Why buffer slower in single mode?

[35mmSummicron]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Very well said!!!

 

 

It might be penny pinching on Leica's part - trying to keep the M9 under a certain price point (a bit like with the lack of sapphire glass) - but I'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt that the buffer is limited for a hardware reason (size of chips, etc.). Either way, the buffer is small when you actually need it and, as others have said, you don't need to be machine gunning to fill the buffer. It is very frustrating to find yourself in a situation of intense 'action' where you have filled the buffer and something important is suddenly happening. This is not the first time that this problem has been quietly raised in this forum and it is annoying for the usual suspects to make quips about the decisive moment or that a "burst mode" is not what the M is about.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[wparsonsgisnet]

... This is not the first time that this problem has been quietly raised in this forum ...

 

I have been *anything* but quiet about this "feature" on the M8 and M9. I've been posting about this for more than 3 years.

 

In fact, I'd rather have a bigger buffer than the Fast Wide Primes we got. You gotta be careful what you wish for.

[k-hawinkler]

I have been *anything* but quiet about this "feature" on the M8 and M9. I've been posting about this for more than 3 years.

 

In fact, I'd rather have a bigger buffer than the Fast Wide Primes we got. You gotta be careful what you wish for.

 

Bill,

 

What buffer size would fit your needs realistically? (I don't mean the sky is the limit.)

Double the number of frames?

 

Thanks, K-H.

[wparsonsgisnet]

Bill,

 

What buffer size would fit your needs realistically? (I don't mean the sky is the limit.)

Double the number of frames?

 

Thanks, K-H.

 

K-H, I'm *delighted* that you are going to fix this.

 

I would settle for double -- or say 20 images. I suggest the 20 should handle uncompressed dng + hi-res jpg as well. I can't intuit the math that indicates if that is possible, since the jpg conversion is being done in the software and slows things down.

 

HOWEVER, 7 is NOT enuf -- and again, those of us who are complaining are not using shotgun mode. We're shooting action, or beautiful women. It isn't just fashion photogs who know that beautiful women need lots of shots.

 

And, those who are filling the buffer have everything else turned off: that is, jpg and review. So, we're foregoing other camera features that we might like to have.

[k-hawinkler]

Bill,

 

Thanks. I like your style!

 

Cheers, K-H.

[mjh]

It really sounds like the camera has been switched to DNG+JPG which will slow the camera down and fill the buffer quicker.

Actually it does neither. In my tests the M9 captured 7 frames at 1.7 fps (in C mode; 1.6 fps in S mode), regardless of whether it was capturing JPEG fine, DNG, or DNG+JPEG fine.

[wparsonsgisnet]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Michael, that's a useful post.

 

If you didn't experience Tom's problem, then maybe he has not got the fastest SDHC card.

[ho_co]

Just curious, I'm sure it's been posted:

 

M9 handles 7 files DNG uncompressed, right, before stopping to write?

 

How many compressed?

[wparsonsgisnet]

As I recall from Reid, it's the same. That would make sense, if the buffer is capturing the sensor dump and then compressing it for writing.

 

It's about the same except at higher ISO speeds. And, at higher speeds, it all gets more complicated.

[Jamie Roberts]

Odd. I always found that DNG + JPEG significantly slowed my M8, so I didn't even turn on JPEG shooting with the M9. But if Michael says there's no difference, and no difference between S & C, then I'll have to check it out.

 

I've also been someone asking for faster processing and bigger buffer space (after all, you haven't really seen slow--especially in previewing--till you've owned a DMR )

 

I'm like Bill though (and I suspect Zlatko too): 7 shots to full (and then awhile to clear) isn't really quite enough; double that would mean, practically, I would never hit the buffer.

 

Of course it needn't be much bigger it's a *lot* faster

[digitalfx]

Frankly, Im tired of the defensive "decisive moment" comments when the topic is discussed.

 

Its 2010, and this is a $7000 camera. There is absolutly no excuse to have a camera today that leaves you stuck mid shoot. I am constantly (meaning daily) experiencing a full buffer on the M9. I have never once had this issue on any other high end digital camera except the M8 (most costing far less than my Leica). Honestly, this is the only thing I dont like about the M9...dont tell me to sell it, its not gonna happen. My M9 is my constant companion. But come on guys...get with the program.

 

I missed the decisive moment on a number of occasions because my buffer is full.

[wparsonsgisnet]

DITTO.

 

Oops, I've already said that ... what I really love are the looks I get from my subjects while they're ready to go and I'm sitting there with my camera in my lap (secretly watching the blinking red light).

[Jamie Roberts]

{snipped}

I missed the decisive moment on a number of occasions because my buffer is full.

 

I couldn't agree more, actually...

 

Now, there was a time when the M8 was slower than molasses with card operations, including formats but also about the buffer... and a firmware upgrade made it much better (so that you can get to the buffer max of 7 or 12 or whatever it is).

 

I'm wondering if the M9 still needs optimizing. If so, it's totally conceivable we'll see faster writes in future, especially with faster SD cards.

 

What are you using now, for interest's sake, in terms of SD cards with your M9?

[mjh]

Just curious, I'm sure it's been posted:

 

M9 handles 7 files DNG uncompressed, right, before stopping to write?

 

How many compressed?

There’s no difference; the data written to the buffer is uncompressed regardless of this setting. JPEGs are created from uncompressed data so it has to be retained anyway.

 

Btw, I haven’t seen the buffer size published anywhere but it is probably 256 MB.

[ho_co]

Thanks. My bad. I hadn't even thought about the fact that the processing has to come after the buffer.

 

But this should be a no-brainer, shouldn't it? Leica gives us an auto-bracket feature, but if you use it twice in rapid succession you've already almost filled the buffer. Dumb, dumb, dumb.

 

 

BTW, Tom. You're right, we're not addressing the question you asked. I don't think anyone is getting the same results you are. You're using a manual shutter speed, right, 1/250 or faster for your comparisons? Straighten me out, anyone, if I'm reading this wrong.

[ho_co]

Does this help?

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/121907-petition-request-bigger-buffer-anyone.html

 

 

There are still a few minutes for me to change the post, so let me know if it should be modified.

[digitalfx]

 

What are you using now, for interest's sake, in terms of SD cards with your M9?

 

Im using 8GB SanDisk Ultra II and 8GB SanDisk Extreme (30MB/s).

[charlesphoto99]

DITTO.

 

Oops, I've already said that ... what I really love are the looks I get from my subjects while they're ready to go and I'm sitting there with my camera in my lap (secretly watching the blinking red light).

 

Yes, but you know this about the camera, it is what it is, so not sure why one would then use it in this type of pressure situation. I own dslr for this very reason. Not all cameras are suited to all purposes. Not trying to make Leica excuses (god knows I've had my issues with the M8/9) but you know, once again, it is what it is until the M10 which I would figure to be three years out (and they had better get it right with that one). If you are truly missing shots then get a Canon or Nikon. Better to have a slight loss in quality (at times questionable, esp using Zeiss glass) than miss the shot. Pus the newer dslrs are as quiet if not more so then M8/9.

 

And yes, I'll take a bigger buffer but certainly wouldn't pay an extra penny for it as an upgrade.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[digitalfx]

If you are truly missing shots then get a Canon or Nikon. Better to have a slight loss in quality (at times questionable, esp using Zeiss glass) than miss the shot. Pus the newer dslrs are as quiet if not more so then M8/9.

 

 

Why is it that this topic cant be discussed with out someone saying the same thing every time. We know we can buy a Canon. I own a Canon, but that doesnt change a thing. Leica screwed up on this, and if they want to continue the tradition of producing some of the finest rangefinders ever produced for many more years to come they better not make the same mistake again in the third generation Digital M.

 

I want my grandchildren to feel the joy I do shooting with a digital M, but if Leica continues staying 3 steps behind technology, I'm afraid there is a chance that wont happen.

 

If you dont agree, that's great. Just please stop telling us to buy a Canon.

[Jamie Roberts]

{snipped} Pus the newer dslrs are as quiet if not more so then M8/9.

 

And yes, I'll take a bigger buffer but certainly wouldn't pay an extra penny for it as an upgrade.

 

Ok, so that's you, Charles (and I say with this with total respect for you and your work): I don't have a dSLR for 1.5 fps speeds I just don't want to think about the buffer when I work with any top-end camera given the way I shoot (which is slow. I turn my Nikons down!).

 

BTW--my D3 is a newer dSLR and it's a million times louder than the M9 (in fact, it's the loudest camera I've ever owned... the R9 is positively silent next to that...course, the D3 is um, speedy )

 

I'd gladly pay extra on the off season to get a processor / buffer upgrade for speed (not necessarily size). I realize that's probably pie in the sky, but as I said in another thread, optimizing the firmware is probably still ongoing, and I would expect to see some improvements there.

 

OTH, moving uncompressed DNGs twice the size of my Nikon raw files is going to slow things down a bit regardless...But at least the M9 should be able to take advantage of fast SD cards, no?