ultra-fast burst rates?

hi.

I've been thinking recently, one part of the camera world perplexes me: burst rates.

The Canon EOS-1D MkIII is marketed as the "fastest DSLR in the world". and, with an impressive 10fps burst rate, it is. But, Sony have just announced a premium compact, the HX1, with the same 10fps burst rate. But it doesn't end there. Casio have cameras that can take 10mp images at 40(!)fps, and others that can take 6mp images at 60!

I just don't understand what's going on here. How can a consumer super-zoom (The Casio EX-F1) have a burst rate 6 times (!) that of the fastest DSLR in the world, a professional model designed for speed? I just don't get it. Of course, the most obvious explanation is that the mirror has to move up and down between the shots for the 1DmkIII. But now I ask, why? because, first of all, how much are you going to be able to see through the viewfinder, in the split second that the mirror is down? And secondly, the 1DmkIII has Live View. Guess what that means? even when the shot is being taken, you can still see what the lens sees. Of course, another explanation might be that the mirror must flip down to AF. But again, the same problem arises - even with the best Super Sonic Motor, how many lenses do you have that can AF accurately in a fraction of a second?

I just don't get it. Of course, I understand the benefits of having the mirror flip up and down in some situations - but why don't any DSLRs (especially top-end professional ones) offer a mode in which it the mirror doesn't flip up and down, thus increasing the burst rate?

Can anyone offer an explanation?

Anybody?

Beyond some point, you aren't dealing with a still camera, you are taking movies or videos. SLRs are built around a system in which a mirror is moved in and out of the way, the shutter is timed, etc. The image is also a fairly high resolution/large file. Movie and video cameras are designed around taking faster continuous images so typically have lower resolutions/file sizes and also don't have the mechanical shutter/mirror concerns. When you look at one side of video/movies, you are looking to the incorporation of long continuous streams of images and incorporating sound, etc.

Video/movies and stills are different applications and a camera which is optimized for one of those task may be able to be adaptable to the other task in some ways but a camera designed and optimized for the other task is probably still the better tool for the job.

The 1DMkIII is shooting 10, full resolution shots, a second.

The Casio that will go 100's of fps will only do it's highest speed at a very low resolution.

The Canon is flapping the shutter the whole time. The Casio is just recording video frames as still images, giving a final image size of something incredibly small... like 120x90 pixels or close to that.

--
Crime Scene Photography

The Exilim F1 will shoot 60 frames at 60fps for 1 second in full resolution (6MP) or at other combinations that yield 60 total frames (10 fps for 6 seconds, etc).

The resolution drops when you start pushing it to high speed video and gets pretty miserable at the top speed of 1200 fps. It will run at a respectable 512x384 at up to 300 fps. That's pretty good!

This camera is the future of digital cameras.

nope, that's totally wrong. Casio's EX-F1 can capture 60fps at full 6mp reolution - admittedly lower res that the 1DmkIII's, but not by the same amount as the burst rate increase. It can, however, take videos up to 1200fps, I believe.

A 450D can shoot at 24 frames per second (at much lower resolution) if you don't use the mechanical shutter: Check out the "russian video hack" for recording video when tethered to a computer.

You have all the important points at hand already. The mirror is indeed the reason. You would be surprised how short the viewfinder blackout time is when using a pro-camera. So, yes you can still see what's happening through the viewfinder. As to AF, again - yes, it will continuously try to adjust the focus. Now unfortunately the 1DMkIII had some problems in this respect, but that's another story ;-) A sports cam like the D3 or 1D will usually nail the AF on most exposures even during a burst with a moving target.

And that's something the Casio won't be able to do.

okay, I'll accept that - it can be useful to have the mirror swing down - but, still, if the technology is available, why don't DSLR manufacturers add an optional mode in which the mirror stays locked up, to allow for much faster burst rates like, say, 20fps on an entry level up to 40-60fps on a flagship? this would be useful for situations where you don't need to see through the VF during the burst, or can use LV instead, and can prefocus? Like, for example, if you're trying to get a shot of a batter hitting the ball in a game of baseball, cricket, etc? You could frame your shot while the batter is waiting for the ball, and prefocus on him at the same time. I mean, obviously the way the 1DmkIII works is far superior to the way the Sony HX1 or the Casio high-speed cameras work, but surely it would be useful to add such a feature for situations similar to my example, no?

You need to read the Casio specs more carefully. The "reviews" at B&H are enlightening as well. It's a nice combination of a still camera and video camera in one body.

The CS (continuous shutter) mode captures 60 frames - a burst in "still." You can time the frames for 1 per second for 60 seconds or 60 frames in 1 second. Or adjust it in between for staggered combinations of frames/time for 60 frames. That's it. A big buffer. That takes over 20 seconds to dump. So interesting, perhaps impressive, but not a significantly different performance than dslrs at full res. Not sure if you are "forced" to go with the full 60 or you can start, stop, etc., and let it play catch-up.

The "still" limitations are similar to most digicams. It doesn't have comparable optics to the various interchangeable lenses, it's "wide" isn't all that wide in use in the HD aspect ratio (when looking to the vertical it approximates a cropped 45mm range although for still one could shoot in portrait - singles). The concern might be if one needs a "travel" camera and is shooting in compressed areas, say old urban areas, in crowded museums, Disneyland with it's "forced" architecture," it may not be close to wide enough. Low light performance seems fairly consistent with similar digicams - not even close to the same usability as larger sensor dslrs.

It has video modes. It records HD video at 60 fps in a video format - not in full RAW (DNG) or jpg formats (recording time limits seem to be imposed for regulatory reasons?). The faster modes drop resolution and record in compressed video formats, the fastest is quite small - not that they aren't useful in some ways, and very useful for some things.

It has it's applications and features but it's still a compromise camera. If one needs either a full, high end video or still camera, this isn't it. If one can use the particular features, it may be the best thing available in it's price range.

domk275 said:

okay, I'll accept that - it can be useful to have the mirror swing
down - but, still, if the technology is available,

Click to expand...

AFAIK it isn't. Sony doesn't offer an APS-C or FF sized sensor with such a fast read out so far, whatever the reason may be. The sensor employed in the D300 and A700 for example has a maximum read-out speed of 10 fps.

domk275 said:

why don't DSLR
manufacturers add an optional mode in which the mirror stays locked
up, to allow for much faster burst rates like, say, 20fps on an entry
level up to 40-60fps on a flagship? this would be useful for
situations where you don't need to see through the VF during the
burst, or can use LV instead, and can prefocus? Like, for example, if
you're trying to get a shot of a batter hitting the ball in a game of
baseball, cricket, etc? You could frame your shot while the batter is
waiting for the ball, and prefocus on him at the same time. I mean,
obviously the way the 1DmkIII works is far superior to the way the
Sony HX1 or the Casio high-speed cameras work, but surely it would be
useful to add such a feature for situations similar to my example, no?

Click to expand...

Theoretically, yes. But practically such applications are the exception rather than the rule. A sports photographer won't find many situations in which the target stands still while performing the action the photographer wants to capture in high-speed mode. Let's not forget that you are more likely than not going to shoot those sequences with (super)-telephoto lenses with a fairly narrow DOF. Thus even slight subject movement in between locking focus and capturing the shot may render the images useless.

Apples and oranges here. There are compact cameras with more megapixels than some of the top SLR cameras. The Nikon D700 has ONLY 12MP compared to 14-15MP for some of Nikon's pocket cameras. So is the pocket camera better? Specs don't necessarily translate into results.

So for your burst comparison, one can output 10fps of magazine quality images and one can output 30fps of below-average snapshot quality images.

Faster than the 1DMkIII, but absolutely not equal.

This may be the future of pocket cameras, but not of DSLR's. At least I hope not.

--
Crime Scene Photography