A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

10 fps versus 5 fps



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old August 25th 08, 03:26 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,640
Default 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  
Old August 25th 08, 03:37 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,640
Default 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  
Old August 25th 08, 03:40 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
David J. Littleboy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,618
Default 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  
Old August 25th 08, 03:50 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Blinky the Shark
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 827
Default 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  
Old August 25th 08, 05:48 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
ASAAR
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,057
Default 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  
Old August 25th 08, 09:31 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,640
Default 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  
Old August 26th 08, 12:14 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
ASAAR
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,057
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 09:04 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 05:58 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:02 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.