Canon 7D firmware, and the 650D

[BrerFox]

I hate to state the obvious, but a firmware upgrade cannot give the extra 180Mb odd RAM that the proposed buffer size requires.

[Andre v]

I would imagine that an improvement of the processing of the image information is probably the cause for an increase in buffer size.

[pj1]

Thanks Grant. hope the update is coming soon.

[Alvin]

maybe its there and not being used?
however although I fully understand these things - I'm no expert on the exact architecture of the unit
Grant maybe you want to respond?

Maybe wishfull thinking that this new firware comes out and does what Grant says it wil - but I'll keep on wishing - does not cost me anything.

[Grant Atkinson]

HI Alvin, I know only what is on the internet, so no more news of the release of the firmware upgrade, though the actual article which was posted on the Canon Rumours website looked to be a genuine press release from Canon to me...didn't appear to be a fake one.
Just have to wait and see...
cheers
Grant

[jab2]

I hate to state the obvious, but a firmware upgrade cannot give the extra 180Mb odd RAM that the proposed buffer size requires.

Was just thinking the same thing when I read this thread for the first time now. The buffer shot capacity is governed by mainly two things, the size of the buffer memory, and the processing speed of the processors. Both these are HARDWARE bound. A third, and lesser contributor would be more efficient writing to the memory card to clear the buffer faster, but here it's also a stretch. So, like Andre, I cannot see how a firmware update can increase buffer capacity like that.

But then Grant did say the info came from Canon Rumours, not Canon Fact.

[Alvin]

Techno logic says one must agree with both Andre (@BrerFox) and Cobus (@ Jab) opinion on this ...... unfortunately
None the less I think we all now wanting this "free upgrade" - come on now Canon !!!

[Deon RacePics]

I wanted it last week already ..

[Grant Atkinson]

I know very little about how computers work, but I must apply my own form of Canon camera logic to the buffer upgrade possibility.
The 1Dmk4 has a buffer size of approx 24 raw images, and it shoots at 10 fps (although the files are only 16mp in resolution). It makes use of two Digic 4 processors. The 7D shoots 18mp images, but at a slower rate of 8 frames per second. My rough logic would indicate that the Mk4 is handling more data with what I believe is the same set of hardware (2 x Digic 4 processors)? Therefore the headroom for the increased buffer size via the 7D firmware upgrade maybe? Perhaps my logic is flawed...

Anyway, just hope it is coming down the line for all of the 7D users and enthusiasts out there
Cheers
Grant

[Alvin]

Grant
So what you saying the capacity is there and was not being used in the firmware - could be so - also makes good sense.
Well I'm hoping you right and they do bring out a firmware upgrade.................

[Deon RacePics]

Cameras are no less than computers, of which the CPU speed can be overclocked . we are now talking memory.. Its gonna be interesting to see how this pans out. I am ready to download.

[jab2]

Techno logic says one must agree with both Andre (@BrerFox) and Cobus (@ Jab) opinion on this ...... unfortunately

Meaning? If you wish do differ from our explanations, please do so in argument.

I know very little about how computers work, but I must apply my own form of Canon camera logic to the buffer upgrade possibility.
The 1Dmk4 has a buffer size of approx 24 raw images, and it shoots at 10 fps (although the files are only 16mp in resolution). It makes use of two Digic 4 processors. The 7D shoots 18mp images, but at a slower rate of 8 frames per second. My rough logic would indicate that the Mk4 is handling more data with what I believe is the same set of hardware (2 x Digic 4 processors)? Therefore the headroom for the increased buffer size via the 7D firmware upgrade maybe? Perhaps my logic is flawed...

Burst rate and buffer depth is two different things, which is controlled by different parts of the camera circuitry.

Lets look at your logic. 10 x 16 = 160. 8 x 24 = 144. 160 -144 = 16. 16/160 = 10% Thus the 7D should hide a 10% increase in buffer depth. The article you quote say from 15 RAW increased to 26 RAW. 26 - 15 = 11 11/15 = 73% increase in buffer depth.

This is however flawed logic, as the buffer depth is mainly governed by the RAM size, a property which cannot be increased by firmware updates, not so much by the speed of the processors. OK, it can increase burst depth with firmware if the camera have a physically bigger RAM size than what was used to write to in the release firmware version, and this block is removed with an update to use the full capacity.

But then this rumour of under writing RAM is around since the 10D was replaced by the 20D back in 2004. I am STILL waiting for that firmware update that will release the extra RAM in my 20D.

[Alvin]

Meaning? If you wish do differ from our explanations, please do so in argument.

Gee wiz Cobus! Chill relax boet - not arguing with you all! All I said was that what you said made absolute sense, and that is unfortunate as I would love this upgrade.

[jab2]

Gee wiz Cobus! Chill relax boet - not arguing with you all! All I said was that what you said made absolute sense, and that is unfortunate as I would love this upgrade.

That was how I interpreted it, until the Frown Smilie, and your subsequent post still wishing for such an update. That does not indicate an understanding that such an update is technically impossible. Taken all that changed your original meaning to one of sarcasm.

[Alvin]

Cobus
I think you reading too much into things!

[Chris F]

Jab since everybody seems to be overclocking you ....


I do appreciate the difference between processing speed and actual RAM. HOWEVER, is it possible that the clever people figured out a way to transfer the data faster ?

doubt weather that would give such a huge increase in burst rate, still just wondering out load ...

[jab2]

Jab since everybody seems to be overclocking you ....


I do appreciate the difference between processing speed and actual RAM. HOWEVER, is it possible that the clever people figured out a way to transfer the data faster ?

doubt weather that would give such a huge increase in burst rate, still just wondering out load ...

Chris, do you mean empty the buffer faster, as writing it faster to the buffer would not fit more data in it? If so, yes, it is a possibility, but hardware architecture has a much greater influence on data transfer rates than the transfer management code itself. OK, taken as fact that the code is efficient in the first place. Can't however see that Canon will use inefficient code at a time that they are under tremendous pressure form Nikon.

I would like to post a question. Why do we have a low limit on burst depth in the first place? Why does Canon, and for that matter Nikon, or all the other DSLR manufacturers not install enough memory to make it possible to have a burst depth of say 50 shots? I mean memory is relatively cheap, and looking at the size of memory sticks, space should not be a problem.

Well ,I think the memory we are familiar with in our PCs, and our memory cards are not the type that is suited for use in a DSLR as buffer memory. I suspect we are looking at something which still commands a relatively high price premium, and that physical size also plays a role. Just look at the design handstands the manufactures had to do to process HD video in a DSLR, processors many times faster, and up to three that works on the data. If the specs we desire were anyway reachable I'm pretty sure we would have seen it on the shelves already. It makes no sense for a manufacturer to release a product and within 2 1/2 years find out it can increase burst depth with 70% just by writing the code a bit different.

Also if this code is now ready to use in consumer products, why do we not see it's use in the new EOS-1DX, as there is no astronomical increase in burst depth between it and the 1DMk IV (30 frames RAW)? Taken that the EOS-1D MkIV had two DIGIC 4 processors and the 1DX have two DIGIC 5+ (17 faster that the DIGIC 4) plus a DIGIC 4 dedicated to autofocus. It is increase to 50 frames RAW (60%increase), as determined on a pre-production model tested by Ron Martinsen, but looking at the extra hardware in processors, this does seem such a small improvement that Canon do not even mentioned burst depth in their various press releases. I really had to dig deep to get the number above.

So, yes, there is a need for higher numbers, but I still cannot see this being increase after production by changing the firmware code.

Edit: I just find a number of 35 (38 with UDMA) for the EOS-1DX in an article on burst rate by Eduardo Angel on learn.usa.canon.com. That is only a 17% increase.

[Andre v]

A possibility is there is a lot of sharing of hardware between different models. And although the models may share these components, they would naturally limit the capability of the lesser models, or else why would anyone buy the higher end model if the specs were too similar. So perhaps the 7d always had the capability to have the higher buffer storage, but Canon limited this aspect so that the camera would not compete against its higher spec models.

Now with the introduction of the 1DX as a new flagship model, as well as the need for Canon to position the 7D better against competing brands they felt the increase was a good idea.

[Deon RacePics]

I do appreciate the difference between processing speed and actual RAM. HOWEVER, is it possible that the clever people figured out a way to transfer the data faster ?
...

well there are numerous people spending their every working hour working on new algorithms to compress/decompress data for transmission. However, the problem is with the card writer and the CF cards, unless the compression is going to lead to smaller files....

While I do believe it is a possibility to limit the use of hardware programmatically, there has to be hardware available to support an increase.

Again I would not mind if the files are smaller.

[BrerFox]

I would like to post a question. Why do we have a low limit on burst depth in the first place? Why does Canon, and for that matter Nikon, or all the other DSLR manufacturers not install enough memory to make it possible to have a burst depth of say 50 shots? I mean memory is relatively cheap, and looking at the size of memory sticks, space should not be a problem.

Because doubling the DRAM buffer would consume more power and increase the liklihood of data corruption when writing a full buffer on a low battery. Canon have already exhibited great wisdom in resisting the inclusion of a GPS into their cameras because of power constraints and you can bet that there are very good engineering reasons for the circular buffer size too.
Grant, the fact that the 7D and 1D4 use the same processor configuration has got absolutely nothing to do with RAM buffer. RAM is external to the CPU (in much the same way that your CF card is external) which is why Jab2 is querying why they chose the value that they did.