If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
10 fps versus 5 fps
Toby wrote:
"Alan Browne" schrieb im Newsbeitrag ... Stefan Patric wrote: If you're a good still photographer, 3 to 4 frames per second is all you really need to get great action sequences. However, if all you really want is "peak action," great photographers have been doing that for 60 years and without motor drives. The least useful specs that get people to fork over cash: * fps * start up time * high number of focus points That totally depends on what you shoot. If you are a sports shooter high burst rates are critical. You will not find a single pro at the Olympics shooting with a camera that does under 8 fps. And most photojournalists I know here in Asia shoot bracketed bursts of three shots for every frame. Getting one good shot pays for the body, and more. Of course if you don't do this kind of stuff you can live with a couple of fps and never miss it. And that's the point, isn't it? Most DSLR buyers are not sports shooters who "need" high fps. And its value to sports shooters is not as high as you may believe. But as a worm on the hook for Johnny-bucks-in-pants, fps followed by other marginal spec items gets the plastic out. And guess what? A lot of great sports photography was made before motor drives appeared... that took talent and specific knowledge of the sport. A "better" sports camera was the Canon 1n RS (pellicule mirror) as its shutter delay was on the order of 5ms ... 10x faster than D/SLR's at the mere cost of a stop of light in the VF and onto the film. I'm disappointed Canon have not rolled this out in a DSLR esp. as the clean higher ISO images overwhelm the stop of light loss. An article a few years ago about SI shooters at the super bowl producing 10's of thousands of photos that were considered crap by the photo editor belies the notion of high fps shooting being the way to shoot sports. Talent is better than high fps. -- -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. -- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
10 fps versus 5 fps
Toby wrote:
"Alan Browne" schrieb im Newsbeitrag ... Stefan Patric wrote: If you're a good still photographer, 3 to 4 frames per second is all you really need to get great action sequences. However, if all you really want is "peak action," great photographers have been doing that for 60 years and without motor drives. The least useful specs that get people to fork over cash: * fps * start up time * high number of focus points That totally depends on what you shoot. If you are a sports shooter high burst rates are critical. You will not find a single pro at the Olympics shooting with a camera that does under 8 fps. And most photojournalists I know here in Asia shoot bracketed bursts of three shots for every frame. Getting one good shot pays for the body, and more. "" "I've never seen so many guys say so many good things about their own take, and there's nothing but **** on the screen," he says. Later, unable to find a good shot of a particular Patriots touchdown catch, he gestures at the screen. "Eleven guys. Eleven versions out of focus." "" "" As midnight passes, Fine still hasn't found the great images he needs — and especially one killer shot for the cover. "" "" After 15,000 pieces of crap, we got a cover." "" http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/mul...id=7-6453-6821 Read the article. Very telling about sports photography. fps is the least of their worries. -- -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. -- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
10 fps versus 5 fps
"Alan Browne" wrote: Toby wrote: That totally depends on what you shoot. If you are a sports shooter high burst rates are critical. You will not find a single pro at the Olympics shooting with a camera that does under 8 fps. And most photojournalists I know here in Asia shoot bracketed bursts of three shots for every frame. Getting one good shot pays for the body, and more. Of course if you don't do this kind of stuff you can live with a couple of fps and never miss it. And that's the point, isn't it? Most DSLR buyers are not sports shooters who "need" high fps. And its value to sports shooters is not as high as you may believe. Exactly. If you want a shot of a great hitter hitting the ball, 10 fps is completely inadequate: you'd need at least 60 fps. But with just a bit of practice, you can learn to sync your shutter press to the motion of the pitcher. You don't even need a fast shutter release, just a consistent one. And guess what? A lot of great sports photography was made before motor drives appeared... that took talent and specific knowledge of the sport. Exactly, again. An article a few years ago about SI shooters at the super bowl producing 10's of thousands of photos that were considered crap by the photo editor belies the notion of high fps shooting being the way to shoot sports. Talent is better than high fps. But here, I disagree. It's not talent. It's the willingness to even try vs. the belief that money will avoid the need for effort and thought. -- David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
10 fps versus 5 fps
Alan Browne wrote:
A "better" sports camera was the Canon 1n RS (pellicule mirror) as its shutter delay was on the order of 5ms ... 10x faster than D/SLR's at the mere cost of a stop of light in the VF and onto the film. I'm disappointed Canon have not rolled this out in a DSLR esp. as the clean higher ISO images overwhelm the stop of light loss. Whoa, what a flashback. I haven't heard discussion of a pellicle mirror in ages. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pellicle_mirror -- Blinky Killing all posts from Google Groups The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org Need a new news feed? http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
10 fps versus 5 fps
On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 22:26:38 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:
That totally depends on what you shoot. If you are a sports shooter high burst rates are critical. You will not find a single pro at the Olympics shooting with a camera that does under 8 fps. And most photojournalists I know here in Asia shoot bracketed bursts of three shots for every frame. Getting one good shot pays for the body, and more. Of course if you don't do this kind of stuff you can live with a couple of fps and never miss it. And that's the point, isn't it? Most DSLR buyers are not sports shooters who "need" high fps. And its value to sports shooters is not as high as you may believe. You could also argue that *most* DSLR buyers don't need the high ISO low noise performance of the top performers. Some here (before getting a DSLR) said as much. Many other things aren't really *needed*, but that won't convince many here to forego what they desire, if not need, such as very large monitors for photo editing, yards wide home theater systems, PS3, and lenses, lenses and more lenses. You might want to clarify what you mean by "its value to sports shooters is not as high as you may believe". I'm thinking here of those shooting at the Olympics, where shooting at high frame rates *will* increase the probability of getting unexpected, exceptional shots. Any photographers that turn in shots taken with cameras dialed back to 4 or 5 fps secretly want a career change, whether they realize it or not. But as a worm on the hook for Johnny-bucks-in-pants, fps followed by other marginal spec items gets the plastic out. Sure it does. Early birds are also snapping up Live View worms, anti-dust shakers and drooling for articulated LCDs. I suppose it's easier to belittle features that one's own brand doesn't yet offer than to be objective. And guess what? A lot of great sports photography was made before motor drives appeared... that took talent and specific knowledge of the sport. Nobody's disputing that. But a lot of great sports shots were missed due to not having motor drives. It would also be silly to think that today's sports photographers don't also have the talent and knowledge of their predecessors. The best photographers will always be in demand, and very few of those won't also demand the best equipment. I don't lust after the top Canon and Nikon equipment, not just because it would be several times more expensive that what I use, but also because I have a strong preference for lighter equipment. But if shooting was my day job I'd be using the high end gear just as most pros do. Wouldn't you? An article a few years ago about SI shooters at the super bowl producing 10's of thousands of photos that were considered crap by the photo editor belies the notion of high fps shooting being the way to shoot sports. Talent is better than high fps. Wrong. Talent is better than having little talent. High frame rates may not be particularly needed for some sports, but are very desirable for others. For those others, good photographers that insist on using slow equipment are wasting at least some of their talent. [from Littleboy's reply to yours] And that's the point, isn't it? Most DSLR buyers are not sports shooters who "need" high fps. And its value to sports shooters is not as high as you may believe. Exactly. If you want a shot of a great hitter hitting the ball, 10 fps is completely inadequate: you'd need at least 60 fps. But with just a bit of practice, you can learn to sync your shutter press to the motion of the pitcher. That's a silly argument. It might be partially valid if baseball photographers took no other types of shots. But there are many other things happening during a game that don't put such a premium on predictability and timing. But even there, the same timing with a 10 fps camera will get the same shot, but if it's the first of a quick burst you stand a better chance of capturing the unanticipated parts of the game. Instead of just the batter swinging, with the ball captured ahead of the bat, just before contact, you might also capture the catcher leaping to try to reel in a wild pitch, or the umpire suffering the consequences of getting hit by a foul tip. Similarly, with good timing, a photographer using a slow camera can use anticipation and that timing to get a good shot of a stolen base play, with the runner sliding into second and the fielder trying to catch the relayed ball or trying to tag the runner out. But if something atypical happens, such as the runner dislodging the ball out of the fielder's glove, or missing second base and giving the fielder a second chance to tag the runner, the camera that shoots a faster burst is more likely to capture a shot that'll make the back page or the sports section. Getting a reputation for most likely to miss the followup shots isn't the best way to advertise your talent. If talent and timing are all that's needed to be successful, maybe there are some talented sports photographers out there using Sigma's SD10 or SD14. Know any? |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
10 fps versus 5 fps
ASAAR wrote:
If talent and timing are all that's needed to be successful, maybe there are some talented sports photographers out there using Sigma's SD10 or SD14. Know any? Without replying to your other points, some of merit, mostly none, I single out your last sentence for ridicule. Why, oh why, would anyone bring up these cameras except as a deflection? A form of damning by bringing up cameras that most of us wish we would never hear of again? Oh, OK, one other thing. While skeptical, I would not take away a sports shooters desire for high fps shooting. The point, is that for the majority of DSLR buyers, high fps is a non-issue. See also the article I linked in the other reply. Very telling about the yield of pro photographers at a pro football match. -- -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. -- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
10 fps versus 5 fps
On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 16:31:11 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:
If talent and timing are all that's needed to be successful, maybe there are some talented sports photographers out there using Sigma's SD10 or SD14. Know any? Without replying to your other points, some of merit, mostly none, I single out your last sentence for ridicule. Why, oh why, would anyone bring up these cameras except as a deflection? A form of damning by bringing up cameras that most of us wish we would never hear of again? It most certainly wasn't a deflection. You're becoming too much the fanboy, going on with your loves and hates. Sigma cameras do have faults, lack of speed being but one. As we're all pretty much in agreement that they're cameras well worth avoiding, it takes a lot of effort to miss the reason why Sigma was mentioned and assume that deflection was its purpose. Had I mentioned any other brand, the point I was making would have been less clear or obvious. But not obvious enough for you, since it appears that understanding didn't have as high a priority as finding ways to disagree. You started off with a decent premise, that "Most DSLR buyers are not sports shooters who 'need' high fps", but you immediately contradicted yourself by adding that "its value to sports shooters is not as high as you may believe". You're becoming like someone else here whose statements often need to be questioned. You say that most of my points had no merit. Really, now? It looks more like you just took the easy way out and resorted to a cheap parting shot rather than trying to illustrate the flaws you claimed to see in my points. Oh, OK, one other thing. While skeptical, I would not take away a sports shooters desire for high fps shooting. The point, is that for the majority of DSLR buyers, high fps is a non-issue. That's so good of you, to not take away their desire for high fps shooting, even though you think that its value is "not as high as you may believe". I've been looking at the sports shots taken by Mark Rebilas (Olympics, baseball, Nascar and others), and a good number of his best shots absolutely would have been missed had it not been for his D3's high frame rates. Your argument (and David's, who simply slinks away after his snipes) is that because lower frame rates in the past were able to produce some amazing shots, really high frame rates aren't needed. Others have given other reasons why this isn't true, but the fact remains that for sports where the action occurs for longer than a fleeting moment, the more shots that you're able to take, the greater the odds are that you'll capture a really great one. No guarantees, just better odds. See also the article I linked in the other reply. Very telling about the yield of pro photographers at a pro football match. No, it didn't "tell" what you think it said. If anything, it proved the point that *many* shots are needed in order to end up with a few that may be amazing. The shots, pouring in from a team of photographers was being viewed by Steve Fine at the rate of two per second for four hours. That's almost 30,000, not 15,000 shots. Maybe just a bit of poetic license, and the absolute number isn't all that important. But nowhere in the article is there any mention of the need to shoot at high frame rates, although they were undoubtedly doing so for some shots. You get comments like this : Later, unable to find a good shot of a particular Patriots touchdown catch, he gestures at the screen. "Eleven guys. Eleven versions out of focus." Should the blame be placed on SI's photographers, their equipment (Canon's EOS-1D), or maybe the game itself had something to do with it. The article stated that several good shots were made through the first three quarters of the game, but none were "killer" shots. According to the article, the game wasn't really terribly exciting, even compared to the half-time show. It changed in the fourth quarter which was "full of scoring action." If the best photographers took hundreds of pictures during the first three quarters using view cameras, or hundreds of thousands using fast DSLRs, the best shots *still* would have been selected from those taken during the last, exciting quarter. For covers, he is said to favor emotionally evocative shots over action images, and when a shot turns up of New England Patriots Quarterback Tom Brady, the game's MVP, smiling and holding up the Super Bowl trophy, Washington says, "That's the cover. That's a Terry cover. The trophy. The smile." And that shot could have been taken with almost any camera, by almost any photographer. But this massive photo shoot wasn't the first nor the last time tens of thousands of shots have been taken to cover a game, and it wasn't the failure that you implied by providing a link and a very misleading comment about what the article illustrated. But was that a great shot or merely a very good one. Well . . . "Oh," he says. "Oh. Here we go. What's this. What. Is. This." Washington leans in closer as Fine enlarges one image to full size. It's part of a continuous sequence of Brady running onto the field in celebration as the game ended, shot from one end of the field looking down the Patriots sideline. The MVP is frozen in mid-air, jumping to high-five a teammate and smiling about an ocean wide. The picture is dead-on sharp. Hmm, sounds like a high frame rate helped get a good one. "Wait," Fine says, leaning back in his chair. "Let me just look at next week's cover. Who shot this? Phil, who shot this?" The answer comes back: John McDonough. "Johnnnny Mac," Fine says, drawing out the name as he studies the picture. "Johnnnny Mac. After 15,000 pieces of crap, we got a cover." In an instant, the previously selected shot : "That's the cover. That's a Terry cover. The trophy. The smile." was suddenly downgraded to just another one of the 15,000 pieces of crap. No, I'm afraid not. That story after all wasn't a scholarly work. It was intended as entertainment. Not to enlighten as much as to titillate, and to try to capture part of the excitement that was in the air, in addition to describing the equipment and technology now used to *big* cover athletic events. Your closing comment : See also the article I linked in the other reply. Very telling about the yield of pro photographers at a pro football match. tells us something else, that some people get out of articles what they want to read into them and not what was actually written. The article in no way indicates that there is anything remotely problematical with taking and ending up with 15,000 '****ty' shots. In fact, it goes on to describe in detail the cameras, lenses and computers and workflows that are used, stating how much improved the situation is compared to the days when film was used. Of course you probably won't find much merit in what I've said in this reply, but maybe that's why you're engaged in problems keeping the shoot-in going rather than shooting for S.I. [ was that last bit of humor more palatable than the reference to Sigma that I used to close my last reply? ] |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
TV screens big versus Small LCD versus Plasma. | Little Green Eyed Dragon | Digital Photography | 0 | March 2nd 07 08:04 PM |
5D versus 20D | Rich | Digital SLR Cameras | 14 | October 29th 05 02:14 AM |
4:3 versus 3:2 | Rich | Digital SLR Cameras | 21 | October 28th 05 03:46 AM |
Expected versus Taken | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 30 | March 30th 05 01:09 PM |
17-40 L versus 17-85 EFS | Don | Digital Photography | 5 | January 6th 05 04:58 AM |