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

My posts · My subscriptions
  

  Previous versions of skibum5's message #10312571 « A bit of perspective »

  

skibum5
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: 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.

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



Feb 06, 2012 at 03:33 AM
skibum5
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: 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.

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.




Feb 05, 2012 at 07:30 PM
skibum5
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: 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.



Feb 05, 2012 at 07:26 PM



  Previous versions of skibum5's message #10312571 « A bit of perspective »