FPS/Burst capacity vs mega-pixles

[MMPerk]

As the time for me to upgrade to a better camera, I have run across a question.

One camera that I'm looking at is 10.1 mega-pixels and shoots with 6.5 fps and a burst rate of 75 full res. jpegs or 17 RAW images.

The other camera that has caught my eye is 12.2 mega-pixles but is slower. It shoots at 3.5 fps and a burst rate of 53 jpegs or 6 RAW images.

Both the cameras share similar features though there is a price difference.

The question is...where is my money better spent? The faster camera with the smaller sensor, or the slower camera with the larger sensor?

I'm at a loss at this point, so please give me input/feedback.

Many many many thanks...

This is part of the effort that I am making to bring you better pictures for your viewing pleasure.

Lonnie

[jarrodeu]

Re: FPS/Burst capacity vs mega-pixles

As the time for me to upgrade to a better camera, I have run across a question.

One camera that I'm looking at is 10.1 mega-pixels and shoots with 6.5 fps and a burst rate of 75 full res. jpegs or 17 RAW images.

The other camera that has caught my eye is 12.2 mega-pixles but is slower. It shoots at 3.5 fps and a burst rate of 53 jpegs or 6 RAW images.

Both the cameras share similar features though there is a price difference.

The question is...where is my money better spent? The faster camera with the smaller sensor, or the slower camera with the larger sensor?

I'm at a loss at this point, so please give me input/feedback.

Many many many thanks...

This is part of the effort that I am making to bring you better pictures for your viewing pleasure.

Lonnie

Sounds like you are talking about the 40D and the XSi. Problem with the XSi is the buffer size when shooting RAW. Also, the body has a cheap feel to it. I am using the XT and the 3fps is a little slow but not too bad. The 40D will last a lot longer, has better build quality, more features, and a larger buffer, but it also costs more. The sensors are the same size, one just has more pixels crammed into it. I don't think the difference between 10 and 12 MP is very big but others may disagree. I would probably go with the 40D if I had the money and good lenses.
Having good glass would probably make more of a difference than the choice in camera.
What lenses do you have or are you thinking about getting?

Just my opinion

Jarrod

[T. Adams]

Re: FPS/Burst capacity vs mega-pixles

The slower camera, the 5D is an awesome camera, and good deals can be had on it. It's a full frame sensor. Be aware that the faster camera the 40D, can only shoot 6.5fps at 1/4000 or faster shutter speeds. At speeds that we all normally shoot at it is just over 5fps. This has been proven in reviews of the camera. Canon can justifiably claim the 6.5fps, but only at insane(stop a hummingbirds wings!!) shutter speeds.

Myself, now I'm going back and forth, I was going to get a 40D, but a used 1DmkIIN is starting to call my name!!

If he's talking a bigger sensor than it should be the 5D, the Xsi sensor is the 1.6 crop factor sensor.

[ignomini]

Re: FPS/Burst capacity vs mega-pixles

Lonnie,

It would help to know which two specific bodies. Are they the same sensor size? If yes, the only time you will see any visible difference in resolution is in very large prints. If as Tim surmises, you're talking 40D vs 5D, then it's a different story.

The 5D, despite its higher pixel count, will produce less detail resolution for a given focal length lens. For example, let's say you are shooting with a 400mm lens. If we put a mask over part of the 5D sensor to match the sensor size of the 40D, the 5D will have fewer available pixels, producing a less detailed image - in spite of the sensors higher total pixel count.

Burst rate is a function of how you shoot. The faster burst rate will give you more slices. How does the number of frames recordable per burst fit with your shooting style? Frankly, I've never gotten past shooting one frame at a time, but that's just me.

Cheers,
Robert

[G. van Dyk]

Re: FPS/Burst capacity vs mega-pixles

I'm curious why the frame rate is an issue. I've looked over memory card reviews, for example, and the write speed seems to be the only thing the reviewers are concerned about, but in my own shooting, I have never held the shutter down and let the camera shoot away. I see absolutely no difference between my hidiously expensive or alarmingly cheap memory cards, so I don't give that spec any consideration when looking at bodies either.

By all means consider how you shoot before giving write speed too much consideration.

Cheers
Gerry

[T. Adams]

Re: FPS/Burst capacity vs mega-pixles

CF or SD memory is so cheap, it only pays to buy the best as far as I'm concerned. That's why I only use Sandisk Ultra II, III's, or Extremes. There is a very large difference in write speed between cards. See www.robgalbraith.com for the database. For instance in the 1DMKIIN the fastest writing RAW files was a Sandisk Extreme IV 2GB at 7.647MB/sec, the slowest was the the standard (read slow) Sandisk 1GB at 2.829MB/sec.

This really comes into play when you are using the amateur SLR's. They write much slower to the card than the "1" series cameras. If you were to put that standard Sandisk in a 10D or 20D and fired off a few RAW shots you would be waiting a while for the buffer to clear. Why miss a shot, even Extreme IV's are very cheap now. Even though I'm using faster cards, I can see a big difference when I fill the buffer on the 20D and 30D. The 30D is almost instant, and I rarely miss a opportunity for a shot, I have been stuck waiting for the 20D to clear more than a few times. And my old 10D I sold, that thing was slow!

[ignomini]

Re: FPS/Burst capacity vs mega-pixles

Tim has illustrated the real issue. Even at 7 MB/sec that means the card can accept one 30D RAW image per second (approximately) while shooting 4-5 RAW images per second. The size of the camera's buffer, which stores the images until they can be written, is a big determining factor. The newer cameras typically have bigger buffers and faster throughput. That's why fast CF cards are more important on a 1DMkIIn vs. a 10D.

[MMPerk]

Re: FPS/Burst capacity vs mega-pixles

Thanks for the comments...

At first I was just tossing this out as a generalization, but it would hep to know which bodies I was thinking about. Jarrod is right. The comparison was exactly that; the 40D vs the XSi. So the sensor is the same size...just more pixels in that same space. Somehow I was thinking more mega-pixels = bigger sensor. As for glass, at the moment I've got a pair of Sigma lenses that I bought several years ago for my film camera. My first glass purchase will be the 100-400L, and my budget was set up for the 40D and that lense.

I just want to make the best purchase for the money that I have to spend. I've been using Canon SLR cameras since the 80's and I've never been disappointed, plus I actually have 3 lenses that I can use with the new camera; the 2 Sigma's and the lense that came with the EOS Rebel 2000.

Thanks for the comments, and keep them coming. The more information the better. As per advice from Victor, I am going to make a stop at a local store and check out these cameras, and hold them in my hands, though I don't think the XSi is out yet.

Thanks again for everything,

Lonnie

[GeoffS]

Re: FPS/Burst capacity vs mega-pixles

Much depends on your shooting style. If you favor the shooting in bursts (like I do), then FPS and buffer are absolutely key. If you use the "one good shot" philosophy, and only shoot the frame right at the perfect time, then all the burst parameters are inconsequential.

More likely, your style falls in between the two extremes and you'll want to weight features accordingly.

FWIW, I don't consider resolution over 8 Mp to much of a factor (until maybe you get up into the 12-16 MP range).

Myself, now I'm going back and forth, I was going to get a 40D, but a used 1DmkIIN is starting to call my name!!

Ditto here. I used a 1DMkIIn at Oshkosh last year, and the 8.5 fps with larger buffer really changed the way I shot. I was surprised that it made such a difference. What I found myself doing with the mkII was concentrating more on framing and composition while the camera was firing, and less on picking an exact moment in time to take the shot.

FWIW, my 30D has a 6 raw buffer, and I find that a serious limitation. The mkII has a 20 frame buffer, and I only remember two times I overran it. The 40D has a 17 frame buffer, and I'm thinking that it will be "good enough". However, if I can find a clean 1DmkII (not "n") this spring when I'm planning to buy my next body that's not too much more than a new 40D, I might go that route (note that the 1DmkII has additional advantages than just FPS and buffer, the AF performance is much better than the xxD models).

Cheers,

Geoff S.

[HiredBitSlinger]

Re: FPS/Burst capacity vs mega-pixles

FWIW, my 30D has a 6 raw buffer, and I find that a serious limitation. The mkII has a 20 frame buffer, and I only remember two times I overran it. The 40D has a 17 frame buffer, and I'm thinking that it will be "good enough". However, if I can find a clean 1DmkII (not "n") this spring when I'm planning to buy my next body that's not too much more than a new 40D, I might go that route (note that the 1DmkII has additional advantages than just FPS and buffer, the AF performance is much better than the xxD models).
Geoff S.

I am currently thrashing the numbers and such on the same selection. My current camera is the DigitalRebel, the original. Has a 3 frame buffer. If you shoot RAW, you have to excercise great control. I try to take about 1 frame a second. Kind of like shooting my old OM-1, none motor drive film camera. Any faster and you get the dreaded "BUSY". The other thing about the 1DII, is much better AF. Of course, finding a low time, 1DII or 1DIIN that hasn't been bounced down the steps is a non trivial excercise.

Dan

[T. Adams]

Re: FPS/Burst capacity vs mega-pixles

You may have to join, but see this thread here,

http://www.naturescapes.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=124222

Contrary to what everybody says, there is a decided difference between the "N" and the original mkII. If you look around at different sites, you will find the "N" commands anywhere from $500-1000 over the original mkII, on the used market. Now if you believe Canon, and it's claim that only the LCD is bigger, and the "N" has picture styles, then you also might believe that the mkIII has no focus issues.

With the used price difference, it's pretty obvious which camera is in higher demand, and which camera is preferred, that is if you can swing the cash to get it!!

[HiredBitSlinger]

Re: FPS/Burst capacity vs mega-pixles

Yeah, thats pretty much what I have been seeing. While I am OK with accepting less than the latest technology, I have problems going to far back. Was really hoping to find a IIN within my price range. I could probably swing 2K. Well maybe, I don't know, but 2500 is definitely more than I want. It does make the 40d look like a bargain.

Well, if keep this up long enough, I may get my price on the IIN. I wear things out looking at them. The research, anticipation, etc does make the final purchase more satisfying.

Dan

[T. Adams]

Re: FPS/Burst capacity vs mega-pixles

I made up my mind. Thankfully I had a good year, and with some of my nice tax return, I'm selling the 20D and 30D, and getting a used mkIIn and a 40D.

[HiredBitSlinger]

Re: FPS/Burst capacity vs mega-pixles

I made up my mind. Thankfully I had a good year, and with some of my nice tax return, I'm selling the 20D and 30D, and getting a used mkIIn and a 40D.

Good deal. You are my test case.

It would be really great if you post your impressions of both cameras. I am especially interested in a comparison of the AF between these two cameras.

I am probably going to get a 40D, but I am still interested in the capabilities of the 1DIIN.

Dan Plunkett