D7200: Speed and buffer

"android" wrote in message
...
I notice that the new Nikon crop produces 18 rawfiles in buffer @ 6
fps.
The Canon 1D2 also produces 18 raw in buffer but @ 8 fps. The 1D2 was
introduced in 2004... Keep them coming Nikon!
--
teleportation kills

Apples and oranges. The Canon is a pro-grade DSLR, the Nikon is not
pro-grade.

In article , PAS
wrote:

I notice that the new Nikon crop produces 18 rawfiles in buffer @ 6
fps.
The Canon 1D2 also produces 18 raw in buffer but @ 8 fps. The 1D2 was
introduced in 2004... Keep them coming Nikon!

Apples and oranges. The Canon is a pro-grade DSLR, the Nikon is not
pro-grade.

wrong comparison. the canon is a decade old camera with 1/3rd the
number of pixels to move.

android wrote:
In article ,
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

android wrote:
In article ,
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

android wrote:
In article ,
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

android wrote:
I notice that the new Nikon crop produces 18 rawfiles in buffer @ 6
fps.
The Canon 1D2 also produces 18 raw in buffer but @ 8 fps. The 1D2 was
introduced in 2004... Keep them coming Nikon!

Humor at it's worst!

The Canon 1DII also cost $6000 when it came out, and was
the top of Canon's pro line of DSLR's. It had 8MP and
would shoot at 8 fps, with an ISO range of 100-1600.

Nikon of course introduced the D2X in the same year, at
a cost of only $5000. With 12 MP and also at 8 fps.
But while it had more pixels the ISO range was only
100-800. The memory buffer would hold 17 of those
larger RAW files, compared to the Canon 1DII holding 20
smaller files.

Looks like Canon maybe was barely ahead of Nikon in 2004.

In 2015 Canon hasn't moved much in a decade, and Nikon
took off like a rocket! The latest Canon crop frame
camera, the 7DII ranks overall at number 108 on the
DXOMARK list. The current entry level bottom end from
Nikon, a D3300, ranks 32! And the top Nikon APC-S, the
D7100 is at 23, so we can expect the D7200 to almost
certainly be at or very near the top 20 will Canon can't
make the top 100.

Because no doubt Nikon, unlike Canon, has indeed been
able to "keep them coming".

Well... My 1D2 wont be replaced by some Nikon halfframe! ;-)
I read DxO too, but not the ranking but graphs and numbers...

Everyone has different needs for a camera. Not everyone has
need for the best camera.

You'll do fine with your 1D2, and Grandma's family album won't
be any worse because of it.

The EOS M is what I have in me bag... The price is right for 1D2s now
however, if you can get a good one.

Absent the little problem that for the money, today it is a POS.

You're free to have that opinion. I won't trade it for a Nikon half
frame. Larger sensors are better than smaller...

That holds true for two sensors of the same technology
generation. It doesn't even come close to valid for any
sensor from 2004 compared to what Nikon uses today. The
D7100 runs circles around anything that existed in 2004.

Here is a chart, automatically generated from data
collected by Bill Claff:

http://home.comcast.net/~NikonD70/Charts/PDR.htm#EOS%201D%20Mark%20II,D7100,D4

The bottom line on the chart is your 1DII. The middle
line is a Nikon D7100. The top line is a Nikon D4. The
difference between a D7100 and a D4 is exactly that
"larger sensors are better than smaller". Same basic
technology.

To get the most from that chart, click on "Ideal_FX" and
on "Ideal_DX" to see exactly what the difference between
a cropped sensor and a full frame sensor is, absent the
technology generation gap. The D7100 is closer to "perfect"
than the D4, though not by much. The 1DII is a long long
ways...

The 1DII is old, and "POS" describes well how 10 year
old sensor technology compares to the current
technology. Stick with a Canon camera if you have
many lenses, but don't kid yourself about the image
quality your Canon can't produce. And while we've
been talking about comparing to a Nikon, if it is compared
to a Pentax or Sony the results are very similar.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

In article ,
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

android wrote:
In article ,
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

android wrote:
In article ,
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

android wrote:
In article ,
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

android wrote:
I notice that the new Nikon crop produces 18 rawfiles in buffer @ 6
fps.
The Canon 1D2 also produces 18 raw in buffer but @ 8 fps. The 1D2
was
introduced in 2004... Keep them coming Nikon!

Humor at it's worst!

The Canon 1DII also cost $6000 when it came out, and was
the top of Canon's pro line of DSLR's. It had 8MP and
would shoot at 8 fps, with an ISO range of 100-1600.

Nikon of course introduced the D2X in the same year, at
a cost of only $5000. With 12 MP and also at 8 fps.
But while it had more pixels the ISO range was only
100-800. The memory buffer would hold 17 of those
larger RAW files, compared to the Canon 1DII holding 20
smaller files.

Looks like Canon maybe was barely ahead of Nikon in 2004.

In 2015 Canon hasn't moved much in a decade, and Nikon
took off like a rocket! The latest Canon crop frame
camera, the 7DII ranks overall at number 108 on the
DXOMARK list. The current entry level bottom end from
Nikon, a D3300, ranks 32! And the top Nikon APC-S, the
D7100 is at 23, so we can expect the D7200 to almost
certainly be at or very near the top 20 will Canon can't
make the top 100.

Because no doubt Nikon, unlike Canon, has indeed been
able to "keep them coming".

Well... My 1D2 wont be replaced by some Nikon halfframe! ;-)
I read DxO too, but not the ranking but graphs and numbers...

Everyone has different needs for a camera. Not everyone has
need for the best camera.

You'll do fine with your 1D2, and Grandma's family album won't
be any worse because of it.

The EOS M is what I have in me bag... The price is right for 1D2s now
however, if you can get a good one.

Absent the little problem that for the money, today it is a POS.

You're free to have that opinion. I won't trade it for a Nikon half
frame. Larger sensors are better than smaller...

That holds true for two sensors of the same technology
generation. It doesn't even come close to valid for any
sensor from 2004 compared to what Nikon uses today. The
D7100 runs circles around anything that existed in 2004.

Here is a chart, automatically generated from data
collected by Bill Claff:

http://home.comcast.net/~NikonD70/Ch...k%20II,D7100,D
4

The bottom line on the chart is your 1DII. The middle
line is a Nikon D7100. The top line is a Nikon D4. The
difference between a D7100 and a D4 is exactly that
"larger sensors are better than smaller". Same basic
technology.

To get the most from that chart, click on "Ideal_FX" and
on "Ideal_DX" to see exactly what the difference between
a cropped sensor and a full frame sensor is, absent the
technology generation gap. The D7100 is closer to "perfect"
than the D4, though not by much. The 1DII is a long long
ways...

The 1DII is old, and "POS" describes well how 10 year
old sensor technology compares to the current
technology. Stick with a Canon camera if you have
many lenses, but don't kid yourself about the image
quality your Canon can't produce. And while we've
been talking about comparing to a Nikon, if it is compared
to a Pentax or Sony the results are very similar.

As said: You're free to have that opinion. I stand by mine. I like Canon
files better and a larger sensor give the lenses more real estate to
resolve on.
--
teleportation kills

android wrote:
In article ,
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

android wrote:
In article ,
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

android wrote:
In article ,
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

android wrote:
In article ,
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

android wrote:
I notice that the new Nikon crop produces 18 rawfiles in buffer @ 6
fps.
The Canon 1D2 also produces 18 raw in buffer but @ 8 fps. The 1D2
was
introduced in 2004... Keep them coming Nikon!

Humor at it's worst!

The Canon 1DII also cost $6000 when it came out, and was
the top of Canon's pro line of DSLR's. It had 8MP and
would shoot at 8 fps, with an ISO range of 100-1600.

Nikon of course introduced the D2X in the same year, at
a cost of only $5000. With 12 MP and also at 8 fps.
But while it had more pixels the ISO range was only
100-800. The memory buffer would hold 17 of those
larger RAW files, compared to the Canon 1DII holding 20
smaller files.

Looks like Canon maybe was barely ahead of Nikon in 2004.

In 2015 Canon hasn't moved much in a decade, and Nikon
took off like a rocket! The latest Canon crop frame
camera, the 7DII ranks overall at number 108 on the
DXOMARK list. The current entry level bottom end from
Nikon, a D3300, ranks 32! And the top Nikon APC-S, the
D7100 is at 23, so we can expect the D7200 to almost
certainly be at or very near the top 20 will Canon can't
make the top 100.

Because no doubt Nikon, unlike Canon, has indeed been
able to "keep them coming".

Well... My 1D2 wont be replaced by some Nikon halfframe! ;-)
I read DxO too, but not the ranking but graphs and numbers...

Everyone has different needs for a camera. Not everyone has
need for the best camera.

You'll do fine with your 1D2, and Grandma's family album won't
be any worse because of it.

The EOS M is what I have in me bag... The price is right for 1D2s now
however, if you can get a good one.

Absent the little problem that for the money, today it is a POS.

You're free to have that opinion. I won't trade it for a Nikon half
frame. Larger sensors are better than smaller...

That holds true for two sensors of the same technology
generation. It doesn't even come close to valid for any
sensor from 2004 compared to what Nikon uses today. The
D7100 runs circles around anything that existed in 2004.

Here is a chart, automatically generated from data
collected by Bill Claff:

http://home.comcast.net/~NikonD70/Ch...k%20II,D7100,D
4

The bottom line on the chart is your 1DII. The middle
line is a Nikon D7100. The top line is a Nikon D4. The
difference between a D7100 and a D4 is exactly that
"larger sensors are better than smaller". Same basic
technology.

To get the most from that chart, click on "Ideal_FX" and
on "Ideal_DX" to see exactly what the difference between
a cropped sensor and a full frame sensor is, absent the
technology generation gap. The D7100 is closer to "perfect"
than the D4, though not by much. The 1DII is a long long
ways...

The 1DII is old, and "POS" describes well how 10 year
old sensor technology compares to the current
technology. Stick with a Canon camera if you have
many lenses, but don't kid yourself about the image
quality your Canon can't produce. And while we've
been talking about comparing to a Nikon, if it is compared
to a Pentax or Sony the results are very similar.

As said: You're free to have that opinion. I stand by mine. I like Canon
files better and a larger sensor give the lenses more real estate to
resolve on.

Opinions are wonderful, but they do have to be based on
facts, and yours are not.

You might well like the Canon files better, but not
because they contain higher quality images. They don't.

A larger sensor can provide better resolution, but in
this case it does not. The Canon 1DII has a sensor that
is 28.7mm wide. It produces images that are 3,504 pixels
across. That is 3504 / 28.7 / 2 line pairs per
millimeter, which is the maximum resolution of that
senosr: *61.0 lp/mm*.

The Nikon D7100 has just about the highest resolution of
any camera, regardless of sensor size, currently
available. It has a 23.5mm wide sensor that produces
images 6000 pixels across. 6000 / 23.5 / 2 = *127.7*
*lp/mm*, or just a little more than two times the
resolution of the Canon 1DII.

Just in case you wonder, the D800 and D810 are only
about 102.5 lp/mm, the Nikon D4 is 68.5 lp/mm. The
D3300 and D5300 are the same as the D7100.

Literally every entry level cropped sensor camera that
Nikon currently sells has better resolution (less noise,
and higher dynamic range too) than you old 1DII. Sheesh,
even Canon's current cameras are better than that one!

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

In article ,
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

android wrote:
In article ,
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

android wrote:
In article ,
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

android wrote:
In article ,
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

android wrote:
In article ,
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

android wrote:
I notice that the new Nikon crop produces 18 rawfiles in buffer
@ 6
fps.
The Canon 1D2 also produces 18 raw in buffer but @ 8 fps. The
1D2
was
introduced in 2004... Keep them coming Nikon!

Humor at it's worst!

The Canon 1DII also cost $6000 when it came out, and was
the top of Canon's pro line of DSLR's. It had 8MP and
would shoot at 8 fps, with an ISO range of 100-1600.

Nikon of course introduced the D2X in the same year, at
a cost of only $5000. With 12 MP and also at 8 fps.
But while it had more pixels the ISO range was only
100-800. The memory buffer would hold 17 of those
larger RAW files, compared to the Canon 1DII holding 20
smaller files.

Looks like Canon maybe was barely ahead of Nikon in 2004.

In 2015 Canon hasn't moved much in a decade, and Nikon
took off like a rocket! The latest Canon crop frame
camera, the 7DII ranks overall at number 108 on the
DXOMARK list. The current entry level bottom end from
Nikon, a D3300, ranks 32! And the top Nikon APC-S, the
D7100 is at 23, so we can expect the D7200 to almost
certainly be at or very near the top 20 will Canon can't
make the top 100.

Because no doubt Nikon, unlike Canon, has indeed been
able to "keep them coming".

Well... My 1D2 wont be replaced by some Nikon halfframe! ;-)
I read DxO too, but not the ranking but graphs and numbers...

Everyone has different needs for a camera. Not everyone has
need for the best camera.

You'll do fine with your 1D2, and Grandma's family album won't
be any worse because of it.

The EOS M is what I have in me bag... The price is right for 1D2s now
however, if you can get a good one.

Absent the little problem that for the money, today it is a POS.

You're free to have that opinion. I won't trade it for a Nikon half
frame. Larger sensors are better than smaller...

That holds true for two sensors of the same technology
generation. It doesn't even come close to valid for any
sensor from 2004 compared to what Nikon uses today. The
D7100 runs circles around anything that existed in 2004.

Here is a chart, automatically generated from data
collected by Bill Claff:

http://home.comcast.net/~NikonD70/Ch...Mark%20II,D710
0,D
4

The bottom line on the chart is your 1DII. The middle
line is a Nikon D7100. The top line is a Nikon D4. The
difference between a D7100 and a D4 is exactly that
"larger sensors are better than smaller". Same basic
technology.

To get the most from that chart, click on "Ideal_FX" and
on "Ideal_DX" to see exactly what the difference between
a cropped sensor and a full frame sensor is, absent the
technology generation gap. The D7100 is closer to "perfect"
than the D4, though not by much. The 1DII is a long long
ways...

The 1DII is old, and "POS" describes well how 10 year
old sensor technology compares to the current
technology. Stick with a Canon camera if you have
many lenses, but don't kid yourself about the image
quality your Canon can't produce. And while we've
been talking about comparing to a Nikon, if it is compared
to a Pentax or Sony the results are very similar.

As said: You're free to have that opinion. I stand by mine. I like Canon
files better and a larger sensor give the lenses more real estate to
resolve on.

Opinions are wonderful, but they do have to be based on
facts, and yours are not.

You might well like the Canon files better, but not
because they contain higher quality images. They don't.

A larger sensor can provide better resolution, but in
this case it does not. The Canon 1DII has a sensor that
is 28.7mm wide. It produces images that are 3,504 pixels
across. That is 3504 / 28.7 / 2 line pairs per
millimeter, which is the maximum resolution of that
senosr: *61.0 lp/mm*.

The Nikon D7100 has just about the highest resolution of
any camera, regardless of sensor size, currently
available. It has a 23.5mm wide sensor that produces
images 6000 pixels across. 6000 / 23.5 / 2 = *127.7*
*lp/mm*, or just a little more than two times the
resolution of the Canon 1DII.

Just in case you wonder, the D800 and D810 are only
about 102.5 lp/mm, the Nikon D4 is 68.5 lp/mm. The
D3300 and D5300 are the same as the D7100.

Literally every entry level cropped sensor camera that
Nikon currently sells has better resolution (less noise,
and higher dynamic range too) than you old 1DII. Sheesh,
even Canon's current cameras are better than that one!

You just don't wanna get it! The larger the sensor the more of the lens
area of confusion can get utilized and thus it contribute more
information that can extracted from the final files. That said: The M is
an excellent data-back to the fisheye that I use since I want to have a
rectangular image. And that image gets 18 MP.
--
teleportation kills

In article , android
wrote:


Literally every entry level cropped sensor camera that
Nikon currently sells has better resolution (less noise,
and higher dynamic range too) than you old 1DII. Sheesh,
even Canon's current cameras are better than that one!

You just don't wanna get it! The larger the sensor the more of the lens
area of confusion can get utilized and thus it contribute more
information that can extracted from the final files. That said: The M is
an excellent data-back to the fisheye that I use since I want to have a
rectangular image. And that image gets 18 MP.

the only area of confusion is that within your head.

In article ,
nospam wrote:

In article , android
wrote:


Literally every entry level cropped sensor camera that
Nikon currently sells has better resolution (less noise,
and higher dynamic range too) than you old 1DII. Sheesh,
even Canon's current cameras are better than that one!

You just don't wanna get it! The larger the sensor the more of the lens
area of confusion can get utilized and thus it contribute more
information that can extracted from the final files. That said: The M is
an excellent data-back to the fisheye that I use since I want to have a
rectangular image. And that image gets 18 MP.

the only area of confusion is that within your head.

you could call the circle of confusion if you like, but you would
probably confuse it with that that you have chosen to surround yourself
with...
http://tinyurl.com/ktewjbp
--
teleportation kills

android wrote:
In article ,
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

android wrote:
In article ,
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

android wrote:
In article ,
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

android wrote:
In article ,
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

android wrote:
In article ,
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

android wrote:
I notice that the new Nikon crop produces 18 rawfiles in buffer
@ 6
fps.
The Canon 1D2 also produces 18 raw in buffer but @ 8 fps. The
1D2
was
introduced in 2004... Keep them coming Nikon!

Humor at it's worst!

The Canon 1DII also cost $6000 when it came out, and was
the top of Canon's pro line of DSLR's. It had 8MP and
would shoot at 8 fps, with an ISO range of 100-1600.

Nikon of course introduced the D2X in the same year, at
a cost of only $5000. With 12 MP and also at 8 fps.
But while it had more pixels the ISO range was only
100-800. The memory buffer would hold 17 of those
larger RAW files, compared to the Canon 1DII holding 20
smaller files.

Looks like Canon maybe was barely ahead of Nikon in 2004.

In 2015 Canon hasn't moved much in a decade, and Nikon
took off like a rocket! The latest Canon crop frame
camera, the 7DII ranks overall at number 108 on the
DXOMARK list. The current entry level bottom end from
Nikon, a D3300, ranks 32! And the top Nikon APC-S, the
D7100 is at 23, so we can expect the D7200 to almost
certainly be at or very near the top 20 will Canon can't
make the top 100.

Because no doubt Nikon, unlike Canon, has indeed been
able to "keep them coming".

Well... My 1D2 wont be replaced by some Nikon halfframe! ;-)
I read DxO too, but not the ranking but graphs and numbers...

Everyone has different needs for a camera. Not everyone has
need for the best camera.

You'll do fine with your 1D2, and Grandma's family album won't
be any worse because of it.

The EOS M is what I have in me bag... The price is right for 1D2s now
however, if you can get a good one.

Absent the little problem that for the money, today it is a POS.

You're free to have that opinion. I won't trade it for a Nikon half
frame. Larger sensors are better than smaller...

That holds true for two sensors of the same technology
generation. It doesn't even come close to valid for any
sensor from 2004 compared to what Nikon uses today. The
D7100 runs circles around anything that existed in 2004.

Here is a chart, automatically generated from data
collected by Bill Claff:

http://home.comcast.net/~NikonD70/Ch...Mark%20II,D710
0,D
4

The bottom line on the chart is your 1DII. The middle
line is a Nikon D7100. The top line is a Nikon D4. The
difference between a D7100 and a D4 is exactly that
"larger sensors are better than smaller". Same basic
technology.

To get the most from that chart, click on "Ideal_FX" and
on "Ideal_DX" to see exactly what the difference between
a cropped sensor and a full frame sensor is, absent the
technology generation gap. The D7100 is closer to "perfect"
than the D4, though not by much. The 1DII is a long long
ways...

The 1DII is old, and "POS" describes well how 10 year
old sensor technology compares to the current
technology. Stick with a Canon camera if you have
many lenses, but don't kid yourself about the image
quality your Canon can't produce. And while we've
been talking about comparing to a Nikon, if it is compared
to a Pentax or Sony the results are very similar.

As said: You're free to have that opinion. I stand by mine. I like Canon
files better and a larger sensor give the lenses more real estate to
resolve on.

Opinions are wonderful, but they do have to be based on
facts, and yours are not.

You might well like the Canon files better, but not
because they contain higher quality images. They don't.

A larger sensor can provide better resolution, but in
this case it does not. The Canon 1DII has a sensor that
is 28.7mm wide. It produces images that are 3,504 pixels
across. That is 3504 / 28.7 / 2 line pairs per
millimeter, which is the maximum resolution of that
senosr: *61.0 lp/mm*.

The Nikon D7100 has just about the highest resolution of
any camera, regardless of sensor size, currently
available. It has a 23.5mm wide sensor that produces
images 6000 pixels across. 6000 / 23.5 / 2 = *127.7*
*lp/mm*, or just a little more than two times the
resolution of the Canon 1DII.

Just in case you wonder, the D800 and D810 are only
about 102.5 lp/mm, the Nikon D4 is 68.5 lp/mm. The
D3300 and D5300 are the same as the D7100.

Literally every entry level cropped sensor camera that
Nikon currently sells has better resolution (less noise,
and higher dynamic range too) than you old 1DII. Sheesh,
even Canon's current cameras are better than that one!

You just don't wanna get it! The larger the sensor the more of the lens
area of confusion can get utilized and thus it contribute more
information that can extracted from the final files. That said: The M is
an excellent data-back to the fisheye that I use since I want to have a
rectangular image. And that image gets 18 MP.

What is "the lens area of confusion"??? If you are
referencing the Circle of Confusion, you are wrong.
Look up "Airy Disk" and see how that relates to pixel
pitch. Pixel pitch and lp/mm are directly related...

The 1DII has no advantages, other than the fact that you
already own it. Oddly though, you could sell it and buy
a vastly better camera and have money left over!

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:

The 1DII has no advantages, other than the fact that you
already own it. Oddly though, you could sell it and buy
a vastly better camera and have money left over!

not really, since they're only going for a couple hundred dollars on
ebay.