Question for photographers about Jacob Westers slideshow...

PBraunstein

PBraunstein

Active member
i know its hard to just see it, but i figured an experienced photographer could give me a good guestimate.. in the sequence shots in Jacobs slideshow, about how many fps is that?.. is it the standard 3fps? or higher?... trying to decide on a decent 10mgp camera for next season and im interested in taking many sequence shots..
 
there's a lot more to a camera than mp's, i support getting a decent camera even if you're just getting into photography, just because the quality will last you a pretty long time, and it'll be nice to have all the features, but strictly basing your criteria for a camera on MP's is kinda bunk

i would recomend something older like the Canon EOS-1D Mark II N 8.5 fps 8mp, water sealed, pretty much a dope camera.

the only advantage you're going to find out there with the newer cameras is a full frame sensor -- all i'm saying is that you'll be able to get the same shots with an older camera, the only real advantage is sensor size-- no croping means it's easier to get wide angle -- but then again you lose some distance too.

whatever. just my two cents.
 
It's possible to do decent sequences with 3fps, which many cameras have, but the jump needs to be pretty big, and the trick "basic" (a fairly simple motion, not like a Hexo). A few examples of that, taken with my Pentax K10D, can be seen here:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/torbjornt/sets/72157600571476893/

Cameras of the latest generation to check out, off the top of my mind:

Nikon D3 - 9fps (really expensive)

Canon 40D - 6,5fps,

Nikon D300 - 6fps

Canon 1D MkIII - 10fps (really expensive)

Pentax K20D - only 3fps in full resolution, up to 20fps with lower resolutions

 
I would say that those are around 6 frames a second. they are a little faster then I can do at 5 frames a second, at 3 frames a second you can not get a good sequence, unless it is a rail and the subject is not moving fast.
 
thanks for all the good advice... and im not soley basing my decision on fps, but its def something important to me.. i guess im gonna have to spend some more time looking and really find what i need.. im also trying to keep body+lens cost under 1000...
 
That is one of the most expensive cameras on the market....4 grand + ...but hey if your a seasoned pro....deff a great camera.
 
Just to clairfy a piece of information non of the camera manufacturers would havey ou know. Megapixel is a figure of the SIZE of the image that the camera creates NOT quality. A six 6mp cam shot with correct exposure at the size relative size as a 12 mp still could yield a superior image quality.

Unfortunately all the big cam companies market to and would havey ou belive that more MPs means BETTER quality images. For the record this is bullshit. More pixels HELPS when you want to blow up an image or make a SMALL image from a large one but by no means does it tell you how the sensor of the camera translates color, tones, etc.

You're going to need around 8fps to get a baller sequence. Working with less really sucks and takes many tries. Its doable though.

 
^ right on about the MP thing. I still shoot on a 6MP camera, and get great results when I'm using a good lens and set up the shot right.

I have to disagree about 8fps though. It's not necessary. I've gotten (in my opinion, not trying to be arrogant here) good sequences at 5fps. In other words, if you find a camera you like, but it only has 5fps, that shouldn't prevent you from buying it. If you find a camera that you like that has more than 5fps, well, great.

1185260185tomrodeo9II.jpg


1185259970TomRodeo9.jpg

 
ohhh, thats pretty decent, right theres a newer one that i was looking at thats a higher MP, which cost a lot more
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top