|
I had a look at the review on Steve's digicams, and they suggest the S5 can benefit from a faster card. The Extreme III is what they tested it with.
My own experience has been that other functions of the camera are more of a bottleneck than the write speed, however. Shooting at high ISO involves more processing of the image, which slows things down more than a slow card would.
Posted 51 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Can you send me a link to that review?
Posted 51 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
www.steves-digicams.com/2007_reviews/canon_s5is.html
Nevermind.
Posted 51 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Ok, buying this today. I saw a class 4 in Staples for $40, with a 4MB a sec write speed. My 2GB card does 9 MB write, 10MB read, and it's fine. I wonder what I might buy myself into.
Help!
Posted 47 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I think I'm going this route:
www.circuitcity.com/ssm/SanDisk-Ultra-II-SDHC-8GB-High-Pe...
Posted 47 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Save your money....
Since I got CHDK, I've been able to do benchmarks on the card and it turns out as long as it is Class 4, you'll get more than necessary. Steve is right about better speed but you'll gain nothing on a class 5 or 6 as you'll see on the benchmarks below.
Here's typical benchmarks:
Flash Card
This will depend on the type of card you use! I tested wish a 4 gig Class 6
Write (RAM): 6688 Kb/s
Write (Mem): 6237 Kb/s
Write (64k): 4762 Kb/s
Read (64k): 7185 Kb/s
Tests on an SanDisk Ultra II 2.0 GB - 15 MB/s
Write (RAM): 10630 Kb/s
Write (Mem): 8904 Kb/s
Write (64k): 6826 Kb/s
Read (64k): 7123 Kb/s
I bought an inexpensive 8 GB Class 4 HP card and it performed just as well as the SanDisk Ultra II.
The above benchmarks I posted the San Disk numbers onto CHDK's website a while back.
PS.
Here's another link to benchmarks:
chdk.wikia.com/wiki/Benchmarks
I was wrong about the Class 5, because it shows the Ultra III performing almost double of the Ultra II. But still it is a savings when you compare the HP card to the Ultra II which I have both to compare and they both perform the same. I don't have an Ultra III card so I can't confirm this (it does seem a little crazy, but because it's published on the net it must be true ;) I'll see if I can get a SanDisk Ultra III card.
I own three SanDisk Ultra II and I love them. Bear in mind, you'll only really notice a big difference with CHDK writing to a raw file. The highspeed continuous is so slow on your S5 you'll not notice the speed benefits. My S3 is way faster at continuous mode than my S5 so keep in mind when purchasing faster cards, why you need faster. I'd stick to Class 4 cards for the S5 unless you do a lot of RAW shooting.
Originally posted 47 months ago.
(permalink)
Kinematic Digit edited this topic 47 months ago.
|
|
|
But the packaging on the 8GB cheaper card said 4MB/s right on it, even though it was a class 4.
It was this one: www.staples.com/office/supplies/p1__225822_Business_Suppl...
Even the website says:
Class 4 (minimum 4MB/sec write speed). Also functions with Class 2 host devices
Haven't spent a dime yet, would love to hear back.
Posted 47 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I think the standard blue SanDisk cards are fast enough for this camera. I did a bunch of tests comparing the S5 and S2. The S5 is listed at 1.5 fps and I got 1.554 fps with standard blue SandDisk SD cards. Just recently I got a SanDisk Ultra II (66x) 2GB SD card and saw no difference in shooting speed. I still got 1.5 fps.
Engr reported that he was able to get 2.5 fps with a Transend 4GB 160x SDHC card. He got 25 images in 10 seconds. All my previous tests were for an entire minute of constant shooting. That is certainly not a very realistic situation so I just tried again with 10 second tests with the 2GB Ultra II and a standard SanDisk 4GB SDHC card and still only got 1.5 fps with both.
Cards slow down as they gets full. Maybe the Extreme III (133x) or faster would make some difference in that case, with my Ultra II card, I got as low as 1.3 fps when the card was getting full.
I have noticed two places the Ultra card makes a difference. First is downloading the card is faster. And second, if you use the CHDK hack to shoot RAW, continuous shooting is a little bit faster. I have not measured it, but it is noticeably faster than on a normal card. But still slow compared to shooting JPEG only.
Posted 47 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
cngodles,
I should stop using Wikipedia to look up things.. This is far more accurate:
www.sdcard.org/about/speed_class/
Class 2 is minimum 2 MB/s
Class 4 is minimum 4 MB/s
Class 6 is minimum 6 MB/s
All the benchmarks at CHDK's home page are in Mb/s so take that number and multiply it by the inverse of 8 to convert it to MB/s (ie. 4 Mb x 1/8 = .5 MB)
I think i need to have my posting license taken away. So based on this, that's how I determined that a Class 4 card is all you need. 4 MB/s is 32,768 Kb/s (MINIMUM to be called Class 4). If you look at the benchmarks, none of those cards are getting those kinds of numbers.
Of course it's a little more complex than that, and there's other factors like buffering and other technical things (that's why each manufacturer has different results). It is odd to see how well the Ultra III is doing so well, so I can't help but wonder if there is something different about how they build them. I'm curious about the Transcend card. In that benchmark list, it only marginally did better than an Ultra II.
jciv, What is the link to Engr comment? I've even tried dialing down to 640x480 to see if it speeds up the burst mode, but no, that did not speed it up either. I think the limits are set by the built in software of the camera. I'm actually curious why CHDK can't unlock that function. If the camera can do a shutter of 1/10,0000 of second, why can't it write to the card faster? There must be some sort of buffer that has been governed.
Originally posted 47 months ago.
(permalink)
Kinematic Digit edited this topic 47 months ago.
|
|
|
FYI
Did some more math.
2.5 MB which is the average of our files from an S5 is 20,480 kilobits.
To write 1.5 fps on the card means the card needs to be able to handle 30,480 Kb/s which falls right in line with what a Class 4 card is supposed to be able to do (I wonder if the benchmarks in the CHDK utility are not reporting numbers right?). Either way nothing seems to jive. If the Benchmarks are correct, then I can't see how a Transcend Card can increase the fps by .5. I'm all for increasing the burst mode of my camera.
If the true limits are 1.5 fps, then I am correct in assuming that anything above Class 4 is pointless with the exception to RAW files.
Originally posted 47 months ago.
(permalink)
Kinematic Digit edited this topic 47 months ago.
|
|
|
It does seem unbelievable, even Engr found it hard to believe. It is possible there is something unusual with his camera. You can find his post here.
I also tried different compression options and saw no difference. Using lower resolutions actually slowed the camera down because it has to resize the photos first.
Posted 47 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I did buy the staples PNY 8GB one, and it didn't seem noticably slow at first attempt. I'll report back if it is.
8BG ='s 2551 full res photos btw :)
Also, 61 minutes of the Best Video Mode.
Posted 47 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Was just down at my local London Drugs and they had a sale on the San Disk Extreme III, 4GB with a nifty black USB reader, and Recovery Software and a little carry bag key chain all for $49.99. Couldn't pass it up.
Anyhow, I spent some time comparing the Ultra II and Extreme III. So far I see no difference.
I've only had one fluke of 20 frames in 10 seconds... have not been able to recreate that. But for the most part my initial test show the same results... 1.5 fps.
Benchmark
SanDisk Extreme III Card
Write (RAW): 21040 Kb/s
Write (Mem): 15360 Kb/s
Write 64K: 5957 Kb/s
Read 64K: 6961 Kb/s
Just did some RAW shooting, and this is where it really is noticeable. RAW on the SanDisk Ultra II - .55 fps
RAW on the SanDisk Extreme III - .97 fps
Clearly there's an advantage in RAW.
Originally posted 47 months ago.
(permalink)
Kinematic Digit edited this topic 47 months ago.
|
|
|
Thanks for that info. Your fluke is especially interesting. That makes it seem like it is not the camera's software that is limiting us to 1.5 fps.
Posted 47 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
jciv.... I have my suspicions so I'm trying to recreate that 2 fps instance. I'm pretty certain it has something to do with light conditions and ISO settings.
I will report back if I find anything of interest.
Posted 47 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
To get the fastest possible setting, use manual mode. Lighting shouldn't matter with all the settings controlled in manual mode. Zoom all the way out wide and use f/8.0. You can then set shutter speed to 1/3200, it isn't possible otherwise. Set white balance manually, it has been claimed that makes shooting faster, I am not sure it will affect continuous shooting mode since I think it only sets WB once, but its worth a shot. Turning off IS seems like a good idea too. Resolution should be set to full size. Compression should be on the middle setting.
Also, you can override the Aperture and exposure to f/11 and 1/33333 with the CHDK.
Originally posted 47 months ago.
(permalink)
jciv (a group admin) edited this topic 47 months ago.
|
|
|
I FOUND IT!!!!!!!! Jciv, your suggestions didn't yield any difference, however this did. A little ugly how to get it to work ... had to change the picture size to use M2 2048x1536 super fine any thing higher than that it starts to slow down.
Program Mode
Set to ISO 80, aim it at a very brightly lit scene (something that needs a shutter of around 1/300+
I was getting close to 2 fps when shooting a scene that required 1/600
Also found a second instance of this.
Tv mode
Set to digital zoom standard
Set Shutter of 1/320
Turn off Safety Shift
Zoom into digital zoom
Performance (30 second continuous shoot):
Ultra II - 1.9333 fps
Extreme III - 1.9333 fps
I've done some extensive testing and I can verify that this is a Camera feature. It makes me wonder if I can get it faster. I tried it in 640x480. No difference. I was also able to dial it down to 1/100 of a sec shutter in digital zoomed TV mode and got close to 2 fps as well.
Someone want to try this and confirm for me. I plan on positing this onto the CHDK forum for discussion.
Cheers
Originally posted 47 months ago.
(permalink)
Kinematic Digit edited this topic 47 months ago.
|
|
|
Awesome finds. I guess getting out of manual mode does make a bit of sense. The camera can set ISO speeds in Auto that are not user selectable. Who knows what else it can do if it wants.
I don't like the having to use digital zoom in your second method, but at least it is possible. I wonder if the reason digital zoom helps is that instead of resizing the photos (which can slows things), it is just cropping off the unneeded part of the image. With the right combination of limited digital zoom and lower resolution, you would be in the Safety Zoom range and wouldn't be getting any resizing, just cropping. So less file to write to the disk.
I forgot that my settings were based on getting the best speed on a normal card. Having a faster card could make some difference. I found any size lower than full resolution slowed the fps down a tiny bit or made no difference. I thought using manual mode would be best since it was easy to control all the variables, obviously there are some hidden ones too.
I just realized, video is 640x480 and can shoot 30 fps. There is no shutter being used there, but that means at least the sensor is capable of much faster shooting at low resolution. The shutter is certainly not capable of moving anywhere near that fast, but it is interesting to think about.
I will try the tests with your settings later today. I should not still be awake now. Did you have Image Stabalization off or on?
Originally posted 47 months ago.
(permalink)
jciv (a group admin) edited this topic 47 months ago.
|
|
|
I had IS on and off and it made no difference. I'm going to experiment more today too. Wow you were up late. Pretty excited about this find myself. I suspect the combination of the Safety Shift (maybe even Safety FE) and the lower resolution made most of the difference.
The theory I was going on was to reduce all the functions that the S3 doesn't have. Although it's a newer processor, I didn't think the processor would be slower, however that said, I thought Face Detection might be slower too. Made no difference to shut that off, so I suspect the Digic III is a much faster processor, but they added more features to process.
Anyhow when you wake up and get to experiement, let me know how it went.
Sorry to hijack this thread cngodles, just keeping with the conversation we started here.
Posted 47 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
That's ok, your both over my head, and I program for a living.
The 8GB card seems to have no disadvantages during normal use. Shot over 1000 pictures with it.
Posted 47 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
lol cngodles... I'll take that as a compliment :)
Did some more test this morning... it seems both modes have to be in Digital Zoom to get close to 2 fps.
I think it should be good to note that if there's a need to do some sports/action photography (which the S5 compared to the S3 is weaker at). You can do the following:
Set to Tv mode
Shut off Safety Shift and Safety FE
Use Digital Zoom (set it to Digital Zoom to Standard- it works at around 1.6-1.7 fps with Teleconverter 2.0 if you dial down to M3 for size)
Turn your image size to M2 (you can still use superfine for your quality)
Now this is not completely ideal since you have to be pretty far to catch the action which also means good chances you need a lot of light. You can certainly try to go to 400 ISO (it starts to slow down again at 800 ISO). I guess in theory if you don't mind the soft image you'd get from the Canon WA converter, you could get more of the action in Digital Zoom.
It's all interesting and kind of proof that you can shoot beyond the manufacturers specs. I'm going to post this to CHDK for feedback.
Cheers
Posted 47 months ago.
(permalink)
|
Would you like to comment?
Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).
|
Canon PowerShot S5 IS /
Discuss
Feed – Subscribe to Canon PowerShot S5 IS discussion threads
