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
  
 
dhphoto
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #1 · p.2 #1 · A bit of perspective


skibum5 wrote:
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
...Show more

It's the difference between *want* and *need*

There seem so many posters in forums who honestly believe the *need* this stuff, when the truth is yes it's nice but it's not vital. Photography seems to have become feature driven instead of creativity and skill driven.



Feb 05, 2012 at 07:30 PM
Photon
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #2 · p.2 #2 · A bit of perspective


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

Ah, so there were two guys jumping at the same time? They looked very similar at this size, so I thought the same guy jumped off in both directions.


Edited on Feb 05, 2012 at 07:42 PM · View previous versions



Feb 05, 2012 at 07:35 PM
Photon
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #3 · p.2 #3 · A bit of perspective


As one who has shot a lot of soccer, I agree with skibum's analysis. Sometimes timing a single shot is the way to go, and certainly Dan is right that we often waste bursts of high fps (and even miss the critical moment by machine gunning around it), but 10 fps is really nice to have for many purposes.

When it comes to something like a 5DII replacement, though, I can't help feeling that the main strength of the camera is IQ and portability (compared to 1D), so while there'd be nothing wrong with high fps if it can be incorporated without compromising size and weight (let alone short changing AF performance or anything IQ related), it wouldn't be a priority for me. Just me.

skibum5 wrote:
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
...Show more



Feb 05, 2012 at 07:41 PM
Hrow
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #4 · p.2 #4 · A bit of perspective


Don't get me wrong. I like lots of FPS as well. Anyone who has spent time trying to shoot butterflies taking off and not secretly wished for a Red just isn't thinking creatively.

My only point was that we have come along way and sometimes it is informative to look back. Nothing more, nothing less.



Feb 05, 2012 at 08:09 PM
Ralph Conway
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #5 · p.2 #5 · A bit of perspective


Thank you! It is imo fact that young photograpers today made different experiences than us "advanced aged" ones (thxs to your kids ).
In film times when I started, a film offered 36 shots. Resolution was fixed to maybe comparable 5MP and filmgrain for crops (in 35mm). That is how and why I learned to use the full frames format. I laught half a day when in a german forum a guy mentioned he needs 36MP ore better more, because he needs the "cropfreedom" to make his customer happy. He just shot and looked for a nice composition later. 21 MP did not give him enough freedom to crop interesting images out of the frame without loosing to much IQ.

It is just a question of the point of view. Within just (the last) 10 years we got DSLRs starting at 3MP and (horrible ISO 800) up to 21MP at usable ISO 6.400. 7 times the pixel at 8 times the sensibility. In excellent IQ. As a standard. And for less money then ever. There are millions of shooters outside now, who "need" a DSLR without knowing what where SLRs for (to control the image one shoots).

But they are right based on their background. "If it is technical possible, why it is not in the averadge body?" "Why doing less then possible and why charging more for all?"
The production of a 1D X does surely not cost 14 times more than that one of the cheapest XXXX. If 1D X would be offered for about 2000 it could be produced and sold in big numbers. It would kill sales in the lower segments, of course. But those lower segments are sold with success, because they become better and better.

I think the camera producers started already to think the same way. Merging the 1D line is an example. I am pretty sure 5/7D will be merged soon, too.
There will be one XXXX, one XXX, one XX, and 2 X lines (it is difficult to close one of the most successful "accidents" the 5 was). But future will show.
Competitors too will force to reduce the number of products by increasing the specs in the lower lines.




Feb 05, 2012 at 08:57 PM
NikkorAIS
Offline
• • •
Account locked
p.2 #6 · p.2 #6 · A bit of perspective


Have we come along way?. Sometimes I wonder. Take the 250 Back for instance. You are able to shoot 250 shots is a row without reloading. And to put it in perspective. Nikon had a 750 back for the Nikon F3. As far as I know there is still nothing than even comes close to being able to do that with digtial.



And I have personally shot beside someone using the 14 FPS Canon F1HS at the 1988 winter olymicis, so I don't we have come that far.
He shot a whole roll of each skier going down the hill. I am sure most where crap. Hardly the point. It's all about getting the one decisive shot.

And If I have to burn some film or storage media to get that shots. Seem reasonable. Photography is the wrong activity, if your going to second guessing yourself about taking two many pictures.
I will gladly take a thousand to get one.

We used to say "it's only film"

Now it's only storge space.

Hard drives are still cheap. Getting the one perfect shot. Priceless




Nikon f3 MD2 with nikkor 300 2.8 IF-ED on kodachrome.




Getting back to the asesome F1HS , Sure it was big but it was fast and In fact given it had pelical mirror. I would say that there is still nothing close that one either.
And I have said for years that the fixed mirror is the way to go to break the 12 FPS frame rate.

I think Nikon came out with a F3 HS as well but I never got a try it.





Saying that over the years the ability to take "the decisive momment" with a single frame can not be over stated.



Nikon F3 with Nikkor 300 2.8 IF-ED AIS on Kodachrome.




Nikon F3 with MD-2 . Nikkor 300 2.8 IF-ED T-max 3200










Nikon F2as with Nikkor 135 2.0 Tri-X





Nikon F2as MD-2 Nikkor 300 2.8 IF-ED AI-S




As far as as frame rate. I have to disagree. Frame rate is a huge deal. And not just for sports. Even shooting street and wildlife. People and animal expression change very rapidly.

And even a few FPS can make a huge differnce.
I used the F1n motor and the Nikon F3T Md2 both with Nicad pack and it was awsome.

Having the extra 1 or two FPS over using the AA's made a differnce.

At least to me.

And when I switched to Canon I was kind shocked to find there was nothing in the current line up with a decent moter drive with full frame. I was like are you serious?





The "one" and only reason I bought the 7D was for FPS. I needed at least one Canon body with a real motor drive. And didnt want/have time to buy yesterdays technology IDn..OO . As it is I am willing to wait for the 1Dx and the new 5D3.
Can't wait for them both. If the frame rate of the new 5d2 I will more than likey get two to save on some cash . And one least one 1Dx.







Canon 400 2.8 EF11 on 7d.

Dont get me wrong. If your happy with the curent frame rate and ISO of the 5d2 than all the power to you. to me it's one of those things that you don't miss what you never had, But if you have had it. The amazing ISO and frame rate is missed.

Peronally, I have missed shots because of the frame rate and not having the ISO I did with my D3s. Especially with the DX mode where it was possible to go 11FPS. which was nice to have when needed.




Nikon D3 on DX Nikkor 800 5.6 IF-ED AI-S with TC-301 A F 11 @ 11 FPS.

This feeding happend so fast I was only able to get two frames before the mama bird flew off.



Looking forward to Canon going faster and higher.









Feb 05, 2012 at 09:09 PM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #7 · p.2 #7 · A bit of perspective


skibum5 wrote:
I think you underestimate how many people shoot sports.


a. Not really.

b. You missed my main point.

c. See link. ;-)

skibum5 wrote:
So no, the differences are not all tech specs pixel peeping nonsense made up by clueless people who never actually take photos.


Perfect example of the "straw man argument". (Hint: You made up that silly point of view, so that you could "argue" against it. Problem is, it isn't mine, and I didn't read anything close to it elsewhere in this thread.)

Dan


Edited on Feb 06, 2012 at 01:15 AM · View previous versions



Feb 05, 2012 at 09:55 PM
Pixel Perfect
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #8 · p.2 #8 · A bit of perspective


Ian.Dobinson wrote:
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


I disagree. Just because a camera has high fps it doesn't mean you have to shoot at those speeds or need to make long burst. I regularly use the 10fps setting on the mk III but rarely take more than 5-6 shots in a burst. I will use a 5fps low speed setting if I need, but the flexibility of the high speed mode when doing fast action work, ensures a greater chance of just the right pose. Also I'd rather have a few too many shots to choose from than too few.

There's nothing wrong at all with a high fps mode, it's how you use it that's important. And I'm sure the 5D III if it offers more than 6fps will have a low speed mode.


Edited on Feb 06, 2012 at 01:32 AM · View previous versions



Feb 05, 2012 at 10:10 PM
splathrop
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #9 · p.2 #9 · A bit of perspective


With my 5D2 I time everythingóone shot mode. And reliably get great action pictures when shooting stage productions and dance. BUT, the sale of those pictures never depends on absolutely-for-certain getting a particular action shot just right. In that kind of work, if you miss one action shot, you can wow them with another. Not sure I would want to try that if I were shooting weddings. So I can see the point of view of those who use the 5D for stuff that's just going to happen once, and you absolutely have to get it.

For myself, all I want now from a new body is better noise and smoother color contrasts in low lightówithout loss of resolution. But I'm mainly selling landscapes now.

I don't even need better autofocus, because I am mostly using manual focus lenses. Better live view LCD resolution might improve my focus confidence, but I can't say I'm really having any problem as it is. What I don't want is higher resolution at the expense of image quality in lower lightólike when you have to shoot at ISO 400. But that's because I push the enlargements up to 40 inches or more. Smaller prints made with fast primes are clean at ISO 3200 with the camera just as it is. Maybe zoom users would benefit more than I would from an ISO improvement.

If I were still shooting the stage productions instead of the landscapes, then improved peripheral autofocus would be great. Focus and recompose really is a pain when you need to work fast. But I think the people who are beside themselves wanting more pixels better be careful what they wish for. If it's good, great. But I'm skeptical about the quality tradeoff. You might get a camera that's really just a studio-lighting specialist.



Feb 05, 2012 at 10:19 PM
jay tieger
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #10 · p.2 #10 · A bit of perspective


Here's are a couple of captures I got one shot at...
The ring neck dove with the MF Nikon 85mm F1.8 Nikkor-H, near 100% crop...
...the batter with the MF Nikon 300/F4.5, also 100% crop @ ISO 3200...
















Feb 05, 2012 at 11:06 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



M Lucca
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #11 · p.2 #11 · A bit of perspective


I have no doubt that with today's technology, data bandwidth challenge that the 5d2 had will be a thing of the past. Back in 2008, the 5d2 had to make do with a single processor trying to move 21mp of 14-bit data.
The 7D has shown with double Digic 4 can move almost as much data at over twice the speed. And yet maintaining AI focus accuracy.

The 1dx with a Digic 5 now proved that moving 18mp at 12/14fps is totally possible. A new 5d3 or whatever should not have the problem with pushing 5-6fps at much higher MP files across. Good times coming.



Feb 06, 2012 at 12:45 AM
RobDickinson
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #12 · p.2 #12 · A bit of perspective


7D has a digic 3 for focusing.

1Dx has two digic 5+'s moving 12 * 18mp in raw ( 14fps is jpg only).

Or 216mp a second. I doubt the 5dx will have two 5+'s




Feb 06, 2012 at 12:50 AM
chez
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #13 · p.2 #13 · A bit of perspective


It appears as though people who have not shot with a system capable of doing 10fps+ are wondering why anyone needs that speed while people who actually use that speed and post remarkable images want even more. I guess if you don't need the speed, don't use it...sort of like if you don't need video, don't use it. Who is anyone to say other people don't need the speed.


Feb 06, 2012 at 12:52 AM
EB-1
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #14 · p.2 #14 · A bit of perspective


Well of course many of us started with slow or non-existent drives, e.g., my first one in the 70s was a whopping 2FPS. Realistically about 7-8 FPS is where the frames are close enough together for most action.

EBH



Feb 06, 2012 at 01:07 AM
EB-1
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #15 · p.2 #15 · A bit of perspective


RobDickinson wrote:
7D has a digic 3 for focusing.

1Dx has two digic 5+'s moving 12 * 18mp in raw ( 14fps is jpg only).

Or 216mp a second. I doubt the 5dx will have two 5+'s




The D800 with battery grip *appears* to have the same the same 216MP/sec. throughput - 36 MP @ 6FPS.

EBH



Feb 06, 2012 at 01:09 AM
AJSJones
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #16 · p.2 #16 · A bit of perspective


A bit like the MP race, no?
Some need more, others don't; some use all their MP most of the time, others don't? I wouldn't mind at all if the models split along those lines.....



Feb 06, 2012 at 01:18 AM
jcolwell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #17 · p.2 #17 · A bit of perspective


chez wrote:
It appears as though people who have not shot with a system capable of doing 10fps+ are wondering why anyone needs that speed while people who actually use that speed and post remarkable images want even more. I guess if you don't need the speed, don't use it...sort of like if you don't need video, don't use it. Who is anyone to say other people don't need the speed.


+1

Most often, I use single shooting mode on my EOS 1DIV. The reason that I bought it, is because it has a 10 fps continuous shooting mode. I sometimes actually use 10 fps.

If it doesn't have it, you can't use it.

Go Pats!


Edited on Feb 06, 2012 at 03:19 AM · View previous versions



Feb 06, 2012 at 01:19 AM
M Lucca
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #18 · p.2 #18 · A bit of perspective


RobDickinson wrote:
7D has a digic 3 for focusing.



Please provide literature to backup.




Feb 06, 2012 at 01:27 AM
skibum5
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #19 · p.2 #19 · A bit of perspective


NikkorAIS wrote:
As far as as frame rate. I have to disagree. Frame rate is a huge deal. And not just for sports. Even shooting street and wildlife. People and animal expression change very rapidly.

And even a few FPS can make a huge differnce.


indeed and then toss in someone who blinks like mad and makes weird expressions and then it can suddenly become a challenge for even a basic shot





Feb 06, 2012 at 03:15 AM
RobertLynn
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #20 · p.2 #20 · A bit of perspective


It's funny, if you leave out any one feature a landscape photographer may want, it's the end of the world.

Sports photographers want fps, and it's like...well, here's 7 suck it...

Hell, I'm a sports and wedding photographer and 8-10 is where I"m parked usually...yes, even at weddings.



Feb 06, 2012 at 03:17 AM
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