[Brightcolours]

That means that noise filtering is going on, right? Else there is no reason you would see a difference in speed. Of course, more noise means bigger file size, but to such a big extent?

[JJ_SO]

The files sizes I haven't checked, I just deleted the test shots in the camera.

 

More color depth = increased color variance in noise, as the single noisy pixels also get more attention of the processor? It's kind of mystery, but Nikon could clarify the conditions for getting the full rate.

 

Maybe I just try without a lens, all gimmicks off (as far as possible) and sgutter set to 1/1000? No matter what, obviously the high frame rate "can contain traces of nuts"... But the two cases I can imagine for longer bursts are birds in flight (camera moves, bird moves, AF has hard times, lens too) or Sports - and who needs this resolution and color depth for a soccer player on lawn? No matter how, there's not much to do: noise is normal at high ISO and short shutter speeds, there are not much shortcuts I know of.

 

In film times, the buffer was full after 36 exposures... Making it ready for then next burst took longer than today and not many film DSLRs were delivering 7 or 9 fps  ^_^

[JJ_SO]

No lens, all other gimmicks off and base ISO: 54 frames. A lens wide open, otherwise same settings: 48 frames

[davidmanze]

    That'll do it won't it?........I don't think I've have ever shot more than a 20-23 shot sequence with BIF! 

 

  14 bit ....lossless compressed? 

[JJ_SO]

Yes.

 

Will it do?

 

Can't say.

In terms of silencing the critics: No. There will always be some demanding "I paid for an 51 frames buffer and I want them always available!"

In my terms: I righteous hate it to select one or two frames out of a burst and I still find it either wasting disk space to keep them or time waste to select them. If I can, I avoid that. I don't think I will ever need the 20 shots Matt keeps on talking about.