 |
Well the 40D is supposed to be 6.5fps and the 1dII is supposed to 8.5fps so they seem to be demonstrating that working.
The tests have the obvious flaw of not showing when the shutter button was pressed, so you are probably really seeing what should be considered the first frame of the next second as the 'final' frame of the first second.
Unless the shutter press to first image being recorded lag is 0.04s |
|
|
|
03/25/2008 02:39:00 PM · #3 |
I agree. Of course, this is all in a controlled environment. The true test is when using AI Focus or AI Servo on a moving subject.
|
|
|
|
03/25/2008 02:40:26 PM · #4 |
Since I shoot RAW... it's slow on my oldie 20D :-(
|
|
|
|
03/25/2008 02:42:13 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by AperturePriority:
I agree. Of course, this is all in a controlled environment. The true test is when using AI Focus or AI Servo on a moving subject. |
Well, maybe. The point is more that they aren't even controlling these controlled tests particularly well. You should probably shoot at least one or two more frames and throw away the first and last to get a real indication of the start to finish shutter speeds.
AF speed is partly a function of the lens but has a whole lot of camera influence too, as well as subject variability etc. Probably a pretty bad way to measure raw frame rate. |
|
|
|
03/25/2008 02:49:53 PM · #6 |
I saw on that forum that someone is using an 'online stopwatch' to time their actuations.
On my connection i could shoot about 500 frames in the time it would take my browser to register a second has passed.
|
|
|
|
03/25/2008 02:49:59 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by robs:
Since I shoot RAW... it's slow on my oldie 20D :-( |
RAW doesn't make a difference in the fps--at least not with my 40D. Shooting in RAW does fill the buffer quicker, thus only allowing 17 captures before flushing the buffer. With JPG, the flushing threshold isn't until 75 captures.
|
|
|
|
03/25/2008 03:01:04 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by AperturePriority:
Originally posted by robs:
Since I shoot RAW... it's slow on my oldie 20D :-( |
RAW doesn't make a difference in the fps--at least not with my 40D. Shooting in RAW does fill the buffer quicker, thus only allowing 17 captures before flushing the buffer. With JPG, the flushing threshold isn't until 75 captures. |
Yeah... Just complaining how fast the buffer fills with the 20D with RAW (I forget the # but it's very low) - or more importantly how slow is clears. It feels slower then the fps, so in affect it does change it :-/ but I might be just grumbling. I don't do much sport but it's annoying at times as I always have it on multi shot.
|
|
|
|
03/25/2008 03:30:48 PM · #9 |
| That measurement system is simply not going to be accurate enough. |
|
|
|
03/25/2008 04:08:09 PM · #10 |
By using my Ninja powers, my 40D can get 20fps.
It can also shoot Full Frame.
Message edited by author 2008-03-25 16:08:47.
|
|
|
|
03/25/2008 04:09:44 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by AperturePriority:
Originally posted by robs:
Since I shoot RAW... it's slow on my oldie 20D :-( |
RAW doesn't make a difference in the fps--at least not with my 40D. Shooting in RAW does fill the buffer quicker, thus only allowing 17 captures before flushing the buffer. With JPG, the flushing threshold isn't until 75 captures. |
And even after the buffer is full you can still keep shooting since the buffer is cleared fairly quickly.
On the 10D it was painful waiting for the buffer to clear and that was only after 9 RAW. |
|
|
|
03/25/2008 04:17:57 PM · #12 |
A controlled test using EXIF data on my 40D:
Burst Mode 16 Images
Avg of all 16 images
IMG_1455 15:57:22.00
IMG_1471 15:57:24.54
-------- -----------
16 Images 02.54
2.54 / 16 = 0.15875
1.00 / 0.15875 = 6.2992 FPS
Avg of the first 8 images
IMG_1455 15:57:22.00
IMG_1462 15:57:23.11
-------- -----------
8 Images 01.11
01.11 / 8 = 0.13875
1.00 / 0.13875 = 7.2072 FPS
So the fist 8 fps were faster than the second 8 in the same burst of 16 images.
Interesting!
|
|
|
|
03/25/2008 04:48:07 PM · #13 |
How fast was your first frame in your first 8 ?
I suggest that you have no reasonable way of knowing.
More useful would be shooting 17 and throwing away the first one. Currently you are probably working with the first frame taking effectively no time at all, as you only record when it finishes, not when you started taking it.
Message edited by author 2008-03-25 16:52:03. |
|
|
|
03/25/2008 04:59:21 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
How fast was your first frame in your first 8 ?
I suggest that you have no reasonable way of knowing.
More useful would be shooting 17 and throwing away the first one. Currently you are probably working with the first frame taking effectively no time at all, as you only record when it finishes, not when you started taking it. |
Looking at his file numbering, it seems he *did* shoot 17 images (16 intervals), starting with 1455 and ending with 1471. |
|
|
|
03/25/2008 06:03:01 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by Gordon:
How fast was your first frame in your first 8 ?
I suggest that you have no reasonable way of knowing.
More useful would be shooting 17 and throwing away the first one. Currently you are probably working with the first frame taking effectively no time at all, as you only record when it finishes, not when you started taking it. |
Looking at his file numbering, it seems he *did* shoot 17 images (16 intervals), starting with 1455 and ending with 1471. |
You are correct, I guess my math isn't so good today, I didn't count the first image when adding the total number of images. But I did get the exif of the first image (1455). |
|
|
|
03/25/2008 07:51:56 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
How fast was your first frame in your first 8 ?
I suggest that you have no reasonable way of knowing.
More useful would be shooting 17 and throwing away the first one. Currently you are probably working with the first frame taking effectively no time at all, as you only record when it finishes, not when you started taking it. |
Here is the EXIF Data Time from IMG_1455 through IMG_1471
IMG_1455 15:57:22.00 -
IMG_1456 15:57:22.17 .17
IMG_1457 15:57:22.33 .16
IMG_1458 15:57:22.48 .15
IMG_1459 15:57:22.64 .16
IMG_1460 15:57:22.80 .16
IMG_1461 15:57:22.96 .16
IMG_1462 15:57:23.11 .15
IMG_1463 15:57:23.27 .16
IMG_1464 15:57:23.43 .16
IMG_1465 15:57:23.59 .16
IMG_1466 15:57:23.75 .16
IMG_1467 15:57:23.90 .15
IMG_1468 15:57:24.11 .21
IMG_1469 15:57:24.22 .11
IMG_1470 15:57:24.38 .16
IMG_1471 15:57:24.54 .16
Counting 16 of 17 frames.
Best: 11/100 sec.
Worst:21/100 sec.
Avg: 15.875/100 sec.
6.2992 FPS on my 40D
Counting 17 of 17 frames.
6.6934 FPS
Message edited by author 2008-03-25 20:50:23. |
|
|
|
03/25/2008 08:04:18 PM · #17 |
just took 39 shots of a millisecond timer (4 seconds - 1 shot)
average time is 8.93 frames/sec in full frame mode /
supposed to be faster in DX which i don't feel like trying ..
pretty close to spec for me .. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 12/28/2025 05:26:52 PM EST.
