1D Mk III - Is it the card or the buffer

Shooting Raw high speed.
Missing shots because either the buffer is full or the card is slow to write.
I can't remember encountering the same problem with JPG.
Using a Transcend 16GB 133X.
How can I tell where the bottle neck is?

Thanks.

Keep in mind the 1D Mark III can only write to the card at 11Mb/sec. I also have a Mark III and I shoot RAW at 10fps occasionally. Yes, the buffer fills fast and it clears HORRIBLY slow. It's the camera, bud. The Mark III is already outdated, LOL.

How does the Mk IV compare?

chrisvl wrote in post #9024024
How does the Mk IV compare?

The exact numbers I can not give you. But the Mk IV will certainly incorporate UDMA, which will boost write speed substantially.

chrisvl wrote in post #9023958
Shooting Raw high speed.
Missing shots because either the buffer is full or the card is slow to write.
I can't remember encountering the same problem with JPG.
Using a Transcend 16GB 133X.
How can I tell where the bottle neck is?

Thanks.

Are you sure that's what the problem is?
My Mark III is 'at the shop' with an issue related to missing shots.

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=781181

Just checked UDMA6 600X/90MG/sec
Time to go camera hunting. LOL!

chrisvl wrote in post #9023958
Shooting Raw high speed.
Missing shots because either the buffer is full or the card is slow to write.
I can't remember encountering the same problem with JPG.
Using a Transcend 16GB 133X.
How can I tell where the bottle neck is?

Thanks.

Firstly, don't even begin to compare file transfer performance with JPG.
Second, Canon wouldn't have built the fastest continual shoot camera at the time if it couldn't safely put the files away!!!

How many frames at 10 fps did you manage to take. The specification is very high and unless you were trying to shoot a movie, the body should meet its specification. However, a Transcend 133x is not a fast card. Are you sure you haven't programmed a maximum frames limit in the custom function settings?

Hi... similar isues here..... Transcend cf:s seem to be slow(er)...
I just bought a San disk Cf Extreme 16 and it performs much better...
Could it be your CF:card causing neck-problems anyway......

The Transcend 133x is roughly equivalent to the Sandisk Ultra II, slow.

Get a Transcend 266x/300x/400x or the Sandisk Extreme series or Pro (new Sandisk)

In your viewfinder on the right at the bottom it shows how many frames you can shoot with however your camera is set up before the buffer is filled and with mine if I fill that buffer shooting 10fPS then it takes about 28 seconds to bring it back to normal but as the buffer fulfills it's process it does allow you to shoot some frames as the transfer process happens.

From what I have read in the white pages, this may actually be worse with RAW in that the files being transferred by the buffer allow for fewer frames than on the MKIII. I'm not sure how much difference UDMA is going to make and it might be that it will equalize or improve this situation over the MKIII. Yes JPEG's are supposed to be able to shoot a lot more frames before the buffer is filled.

Also I found this to be worse if I have the custom function for High ISO Noise Reduction turned on, it reduces the number of frames you can shoot until the buffer is filled.

I just looked at my camera and that number of RAW frames I had available for a burst was only 14, so I turned off the high ISO noise reduction and it increased to 24 frames, so then I reduced the ISO setting from 3200 to 100 and it came up to 30 frames which I think is the maximum.

So then I set it on JPEG L and got 86 frames available for burst
set it to 3200 ISO and it reduced that to 34 frames available for burst
in addition to that I added High ISO Noise Reduction and got 14 frames available for burst.

Okay I just checked the MKIV Wht Pages http://www.usa.canon.c​om …-1D%20Mark%20IV%20WP1.p​df

and this is what I found for maximum burst:
JPEG 85 (121 UDMA)
RAW 26 (28 UDMA) so there is a reduction there because of the larger files
RAW + JPEG Large 20 (20 UDMA)

I looked at the MKIII Wht pages: http://www.usa.canon.c​om …ers/EOS-1D_MarkIII_WP.pdf

Burst rate:
JPEG L 110 at high speed
260 at low speed

RAW 30 at high speed
35 frames at low speed

RAW +L 28 frames at high speed
35 frames at low speed

Add High ISO's and or High ISO Noise Reduction to the menu and these numbers will drop.

From what I see here, it looks like there is a big advantage when shooting JPEG's with the MKIV for speed but a drop off slightly when shooting RAW by just two frames which isn't that much.

And yes from my own experience the card does make a difference although I cannot tell the difference between an Extreme III and an Extreme IV but when I go to an Ultra II it seems to slow down but my Ultra II's are my SDHC cards so I don't know if it's that the SDHC cards are slower than CF cards or what or a combination of them being SDHC and Ultra II. I do know that the Ultra II's write speed is rated quite a bit slower.

Hope this helps.

Jannie wrote in post #9024610
In your viewfinder on the right at the bottom it shows how many frames you can shoot with however your camera is set up before the buffer is filled and with mine if I fill that buffer shooting 10fPS then it takes about 28 seconds to bring it back to normal but as the buffer fulfills it's process it does allow you to shoot some frames as the transfer process happens.

From what I have read in the white pages, this may actually be worse with RAW in that the files being transferred by the buffer allow for fewer frames than on the MKIII. I'm not sure how much difference UDMA is going to make and it might be that it will equalize or improve this situation over the MKIII. Yes JPEG's are supposed to be able to shoot a lot more frames before the buffer is filled.

Also I found this to be worse if I have the custom function for High ISO Noise Reduction turned on, it reduces the number of frames you can shoot until the buffer is filled.

I just looked at my camera and that number of RAW frames I had available for a burst was only 14, so I turned off the high ISO noise reduction and it increased to 24 frames, so then I reduced the ISO setting from 3200 to 100 and it came up to 30 frames which I think is the maximum.

So then I set it on JPEG L and got 86 frames available for burst
set it to 3200 ISO and it reduced that to 34 frames available for burst
in addition to that I added High ISO Noise Reduction and got 14 frames available for burst.

Okay I just checked the MKIV Wht Pages http://www.usa.canon.c​om …-1D%20Mark%20IV%20WP1.p​df

and this is what I found for maximum burst:
JPEG 85 (121 UDMA)
RAW 26 (28 UDMA) so there is a reduction there because of the larger files
RAW + JPEG Large 20 (20 UDMA)

I looked at the MKIII Wht pages: http://www.usa.canon.c​om …ers/EOS-1D_MarkIII_WP.pdf

Burst rate:
JPEG L 110 at high speed
260 at low speed

RAW 30 at high speed
35 frames at low speed

RAW +L 28 frames at high speed
35 frames at low speed

Add High ISO's and or High ISO Noise Reduction to the menu and these numbers will drop.

From what I see here, it looks like there is a big advantage when shooting JPEG's with the MKIV for speed but a drop off slightly when shooting RAW by just two frames which isn't that much.

And yes from my own experience the card does make a difference although I cannot tell the difference between an Extreme III and an Extreme IV but when I go to an Ultra II it seems to slow down but my Ultra II's are my SDHC cards so I don't know if it's that the SDHC cards are slower than CF cards or what or a combination of them being SDHC and Ultra II. I do know that the Ultra II's write speed is rated quite a bit slower.

Hope this helps.

Thanks. I found that particularly helpful and well researched.

Jannie wrote in post #9024610
In your viewfinder on the right at the bottom it shows how many frames you can shoot with however your camera is set up before the buffer is filled and with mine if I fill that buffer shooting 10fPS then it takes about 28 seconds to bring it back to normal but as the buffer fulfills it's process it does allow you to shoot some frames as the transfer process happens.

From what I have read in the white pages, this may actually be worse with RAW in that the files being transferred by the buffer allow for fewer frames than on the MKIII. I'm not sure how much difference UDMA is going to make and it might be that it will equalize or improve this situation over the MKIII. Yes JPEG's are supposed to be able to shoot a lot more frames before the buffer is filled.

Also I found this to be worse if I have the custom function for High ISO Noise Reduction turned on, it reduces the number of frames you can shoot until the buffer is filled.

I just looked at my camera and that number of RAW frames I had available for a burst was only 14, so I turned off the high ISO noise reduction and it increased to 24 frames, so then I reduced the ISO setting from 3200 to 100 and it came up to 30 frames which I think is the maximum.

So then I set it on JPEG L and got 86 frames available for burst
set it to 3200 ISO and it reduced that to 34 frames available for burst
in addition to that I added High ISO Noise Reduction and got 14 frames available for burst.

Okay I just checked the MKIV Wht Pages http://www.usa.canon.c​om …-1D%20Mark%20IV%20WP1.p​df

and this is what I found for maximum burst:
JPEG 85 (121 UDMA)
RAW 26 (28 UDMA) so there is a reduction there because of the larger files
RAW + JPEG Large 20 (20 UDMA)

I looked at the MKIII Wht pages: http://www.usa.canon.c​om …ers/EOS-1D_MarkIII_WP.pdf

Burst rate:
JPEG L 110 at high speed
260 at low speed

RAW 30 at high speed
35 frames at low speed

RAW +L 28 frames at high speed
35 frames at low speed

Add High ISO's and or High ISO Noise Reduction to the menu and these numbers will drop.

From what I see here, it looks like there is a big advantage when shooting JPEG's with the MKIV for speed but a drop off slightly when shooting RAW by just two frames which isn't that much.

And yes from my own experience the card does make a difference although I cannot tell the difference between an Extreme III and an Extreme IV but when I go to an Ultra II it seems to slow down but my Ultra II's are my SDHC cards so I don't know if it's that the SDHC cards are slower than CF cards or what or a combination of them being SDHC and Ultra II. I do know that the Ultra II's write speed is rated quite a bit slower.

Hope this helps.

Yes it does help and I think it should be a sticky!! Very informative and thankfully free of opinion.

Thanks very much!! I learned something today!!

Canon's own Chuck Westfall describes the Mark III buffer in detail HERE: http://www.digitaljour​nalist.org/issue0712/t​ech-tips.html

Rob Galbraith Tested a bunch of cards with the Mark III HERE: http://www.robgalbrait​h.com …ti_page.asp?cid​=6007-9038 CONCLUSION- The Mark III cannot write any faster than 15Mb/s, NO MATTER HOW FAST OF A MEMORY CARD YOU PUT INTO IT. An Extreme III or Sandisk "Ultra" is all you need for a Mark III.

Lastly, this is from CANON themselves: http://www.usa.canon.c​om …ArticleAct&arti​cleID=1886 In summary, the Mark III can write data to a memory card no where near today's fastest maximum rated speed. In summary, DO NOT WASTE YOUR MONEY on an Extreme IV or higher rated card, the Mark III CANNOT take full advantage of their maximum speeds. No DSLR on the market can, the primary benefit would be the speed at which you can transfer your data from your memory card to your computer (using ONLY the fastest card-readers- ie Firewire 800 readers).

I use lexar 133X cards and i get 20-30 shots raw at 10FPS... Am I missing something here.

Something else to bear in mind, some (many? most?) "working pros", especially in sports, aren't shooting RAW. They're shooting the necessary JPEG size that makes FTP-ing images to their publications as fast and painless as possible.

RAW is a "luxury" and is generally reserved for less deadline-intensive photography.