10 fps versus 5 fps

Discussion in 'Digital Cameras' started by Mardon, Aug 23, 2008.

  1. Mardon

    Mardon Guest

    I noticed another thread where it was suggested that 5 fps is just as good
    as 10 fps. The URL below points to a 10 fps sequence of "The Crazy
    Canuck" that could probably be used to either support or dispute the 5 fps
    claim. The sequence wouldn't look a lot different if every other frame
    were omitted. Then again, there's only one frame where the driver's head
    is clearly visible inside the rotating car, so it could be argued that at 5
    fps that shot would have been missed.


    which takes you here:

    Mardon, Aug 23, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  2. Mardon

    Mardon Guest

    Not a problem. There are two videos of this same "stunt" that people have
    posted on YouTube:


    Mardon, Aug 23, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  3. 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.

    Stefan Patric, Aug 23, 2008
  4. Mardon

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Poor Ansel Adams. Imagine what he could have done if he'd had a 10fps
    camera instead of a 2fph camera.
    Ray Fischer, Aug 24, 2008
  5. Mardon

    Matt Ion Guest

    Ansel didn't shoot sports.
    Matt Ion, Aug 24, 2008
  6. Mardon

    Steve Guest

    Maybe if he had 10fps he would have.

    Steve, Aug 25, 2008
  7. Mardon

    Ray Fischer Guest

    What?!? You mean that a camera should be suited for its intended
    purpose??? That there really isn't such a thing as a perfect camera?

    Ray Fischer, Aug 25, 2008
  8. Mardon

    ASAAR Guest

    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.

    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.

    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?

    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

    [from Littleboy's reply to yours]
    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?
    ASAAR, Aug 25, 2008
  9. Mardon

    Matt Ion Guest

    It's the same as with any tool, though - just because it's there doesn't
    mean you need to use it every day, but there are times that it's nice to
    have it.
    Matt Ion, Aug 25, 2008
  10. Mardon

    ASAAR Guest

    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.

    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.

    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 :
    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.
    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 . . .
    Hmm, sounds like a high frame rate helped get a good one. :)
    In an instant, the previously selected shot :
    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 :
    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 'shitty' 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? ]
    ASAAR, Aug 26, 2008
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.