The Nikon D750 has the most advanced autofocus system Nikon has produced to date, thanks to its new Multi-CAM 3500 FX II autofocus module that is capable of focusing in dim light conditions with a -3 EV to +19 EV detection range. While the camera is capped at 6.5 frames per second of continuous shooting speed, one might be wondering how long the camera can shoot continuously, before the buffer fills up and the camera slows down. In this article, we will explore the buffer capacity of the Nikon D750 and compare it to the D610, D700 and the D810 cameras.
Take a look at the below chart:
|DSLR||Image Type||FX Size||DX Size||FX Buffer||DX Buffer||Cont. Shoot|
|Nikon D610||NEF (RAW), Lossless compressed, 12-bit||23.4 MB||10.9 MB||21||55||3.5 sec|
|Nikon D700||NEF (RAW), Lossless compressed, 12-bit||13.3 MB||5.7 MB||23||65||4.6 sec|
|Nikon D750||NEF (RAW), Lossless compressed, 12-bit||21.0 MB||10.5 MB||25||100||3.8 sec|
|Nikon D810||NEF (RAW), Lossless compressed, 12-bit||31.9 MB||14.6 MB||47||100||9.4 sec|
|Nikon D610||NEF (RAW), Lossless compressed, 14-bit||29.2 MB||13.4 MB||14||34||2.3 sec|
|Nikon D700||NEF (RAW), Lossless compressed, 14-bit||16.3 MB||7.0 MB||20||46||4.0 sec|
|Nikon D750||NEF (RAW), Lossless compressed, 14-bit||26.9 MB||13.1 MB||15||48||2.3 sec|
|Nikon D810||NEF (RAW), Lossless compressed, 14-bit||40.7 MB||18.3 MB||28||97||5.6 sec|
|Nikon D610||NEF (RAW), Compressed, 12-bit||20.7 MB||9.7 MB||26||73||4.3 sec|
|Nikon D700||NEF (RAW), Compressed, 12-bit||11.0 MB||4.7 MB||26||95||5.2 sec|
|Nikon D750||NEF (RAW), Compressed, 12-bit||19.2 MB||9.8 MB||33||100||5.1 sec|
|Nikon D810||NEF (RAW), Compressed, 12-bit||29.2 MB||13.3 MB||58||100||11.6 sec|
|Nikon D610||NEF (RAW), Compressed, 14-bit||25.4 MB||11.7 MB||14||54||2.3 sec|
|Nikon D700||NEF (RAW), Compressed, 14-bit||13.8 MB||6.0 MB||23||63||4.6 sec|
|Nikon D750||NEF (RAW), Compressed, 14-bit||23.9 MB||11.9 MB||21||100||3.2 sec|
|Nikon D810||NEF (RAW), Compressed, 14-bit||36.3 MB||16.4 MB||35||100||7.0 sec|
|Nikon D610||JPEG Fine (Large)||12.4 MB||5.9 MB||51||100||8.5 sec|
|Nikon D700||JPEG Fine (Large)||5.7 MB||2.5 MB||100||100||20.0 sec|
|Nikon D750||JPEG Fine (Large)||12.6 MB||6.2 MB||87||100||13.4 sec|
|Nikon D810||JPEG Fine (Large)||18.1 MB||8.6 MB||100||100||20.0 sec|
Sadly, it looks like the buffer size of the Nikon D750 is the same as on the lower-end D610. If you look at the above chart, you will notice that the size of RAW files actually got smaller compared to the D610, which explains why the D750 can fit some more images. Still, considering the 0.5 fps increase on the D750, the length of time shooting continuously did not get a whole lot better. Shooting 12-bit lossless compressed RAW files will only yield 25 frames, which is equivalent to 3.8 seconds of continuous shooting before the camera slows down. And if you choose to shoot at 14-bit lossless compressed, the shooting time will last a mere 2.3 seconds. In comparison, the Nikon D810 can shoot 2.5 times longer, making the D810 a much better tool for photographing fast, continuous action.
To be honest, I am disappointed with Nikon’s decision to limit the D750 with such a small buffer. On one hand, the camera has an amazing autofocus system and on the other hand, it is limited by its buffer. Sports and wildlife photographers would have to shoot in short bursts and wait for the camera to finish writing images to the memory card before they can shoot at 6.5 fps again. So it is not quite “the action” camera many of us anticipated to see. This, however, does not mean that the D750 will be useless for sports and wildlife. As I demonstrated in my D600 review, even the D600 can be used to take great action shots with its inferior 39 point AF system. You just has to understand the limitations of the D750 when action happens over a prolonged period of time.
Of course, buffer size limitations do not matter for portrait, studio and wedding photographers, so the D750 will be a great choice for many. And in my opinion, the D750 is going to be a better buy than the D610 in terms of value, thanks to its fast and much more robust autofocus system.
I bought D750 last week. I set picture quality RAW 12 bit Lossless compressed and buffer show only 16 shots. I couldn’t get 25 as you written here. I checked my manual as well it also mentions 25. Why couldn’t I get 25 shots?
I use Sandisk extreme pro 64gb 95mb/s UHS-I SDXC U3 Memory Card (Class 10)
I turned off all option in shooting menu
(Active D lighting , long exposure NR off etc)
I set – RAW- no back up, lossless compressed 12 bit,
When I choose AUTO ISO ON buffer shows only 8 shots. I tried to find out in my manual but I couldn’t. Is it normal buffer show only 8 shot when I chose AUTO ISO ON? When I choose AUTO ISO ON in my D7000 buffer didn’t change.
How can I get 25 shots in buffer? How do you set your D750? Do you think my D750 has technical problem as AUTO ISO ON decrease buffer? Should I send it to Nikon for repair? If not could you please tell me how to set my D750.
Good review and one that made me make the final decision to get the D810. The D810 is much more suitable for continuous shooting because of the fact that the buffer can take 31 shots at full resolution compared to 15 in the D750. 15 is too small and in a real situation you will run out of buffer memory before you even know it. It doesn’t matter that you have 6.5 fps that only lasts 15 images. The D750 has 6.5 fps which is negligible compared to the 5 fps in the D810. You can also switch to 1.2x mode in the D810 and get 6fps with a buffer that almost never fills up. And in DX mode you get even 7 fps with the D810 so it is very clear that the D810 is also a good pro-tool for continuous high shooting, and it is better than the consumer level D750 in this aspect.
This is more of a HELP posting instead of a comment. Perhaps this isn’t a fair question, but with the new advancements on the D750, which camera do you prefer? I’m going to purchase one or the other, and it’s a tough decision. I am not influenced by the flipping LCD on the 750 because I doubt if I will ever use it as I am buying the camera for photos only. I’m not thrilled by the very small top screen either. That being said, I want the most up to date electronics, but I want the 51 autofocus points instead of the 39 on the 610. If the 750 had 51, that would be my choice immediately. I’ve been using a D300 for the past few years, so I am used to 51 autofocus points. My question then is, would I notice that much of a between 39 & 51? Thanks in advance.
The D750 was 51 Focus points, while the D610 only has 39. The physical spread of the 51 points on the D750 is closer together than they are on the D810, but I don’t know how they compare to those of the D300.
Here is a video showing the buffer performance while writing to 1 as well as 2 SDHC cards at the same time: www.youtube.com/watch…1wXGdaNvko
Chris, I appreciate the video, but it isn’t really testing the buffer. You need to do the test with the fastest memory cards available so that there is nothing restricting the buffer. I would also love to see a test with the highest IQ RAW going to slot 1 and the highest IQ jpg going to slot 2.
Thank you for the feedback and suggestions. I would like to ask everyone what card you feel is both affordable and up to the task to handle everything we can throw at it.
Chris, I guess everyone’s concept of affordable is different. Let’s see, a D750 costs $2,296.95 on B+H or Adorama. You most likely will have lenses, filters, bags, tripods, etc. to make at least a total of $3,800.00. You’re concerned about buffer capacity. And you want to insert a weak link in your chain by skimping on a memory card?
Personally, I would never buy anything but the best or near the best Lexar or San Disk memory cards. I have a D7100 with San Disk SD cards (95MB/s). I put RAW on slot-1 with 64GB & jpegs on slot-2 with 32GB. You can get near the equivalent Lexar combination at 90MB/s for about $82.00 on Amazon right now, plus someone is always having specials on these beauts. That would be about 2.2% of that $3800 to keep from having a weak link.
There was an exhaustive study on the speed of memory cards 2-3 years ago. It concluded that anything faster than 45MB/s was only marginally faster, but it was faster. But, then came the 36MB files, etc. I know for a fact that my 95MB/s cards will allow me to continue my frame rate longer than my 60MB/s backup cards. I do not want a cheaper card to stand in the way of me getting a shot that I will never have another chance of getting.
Great points Charlie! Makes perfect sense. I will do some research on both the Lexar and San Disk cards available tomorrow and get my order placed! Thanks again!
I disagree that buffers don’t matter to Wedding photographers. There are lots of situations where I make sure that I am using my D4, because my D800 buffer would fill up and I’d miss things. In fact, of all the different photography jobs I do, wedding photography is the only one where I have the potential to run my buffer out.
Try photographing a wedding or two with film and you will learn how to think before you push the shutter button. Trained talented photographers photographed weddings for years, with excellent results, before digital “spray and pray” type of robotic photography!
True. It’s the brain behind the camera is much more important.
I have a D90 and am thinking of upgrading. However, since the D90 arrival, Nikon has marketed many new cameras. i.e. D600, D750, and theD800. What would be an alternative for the D90? Would it be one the three mentioned or some other DSLR? All comments are welcomed.
I wanted to say thank you for this breakdown. As someone looking to move into an FX body I am genuinely curious about the available buffer on the FX body I will be picking up.
Right now I have narrowed my two choices down to a used D3s or the new D750. I have a D7100 with the battery grip always attached. My hands are rather big and I do not even like using the D7100 without the grip attached (hence the interest in the D3s).
That being said my primary reason for moving to FX is getting the full frame, shooting in low light (high ISO – 12500), and needing a shutter that will keep up at around 800-1000. The D750 looks amazing and has some really great features but the one I am most concerned with here is the buffer. Right now the buffer on the D7100 shooting in RAW 12-bit simply chokes out shooting action/sports. I don’t have the numbers or camera on me right now but I believe it is somewhere around 12-14 (that is in the 1.3x crop mode – which I dislike considerably).
On the D750 in non-cropped mode it appears that I can get up to 25 continuous shots (12-bit lossless compressed) which essentially is double the D7100 without going into the 1.3x crap mode. I am just looking for someone to keep me honest here on my calculations before I go ahead and spend on this. I don’t think either body will suddenly make everything magical with carebears and rainbows but if I want to step into an FX body I want to at least get off on the right foot =)
Nasim, thank you for such article!
According to your chart D810 can still shoot at 5fps while D750’s shooting speed will start to degrade. I guess it’s easy noticeable when shooting NEF (losless compressed, 14 bit) where you have only 2.3 sec until your D750’s speed will slow down. With such results I can’t say that’s it’s a true action cam. It seems that 810’s 5 fps are better than 750’s 6.5 fps. That’s a shame they used the same buffer as in D610.
Nasim, please could you perform a quick FX burst-test (continuous shooting for 30 seconds in FX mode; only NEFs, losless compressed, 14 bit) with only D750 and D810?
I’d like to compare it with my D7000 which makes about 43 pics (NEF, Lossless Compressed 14 Bit) in 30 seconds. I’m using Sandisk UHS-I 95mb/s SD card.
Hmm well didn’t Canon increase the 7D’s buffer capacity with a firmware update? Maybe Nikon could do the same…
I am glad to have unloaded my nikon system, d600 plus lens, yes at a big loss,. Nikon clearly does not have customers in mind. The more they care about profit only, the quicker they will lose customers. The way they deliberately cripple their cameras will only drive their customers to other brands. I am excited about the new 7d mark2. Though not a perfect camera but canon addresses the 3 biggest issues with the original 7d–AF, ISO, and frame rate. They held nothing back in those areas and I know canon will be rewarded with not only sales but quite likely, new customers.
Plus the Canon 7D Mark II is reasonably priced, and has an AF-On button. If I was just getting into the DSLR market today, I would have to give that puppy a serious look.
I cannot believe people who think the 7DM2 is ‘reasonably priced’. Face facts, you see the stonking 10FPS and you’re sold. That’s it.
The D750 and 7DM2 differ by £200. Give me the superior high ISO and dynamic range of FX any day.
If I was getting into the DSLR market today, I would not be looking at either the 7DM2 nor the D750. They are too advanced for a beginner. Either the Canon EOS XXXD range, the Nikon D5x00 range or, at a push, the D6x0 range would make more sense. Money saved would go on good glass. That said, I don’t think there’s much future in current APSC/DX. Mirrorless is the future for small sensor DSLR’s and FX is the future for ‘serious’ use.
1st of all, I would never be in a position to make a decision to choose between a D750 & a 7DM2. Unless, I was trying to make a choice of going full frame or APSC/DX. I am not a beginner. I won my 1st photo contest in 1958. But, I’m not on here to brag or demean anyone else. I doubt that’s what this forum is for. I spent a summer with a D5100. I did not like it, and sold it.
In my opinion mirrorless may be the future period. If Nikon made a mirrorless camera that could make use of their current DSLR lenses, and that camera had the same output quality as current, I’d certainly have to give it a look. Any decent camera can be used for ‘serious’ use.
Now, now boys, it’s not a life or death issue.
Both Canon and Nikon make lovely cameras.
One day Nikon gets ahead a bit in one aspect of photographic technology and then the next day Canon leapfrogs Nikon and gets ahead in some other aspect.
Do we see colossal improvements in people’s photography as a result?
By and large not.
The good photographers are always good while the klutzes stay as they are – they just shoot ever larger volumes of crap.
Now go kiss and make up.
But it’s the internet age, Betty. Nobody cares about actual photography anymore. All people care about is trashing the latest technology, irrespective of whether they are going to buy it or not, becasue it can NEVER satisfy them. Even if the D750 could shoot 8fps with a 50 shot buffer, people would still complain!!!
What did all these people do before the internet? No wonder they call it the ‘world wide whinge’…
“….Nobody cares about actual photography anymore. All people care about is trashing the latest technology, irrespective of whether they are going to buy it or not, becasue it can NEVER satisfy them….”
Respectfully, I disagree. Creative, visionary photographers make excellent images with a variety of equipment. They work around the limitations found in every single piece of photographic gear, from every mfr. Anything made by humans is imperfect.
I see the dissatisfaction with recent products from Nikon as largely valid. Specific and correctable-with-existing-technology shortcomings are easily found.
I believe these include:
1) Nikon attempting to position the D750 as an ‘action camera’ while limiting the frame rate to 6.5 fps. I too shot football with a motor-drive-equipped Nikon F in the 1960’s. 3.5 fps max was too low a frame rate then. Forget spray-and-pray, which didn’t work 50 years ago & doesn’t now. It’s too slow for putting together sequences with visual continuity. 6.5 fps is probably adequate for that – but please: Don’t try to sell a body as an action camera when it seems artificially limited for marketing reasons – that is, to avoid cannibalizing a higher priced product from the same mfr.
Nikon should be worried about the outright loss of sales to other mfrs. About the loss of perceived leadership & of the growing perception of being out of touch with their customers. THESE COST SALES.
2) When Nikon Inc. introduces a body that is markedly more capable than an existing product at nearly the same price (D750 vs D610) – while still trying to sell the 610, they’re still hurting their bottom line. The only way the existing 610 inventory will sell is by lowering the price – which impacts margin, cause production cost is already largely as low as it’ll go. Nikon is still cannibalizing themselves AND confusing customers as to what-the-hell they’re attempting to accomplish. Introducing FUD to your own customer base is unwise. Really unwise.
3) Both D300 and D700 replacements could be created from existing products. THEY WOULD HAVE SOLD WELL FOR THE PAST 2-3-4 YEARS, contributing to the bottom line, while helping to demonstrate that Nikon’s in touch with their customers.
The D700 wasn’t a mistake – I’d argue that the direct impact to D3 sales volume was at least, and likely more than, offset by by the impression of Nikon as a technological (and value) leader. And remember, a high percentage of D700 buyers wouldn’t have purchased a D3 if the D700 had never been made. The D3 was simply too expensive for those D700 buyers.
I’m suggesting that the D700 represented substantial incremental sales while improving perception of Nikon, which has real bottom line benefit. Win-win.
Same thing for a D300 follow on. A pro-body DX with a newer better sensor would have sold, I think, in sufficient numbers to justify itself economically, Obviously Nikon management disagrees, but when a product line (DX) is the majority of your camera revenues AND overall margin (because of volume), not even trying to deliver what the market wants. Wasting production capacity on a ton of confusingly overlapping low-end DX bodies – which are being discounted to get them to sell = A Really Bad Idea. Shooting yourself in the foot (maybe higher) in public inspires NO confidence, and buyers with doubts tend to go buy something else.
4) The incremental cost of the additional memory required to increase the buffer size of the D7100 would have been inconsequential. The ROI for Nikon Inc would have been HUGE vs the negative perception, which has also been pretty damn significant.
5) Devoting production resources to multiple 18-XX DX superzooms while failing to produce DX-format wideangle primes telegraphs to your customer base that you’re not serious about that product line. So does the proliferation of low-end, low margin DX camera models when that line is the bread and butter of your volume. That’s just plain dumb. It’s also frustrating and scary to consumers who understand that Nikon Inc. is out of touch with reality.
THAT’s why photographers who have owned, used and recommended Nikon products for a long time are upset, not because we’re Nellie Naysayers. If I didn’t have a shit-ton invested in existing Nikon glass, I probably would have already switched – cause ALL I CARE ABOUT IS THE PICTURES I PRODUCE. The gear that least interferes with the process is what I want. Intentionally-crippled and inadequately supported products ain’t that.
Like lots of other consumers, I’m not gonna invest new equipment capital in a mfr’s more expensive products when they’ve lost my trust in this manner – I’m gonna buy used, continue using what I already own, and pay increasing attention to products from other mfrs.
Multiply those actions X enough potential buyers (which Nikon seems to be actively attempting through some related combination of arrogance and self-isolation) and you’re FUBAR’d as a going concern / viable business entity / employer, etc. etc.
TL;DR: When lots of customers are unhappy with your products and service, you’re having to fire-sale multiple lines to get them off dealers’ shelves AND YOU KEEP DOING THE SAME THING, expect criticism.
You are so right! Unless someone is photographing fast moving wildlife or sports, 1 or 2 fps is enough. Even with action photography short bursts is enough. Enough for what you may ask? Enough “grab” when you are paying attention to what you are doing! Auto-focus accuracy is another thing, and very important; but the digital age of who can out burst each other is only of interest to those people who never take the time to learn about photography and composition. Just like a math problem: It is not possible to solve an equation without first knowing what you are looking for. If a person does not know what photographically makes an excellent photograph, and how to assist in its creation, it’s natural to be awed by the “spray and pray” approach.
Better equipment only makes for a larger quantity of boring photographs (with the odd lucky pic here and there)! Learning how to master image creation allows for beauty to be produced! This should be the first priority for all photographers. Once a person is at a level of producing quality, consistently and on demand (whenever they want, however they / the client wants) then (and only then) will better gear improve their results!
How about (if you are a photographer as opposed to an internet gear discusser) turning off your computer, venture out into the world, and seek to create something interesting?
Good luck to all!