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
  
 
skibum5
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #1 · A bit of perspective


gdanmitchell wrote:
a. Not really.

b. You missed my main point.

c. See link. ;-)


yes I see a link, 10 pictures of cycling




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


I see you conveniently chopped out this part out of the message of yours to which I was responding: "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.)"



yes, yes, of course, I made up a straw man once again (and thanks for the wiki link and further aided my comprehension by offering a hint, because the term straw man is so exotic and above most of us ), yes, whatever....

and, since you always hate 'extraneous' information being brought into any discussion, why say such a thing as you did above unless you did meant to imply that many to most of the people asking for more fps on the forums fall into that know-nothing class? hmmm??




Edited on Feb 06, 2012 at 03:46 AM · View previous versions



Feb 06, 2012 at 03:23 AM
cputeq
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #2 · A bit of perspective


NikkorAIS wrote:
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.



I agreed with most of your post after this, but this is easily countered in digital.

JPG + fast memory card + modern DSLR = pretty much unlimited burst.
On the cameras capable of it, reviewers usually give up after about 30 seconds or so (that's 300 right there, at 10FPS).



I'm pretty easy to please - as long as I have 7 FPS, I'm happy. For some reason that's my minimum - it's a good number that feels fairly quick, and generally I can get a shot I need if I have 7 FPS. Anything slower, and it's very easy to miss a decisive pose. I don't shoot much action right now because of my setup (5D, 70-200 mk II and 28-75), but it would be nice to have the FPS once I spring for my 2x TC.

And like others are saying - if you don't NEED the FPS, don't use it. Same with those video grognards, etc.


What I will be highly disappointed in, though, is a non-swivel rear LCD for a 5D3. Those things are so freaking nice to have in composing shots. I don't know why the elitist photos think it's an "amateur feature." Hell, I'll take any tool that allows me to compose my photo easier!

Also, it would be a shame if the 5D3 doesn't have a built-in eyepiece shutter. That little rubber thing you're supposed to use is amateur and highly annoying - I usually end up just blocking the VF with my hand close-by or something on the longer shots.



Feb 06, 2012 at 03:33 AM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #3 · A bit of perspective


Cut down on the caffeine, skibum.

By the way, it is 55 images of (mostly professional) cycling - some using roughly 4fps burst and some not using burst. A few shots incorporate electronic flash.

I didn't re-quote your quote of my quote because a) it was making the the post too long, b) it was there already for anyone to read, and c) it isn't really directly relevant to what I wrote. In any case, I stand by what I wrote. Just to be safe, I haven't removed a single darned word of your post this time... :-)

I did not write that fast burst rates are not useful to some people. That was not my point, nor is it my point of view. Go back and try a careful read of what I wrote and maybe you'll get it. You aren't the only one to misconstrue my post.

Oh heck, let me make it easy for you ;-)

gdanmitchell wrote:
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 (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.
...Show more

(Emphasis added, uh, in post...)

With bated breath, I await your hyperkinetic comeback. ;-)

Bye now.

skibum5 wrote:
yes I see a link, 10 pictures of cycling

I see you conveniently chopped out this part out of the message of yours to which I was responding: "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
...Show more


Edited on Feb 06, 2012 at 04:38 AM · View previous versions


Feb 06, 2012 at 04:18 AM
gene A.
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #4 · A bit of perspective


If you read books published back in the 50's when everyone was shooting with 4x5 Graflex cameras there are entire chapters on anticipating the peak of action because you had to reload after every shot, or at best you might have a grafmatic 8-exposure back which required a push-pull after each shot.

I sat through a lecture given by Yosuf Karsh at the Rochester Institute of Technology back in the 80's. He had photographed all the famous movie stars of the 30's-50's the first thing he told us was to put down our motor drives decide what we wanted to accomplish, be prepared when the subject arrived, take the picture and you were done.

Time magazine sent the then famous photographer Alfred Eisenstaedt to Europe at the end of WW II to photograph Charles DeGaulle and he took a total of two pictures for the magazine and came home.

There are many photographers today shooting in dark gymns and arenas with strobes strung through out the ceiling or along the walls who have to get good at anticipating the action, so I'm sure its not a lost art. I see it as a convenience not a necessity.



Feb 06, 2012 at 04:24 AM
Jeff
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #5 · A bit of perspective


Photon wrote:
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).


I do now regret selling my New F-1 with AE Motor Drive Fn (high-capacity NiCad that also powered the camera for cold-weather shooting). That camera was a thing of beauty, and built like a brick $hithouse.



Feb 06, 2012 at 04:26 AM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #6 · A bit of perspective


gene A. wrote:
There are many photographers today shooting in dark gymns and arenas with strobes strung through out the ceiling or along the walls who have to get good at anticipating the action, so I'm sure its not a lost art. I see it as a convenience not a necessity.


It is not a lost art, though not everyone realizes it. I don't usually use burst, partly as a result of what I mostly shoot, partly as a result of how I learned, and partly as a matter of preference. But sometimes I do. And even then I only "burst" sometimes. I tend to leave the camera in burst mode with these subjects (e.g. birds in flight, some sports, air shows, etc.) but most often just do a single shot by pressing and releasing before the camera can burst, and watching very carefully to try to get that peak of action moment. But when a particular subject or moment does benefit from burst... I just hold the shutter button down a bit longer.

Dan



Feb 06, 2012 at 04:35 AM
NDP_2010
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #7 · A bit of perspective


1 FPS on a 5D mk2 would be plenty for me becuase I dont even consider it for action.
The includsion of faster fps in new releases wouldnt hurt any body, its just whether canon can make you buy 2 cameras instead of one



Feb 06, 2012 at 05:38 AM
artsupreme
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #8 · A bit of perspective


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.



I'm the one who nudged you for stating this in the other thread:
Hrow wrote:
"For 99% of the world 6.9 fps is more than adequate, and for most people the high speed merely results in the unnecessary death of millions of pixels who otherwise would have had a long and healthy life."


The reality is we can all sit here and argue about how all anyone really needs is 1fps and a fast enough SS to capture the moment. Who needs a 1DX when you can shoot a rebel with the same SS and capture the same shot if you are good/lucky enough right? Or maybe we should dust off the old A-1 and go shoot the 2012 Olympics with it because it's only that 1 exposure you really need to get the cover shot right?

To me this is like saying why should automakers put anymore than a 150hp 4 cyl in any car because that's adequate to get most people from point A to B? Who needs horsepower, torque, and performance right?

Bottom line is it's 2012 and Canon has a lot of customers brainwashed with their crippling technique. People are expecting and accepting less, instead of expecting what should be a state of the art tool that's current with the times. If the new FF compact body is indeed in the 18-22MP range anything less than 8fps would be straight crippling as they could easily do more....I'm personally hoping for a FF compact with 8fps minimum, but knowing Canon I'm probably just dreaming. Hopefully they prove me wrong.

There are plenty of situations where 8-10fps makes the difference from getting a shot, or getting the "cover shot". Don't get me wrong I enjoy shooting sports with my old 5D but it's definitely not the best tool for getting the job done.

Like others have said, if you don't need the high fps then don't use it, but don' think that Canon shouldn't implement the current technology for those who do use it.



Feb 06, 2012 at 06:54 AM
miccullen
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #9 · 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
Spot on. Most people around here are absolutely certain that they're the prototypical shooter the camera (any and every camera, despite the differences) has been designed for, really, so anything they don't need is surplus to everyone's requirement. Not having shot the style other people are shooting (and thus needing the feature for) simply makes it easier to insist that it's not needed, or, even better, is an example of how unprofessional they are for not shooting stuff like sport at 1fps, never mind that requirements have also changed in the last 40 years.



Feb 06, 2012 at 07:48 AM
dhphoto
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #10 · A bit of perspective


miccullen wrote:
never mind that requirements have also changed in the last 40 years.


No.

A great piicture is a great picture now, just as it was then, but the aspirations of the photographer as to what they need to make that image have changed.

I knew a sports photographer who won awards using a Bronica 6x6 medium format camera. It can be done without the fancy gear, it's just much easier with it. Capturing decent images has never ever been easier.

It's the mindset that you *need* this stuff that is wrong, you just want it and feel you can't do something properly without it. And that's called lack of skill.



Feb 06, 2012 at 08:45 AM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



ausemmao
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #11 · A bit of perspective


dhphoto wrote:
No.

A great piicture is a great picture now, just as it was then, but the aspirations of the photographer as to what they need to make that image have changed.

I knew a sports photographer who won awards using a Bronica 6x6 medium format camera. It can be done without the fancy gear, it's just much easier with it. Capturing decent images has never ever been easier.

It's the mindset that you *need* this stuff that is wrong, you just want it and feel you can't do something properly without it. And that's called lack of skill.


No, it's called why walk uphill both ways to school in 8 feet of snow dragging the bus behind you when you can get driven in? Why make it unnecessarily difficult to get the image you're after?

Yes technology was worse in the old days. Nobody but those around then cares one bit what it was like then (and even those around then mostly don't care) when looking at current equipment because we're looking at equipment now.If you had any real belief in your own statements, you'd be shooting with a 500 or 550D because it outperforms your great old cameras in everything but fps. Oh wait...

Look at action shots that get published now compared to before. While the creative aspect hasn't changed much (we're still all human last I checked), the technical aspects definitely have. Not keeping up with that out of some reverie for antiquity isn't noble, it's ignorant.

Modern cameras have reduced the technical barrier to entry to a lot of photography. the ability to manually focus is no longer necessary (though it is nice). The ability to do your own darkroom work is no longer necessary. Having your own darkroom is no longer necessary. Spending thousands on gear is no longer necessary. Accounting for inflation, the cost of good photography has never been cheaper. And that scares some people - because more and more people can get a "good enough" shot. And the thing that separates "good enough" from great, isn't gear, isn't technique, isn't time. It's creativity and luck.

You can tell who it scares. People who made a living from shooting well, have the gear, but never have a single original thought - because their market is gone. You don't need a pro to get merely competent images anymore. The reason to get a pro now more so than ever is for their vision. Not to say that that wasn't true before - of course people were hired for vision. But now, that's the defining criterion for most valuable hires, not just "can they get the exposure and composition right and deliver?"

As for FPS, you can tell someone doesn't use it when they talk about filling the card. It's not necessarily about getting 30 frames. For me at least, it's getting 3 or 4 frames in close succession. 6, 8, even 10 FPS aren't near enough to make timing irrelevant. There are so many sports and objects and facial expressions that change that you cannot rely on the framerate to capture the moment, though sometimes it will. Up at 20FPS, a quarter second burst can then ease the need to be on the ball all the time, as it approaches fast enough to substitute for timing. That frees up some brainpower for composition, just like AF frees up brainpower for composition and anticipation, and gives a bit of an insurance policy for those moments where concentration lapses.

The photographer with the 1Dx is going to get more published than the Graflex user now if they're similarly skilled and both have a good eye. The 1Dx user will be less tired because gear is lighter, can rattle off shots at any peak of action and won't worry about missing a peak due to film loading, doesn't have to meter as carefully, can let AF do the heavy lifting and work on composition, and can shoot the dark parts of the stadium and not need to do a voodoo dance in the darkroom and hope that a usable neg comes out because the camera can deal with those light issues easily. Hell, the guy with the 500D or D3100 could say the same.



Feb 06, 2012 at 10:27 AM
skibum5
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #12 · A bit of perspective


dhphoto wrote:
No.

A great piicture is a great picture now, just as it was then, but the aspirations of the photographer as to what they need to make that image have changed.

I knew a sports photographer who won awards using a Bronica 6x6 medium format camera. It can be done without the fancy gear, it's just much easier with it. Capturing decent images has never ever been easier.

It's the mindset that you *need* this stuff that is wrong, you just want it and feel you can't do something properly without it. And that's called lack of skill.


all the same, if you back and look at catalogs of sports pics from 40 years ago, there certainly is a difference and you a lot more shots that would be at f/2.8 now with blurry background that look like f/10, sure there are plenty of gem shots in the old catalogs, some as good as any from today, but overall the top quality take is in much smaller amounts and for certain types of shots that are common today you really have to dig to find one here and there

and if you can more easily get better results more frequently then why is whatever leads to that bad?
you don't get a bonus if you get the shot that gets published if you used something that made it more difficult




Feb 06, 2012 at 07:08 PM
ragebot
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #13 · A bit of perspective


When I first got my 1d4 I stumbled on a RSH eating a Carolina Wren it had just killed. For kicks I started making a video of it just to see how it worked. I was recording at 60fps and when I got home and played the video I noticed for about 12 frames a Blue Jay was in the FOV attacking the RSH. That means to capture an image of the attack you would have about 1/5 sec to recognize what was happening, press the shutter release, and have a camera responsive enough to start capturing images.

So what I want to know is when Canon will have a body with a 60 fps burst rate so I can capture images like these














Feb 06, 2012 at 10:56 PM
jay tieger
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #14 · A bit of perspective


skibum5 wrote:
....you don't get a bonus if you get the shot that gets published if you used something that made it more difficult



When manual focusing I find it more difficult to "lock on the subject" while tracking moving objects in burst mode....I suppose in auto-focus in the best of AF bodies shooting in bursts wouldn't be difficult at all since the lens is doing the locking and the camera the loading....

...as for "getting the goods" in a professional shoot, shooting to guarantee one brings them home is all that matters, no matter how...whether burst or single shot mode...

...but there's a principal of the process, apart from the product...

...if the camera predetermines the moment of the shot (by the number of FPS), then, even considering the shutter-delay, shooting single shot mode gives the photographer at least the illusion that he/she and not the camera chose that moment and that shot...

It is the risk of the art....and the art of the challenge...



Feb 07, 2012 at 12:05 AM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #15 · A bit of perspective


miccullen wrote:
Spot on. Most people around here are absolutely certain that they're the prototypical shooter...


I suppose you realize that this must also be true of the "people around here" who believe that 6 fps (or 7 or whatever) isn't enough for most folks and who are certain that 10 (or 12 or 15 or whatever) is really important...

Just saying' ;-)

Dan



Feb 07, 2012 at 03:24 AM
miccullen
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #16 · A bit of perspective


gdanmitchell wrote:
I suppose you realize that this must also be true of the "people around here" who believe that 6 fps (or 7 or whatever) isn't enough for most folks and who are certain that 10 (or 12 or 15 or whatever) is really important...

Just saying' ;-)

Dan


No, the point is that for some people it's more than enough, and for others, it isn't enough.

The problem is that there's a bunch of people posting to this thread who are too close-minded to see that different people have different requirements out of a camera in order to get he job done properly and to the satisfaction of the person or organisation employing them.


Edited on Feb 07, 2012 at 05:06 AM · View previous versions



Feb 07, 2012 at 03:32 AM
skibum5
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #17 · A bit of perspective


miccullen wrote:
No, the point is that for some people it's more than enough, and for others, it isn't enough.


The problem is that there's a bunch of people posting to this thread who are to close-minded to see that different people have different requirements out of a camera in order to get he job done properly and to the satisfaction of the person or organisation employing them.


But don't forget that certain classes of "people" who have never actually carried out the actual "high art" or even the mere action of "photography" are often seen stating a need for this or that esoteric technical spec or may notice "some" (flaw) in a piece 'of' equipment when blah blah blah....



Feb 07, 2012 at 05:05 AM
crazeazn
Online
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #18 · A bit of perspective


You want perspective use all manual glass with adapters and a 256 meg card.


Feb 07, 2012 at 05:39 AM
Kisutch
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #19 · A bit of perspective


I had 5 fps in my eos A2 in 1995, so I think it's actually surprising how slow many offerings still are, 5d is slower than the consumer slr from before I had an email address.


Feb 07, 2012 at 05:53 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    Retrive password