Frames/per/sec for race photo's
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, the bear, DerekL, alicefoeller | Reply |
|
![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() I've been borrowing a friends nikon d3000... wow it's great and now I want to shoot pictures. for taking pic's at races, running, biking, tri's etc. would type of frame per second rate do you really need. I believe his is 6f/p/s which is nice. When I look at the entry Digtal SRL's they are in the 3f/p/s range. My thought is save for a couple more months to get something nicer. **i realize that the D3000 is NOT an entry level camera |
|
![]() ![]() |
Master ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Gary, Most Digital camera will shot a few frames per second. All you need to realize is that you can shoot in that mode 24x7 because taking pictures is free. Printing them costs money. |
![]() ![]() |
Master![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() I personally believe that 3 or more FPS is sufficient to get good shots for particularly for sports like running and biking, etc. Just remember that it's not just what the camera spec is, you also need to make sure you use a fast memory card and that your shooting settings will also affect the FPS you are actually able to achieve in real life, not to mention the quality of your lens and its ability as well. I did some shooting with a friend's older Rebel XS recently that was spec'd for 3 fps and I thought it was fine for running/biking. This probably wouldn't be the case trying to show a fast sports car ripping around a track. If you wanted to save a bit more I would consider the d90 from Nikon or the 50d from Canon. I shoot and like Canon but they both Nikon and Canon make great cameras. p.s. get ready to spend some cash! |
![]() ![]() |
![]() | ![]() You'll also want to look at how high the shutter speed goes. The shutter speed you'll need will depend in part on the lens you intend to use. You're buying the body and lens(es) separately, right? |
![]() ![]() |
![]() To the above comment, all digital SLRs nowadays go plenty high in the SS department. As noted, whether you can use the shutter speed is lens dependent. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() | ![]() ChrisM - 2009-10-29 9:33 AM To the above comment, all digital SLRs nowadays go plenty high in the SS department. As noted, whether you can use the shutter speed is lens dependent. Thanks for the correction on the shutter speed. On the buffer, I think it's both body and card dependent, similar (for example) to the way a computer will or won't support USB 2.0 and a device might or might not be USB 2.0, and it's only when you have both that you can take full advantage of the speed. |
|
![]() ![]() |
Expert ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() puellasolis - 2009-10-29 9:37 AM]Thanks for the correction on the shutter speed. On the buffer, I think it's both body and card dependent, similar (for example) to the way a computer will or won't support USB 2.0 and a device might or might not be USB 2.0, and it's only when you have both that you can take full advantage of the speed. Actually, because the buffer is all internal, filling the buffer has nothing to do with the card. Emptying the buffer onto the card does - but the type of card barely matters, with SD cards. On prosumer level cameras that use CF cards, type matters a lot. -------------------------- BTW: The D3000 is an entry level camera. It replaces the D40 as Nikon's lowest spec camera. It's supposed to shoot a 3fps. It has a buffer of up to 6 RAW shots or 100 JPG (basic) shots. If your talking about the D300, thats a different beast, and a prosumer camera. It'll shoot 6 fps, and has the same buffer as the D3000. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() | ![]() scorpio516 - 2009-10-29 10:12 AM puellasolis - 2009-10-29 9:37 AM]Thanks for the correction on the shutter speed. On the buffer, I think it's both body and card dependent, similar (for example) to the way a computer will or won't support USB 2.0 and a device might or might not be USB 2.0, and it's only when you have both that you can take full advantage of the speed. Actually, because the buffer is all internal, filling the buffer has nothing to do with the card. Emptying the buffer onto the card does - but the type of card barely matters, with SD cards. On prosumer level cameras that use CF cards, type matters a lot. -------------------------- BTW: The D3000 is an entry level camera. It replaces the D40 as Nikon's lowest spec camera. It's supposed to shoot a 3fps. It has a buffer of up to 6 RAW shots or 100 JPG (basic) shots. If your talking about the D300, thats a different beast, and a prosumer camera. It'll shoot 6 fps, and has the same buffer as the D3000. I didn't realize that about SD cards. My camera uses CF cards, so that's where my understanding came from. |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() puellasolis - 2009-10-29 11:23 AM You'll also want to look at how high the shutter speed goes. The shutter speed you'll need will depend in part on the lens you intend to use. You're buying the body and lens(es) separately, right? yes.. most likely.. Unless I find a deal somewhere that includes a basic lens. I've been lens shopping as well. and I thought tri's were an expensive hobby |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() scorpio516 - 2009-10-29 12:12 PM puellasolis - 2009-10-29 9:37 AM]Thanks for the correction on the shutter speed. On the buffer, I think it's both body and card dependent, similar (for example) to the way a computer will or won't support USB 2.0 and a device might or might not be USB 2.0, and it's only when you have both that you can take full advantage of the speed. Actually, because the buffer is all internal, filling the buffer has nothing to do with the card. Emptying the buffer onto the card does - but the type of card barely matters, with SD cards. On prosumer level cameras that use CF cards, type matters a lot. -------------------------- BTW: The D3000 is an entry level camera. It replaces the D40 as Nikon's lowest spec camera. It's supposed to shoot a 3fps. It has a buffer of up to 6 RAW shots or 100 JPG (basic) shots. If your talking about the D300, thats a different beast, and a prosumer camera. It'll shoot 6 fps, and has the same buffer as the D3000. my bad I meant the d300. too many energy drinks means extra numbers ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() scorpio516 - 2009-10-29 10:12 AM puellasolis - 2009-10-29 9:37 AM]Thanks for the correction on the shutter speed. On the buffer, I think it's both body and card dependent, similar (for example) to the way a computer will or won't support USB 2.0 and a device might or might not be USB 2.0, and it's only when you have both that you can take full advantage of the speed. Actually, because the buffer is all internal, filling the buffer has nothing to do with the card. Emptying the buffer onto the card does - but the type of card barely matters, with SD cards. On prosumer level cameras that use CF cards, type matters a lot. -------------------------- BTW: The D3000 is an entry level camera. It replaces the D40 as Nikon's lowest spec camera. It's supposed to shoot a 3fps. It has a buffer of up to 6 RAW shots or 100 JPG (basic) shots. If your talking about the D300, thats a different beast, and a prosumer camera. It'll shoot 6 fps, and has the same buffer as the D3000. Thanks. I learned the hard way. It's all well and good to be have a good fps ability, but if you have to stop and wait for the camera to write to the card while the really good stuff is happening, fps ain't gonna help :^ |
|
![]() ![]() |
Master![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Not sure why you think the speed of the card only applies to CF. SD cards come in different classes. The higher the class the better the speed, which makes it easier to clear the buffer.
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
Expert ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() merlin2375 - 2009-10-29 11:40 AM Not sure why you think the speed of the card only applies to CF. SD cards come in different classes. The higher the class the better the speed, which makes it easier to clear the buffer.
![]() But it doesn't much matter when the internal writer isn't very fast ![]() Check out this test k rockwell did [under "Shooting, Buffer, and Writing"] : http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/sd-speed-test-2009-10.htm Unless your using an ancient card, your talking less than a 1s difference between a classes with writing a full buffer. But, your still only talking like $1 between the slowest and fastest modern SD cards :D |
![]() ![]() |
Master![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Ah, I don't put too much stock in KR... RB tests specific cards in specific cameras. The differences in cards can be somewhat significant. http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=6007 |
![]() ![]() |
Expert![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() I shoot canon so YMMV but I have owned the whole range of cameras so i'll give you my thoughts.. Rebel XT,XTI,SXI or the entry level Nice little camera it was my first one (XT) it shoots well and is small it will do 3 FPS and I shot Mooseman with it..It will also take a grip which is nice sesor 1.6 crop ![]() ![]() Next is the prosumer d20,d30,d40,d50 and 5d they are beefier bodies but give you more control because of the dial on the back and everything is laid out very well this body also will take a grip which is nice for vertical shooting. these will shoot 5 FPS sesor 1.6 crop for the d20-50 full frame for the 5d ![]() ![]() 1D Mark IIN This camera is the beez kneez. this is a rugged pro body that is large heavy and will shoot like a machine gun it has a built in vertial grip and will hit 8 FPS (mark III will do 10) and the sesor is bigger at 1.3 crop ![]() NOt a bike but you get what i mean ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
Expert![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() now with all that out of the way i well tell you Glass is WAY more important then camera bodies.. my XT is really a paperweight but my 100-400 lenes is gaining value at the price of new goes up. so I would worry less about camera more about lenes the first four where taken by the 100-400 and the last to were taken my first a sigma 50mm 1.4 and second the 70-200 2.8 is. I'm up to over 5 g in camra eqipment but I'm not a freelance phtotographer for a local news paper.. which is fun.. anyways I like canon better as their glass is cheeper you can ask whos glass is better but that is a fight. feel free to ask me any questions |
|
![]() ![]() |
Expert![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Oh and remeber film????ya people once didn't have FPS and they shot all sports just fine it was camera control and panning and shutter timing that got the shot |
![]() ![]() |
![]() | ![]() Bajapat - 2009-10-29 3:41 PM Oh and remeber film????ya people once didn't have FPS and they shot all sports just fine it was camera control and panning and shutter timing that got the shot They did have motor drive, though. (ETA: at least after a certain point... 1970s or 80s I think.) Edited by puellasolis 2009-10-29 5:59 PM |
![]() ![]() |
![]() Bajapat - 2009-10-29 3:38 PM now with all that out of the way i well tell you Glass is WAY more important then camera bodies.. my XT is really a paperweight but my 100-400 lenes is gaining value at the price of new goes up. so I would worry less about camera more about lenes the first four where taken by the 100-400 and the last to were taken my first a sigma 50mm 1.4 and second the 70-200 2.8 is. I'm up to over 5 g in camra eqipment but I'm not a freelance phtotographer for a local news paper.. which is fun.. anyways I like canon better as their glass is cheeper you can ask whos glass is better but that is a fight. feel free to ask me any questions Good stuff. Thanks. I am actually looking to buy the 100-400 next year as well as a new body. The point about glass being more important than the body is a good one. |
![]() ![]() |
Expert![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() your right... """" A motor drive, in the field of photography, is a powered film transport mechanism. Historically, film loading, advancing, and rewinding were all manually driven functions. The desires of professional photographers for more efficient shooting, particularly in sports and wildlife photography, and the desires of amateur and novice photographers for easier to use cameras both drove the development of automatic film transport. Some early developments were made with clockwork drives, but most development in the field has been in the direction of electrically driven transport. At first, motor drives were external units that attached to the basic camera body, normally beneath it, with an interface consisting of a physical drive socket and some electrical contacts to signal the drive when to actuate. Beginning in the late 1970s, motor drives began to be integrated into cameras themselves—at first, in compact cameras for the beginner market, and by the 1980s, in amateur-grade and later professional-grade single lens reflex cameras. By the 1990s, the vast majority of 35mm cameras had integral motor drive, and the feature found its way into some medium format cameras as well. Motor drives for compact and amateur cameras wind slowly—shot-to-shot intervals of approximately a second are commonplace. Professional grade cameras are faster, with speeds up to 10 frames per second. The first 35 mm SLR to achieve such a shooting speed was Canon's F-1 High Speed Motor Drive camera, first developed for the 1972 Winter Olympics in Sapporo, Japan. To enable this speed and allow the photographer to more easily track the moving subject, this camera used a fixed, semi-transparent pellicle mirror instead of a moving mirror. Later special Canon models used similar mechanisms to achieve such speeds, while cameras with moving mirrors reached approximately 5 frames per second by the 1980s. Today, the fastest professional models from Canon and Nikon achieve approximately 10 frames per second with a moving mirror. While digital cameras have nothing to drive and thus no motor, some users continue to refer to continuous shooting modes as "motor drive". Many camera models refer to different shooting modes—single shot, burst, continuous, self timer—as drive modes, thus keeping alive the terminology of film. """ |
![]() ![]() |
Expert![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() I love the 100-400 it works great in the sun but anything other then that... ![]() but it is very workable because of the range now the 70-200 2.8 IS is CRAZY sharp....in all types of shooting I love it.. but it's ok for the range ![]() |
|
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() ChrisM - 2009-10-29 11:33 AM To the above comment, all digital SLRs nowadays go plenty high in the SS department. As noted, whether you can use the shutter speed is lens dependent. We have a D40X wich shoots at 2.5 FPS. It's been fine for most sports that I shoot (lots of mountain biking/skiing). When I bought it I was told it can go pretty much until it fills a memory card, as long as the memory card is high speed. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() | ![]() Bajapat - 2009-10-29 4:49 PM your right... But i don't know anyone that had one and i was in to film back then Only reason I know about it is that my dad had a film SLR with motor drive for shooting our volleyball games. This would have been mid-late 1990s. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() Bajapat - 2009-10-29 5:00 PM I love the 100-400 it works great in the sun but anything other then that... ![]() but it is very workable because of the range now the 70-200 2.8 IS is CRAZY sharp....in all types of shooting I love it.. but it's ok for the range ![]() Then a question for you... I am doing a trip to British Columbia to shoot some bears... i.e., rainy and overcast likely... I am told 400 is the least I would want (and can't afford the 600 ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
Expert![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() to be honest with ya it would be full of suck... epic failure... Unless your going to be still and on a tripod i mean they will not be moving fast and if you have a camera that you can push the iso on you might be ok.. I have a friend who takes the 400 5.4 prime to africa all the time no IS but a lot cheeper. if your going to be at the long end all of the time if you can spend it I would try the 70-200 2.8 or 2.8is with a 1.4 and 2.0 converter.. yes with the converter you'll lose 2 stopsbut if you can get in close the 2.8 will shine http://s4.photobucket.com/albums/y136/holland_patrick/2007/AFRICA/the%20BIG%20show/ you can see how when the light get's low the sharpness goes down |
|