Petition request: bigger buffer, anyone?

[ho_co]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

A number of people feel that 7 frames before the M9's buffer fills just isn't enough.

 

If you agree, sign up here.

 

Would 14 frames be enough? Or would you need more than a doubling of buffer size?

 

Please, for clarity's sake, don't bother to post to say you're happy with the current buffer. This is just an attempt to try to find out whether there are a lot of people who really feel the present size of the M9's buffer isn't enough.

 

Bigger buffer, anyone? How big?

[Advertisement]

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

[zlatkob]

I agree that 7 is not enough. That's easy to hit even just doing portraits. Yes, 14 would be enough for raw; more would be ideal. Canon's 5D2 offers about 13 raw, Nikon's D700 offers about 20 and the D3X offers about 25, so that is about the current state of the art for full-frame cameras. However, anyone buying the M9 is likely already aware of its buffer, so voting for a bigger buffer here does not necessarily mean they would be inclined to pay a lot for a buffer upgrade if one were made available.

[AlanJW]

Bigger is better but for me it would not be something I would pay more for as my style is much more deliberate and rarely machine gun. I almost never use "C" setting. I would be miore interested in faster write to the card for quicker display on LCD. If that is a function of the buffer (and I then reveal my technical ignorance), then yes I am for bigger and better.

[wattsy]

my style is much more deliberate and rarely machine gun. I almost never use "C" setting.

 

It has nothing to do with "machine gunning" or the use of the C setting (I've never used that setting) - how many times does this have to be pointed out?

 

Yes, I'd like a bigger buffer and would be happy to pay for it.

[AlanJW]

I conceded I was ignorant. No need to be testy. We're all here to learn something.

So just what is a bigger buffer for?

Is it the slow display? I thought that was due to the processor and/or firmware.

 

 

It has nothing to do with "machine gunning" or the use of the C setting (I've never used that setting) - how many times does this have to be pointed out?

 

Yes, I'd like a bigger buffer and would be happy to pay for it.

[ho_co]

Good question, Alan. I should have been more specific at the start. Ian didn't mean to jump on you, but he's been asking for a bigger buffer (as have Jamie and Zlatko and Bill) for a long time, and we'd just been having the same conversation in another thread. Sorry; I should have given examples to start.

 

A lot of us run out of shooting possibilities. We're shooting, the subject is moving, shooting again--and suddenly we can't shoot any more because the camera is writing to card; we wait twenty seconds, the rhythm is broken, we start over again.

 

See, for example posts 31, 32, 33 here: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/121771-why-buffer-slower-single-mode-2.html#post1294318. (Alan, see also the earlier part of the thread, where someone had already mentioned 'machine-gunning,' unfortunately. )

 

 

Wouldn't be a problem for landscapes; might be for street photography; using up the buffer while you're paying a model would be annoying and costly.

 

So the question comes down to: Have you ever been shooting and had to stop to let the camera write, and wished that hadn't happened? For some folks that's an everyday occurrence.

 

 

And yes, we don't know whether it's possible to improve write speed or why it's the way it is; but if people are running out of buffer, maybe Leica should know about it and take it into consideration.

[Jamie Roberts]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yes, double or triple the current buffer is something I'd pay for, though truth to tell I want the pipeline faster.

 

Here's what I mean. I don't want a 20 shot buffer that takes even longer to clear, or that gums up around 10 shots in

 

I'd rather have a buffer of 14 that can clear totally in a few seconds. That way even if I hit it I won't be slowed down too much.

[adan]

"I'd rather have a buffer of 14 that can clear totally in a few seconds."

 

I suspect you'll have to wait for the Maestro chip to appear in an M10/11. The M9 already has one more processor than the M8 (I think Leica now uses one for camera functions and one for image processing) and I doubt they can shoehorn in another without a complete redesign of the whole internal layout (and maybe a bigger body). Maybe Moore's Law will allow more processing power in the same space - but that probably still means a "new" camera, not something that can just be dropped into the M9.

 

As with the ancient idea of putting a FF sensor "upgrade" into an M8 - it ain't as simple as just swapping one chip. There are a lot of other dominoes that fall at the same time (e.g. complete new firmware).

 

Alan - the buffer is the memory that holds images until they can be written to the SD card. If the buffer held only one picture, the camera would have to wait several seconds after every shot to write it to the card. As it is, it can hold about 7-9 pictures - shot as fast as one can make them - and at that point it has to wait for the buffer to move a picture out before shooting another and putting it in.

 

Kind of like a doctors' waiting room- once the seats are full, you have to wait for a patient to leave before another can be let in. A bigger room will hold more patients, but they won't get seen any faster if there is still only one doctor at work. Jamie wants more doctors as well as a bigger room, so that the flow is faster as well as the capacity.

 

As to review - a couple of times, forgetting to put an SD card in the camera, I've shot a picture really fast after turning the camera on (before it has a chance to tell me "No SD Card") - and actually been able to review that picture from the buffer.

 

Personally, I've maybe hit the buffer limit once (if that) with the M9. I just don't take the same shot over and over fast enough.

 

One side of me is sympathetic to those who want more pictures per minute.

 

The other side - the old M shooter who never used anything but a thumb - thinks "If you need more than one picture every two seconds, buy an SLR - they've had 10fps as far back as the 60's. If you want Leica glass/size/silence/whatever, buy a Leica M. if you want both in one camera, well, as the old saying goes "Life is tough - and then you die."

[chris_tribble]

"I'd rather have a buffer of 14 that can clear totally in a few seconds."

... as the old saying goes "Life is tough - and then you die."

 

Respecting the wishes of the OP I'm not commenting on whether I want or don't want more buffer space... but I do tend to agree with Andy

[hoppyman]

I can certainly understand your rationale suggesting that bigger would have advantages.

I don't understand how a petition will help. Do you mean you'd like to gauge interest amongst Forum members to see it as a feature of the next M?

I suspect that one may be rather different from the M9 which was developed under considerable restraint as we know.

[wattsy]

The other side - the old M shooter who never used anything but a thumb - thinks "If you need more than one picture every two seconds, buy an SLR - they've had 10fps as far back as the 60's.

 

You make it sound like you are the only one who has ever used a film M. The truth is that the film M has a buffer of 36-8 shots and doesn't suffer the same problem. Shoot the M9 at around the same speed as you might if you were cranking an M6 during a period of action (say 1fps) and the buffer still fills after 6/7 shots and starts to become totally unresponsive.

 

Incidentally, whatever happened to respecting the OP's wishes about not cluttering up the thread with smug comments? Just can't help it?

[bill]

Right.

 

No "smug comment" but genuine questions.

 

I have never filled the buffer on a digital camera. I snipe rather than shotgun. But I can appreciate that there may be a need for those with a different technique.

 

My questions are:

 

1) How much is the buffering a function of the card and how much of the camera?

 

2) How does the M9 compare in buffer size/cleardown rate with other cameras?

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[michael_b_elmer]

More memory and processor power is always an advantage, and upgrading should be possible.

 

Forgive my ignorance, since I'm no technical expert, but a probably impossible idea came to me: On my Vista 64 computer up to 4 gb of the SDHC card may be used for caching to boost performance (socalled ready boost), while the remaining gb's on the card are used in the usual way. Could a similar technique be a way out?

[delander †]

So the question comes down to: Have you ever been shooting and had to stop to let the camera write, and wished that hadn't happened? For some folks that's an everyday occurrence.

 

For me the answer is no, I dont shoot that fast, I dont recall ever getting to 7 shots and I rarely use (actually never) the continuous setting.

 

Jeff

[bybrett]

For me the answer is no, I dont shoot that fast, I dont recall ever getting to 7 shots and I rarely use (actually never) the continuous setting.

 

Jeff

 

I too must be doing something wrong, I've never filled the buffer and don't use continuous. So I'm a no thank you too.

[mwilliamsphotography]

Who wouldn't want anything to be faster ... just in case. If you only need it once in a blue moon, so what? ... that's when you'll wish you had it.

 

Question, do faster SDs help? Or is the pipe-line the bottle neck? What is the max transfer rate, and what cards provide for that? No use paying for a speedy card if there's no gain.

 

Also, can firmware help here ... even a little bit? Or is it strictly a hardware thing?

 

BTW, I've never hit the buffer on my previous M8s, or now the M9s ... but I'm a "Goldie Locks" shooter, neither plodding, nor machine gunning ... just right ... LOL!

[Jamie Roberts]

{snipped}

My questions are:

 

1) How much is the buffering a function of the card and how much of the camera?

 

It's both of course. Your write speed is limited by the speed of the card, but it's also limited by the hardware and software that performs the write. Ideally, you maximize the data throughput to fast cards while ensuring reliability.

 

The fact that Leica originally recommended rather slow cards for the M9 as opposed to faster, newer SDHC cards says to me that they still have plenty of room for optimization in firmware (at least I hope it's not a hardware limit ). That's a good thing, and we should see some more responsiveness over time with firmware and different cards.

 

2) How does the M9 compare in buffer size/cleardown rate with other cameras?

Right now, no-one 'machine guns' with an M9, let's just say that

 

Comparisons with other top-end dSLRs are a bit tricky...but to give you some idea, my D3 (which admittedly is optimized for speed and has less resolution than the M9) is essentially instantaneous: in 14-bit RAW you can shoot about 30 shots (at a mechanical rate 9 frames per second) before the buffer fills; the buffer then clears in just about 4 seconds.

 

I've never even thought about the buffer on that camera. I've never hit a wall; I also snipe, and I've have the motor drive turned down to 3fps. It's just not something you think about with modern cameras, mostly.

 

So I don't need that kind of performance; I don't expect sports performance on an M style camera. But not worrying about the buffer or hitting the limit when you're shooting an event is essential--lots of things happen really quickly--I'm not shooting buildings or walls--and I don't want to lose a shot because the camera is "thinking"...

 

I do expect it to be as fast as winding my M6

[35mmSummicron]

I DEFINITELY want bigger buffer, but I feel like we won't see anything remotely like that in the near future. Even the new, from-the-ground-up design of the S2 is poor in this regard, 6 frames!

 

I don't understand why people wouldn't want this in a future M. It won't make the camera anymore cluttered, and it likely won't be THAT much more costly. While I respective the heritage and history of Leica M users (and many's attachments to "the decisive moment"), not everyone shoots the same thing, the same way. To have your camera dictate the way you take pictures is rather backwards.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Shootist]

I'm glad I was out of work when the M9 was released and have since come to the conclusion the M9 is not for me. I still have one M8 and all my glass and will wait for the M10 and then see what it includes.

Don't hold your breath for Leica to release any hardware updates for the M9. They will release a M10 before they do that. I think they learned there lesson with the M8 updates.

[bill]

Okay, I understand the arguments. This is one of the first "upgrades" to the M9 that I can see the point of. Above all, it doesn't do anything other than enhance usability; no "just a simple button", no bloatware - yes, I can see the sense of this one.

 

Regards,

 

Bill