 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / September 20064-5 fps 'prosumer" DSLR's - are they really that fast?
I have been holding off buying a camera I really like to use (for every day shots), the Pentax *ist Ds in the hopes that they will come out with something that shoots faster than 1.5-2 fps in my price range (<2000$) This is getting harder to do since Costco now has them at 599 C$. In the absence of Pentax coming out with a speedier model I have been eyeing up the D20 or D30 Canon, which claims a speed of 4-5 fps. Are they really this fast? I know that Pentax advertises theirs at 2fps, but I've never experienced that kind of speed. I take a lot of action sports photos and I think I could get some better shots if I could shoot a true 4 to 5 fps, do any on this group use the D20 or similar for rapid fire shooting? Are any of the prosumer models adequate for this? thanks in advance Absolutely! As long as you aren't shooting at low shutter speeds. Listen here: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Sounds/Canon-EOS-30D-Burst.wav Or if you want to hear something truly amazing, listen to the burst of the 1D MK II: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Sounds/Canon-EOS-1D-Mark-II-Burst.wav Pressing and holding the shutter button isn't the best way of taking photos though, unless you have no choice. >I have been holding off buying a camera I really like to use (for every day >shots), the Pentax *ist Ds in the hopes that they will come out with [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > thanks in advance >I have been holding off buying a camera I really like to use (for every day >shots), the Pentax *ist Ds in the hopes that they will come out with >something that shoots faster than 1.5-2 fps in my price range (<2000$) This >is getting harder to do since Costco now has them at 599 C$. In the absence >of Pentax coming out with a speedier model... Pentax will be coming out with the K10D for $900 in a very short while. >>I have been holding off buying a camera I really like to use (for every day >>shots), the Pentax *ist Ds in the hopes that they will come out with [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Pentax will be coming out with the K10D for $900 in a very short while. Just had a boo at it, sounds like it will be 3fps, which probably will translate into 2fps in real life. However, given that is is processing 10mp I suppose thats pretty good. The reason I was looking at 4-5fps was that often I find in my sports action shots I've just missed the moment, perhaps I just have to work on my timing but I thought if I could fire of a burst of 5-10 frames my chances of a real good action shot are that much better. Uh?!? What do you mean by 'real life'? Didn't you bother to read my last post? > Just had a boo at it, sounds like it will be 3fps, which probably will > translate into 2fps in real life. However, given that is is processing [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > my timing but I thought if I could fire of a burst of 5-10 frames my > chances of a real good action shot are that much better. > Uh?!? What do you mean by 'real life'? Didn't you bother to read my last > post? What I meant was, the *ist DS I shoot with now claims it shoots 2 fps, but in "real life" I've never seen that... >>Just had a boo at it, sounds like it will be 3fps, which probably will >>translate into 2fps in real life. However, given that is is processing [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >>my timing but I thought if I could fire of a burst of 5-10 frames my >>chances of a real good action shot are that much better. >The reason I was looking at 4-5fps was that often I find in my sports >action shots I've just missed the moment, perhaps I just have to work on >my timing but I thought if I could fire of a burst of 5-10 frames my >chances of a real good action shot are that much better. You can't trust machine-gunning a burst of frames to get the right shot - the only reliable technique is to get the timing right. You don't mention just what sports you're photographing. But I've shot motorsports for many years (and a car travelling at 200mph moves more than its own length in 1/10 of a second), and a friend shoots professional baseball, where you have about the same amount of time to catch bat and ball in the same frame (and significantly less than that if you want the two in contact). In both cases just using a 5fps camera, and letting it decide when to take the shot, isn't going to get you many usable images. Even the 10fps you can get from the top-of-the-line bodies isn't sufficient. Mind you, it is nice to have a high-frame-rate body for at least one reason; the recovery time before the viewfinder is usable again (unless you have a pellicle mirror) makes it easier to keep track of the action when firing a multi-frame sequence. But only you can decide if that's worth paying maybe an extra $1000 to get, or if that money would be better spent on an extra lens or two. >> The reason I was looking at 4-5fps was that often I find in my sports >> action shots I've just missed the moment, perhaps I just have to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > You can't trust machine-gunning a burst of frames to get the right > shot - the only reliable technique is to get the timing right. Right. That's why all the NFL shooters use digital Rebels...right?? ...Screw those totally unnecessary 8fps 1D Mark II's and their silly speed gimmick... Speed?? They don't need no stinking SPEED! -Timing is great and necessary...but sheesh...fps can be extremely helpful. > You don't mention just what sports you're photographing. But I've > shot motorsports for many years (and a car travelling at 200mph [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > you can decide if that's worth paying maybe an extra $1000 to get, > or if that money would be better spent on an extra lens or two.  SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson >>> The reason I was looking at 4-5fps was that often I find in my sports >>> action shots I've just missed the moment, perhaps I just have to [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > -Timing is great and necessary...but sheesh...fps can be extremely > helpful. Yes but I am thinking that this guy is not going to ante up for a 1Dsxxx so he needs to improve his technique somewhat first. > You don't mention just what sports you're photographing. But I've > shot motorsports for many years (and a car travelling at 200mph [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > shot, isn't going to get you many usable images. Even the 10fps > you can get from the top-of-the-line bodies isn't sufficient. Erm, why not? A 10fps burst takes a shot every 1/10th second, which is, according to what you say, the amount of time needed to get the bat and ball in the same shot. So if you wait until just before the ball is thrown, then hit the button, 1 second and 10 shots later you'll have at least one shot with the ball and bat in frame. On a 5fps camera you'll have a 50% chance of that. Or am I missing something? I'm somewhat puzzled by your "letting it decide" statement. When I take a burst of shots with my 20D /it/ doesn't decide when to take them, /I/ do. The first one goes when I hit the shutter (or as close to that moment as the camera/lens specification/setting allows) and the rest go at 200ms intervals from that moment. In what way is the camera deciding when to take shots? >> You don't mention just what sports you're photographing. But I've >> shot motorsports for many years (and a car travelling at 200mph [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >specification/setting allows) and the rest go at 200ms intervals from >that moment. In what way is the camera deciding when to take shots? First point: You're missing the important qualifier "and significantly less than that if you want the two in contact" (or, in motorsports, if you want the car in just the right place - trying to get the nose of the car within the last three feet before the finish line, for example, means you have to get the timing of the shot accurate to 0.01 seconds). That's hard to do, but with practice you can get good enough at it (especially with a digital camera, where reviewing shots is trivial) to learn where the car/bat/whatever has to be when you start pressing the shutter button. If you just start half a second or so early, then you're letting the timing of the camera decide the instant of exposure. You might get a borderline usable shot, but you're unlikely to get a shot that is ideal. More important, in my opinion, than a high frame rate is a low shutter lag time; the shutter action in that case tends to be pretty crisp, so it's easier to learn exactly how the camera will behave. I've managed to get perfectly reasonable shots with 2-fps bodies (in fact I've got a couple of shots taken with a Canon PowerShot point-and-shoot that are timed to better than 1/10 of a second). The important thing is to be familiar with your equipment, and to practice your technique. >>The reason I was looking at 4-5fps was that often I find in my sports >>action shots I've just missed the moment, perhaps I just have to work on [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > shot, isn't going to get you many usable images. Even the 10fps > you can get from the top-of-the-line bodies isn't sufficient. The sport I usually shoot is soccer (one of my kids plays tier II and one played on a college team) and I have taken some very good action shots. I have noticed though, if I had 4-5 fps capability I probably could have gotten 3 or 4 good shots from a sequence rather than one. For example last season when a zone finals game went to penalty kicks, even using a fast shutter I could get the point of foot-to-ball contact shot from the shooter when holding the shutter down, but the next frame usually was of the ball in the net or if the keeper saved it, quite aways from his hand. The frames in between those two are the ones I'd really like to capture. > Mind you, it is nice to have a high-frame-rate body for at least > one reason; the recovery time before the viewfinder is usable > again (unless you have a pellicle mirror) makes it easier to keep > track of the action when firing a multi-frame sequence. But only > you can decide if that's worth paying maybe an extra $1000 to get, > or if that money would be better spent on an extra lens or two. [] > The sport I usually shoot is soccer (one of my kids plays tier II and > one played on a college team) and I have taken some very good action [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > keeper saved it, quite aways from his hand. The frames in between > those two are the ones I'd really like to capture. Why not take video? David > [] >> The sport I usually shoot is soccer (one of my kids plays tier II and [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Why not take video? It's a lost art! > [] >> The sport I usually shoot is soccer (one of my kids plays tier II and [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > David How does Video replace Still Picture? In addition, video is low resolution and "interlaced." If you are talking about your digicam video "progressive" mode, it will have all the small sensor problems, aka lousy noise! [] > How does Video replace Still Picture? In addition, video is low > resolution and "interlaced." If you are talking about your digicam > video "progressive" mode, it will have all the small sensor problems, > aka lousy noise! I don't think video replaces the still picture, but it can complement stills by providing a moving view of the action. By the way, HD video, which is already available, may not be as low a quality as you suggest. Adding video may have been possibility overlooked by the OP. David > [] > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > David I have taken video of these shots as well, but thats a whole different kettle of fish. I want high quality sharp photos, good enough to make larger than 8X10's out of, and I like as little depth of field as possible for these shots, which pretty well happens anyway as I'm using as fast a shutter speed as possible. Video is nice to show the relatives, but difficult to put in an album or hang on the wall.. >> Adding video may have been possibility overlooked by the OP. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > possible for these shots, which pretty well happens anyway as I'm using > as fast a shutter speed as possible. Depth of field is not related to shutter speed. Perhaps you mean wide aperture (low f/ratio)? > Video is nice to show the relatives, but difficult to put in an album or > hang on the wall.. Yes, I agree. I have experience with action shots with Canon D60, 10D, 20D and 1D Mark II cameras. My experience shows that the published frame rates are reasonably accurate, within about 10%. Important aspects of action photography in my experience is not only frame rate, but good timing for the first frame in the sequence, then a large buffer to get the action for a long as the action lasts, and fast autofocus. For wildlife, action can be a couple of seconds to many seconds. Fast cards for emptying the buffer are important for those long sequences. Roger Photos at: http://www.clarkvision.com >>> Adding video may have been possibility overlooked by the OP. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Depth of field is not related to shutter speed. Well is *sort of* is... -If he always uses a fast shutter, that means his aperture would likely be large...leading to shallow DOF...unless his ISO is cranked up to where he still usues a small aperture. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson >>>>Adding video may have been possibility overlooked by the OP. >>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > aperture would likely be large...leading to shallow DOF...unless his ISO is > cranked up to where he still usues a small aperture. I could have said I use a wide aperture, which means a faster shutter speed. Six of one and 1/2 doz of the other... In any case, depending on the background "busyness" ie. buildings, traffic etc.. and also because I usually want to freeze the action I will usually pick as fast a shutter speed as possible for the conditions and background, which means if there is a lot of objects in the background that may take away from the action, then I'll have that aperture as wide as possible for the lighting conditions. If the background is not so busy, then I'll just pick as fast as shutter I need to freeze the action and get a little more forgiveness on the focus. > The sport I usually shoot is soccer (one of my kids plays tier II and > one played on a college team) and I have taken some very good action [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > aways from his hand. The frames in between those two are the ones I'd > really like to capture. Such series are great for capturing an at bat, a pitch; a serve, a shot on goal, a touchdown pass. etc etc. but it's kinda a luxury for sports shooters. Only one frame gets picked anyhow. Signaturejohn mcwilliams I don't know if Pentax meets their advertising claims or not but my Canon Digital Rebel XT 350D really gets the three frames per second that Canon claims. I have no reason to believe that the 20/30D will not meet its claim of five. However this may not get you the exact picture you want but it does work good for a motion sequence. If you are after one specific moment in time, then it is best to just take the picture at the decisive moment, or even better to lead it by about 100ms. If you are prefocussed, pre-metered, a fast shutter selected and waiting with the shutter half down, then you should be able to get a picture almost instantly after pressing the button. >I have been holding off buying a camera I really like to use (for every day >shots), the Pentax *ist Ds in the hopes that they will come out with [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > thanks in advance > I have been holding off buying a camera I really like to use (for > every day shots), the Pentax *ist Ds in the hopes that they will [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I have been eyeing up the D20 or D30 Canon, which claims a speed of > 4-5 fps. Are they really this fast? Of course they can. It's not a "claim..." it's a specification, and it is accurate. The typical "*" is simply that you assume a shutter speed of 1/200th or so...for obvious reasons. I know that Pentax advertises > theirs at 2fps, but I've never experienced that kind of speed. I take > a lot of action sports photos and I think I could get some better > shots if I could shoot a true 4 to 5 fps, do any on this group use > the D20 or similar for rapid fire shooting? Are any of the prosumer > models adequate for this? Canon 20D and 30D will both do this with ease. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson > I have been holding off buying a camera I really like to use (for every > day shots), the Pentax *ist Ds in the hopes that they will come out [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > a true 4 to 5 fps, do any on this group use the D20 or similar for rapid > fire shooting? Are any of the prosumer models adequate for this? They are really that fast. It is not fast enough. You want to do serious sports shooting you need something at least twice that fast. Picture resolution is secondary to speed. >> I have been holding off buying a camera I really like to use (for every >> day shots), the Pentax *ist Ds in the hopes that they will come out [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > serious sports shooting you need something at least twice that fast. > Picture resolution is secondary to speed. I use the 20 D for sports, and five fps is very handy some of the time. But where I hang out often, the lights are lousy, so I have to use flash, which brings me to over 1 sec. per cycle. However, many of my best shots are timed ones, where I hit it just right, and the players did just what I hoped. Shutter lag, as on my 300 D, is my pet peeve. SignatureJohn McWilliams The 20D's a great camera. Kevin > I have been holding off buying a camera I really like to use (for every > day shots), the Pentax *ist Ds in the hopes that they will come out [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > thanks in advance |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.