Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       3       end
  

Archive 2012 · A bit of perspective
  
 
Hrow
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · A bit of perspective


As the release of the 1DX and possibly a new 5D approach, there has been substantial mention, discussion, debate, muttering, et al of FPS. I was recently nudged for "excluding" sports photographers when suggesting that 7 FPS on a new 5D would be more than adequate for 99% of the people who buy the camera.

It seemed like a strange comment to me but then I realized that my "advanced age" (my kids description - not mine) probably gave me a different perspective than some of the younger members here. I remember clearly - and not fondly - the days when a 5 FPS motor drive could cost more than the cameras. I remember carrying them wired to a heavy external battery pack that bruised the crap out of my hip after a day of shooting. I remember shooting trying to shoot verticals with a 250 exposure back. Not fun.

While it doesn't, and shouldn't, make any difference at all relative to discussions of the capabilities of today's cameras, for those who want to better appreciate where we've been and how far we have come take a look at the links below. They put the achievements of both Canon and Nikon's engineers into some perspective.

http://www.nicovandijk.net/backs.htm

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/canonf1/html/motordrive/index.htm




Feb 05, 2012 at 12:47 PM
Ian.Dobinson
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · A bit of perspective


agree totally.
I find im happier turning the FPs down on my mk2n . that way I dont get a card full of very similar pictures , and there is less to cull off after.

a 5fps 5D3 would be way more than 90% of shooters need



Feb 05, 2012 at 12:57 PM
jcolwell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · A bit of perspective


I had a complete LX system, minus the bulk film back. I figured I was already shooting 30 to 40 rolls of 135 per month (plus 120), and so there was no way I could afford to run a bulk film back. I could burn through a measley roll of 36 exposure 135 film in 13 seconds! Just think how big my light table would have to be...

OTOH, I'm good with 10fps on my 1DIV.

Edited on Feb 05, 2012 at 01:33 PM · View previous versions



Feb 05, 2012 at 01:33 PM
safcraft
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · A bit of perspective


A 10fps camera that can't keep up in focus accuracy is as good as turd.
I believe 90% of the people, if not 99%, would be happy with good reliable outer focus points in the 5D. The bonus 5,6 or 7 fps is just that - a bonus.



Feb 05, 2012 at 01:33 PM
dhphoto
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · A bit of perspective


I have to laugh when I hear modern 'professionals' say they simply can't manage without 10 FPS, or liveview, or 25000 ISO or 45 point autofocus which works at the speed of light

They don't know they're born.

Edited on Feb 05, 2012 at 03:49 PM · View previous versions



Feb 05, 2012 at 02:43 PM
Bruce Sawle
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · A bit of perspective


5fps is what I have been using for the past 5-6 years shooting all things including sports. More I'm sure would be great but for me FF+MP is what I needed. With the 1dx and d4 they give us a little of everything FF, MP, and FPS but I personally i like the 21-24 MP range and the FPS are not really that important. If the 5d comes out with a better AF the FPS would not matter to me. D800 sound very interesting as well but I don't need 36mp.


Feb 05, 2012 at 02:58 PM
gdanmitchell
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · A bit of perspective


I tend to agree with you about 7fps, or whatever, being plenty fast for virtually all users of these cameras. In fact, most people using the burst mode feature on their DSLR won't need even that rate of speed. (A deeper buffer might be useful, but I digress.)

Part of what is going on here is that simple Tech Lust (or perhaps "Specs Lust" might be the right term) tends to draw a certain kind of photography enthusiast into the fold of camera owners. To some extent, these people are less interested in photography than they are in things with really cool specs that can reasonably be described as being "the best." (Some seem to be essentially completely uninterested in actual photographs, but again I digress.)

For these folks, if there was a camera that worked at 100fps in burst mode and another came out that could burst at 110fps... the 110 fps camera would be regarded as "better" or even "best," and the 100fps camera would be regarded as inferior. (Also for them, the f/1.2 lens is always "better" than the f/1.4 lens, the most expensive lens is always better than a less expensive one, 22MP is better than 21MP, 500mm is better than 400mm, owning six lenses is better than owning five, and so forth...)

For all but the tiniest handful of shooters this would, of course, be nonsense. And, in fact, the difference between, say, 5 and 7 fps is truly academic for the vast majority of shooters. Yesterday I spent the evening photographing migratory birds, many of them in flight. Most of the time I didn't even use burst mode, and when I did, a slower rate than either of these worked quite well.

Dan


Hrow wrote:
As the release of the 1DX and possibly a new 5D approach, there has been substantial mention, discussion, debate, muttering, et al of FPS. I was recently nudged for "excluding" sports photographers when suggesting that 7 FPS on a new 5D would be more than adequate for 99% of the people who buy the camera.

It seemed like a strange comment to me but then I realized that my "advanced age" (my kids description - not mine) probably gave me a different perspective than some of the younger members here. I remember clearly - and not fondly - the days when
...Show more


Edited on Feb 05, 2012 at 09:53 PM · View previous versions



Feb 05, 2012 at 04:48 PM
galenapass
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · A bit of perspective


I agree, when I use 10 pfs on the MKIII I usually end up with lots of VERY similar photos.


Feb 05, 2012 at 04:54 PM
Daan B
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · A bit of perspective


If the tech is there... why not implement it?


Feb 05, 2012 at 05:38 PM
Gunzorro
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · A bit of perspective


I shoot single frame, so the most I can ever get off would be 2-3 FPS, at most. It is fun to introduce novices to the 1D2 machine gun, just for fun! And that's only 8 FPS, right? I like having the feature there if ever I need it, and see its usefulness for action shooters.


Feb 05, 2012 at 06:05 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



Snopchenko
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · A bit of perspective


galenapass wrote:
I agree, when I use 10 pfs on the MKIII I usually end up with lots of VERY similar photos.

I have been having similar reservations about my 1D Mark II N (8 fps max) but then again if I'm finding THE picture among the burst I hate to think that this frame might've fallen between the activations of a 40D shutter (6.3 fps claimed but when shooting a soccer game with it I've found that the camera is iffy in this regard, more like 4 fps and painfully trying to lock focus in between). Of course high FPS can't save you if the whole sequence is slightly misfocused but if it's not...



Feb 05, 2012 at 06:36 PM
jay tieger
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · A bit of perspective


Snopchenko wrote:
I have been having similar reservations about my 1D Mark II N (8 fps max) but then again if I'm finding THE picture among the burst I hate to think that this frame might've fallen between the activations of a 40D shutter (6.3 fps claimed but when shooting a soccer game with it I've found that the camera is iffy in this regard, more like 4 fps and painfully trying to lock focus in between). Of course high FPS can't save you if the whole sequence is slightly misfocused but if it's not...


...and I shoot single shot out of fear that THE shot is between any of the bursts...
(@ 1/1000 sec and 10fps, there are hundreds of THOSE shots that the camera could miss that I'D want more than the camera got)



Feb 05, 2012 at 06:41 PM
Jim Victory
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · A bit of perspective


5fps is all I ever use even with 10fps available. After 45 years with a camera if I can't get the shot in 5 frames I need to retire.

I also find it easier to fire off one frame while in the 5fps mode. This enables me to use that setting both for single and multiple shot scenarios.

Jim

Edited on Feb 05, 2012 at 08:05 PM · View previous versions



Feb 05, 2012 at 06:50 PM
molson
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · A bit of perspective


dhphoto wrote:
I have to laugh when I hear modern 'professionals' say they simply can't manage without 10 FPS, or liveview, or 25000 ISO or 45 point autofocus which works at the speed of light


Or how many of those "professionals" can't even figure out how to get an image in focus before taking a photo...



Feb 05, 2012 at 07:08 PM
Photon
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · A bit of perspective


Hrow wrote:
...I remember clearly - and not fondly - the days when a 5 FPS motor drive could cost more than the cameras...

Henry, you've also reminded me of "power winders". About 30-40% of the price of an A1 (I don't know if you could even use one on an F1), and they gave you the whopping rate of 2 fps (actually slightly less). There was an advantage in having film wind without moving the camera from your eye, but just compare that to the frame rate, size, and inflation adjusted price of any contemporary DSLR. $A1 + $power winder = $5DII?



Feb 05, 2012 at 07:11 PM
RobDickinson
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · A bit of perspective


I dont often use the 8fps of my 7D but I like having the option, it has lots of uses.


Colder than it looks 2 by robjdickinson, on Flickr



Feb 05, 2012 at 07:14 PM
Mike K
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · A bit of perspective


Here is an example where the capability of rapid firing bracketing bursts can be used in place of a tripod for HDR style post edits. This is only possible as the very rapid (10 fps) frame rate may allow minimal movement with a hand held camera.
http://www.outbackphoto.com/CONTENT_2007_01/section_hdr_and_tonemapping_2009/20100216_FastHDR/index.html

Not the normal application we think of at 10 fps.



Feb 05, 2012 at 07:24 PM
Photon
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · A bit of perspective


Rob, very nice! A composite of ten shots in two bursts?


Feb 05, 2012 at 07:25 PM
skibum5
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · A bit of perspective


gdanmitchell wrote:
For all but the tiniest handful of shooters this would, of course, be nonsense. And, in fact, the difference between, say, 5 and 7 fps is truly academic for the vast majority of shooters. Yesterday I spent the evening photographing migratory birds, many of them in flight. Most of the time I didn't even use burst mode, and when I did, a slower rate than either of these worked quite well.

Dan



I think you underestimate how many people shoot sports. And there is a very big difference between 5 and 7.5fps, even between 5fps and 6.3fps. When shooting sports, it just so happens that at 4 fps you virtually never get two ideal key frames of action from any specific action sequence for many sports, at 5fps you might but it's only very rarely, at 6.3fps many times you still only get one key from but all the same you can get two key frames many times too so the extra fps suddenly means a lot know since you can get some reasonable take of two key frames now, once you hit 7.5-8fps you suddenly can get two key frames most of the time.

So no, the differences are not all tech specs pixel peeping nonsense made up by clueless people who never actually take photos.

That said even 12fps isn't enough for some things so 1 shot timing is still important for sports shooting too. If you want ball on bat or soccer ball right on head then timing it yourself gives a far better take than machine gunning at even 8fps (and I'd guess at even 12fps, although I've never used a body with more than 10fps yet). But all the same min 6.3fps and preferably a good 7.5-8fps can be very useful at times. Oh and I believe someone got an utterly key frame at the last summer games of the winning touch in swimming thanks to 10fps.

Even for birds it can be cool, a mockingbird attacks a red tailed hawk, at 8fps you can get a cooler sequence than at 4fps, most of the time.

And even for macro, I did some hand held natural light at marginal shutter speeds and out of a quick burst often one would be 100% crisp and the rest not so much (although in this case I'm not sure what the cut off limit to help would be).

EDIT: and even just a basic shot of someone, some people are all doing weird things with their face and blinking like mad and getting a good shot with one shot or less than very high fps can suddenly become tricky


Edited on Feb 06, 2012 at 03:35 AM · View previous versions



Feb 05, 2012 at 07:26 PM
RobDickinson
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · A bit of perspective


Photon wrote:
Rob, very nice! A composite of ten shots in two bursts?


Thanks, No 5 shots one burst, though there are a couple of frames I didnt use.



Feb 05, 2012 at 07:30 PM
1
       2       3       end




FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       3       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Reset password