Member of the Month

JalmarKalmar
April, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

Question for photographers about Jacob Westers slideshow...

profile picture
PBraunstein
Posts: 1448 - Karma: 3,804
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..
Apr 17 2008 12:59PM
0 0
profile picture
TWoods
Posts: 10014 - Karma: 8,385
you need 5+ for a good sequence. that was probably more like 8.
Apr 17 2008 4:43PM
0 0
profile picture
pmills
Posts: 7162 - Karma: 59

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.

Apr 17 2008 4:54PM
0 0
profile picture
Torbjorn
Posts: 130 - Karma: 17
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



Apr 17 2008 5:07PM
0 0
profile picture
Mr.LemonPie
Posts: 4100 - Karma: 1,625

^^^you have amazing gear.

Apr 17 2008 6:09PM
0 0
profile picture
cobra_commander
Posts: 16909 - Karma: 4,682
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.
Apr 17 2008 6:38PM
0 0
profile picture
PBraunstein
Posts: 1448 - Karma: 3,804
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...
Apr 17 2008 7:43PM
0 0
profile picture
Pippin
Posts: 4846 - Karma: 661
That is one of the most expensive cameras on the market....4 grand + ...but hey if your a seasoned pro....deff a great camera.
Apr 17 2008 10:00PM
0 0
profile picture
sicmainefilms
Posts: 167 - Karma: 10
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.


Apr 17 2008 10:45PM
0 0
profile picture
freezed
Posts: 12973 - Karma: 500
^ 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.

Click for larger image

Click for larger image
Apr 17 2008 10:52PM
0 0
profile picture
PBraunstein
Posts: 1448 - Karma: 3,804
well thats good to know..   thanks for the info... and btw, sick shots
Apr 17 2008 11:04PM
0 0
profile picture
pmills
Posts: 7162 - Karma: 59
you can get them on ebay for less than 1500 -- at least worth checking out
Apr 17 2008 11:06PM
0 0
profile picture
Pippin
Posts: 4846 - Karma: 661
ohhh, thats pretty decent, right theres a newer one that i was looking at thats a higher MP, which cost a lot more
Apr 17 2008 11:27PM
0 0
profile picture
pmills
Posts: 7162 - Karma: 59
ya the new 21mp crazy whatever... 7-8 g's   (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Canon/canon_eos1dsmkiii.asp)

but you're right, back in the day the Canon EOS-1D Mark II N was like $4000
Apr 18 2008 1:02AM
0 0
profile picture
Pippin
Posts: 4846 - Karma: 661
(wipes drool from face)
Apr 21 2008 10:18PM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-4)