dSLR Full Manual Shooting

[Big Wrench]

Sports Photography: ISN'T 3.5 FRAMES PER SECOND, SHOT AT 1/4000 sec. FAST ENOUGH?
WHY WOULD A PERSON NEED 5fps? Isn't that just excessive demand for ridiculous performance?
Sure, fanatic photographers are never satisfied, right?

Reply.

[Colin Southern]

Sports Photography: ISN'T 3.5 FRAMES PER SECOND, SHOT AT 1/4000 sec. FAST ENOUGH?
WHY WOULD A PERSON NEED 5fps? Isn't that just excessive demand for ridiculous performance?
Sure, fanatic photographers are never satisfied, right?

Reply.

5FPS? Heck - we're into the 10 - 14fps bracket for sports photography. Unfortunately, when you're shooting things like baseball where you're trying to get the ball at the exact moment it hits the bat, the more frames you can grab, the greater the chance that you'll get the one you want.

Like this classic from Rob Galbraith - Little Guy Media

[Big Wrench]

Colin,
Yeah, but what kind of camera is being used to achieve 10 to 14 frames per second. Somebody has deep pockets (lots of money) able to buy a camera that fast. The Panasonic FZ150 which I stumbled upon a few days ago, seems to be an all-around good camera for stills and video. I've studied the dslr cameras: The Canon T3i, 60D, Nikon d7000, Nikon d5100, Sony SLT a55 and a65. There are relatively inexpensive cameras that can shoot at 240 frames per second. I've reached the Over-Load point. Just way too many cameras to consider. I definitely feel that the C.E.O's that manage the camera manufacturing companies must be chuckling, laughing at us consumers who continually chase the bait, the lure of "New Camera" ANNOUNCED. And, technology freaks, I guess I'm one of them, takes the bait and chase so-called: New Features in an never ending parade of new features and one more new camera gimmick. Poor old Ansel Adams and his view camera. He probably never owned an SLR.

[Colin Southern]

Yeah, but what kind of camera is being used to achieve 10 to 14 frames per second.

10 FPS = Canon 1D3/ 1D4
11 FPS = Nikon D3s
12 FPS = Nikon D4
14 FPS - Canon 1Dx

Somebody has deep pockets (lots of money) able to buy a camera that fast.

Yes, but they're professional level cameras for professional photographers. Usually around the USD $6000 mark.

I've reached the Over-Load point. Just way too many cameras to consider. I definitely feel that the C.E.O's that manage the camera manufacturing companies must be chuckling, laughing at us consumers who continually chase the bait, the lure of "New Camera" ANNOUNCED. And, technology freaks, I guess I'm one of them, takes the bait and chase so-called: New Features in an never ending parade of new features and one more new camera gimmick.

I don't know how many would be "chuckling" in todays market, but I know what you mean. As I see it - most probably don't need the newer technology -- but I guess it's up to them. Canon will be shipping their new 1Dx soon - and I'm well up the queue to get mine; in my case it'll mean the difference between getting motion blur from having to shoot some concerts as low as 1/20th of a second to being able to enjoy 1/80th to 1/160th or even higher.

Poor old Ansel Adams and his view camera. He probably never owned an SLR.

He sure did

[Big Wrench]

Colin,
Great reply.
Cheers,
Charlie

[GrahamH]

Not forgetting the very much more affordable Sony A77, 12fps (or you can select 8 or 3 as well as single).
Compared to the Canikons, it's WAY cheaper (US $1500 ish, 25% that of those Colin listed).

I often take ballroom pictures. Not the fastest activity in the world, but the time between the right shot and the wrong shot is still measured in small fractions of a second (like less than 1/10s).
Video mode would capture 24-60 fps, at around 2M pixels for full HD. Good enough perhaps for some applications.
Graham

[dan marchant]

Sports Photography: ISN'T 3.5 FRAMES PER SECOND, SHOT AT 1/4000 sec. FAST ENOUGH?
WHY WOULD A PERSON NEED 5fps? Isn't that just excessive demand for ridiculous performance?
Sure, fanatic photographers are never satisfied, right?

No, not at all. It is a useful tool for capturing a specific type of image (sport) much like a long lens for capturing birds in flight or a Macro lens for capturing ultra close-up detail.

I have a 7D and enjoy shooting my friend's rugby team. 8 frames a second is great for capturing two people crunching into each other

[GrahamH]

Hi Charlie, I've noticed you are writing in a couple of threads using an awful lot of capital letters.
Are you aware that this is the written form of shouting?
Perhaps a better way of attracting attention to the question (despite people having already opened the thred, so it seems redundant anyway) would be to either underline or use bold formatting? It would make it easier on the eyes.
Graham

[ktuli]

Don't forget that the Canon 7D will get 8fps and it is in the pro-sumer market at around $1600. So no need to get all the way into the pro line-up to get high FPS.

- Bill

[rpcrowe]

Charlie,

IMO, the Panasonic FZ150 is a very nice camera which is probably all that many photographers need. I read the specs and they are quite impressive. What impressed me is that there is a very short shutter lag with the Panasonic FZ150 which should definitely contribute to decent action pictures.

However, if I were shooting a LOT OF sports, I would definitely want a camera with a faster burst rate.

I just bought my wife a camera which she can carry in her purse to her dog rescue events. She has been using my cast off 1999 vintage Olympus C5050Z which she has had problems using. I realized that she was unhappy with the camera; so I got her a Canon Elph 100HS. This is certainly not a sports camera nor will she ever use it as such. I just mentioned this camera because the little thing has a burst rate of 8.2 FPS which is quite something for a camera which cost me $129 USD.

However, just like the story that some women are more concerned over the location of the cup hlders in a car than with the perforance of the vehicle, my wife is more excited over the size and hot pink color (ugh!) of this camera than its capabilities...

And, BTW, Ansel Adams probably didn't use digital photography because no one had invented Photoshop yet

[Marty]

.... Poor old Ansel Adams and his view camera. He probably never owned an SLR.

Ansel Adams did own an SLR. Have you read his autobiography? That'll blow a lot of dearly held myths about him and his work. It's published by Little, Brown & Co. ISBN 0-8212-2241-4. Well worth reading for anyone who likes Ansel Adams

[thequacksoflife]

you can get 60 fps out of the Nikon 1 apparently.

I suspect people who buy these "expensive" cameras, waves at Colin, do so because they will earn it back. It's then not expensive.

[rpcrowe]

When my buddy entered Brooks Institute of Photography in Santa Barbara, many years ago; they required him to own a Hasselblad camera with a 150mm lens.

He remarked that this was pretty expensive equipment and received this reply. "Sir, Michelangelo didn't paint the Sistine Chapel's ceiling using a paint by numbers set!"

[ktuli]

you can get 60 fps out of the Nikon 1 apparently.

I suspect people who buy these "expensive" cameras, waves at Colin, do so because they will earn it back. It's then not expensive.

That is achieved by getting images that are not using the whole sensor if I remember correctly.

[dan marchant]

He remarked that this was pretty expensive equipment and received this reply. "Sir, Michelangelo didn't paint the Sistine Chapel's ceiling using a paint by numbers set!"

LOL I hope they aren't still such pompous a**hats. You don't need an expensive camera to take great photos.

[thequacksoflife]

That is achieved by getting images that are not using the whole sensor if I remember correctly.

yep, you're right. 5 fps normally

[Black Pearl]

That is achieved by getting images that are not using the whole sensor if I remember correctly.

Actually the Nikon J1 and V1 can capture full resolution shots at 60fps. Not aware of a 5fps mode, the normal one is 10fps with the high speed one having to be specifically selected. In the case of the V1 it means the mechanical shutter is switched off (locked open) and it switches to a purely electronic means of capture like its baby brother the J1.

Why do photographers want very fast frame rates? If your job relies on getting a shot in any circumstance then any camera based aids you can get you will want. The Pro Canon and Pro Nikon bodies are specifically designed for Pro shooters, that is why they have very fast FPS capabilities. There are other cameras that have a fast burst mode (like some compacts, the Nikon One series and the Sony Alpha range) but just about all of them seriously compromise other shooting options while doing so. A Pro camera doesn't need to be put into a high speed mode to shoot at high speed it is just something they do as standard.

[thequacksoflife]

ARGH!!! I'm having a bad day!!!! I own a V1 for goodness sake!!!!

Ok 5 fps is with the mechanical shutter

with the electronic shutter you have options for 10 30 and 60 fps. and BP is right about full resolution.

see continuous shooting

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikonv1j1/8

and in reply to the orignal poster - amateur wildlife photographers like higher burst rates! hence they gravitate to cams like the d300 and 7d.

[rpcrowe]

LOL I hope they aren't still such pompous a**hats. You don't need an expensive camera to take great photos.

I don't necessarily agree with that statement. We often hear the statement that a great photographer with a poor camera will beat the imagery of a poor photographer with a great camera. I totally agree with this but, in a way, this statement is an example of reverse discrimination. IMO, if you have two good photographers who are approximately equal in talent and one is shooting with top line equipment and the other is shooting with poor equipment; the photographer with the better equipment will (under most circumstances) produce the better imagery.

Brooks Institute is not exactly pompous. It has a great track record for producing photographers who graduate as being commercially viable, whether their chosen field is portraiture, advertising or other venues. Many other institutes of higher learning, produce photographers whose talents are best suited for posting on Internet and for hanging on coffee shop walls as the graduates serve coffee in order to earn a living.

In the field of photojournalism, the equipment requirements are a bit different. Top notch image quality is not necessarily the utmost criteria in equipment selection; since extreme blow-ups are not the rule. Durability and dependability is a necessary attribute and the more expensive cameras tend to be the most durable. As an example, I would rather go through a harsh environment using a Canon 1D (series) camera and weather proofed L lenses than using a Rebel and a kit lens. However, I remember an era in which the Canon film SLR cameras could not match the Leica or Nikon cameras for durability. I had two early Canon SLR cameras go down on me soon after I started shooting in the very harsh conditions of Dong Ha Viet Nam. My associates using Leica rangefinder and Nikon SLR cameras were happily snapping away while my two Canons (FD and FX) were down for the count. This is just another example of using the right tool for the job at hand.

Another very necessary attribute for cameras and lenses used in the field of photojournalism is their ability to produce at the very limits of their parameters. The cameras need to be able to produce at the highest ISO levels and the lenses need to produce very decent image quality at wide open apertures. This is not necessarily the case with the less expensive gear. Fast burst rates are another handy tool for photojournalists...

[Black Pearl]

IMO, if you have two good photographers who are approximately equal in talent and one is shooting with top line equipment and the other is shooting with poor equipment; the photographer with the better equipment will (under most circumstances) produce the better imagery.

Just out of interest, how would you define 'better imagery'?