How many FPS is enough?

[PhotoTeach2]

But having high frame rates give choices when opportunity is limited. I had exactly two passes to attempt these shots. That was it.

What 40 fps allows is the opportunity to nail it in one attempt Especially when tracking AF is amazing. Yes, you can prefocus on a spot and take one snap.


But do you take that one snap at perfectly mid-str


Or how close does one get with only one at bat to attempt this kind of shot (cropped in for identity privacy)

Indeed when it is necessary shooting such things, it is extremely useful.

OK, that is exactly the point ... the newer (now possible) frame-rates and Pre-Pro Capture are simply new paradigms to widen the shooting envelope to (action) shots never before possible, (same as FULLY-articulating & reversible LCD and leaf/global shutters for unlimited sunlight flash-sync).

 

[bagelbesides]

The fps rate I use depends on what I shoot. If I need to shoot sports or wildlife, high fps is a game changer and I like using 40 or even 60 frames. However, for most casual photography or even portraits, anything above 20 fps might indeed be overkill.

I'd also say that even 5 or 6 frames is more than enough for most human activities. So, you don't need cameras with high fps to make good vids

 

[PhotoTeach2]

Remember that the new stacked-sensors also allow <5ms shutter-lag, compared to up to 300ms in (past) dSLR's.

Out of curiosity, can you give examples of cameras made, says, within last 10 years that have a 300 ms shutter lag (I'm assuming this doesn't include time for the lens to autofocus, which can vary a lot depending on the lens)? That sounds like something that would be pretty annoying for even people who don't shoot action.

Luminous-Landscape used to test for AF & shutter-lag timings for all cameras.

Note that I said "up-to", 300ms, and I admit (only) the (<10yrs)) higher-level dSLR's are now somewhat faster, but the D3xxx & D5xxx are still about 200ms, (and up to 3 full-seconds) in Live View).

The FZ1000 was the first w/ <100ms (both AF & shutter lag), 9yrs ago.

And the RX10-IV was the first w/ <20ms, 6yrs ago.

The newest technology evidently allows <5ms, and I WELCOME it.

BUT .... we still have the inherent human-reaction time up to 300/500ms ... which only the Pre-Pro Capture can compensate for when spontaneous-situations don't allow "anticipation" to assist with timing.

 

[Mika Y.]

Remember that the new stacked-sensors also allow <5ms shutter-lag, compared to up to 300ms in (past) dSLR's.

Out of curiosity, can you give examples of cameras made, says, within last 10 years that have a 300 ms shutter lag (I'm assuming this doesn't include time for the lens to autofocus, which can vary a lot depending on the lens)? That sounds like something that would be pretty annoying for even people who don't shoot action.

Luminous-Landscape used to include AF and shutter-lag for all cameras.

Note that I said "up-to", 300ms, and I admit the (newer) higher-level dSLR's somewhat faster, but the D3xxx & D5xxx are still about 200ms, (and up to 3 full-seconds) in Live View).

Maybe the figures really are that high while using live view. But in practice, DSLRs are mostly used with the viewfinder. Personally, my liveview usage has pretty much been for long exposure astrophotography and landscape shots, where the camera is on tripod and using the LCD is actually more ergonomic if the target is high on the sky.

Anyway, I did a quick googling for the first FF DSLR I purchased, Canon 5D mk III from 2012, so it's 11 years old. According to the table on this review, it has a 59 ms shutter lag. Even the largest values listed on the table is 110 ms (belonging to Canon EOS Rebel T3 / 1100D).

Actually my first DSLR in general, 20D from 2004(!) seems to have just 65 ms shutter lag

Certainly 300'ish ms values aren't typical, even for very old DSLRs.

Edit: forgot the link: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-DSLR-Camera-Review.aspx

 

[PhotoTeach2]

Remember that the new stacked-sensors also allow <5ms shutter-lag, compared to up to 300ms in (past) dSLR's.

Out of curiosity, can you give examples of cameras made, says, within last 10 years that have a 300 ms shutter lag (I'm assuming this doesn't include time for the lens to autofocus, which can vary a lot depending on the lens)? That sounds like something that would be pretty annoying for even people who don't shoot action.

Luminous-Landscape used to include AF and shutter-lag for all cameras.

Note that I said "up-to", 300ms, and I admit the (newer) higher-level dSLR's somewhat faster, but the D3xxx & D5xxx are still about 200ms, (and up to 3 full-seconds) in Live View).

Maybe the figures really are that high while using live view. But in practice, DSLRs are mostly used with the viewfinder. Personally, my liveview usage has pretty much been for long exposure astrophotography and landscape shots, where the camera is on tripod and using the LCD is actually more ergonomic if the target is high on the sky.

Anyway, I did a quick googling for the first FF DSLR I purchased, Canon 5D mk III from 2012, so it's 11 years old. According to the table on this review, it has a 59 ms shutter lag. Even the largest values listed on the table is 110 ms (belonging to Canon EOS Rebel T3 / 1100D).

Actually my first DSLR in general, 20D from 2004(!) seems to have just 65 ms shutter lag

I am not going to argue because I have acknowledged they are indeed getting faster, and I can easily accept the (top-tier pro) 5D-III, (just as the Nikon D series was somewhat faster also).

But I could ask if that was (only) "shutter"-lag or combined AF+shutter ??? (checked and it was indeed "shutter" lag)

My numbers are mostly combined (AF+shutter) lag.

Maybe the 300'ish values are for some bridge or compact cameras?

Well, "compact" cameras were much longer than that, (sometimes over 1-3 seconds).

But "bridge" cameras were mostly faster than dSLR's. My first Konica/Minolta-A1 was very fast, as was the Sony HX-100. (both faster than my dSLR's)

The FZ-200 & FZ-1000 were 100ms (combined AF/shutter), but only 20ms "shutter" lag.

I think the RX10-IV was 20ms combined.

BTW: the Luminous-Landscape AF timings were with the lens PRESET to the CORRECT distance, so the AF timing was not actually "AF", but rather AF-"confirmation". So I suggest the bridge-camera (non-prefocused) timings would have a further advantage over most dSLR lenses simply because the smaller-lighter lenses had less inertia and thus could (internally) AF-travel faster.

I once went to a Fuji camera demonstration of the newest/fastest dSLR (XT3 I think), and the rep was bragging about his (fast) AF.

I was not impressed and indeed handed my FZ1000 to the (Fuji) rep and he was surprised and acknowledged it was faster than his.

Edit: forgot the link: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-DSLR-Camera-Review.aspx

 

[Mika Y.]

Remember that the new stacked-sensors also allow <5ms shutter-lag, compared to up to 300ms in (past) dSLR's.

Out of curiosity, can you give examples of cameras made, says, within last 10 years that have a 300 ms shutter lag (I'm assuming this doesn't include time for the lens to autofocus, which can vary a lot depending on the lens)? That sounds like something that would be pretty annoying for even people who don't shoot action.

Luminous-Landscape used to include AF and shutter-lag for all cameras.

Note that I said "up-to", 300ms, and I admit the (newer) higher-level dSLR's somewhat faster, but the D3xxx & D5xxx are still about 200ms, (and up to 3 full-seconds) in Live View).

Maybe the figures really are that high while using live view. But in practice, DSLRs are mostly used with the viewfinder. Personally, my liveview usage has pretty much been for long exposure astrophotography and landscape shots, where the camera is on tripod and using the LCD is actually more ergonomic if the target is high on the sky.

Anyway, I did a quick googling for the first FF DSLR I purchased, Canon 5D mk III from 2012, so it's 11 years old. According to the table on this review, it has a 59 ms shutter lag. Even the largest values listed on the table is 110 ms (belonging to Canon EOS Rebel T3 / 1100D).

Actually my first DSLR in general, 20D from 2004(!) seems to have just 65 ms shutter lag

I am not going to argue because I have acknowledged they are indeed getting faster, and I can easily accept the (top-tier pro) 5D-III, (just as the Nikon D series was somewhat faster also).

As well as that non-top-tier 20D from 2004...

But I could ask if that was (only) "shutter"-lag or combined AF+shutter ??? (checked and it was indeed "shutter" lag)

My numbers are mostly combined (AF+shutter) lag.

Maybe the 300'ish values are for some bridge or compact cameras?

Well, "compact" cameras were much longer than that, (sometimes over 1-3 seconds).

But "bridge" cameras were mostly faster than dSLR's. My first Konica/Minolta-A1 was very fast, as was the Sony HX-100. (both faster than my dSLR's)

The FZ-200 & FZ-1000 were 100ms (combined AF/shutter), but only 20ms "shutter" lag.

I think the RX10-IV was 20ms combined.

BTW: the Luminous-Landscape AF timings were with the lens PRESET to the CORRECT distance, so the AF timing was not actually "AF", but rather AF-"confirmation". So I suggest the bridge-camera (non-prefocused) timings would have a further advantage over most dSLR lenses simply because the smaller-lighter lenses had less inertia and thus could (internally) AF-travel faster.

I once went to a Fuji camera demonstration of the newest/fastest dSLR (XT3 I think), and the rep was bragging about his (fast) AF.

I was not impressed and indeed handed my FZ1000 to the (Fuji) rep and he was surprised and acknowledged it was faster than his.

I think the problem with including the AF time is that it quickly becomes very hard to compare apples and oranges. A slow wide-angle lens on any system is going to very likely focus much faster than a fast supertele on the same system if both of them are significantly out of focus. And things will become even more fuzzy if the exact same lenses are not available on different camera systems.

In practice I see the AF speed as somewhat less critical; even with action, unless it's very rapid or unpredictable, it's often possible to acquire the focus, keep on tracking the subject and when the time is right, fire single shots, burst, whatever the user prefers without going through the AF delay again, but the shutter lag is there always.

 

[BackToNature1]

YES .. and ... YES ... to the final two images, (but of course Tony would have done better with his single-shot "skills" .... LOL).

These conversations of what is or isn't needed seem to always go South. Part of the reason I suspect why DPR might not be around much longer than this year. What might be cool, a takeover by the Leftover Staff, and they own it outright. As opposed to having Amazon telling One how to run things. Now that would be real Independence.

I have been a Huge Fan of Wildlife. This was Long before I started doing Photography. How many thing in Nature do we almost never see posted. Mostly because a Single Shot is literally impossible for anyone to do. Humans can't anticipate what's can't be anticipated. I have no problem accepting that, other seem to have a huge problem with that. Hence the need for proper Pre Burst capture.

I don't even think the Sony a1, Canon R3, or the Nikon Z8 have proper, RAW Pre Burst Capture. I know the Nikon only does it in JPEG. One of the most underappreciated Birds and one of the most annoying one's, that would be the Mockingbird. They and the Bluejays are the First Alarm almost every time a predator arrives on the scene. But oh how the Mockingbirds chase off other birds one is trying to Photo.

My most used camera is my Panasonic Fz1000. Not because it's my best camera, but because it is the most convenience one to use. Would love to see one with a MFT sensor. Swallows are currently the bird most folks talk about most in the level of difficulty to capture. However I am certain the most difficult part is location, location, location. Below is a screen shot from my Pana from a great location. Thing is, I was just starting out with the Camera. The last is of a bird I still don't know what it is other than I love to see it Hunt. I didn't realize how many birds go after dragonflies.

 

[tbcass]

Not only do I not need burst shooting, I actively dislike it. If I activate it accidentally, it nearly makes me jump out of my skin.

Photography is a considered, often contemplative activity for me and I sure don't need that thing going off in my face while I am trying to think.

You obviously don't shoot sports and other action, fast-paced activities.

It all depends upon how you characterize action. IMHO if you need high frame rates you probably have not figured out how to properly shoot your subject.

That is incorrect. I have been shooting sports and fast action for 55 years and developed the skills necessary. However, once I had a camera that could shoot 10 fps I realized the advantages and found no reason not to take advantage of the capability. It gives me more results to choose from for just the right ones. There is absolutely no reason for me not to shoot at 10 FPS for sports. Cameras capable of shooting bursts have been used by professional sports photographers for decades and you can't claim they "have not figured out how to properly shoot their subject".

Of course there are exceptional requirements such as the capture of a tennis ball compressing the strings of a tennis racket. You can always invent special shooting conditions that are "difficult". Fortunately, for my action photography, nothing is difficult.

Generally, I find 10 fps enough but for capturing the moment you describe here and others like the moment a bat or golf club hits a ball more is required unless you are lucky.

 

[tbcass]

The issue is that if you do not have a (newer) SUPER-HIGH frame-rate (aka 20/30fps), then you HAVE to rely on a (well timed) single shot, (and I am not denying you are indeed skilled with these very good shots).

However ... if you indeed do have a 20/30fps then you can capture (possibly) even better shots, (because the above are still only "guesses" of the "peak" -- where you "anticipated the peak").

Conventional (high) frame-rates were simply not fast enough to allow what is now possible (w/ 20/30+fps).

I would rather have 5+ different shots to choose from than one because choice is good.

 

[Mackiesback]

I think the faster burst modes are encouraging people to think they are better photographers than they really are.

I've read countless posts about the newest model having a high burst rate, followed by questions about the quickest way to cull the thousands of images produced in an hours worth of work. Those are followed by questions of the best ways to archive them "for future generations."

If you're only successful using spray and pray are you doing anything differently than a security camera?

The world doesn't need more mediocre images. Do we really need more BIF?

Shoot less, think more.

The final image doesn’t care how hard it was to capture. That’s just reality. I think most people are realistic about their skill set and are just appreciative of the fact that better tools can make certain things easier. I used a mitre saw this weekend to build a patio planter. Should I have used a mitre box and hand saw for it to be a legit wood project? Used a power screw driver too. Only hammer and nails are legit? I don’t pretend to be a great wood worker. I’m just happy to have some tomatoes.

I take pictures for my family and myself. Not for you to appreciate the difficulty level. If 40 fps gets me a cool shot that I wouldn’t be able to get, that’s cool by me.

I had to spend days at the library to write a research paper. My kids spend hours online to get the same articles.

Progress, my friend. Don’t be upset about it.

Some seasoned photographers talk out of both sides of their mouths. Equipment doesn’t matter. Only the final image! Unless the equipment makes the final image easier to get, then it’s cheating!

I wasn't talking about the final image. I was talking about a photographer's ability, which is not measured by a single image.

Spray and pray doesn't develop skills in photography/fieldcraft (except in deleting).

Of course, there are plenty of people on the internet who don't care about developing their skills or advancing the art - they just want instant results.

Advancing the art/craft of photography is important to me. And it should be to anyone who appreciates photography.

That's what sets us apart from snapshot shooter.

This all sounds pretty judgy to me. There is no holistic standard to the quality of an image based on the degree of difficulty to get it. You draw the line at high frame rates. Did you similarly draw the line at auto focus? In camera metering? Auto ISO or white balance? I mean, who sets the standard for what is too convenient, making the shooter less of a photographer? That is impossibly subjective.

If people what to spray and pray, that's fine, they can spend hours in front of the computer if they want to. If people want to cull for the "perfect" image of the set, that's fine too. People have wildly different standards for the perfect image. The three images of the cheetah in this thread are a good example, there will not be 100% agreement on which one is best, and an argument can be made for all three. I could make the argument that none are perfect because they are shot through a chain link fence.

We all have different standards and passions and preferences. IMO, spray and pray doesn't make you any less of a photographer than any other technology built in to modern cameras. Live and let live, as they say.

 

[JustUs7]

I could make the argument that none are perfect because they are shot through a chain link fence.

The Cincinnati Zoo wasn’t much of a drive. An African Safari wasn’t in the spring break budget.

 

[tony field]

The issue is that if you do not have a (newer) SUPER-HIGH frame-rate (aka 20/30fps), then you HAVE to rely on a (well timed) single shot, (and I am not denying you are indeed skilled with these very good shots).

However ... if you indeed do have a 20/30fps then you can capture (possibly) even better shots, (because the above are still only "guesses" of the "peak" -- where you "anticipated the peak").

Conventional (high) frame-rates were simply not fast enough to allow what is now possible (w/ 20/30+fps).

But I repeat those are excellent shots above.

Anyone can post Random shots and claim they were the decisive moments. Hence the problem. Ask someone to go out on a given today for a exact set of moments, then you see what they can or can't do.

I have shot sports and dance single shot for many decades. Look through my gallery for examples. Surprisingly it is not magic. Mostly it is practice and anticipation which are simple skills that can usually be acquired.

Tony, I repeat again that those are excellent shots.

But do you deny that if they were instead shot @ 20/30fps, you could potentially/probably have selected one (or even several) that could be better ???

No matter how well timed you think you are, (and I am very-good/excellent also), they are still (educated) "guesses" of the "best" timed. No matter how satisfied I may have been in the past, I am not vain enough to not concede they could potentially have been even better.

There are also things like lighting and birds starting to fly that are impossible to "anticipate", (aka "Anticipate The Action") only Pre/Pro-Capture can capture spontaneous events.

Also, think of a football player running to catch a pass. Is the best shot of the (running0 player as he is looking back at the ball approaching, -or- maybe a split-second later when the ball is 'inches" from his fingers, -or- a split-second later when the ball is firmly in his hands (with his head still looking back where the ball camera from), -or- when he has tucked his hands/ball to his chest and now looking toward the goal, -or- OOPS ... he is now being grabbed tackled and an entire new series of "best" possible shots start.

With single shot, (or even conventional "fast" fps), was NOT fast enough to allow possibly 5 or 6 usable/sellable shots from those (closely-timed) sequences.

Both the newer (20/30fps) frame-rates, and Pre-Pro Capture, are a new paradigm for action-photography, (including the never-possible before ability to capture the "peak" of action AFTER the "peak").

Arguing against paradigm-changing technology is the same as those who argued against built-in & auto metering back in the 60's, AF in the 90's, and more recently MirrorLess cameras.

Remember that the new stacked-sensors also allow <5ms shutter-lag, compared to up to 300ms in (past) dSLR's.

I also don't understand why the reluctance to FULLY-articulating (and reversible) LCD, to enable shooting positions never before (accurately) possible.

Indeed shooting paradigm can change with technology. What I interpret from these and other comments is that good video cameras with small number of tweeks would be great for general photography. All you need to ensure is that sufficient sensor resolution is available for scenic, studio, and other genres.

 

[PhotoTeach2]

The issue is that if you do not have a (newer) SUPER-HIGH frame-rate (aka 20/30fps), then you HAVE to rely on a (well timed) single shot, (and I am not denying you are indeed skilled with these very good shots).

However ... if you indeed do have a 20/30fps then you can capture (possibly) even better shots, (because the above are still only "guesses" of the "peak" -- where you "anticipated the peak").

Conventional (high) frame-rates were simply not fast enough to allow what is now possible (w/ 20/30+fps).

But I repeat those are excellent shots above.

Anyone can post Random shots and claim they were the decisive moments. Hence the problem. Ask someone to go out on a given today for a exact set of moments, then you see what they can or can't do.

I have shot sports and dance single shot for many decades. Look through my gallery for examples. Surprisingly it is not magic. Mostly it is practice and anticipation which are simple skills that can usually be acquired.

Tony, I repeat again that those are excellent shots.

But do you deny that if they were instead shot @ 20/30fps, you could potentially/probably have selected one (or even several) that could be better ???

No matter how well timed you think you are, (and I am very-good/excellent also), they are still (educated) "guesses" of the "best" timed. No matter how satisfied I may have been in the past, I am not vain enough to not concede they could potentially have been even better.

There are also things like lighting and birds starting to fly that are impossible to "anticipate", (aka "Anticipate The Action") only Pre/Pro-Capture can capture spontaneous events.

Also, think of a football player running to catch a pass. Is the best shot of the (running0 player as he is looking back at the ball approaching, -or- maybe a split-second later when the ball is 'inches" from his fingers, -or- a split-second later when the ball is firmly in his hands (with his head still looking back where the ball camera from), -or- when he has tucked his hands/ball to his chest and now looking toward the goal, -or- OOPS ... he is now being grabbed tackled and an entire new series of "best" possible shots start.

With single shot, (or even conventional "fast" fps), was NOT fast enough to allow possibly 5 or 6 usable/sellable shots from those (closely-timed) sequences.

Both the newer (20/30fps) frame-rates, and Pre-Pro Capture, are a new paradigm for action-photography, (including the never-possible before ability to capture the "peak" of action AFTER the "peak").

Arguing against paradigm-changing technology is the same as those who argued against built-in & auto metering back in the 60's, AF in the 90's, and more recently MirrorLess cameras.

Remember that the new stacked-sensors also allow <5ms shutter-lag, compared to up to 300ms in (past) dSLR's.

I also don't understand why the reluctance to FULLY-articulating (and reversible) LCD, to enable shooting positions never before (accurately) possible.

Indeed shooting paradigm can change with technology. What I interpret from these and other comments is that good video cameras with small number of tweeks would be great for general photography.

All you need to ensure is that sufficient sensor resolution is available for scenic, studio, and other genres.

Extracted was never practically possible w/ conventional 512/1024, but is now possible w/ 4/8K video.

But the new stacked-sensor technology now allows even faster and higher-resolution.

But the real paradigm change is Pre-Pro Capture, (enables capturing "peak" of action AFTER the "peak").

 

[tony field]

The issue is that if you do not have a (newer) SUPER-HIGH frame-rate (aka 20/30fps), then you HAVE to rely on a (well timed) single shot, (and I am not denying you are indeed skilled with these very good shots).

However ... if you indeed do have a 20/30fps then you can capture (possibly) even better shots, (because the above are still only "guesses" of the "peak" -- where you "anticipated the peak").

Conventional (high) frame-rates were simply not fast enough to allow what is now possible (w/ 20/30+fps).

But I repeat those are excellent shots above.

Anyone can post Random shots and claim they were the decisive moments. Hence the problem. Ask someone to go out on a given today for a exact set of moments, then you see what they can or can't do.

I have shot sports and dance single shot for many decades. Look through my gallery for examples. Surprisingly it is not magic. Mostly it is practice and anticipation which are simple skills that can usually be acquired.

Tony, I repeat again that those are excellent shots.

But do you deny that if they were instead shot @ 20/30fps, you could potentially/probably have selected one (or even several) that could be better ???

No matter how well timed you think you are, (and I am very-good/excellent also), they are still (educated) "guesses" of the "best" timed. No matter how satisfied I may have been in the past, I am not vain enough to not concede they could potentially have been even better.

There are also things like lighting and birds starting to fly that are impossible to "anticipate", (aka "Anticipate The Action") only Pre/Pro-Capture can capture spontaneous events.

Also, think of a football player running to catch a pass. Is the best shot of the (running0 player as he is looking back at the ball approaching, -or- maybe a split-second later when the ball is 'inches" from his fingers, -or- a split-second later when the ball is firmly in his hands (with his head still looking back where the ball camera from), -or- when he has tucked his hands/ball to his chest and now looking toward the goal, -or- OOPS ... he is now being grabbed tackled and an entire new series of "best" possible shots start.

With single shot, (or even conventional "fast" fps), was NOT fast enough to allow possibly 5 or 6 usable/sellable shots from those (closely-timed) sequences.

Both the newer (20/30fps) frame-rates, and Pre-Pro Capture, are a new paradigm for action-photography, (including the never-possible before ability to capture the "peak" of action AFTER the "peak").

Arguing against paradigm-changing technology is the same as those who argued against built-in & auto metering back in the 60's, AF in the 90's, and more recently MirrorLess cameras.

Remember that the new stacked-sensors also allow <5ms shutter-lag, compared to up to 300ms in (past) dSLR's.

I also don't understand why the reluctance to FULLY-articulating (and reversible) LCD, to enable shooting positions never before (accurately) possible.

Indeed shooting paradigm can change with technology. What I interpret from these and other comments is that good video cameras with small number of tweeks would be great for general photography.

All you need to ensure is that sufficient sensor resolution is available for scenic, studio, and other genres.

Extracted was never practically possible w/ conventional 512/1024, but is now possible w/ 4/8K video.

True

But the new stacked-sensor technology now allows even faster and higher-resolution.

Indeed

But the real paradigm change is Pre-Pro Capture, (enables capturing "peak" of action AFTER the "peak").

There are simple and practical ways to do this even for single frame shooter like me. I set my Canon 1D 4 to a frame rate of 5 fps but not faster. I shot one frame and release the shutter button. If the rider or skater has a fall, I can keep the shutter button depressed and usually record a few motor drive Images in the aftermath of the fall. This occasionally results in a useful image with no unnecessary motor drive images.

I don't see any practical use for possible 'pre peak' capture.

--
Charles Darwin: "ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge."
tony

 

[Chas Tennis]

Trillion Frame per Second Imaging & Light in Flight

See an extremely brief population of photons entering through the bottom of a Coke bottle and moving to its cap. (This research was done over 10 years ago.)

We won the lottery - to be born during the Birth of the Information Age.

"You'll never see the likes of this again." (Fred Astaire about Hollywood ?)

Chas Tennis

 

[fferreres]

In the old days, that was just 2 years ago, even most pros thought that 14 fps was pretty much enough. Now that the big 3 all have a serious ML offering, some cameras I've heard will shoot as high as 100 fps or so.

How many fps do we need? Isn't anything over 20 fps just overkill? What do you shoot faster? Do you really need it? Is going through 200 shoots in 2 seconds just to get the decisive moment a little more decisive worth it?

How do you use fast fps and do you need that much speed? Have you bought a high fps camera just because of the high fps? Does everyone with a dslr have to feel inadequate and immediately go buy a ML?

John

Some cameras have over a million FPS. I don't think there's a limit. For most, 60 fps would be a limit after which one may be best served by a specialized high speed camera.

 

[PhotoTeach2]

The issue is that if you do not have a (newer) SUPER-HIGH frame-rate (aka 20/30fps), then you HAVE to rely on a (well timed) single shot, (and I am not denying you are indeed skilled with these very good shots).

However ... if you indeed do have a 20/30fps then you can capture (possibly) even better shots, (because the above are still only "guesses" of the "peak" -- where you "anticipated the peak").

Conventional (high) frame-rates were simply not fast enough to allow what is now possible (w/ 20/30+fps).

But I repeat those are excellent shots above.

Anyone can post Random shots and claim they were the decisive moments. Hence the problem. Ask someone to go out on a given today for a exact set of moments, then you see what they can or can't do.

I have shot sports and dance single shot for many decades. Look through my gallery for examples. Surprisingly it is not magic. Mostly it is practice and anticipation which are simple skills that can usually be acquired.

Tony, I repeat again that those are excellent shots.

But do you deny that if they were instead shot @ 20/30fps, you could potentially/probably have selected one (or even several) that could be better ???

No matter how well timed you think you are, (and I am very-good/excellent also), they are still (educated) "guesses" of the "best" timed. No matter how satisfied I may have been in the past, I am not vain enough to not concede they could potentially have been even better.

There are also things like lighting and birds starting to fly that are impossible to "anticipate", (aka "Anticipate The Action") only Pre/Pro-Capture can capture spontaneous events.

Also, think of a football player running to catch a pass. Is the best shot of the (running0 player as he is looking back at the ball approaching, -or- maybe a split-second later when the ball is 'inches" from his fingers, -or- a split-second later when the ball is firmly in his hands (with his head still looking back where the ball camera from), -or- when he has tucked his hands/ball to his chest and now looking toward the goal, -or- OOPS ... he is now being grabbed tackled and an entire new series of "best" possible shots start.

With single shot, (or even conventional "fast" fps), was NOT fast enough to allow possibly 5 or 6 usable/sellable shots from those (closely-timed) sequences.

Both the newer (20/30fps) frame-rates, and Pre-Pro Capture, are a new paradigm for action-photography, (including the never-possible before ability to capture the "peak" of action AFTER the "peak").

Arguing against paradigm-changing technology is the same as those who argued against built-in & auto metering back in the 60's, AF in the 90's, and more recently MirrorLess cameras.

Remember that the new stacked-sensors also allow <5ms shutter-lag, compared to up to 300ms in (past) dSLR's.

I also don't understand why the reluctance to FULLY-articulating (and reversible) LCD, to enable shooting positions never before (accurately) possible.

Indeed shooting paradigm can change with technology. What I interpret from these and other comments is that good video cameras with small number of tweeks would be great for general photography.

All you need to ensure is that sufficient sensor resolution is available for scenic, studio, and other genres.

Extracted was never practically possible w/ conventional 512/1024, but is now possible w/ 4/8K video.

True

But the new stacked-sensor technology now allows even faster and higher-resolution.

Indeed

But the real paradigm change is Pre-Pro Capture, (enables capturing "peak" of action AFTER the "peak").

There are simple and practical ways to do this even for single frame shooter like me. I set my Canon 1D 4 to a frame rate of 5 fps but not faster. I shot one frame and release the shutter button. If the rider or skater has a fall, I can keep the shutter button depressed and usually record a few motor drive Images in the aftermath of the fall. This occasionally results in a useful image with no unnecessary motor drive images.

I don't see any practical use for possible 'pre peak' capture.

How do you capture a lightning strike ???

How do you capture a complete sequence of a bird first taking flight, (maybe first flapping of his wings) ???

How about that rider "before" he falls, and then (a complete sequence) as he begins the fall ???

 

[tony field]

The issue is that if you do not have a (newer) SUPER-HIGH frame-rate (aka 20/30fps), then you HAVE to rely on a (well timed) single shot, (and I am not denying you are indeed skilled with these very good shots).

However ... if you indeed do have a 20/30fps then you can capture (possibly) even better shots, (because the above are still only "guesses" of the "peak" -- where you "anticipated the peak").

Conventional (high) frame-rates were simply not fast enough to allow what is now possible (w/ 20/30+fps).

But I repeat those are excellent shots above.

Anyone can post Random shots and claim they were the decisive moments. Hence the problem. Ask someone to go out on a given today for a exact set of moments, then you see what they can or can't do.

I have shot sports and dance single shot for many decades. Look through my gallery for examples. Surprisingly it is not magic. Mostly it is practice and anticipation which are simple skills that can usually be acquired.

Tony, I repeat again that those are excellent shots.

But do you deny that if they were instead shot @ 20/30fps, you could potentially/probably have selected one (or even several) that could be better ???

No matter how well timed you think you are, (and I am very-good/excellent also), they are still (educated) "guesses" of the "best" timed. No matter how satisfied I may have been in the past, I am not vain enough to not concede they could potentially have been even better.

There are also things like lighting and birds starting to fly that are impossible to "anticipate", (aka "Anticipate The Action") only Pre/Pro-Capture can capture spontaneous events.

Also, think of a football player running to catch a pass. Is the best shot of the (running0 player as he is looking back at the ball approaching, -or- maybe a split-second later when the ball is 'inches" from his fingers, -or- a split-second later when the ball is firmly in his hands (with his head still looking back where the ball camera from), -or- when he has tucked his hands/ball to his chest and now looking toward the goal, -or- OOPS ... he is now being grabbed tackled and an entire new series of "best" possible shots start.

With single shot, (or even conventional "fast" fps), was NOT fast enough to allow possibly 5 or 6 usable/sellable shots from those (closely-timed) sequences.

Both the newer (20/30fps) frame-rates, and Pre-Pro Capture, are a new paradigm for action-photography, (including the never-possible before ability to capture the "peak" of action AFTER the "peak").

Arguing against paradigm-changing technology is the same as those who argued against built-in & auto metering back in the 60's, AF in the 90's, and more recently MirrorLess cameras.

Remember that the new stacked-sensors also allow <5ms shutter-lag, compared to up to 300ms in (past) dSLR's.

I also don't understand why the reluctance to FULLY-articulating (and reversible) LCD, to enable shooting positions never before (accurately) possible.

Indeed shooting paradigm can change with technology. What I interpret from these and other comments is that good video cameras with small number of tweeks would be great for general photography.

All you need to ensure is that sufficient sensor resolution is available for scenic, studio, and other genres.

Extracted was never practically possible w/ conventional 512/1024, but is now possible w/ 4/8K video.

True

But the new stacked-sensor technology now allows even faster and higher-resolution.

Indeed

But the real paradigm change is Pre-Pro Capture, (enables capturing "peak" of action AFTER the "peak").

There are simple and practical ways to do this even for single frame shooter like me. I set my Canon 1D 4 to a frame rate of 5 fps but not faster. I shot one frame and release the shutter button. If the rider or skater has a fall, I can keep the shutter button depressed and usually record a few motor drive Images in the aftermath of the fall. This occasionally results in a useful image with no unnecessary motor drive images.

I don't see any practical use for possible 'pre peak' capture.

How do you capture a lightning strike ?

Not difficult. I did this in the 1990s with a light activated switch from Radio Shack. Designing the electronics was fun.

How do you capture a complete sequence of a bird first taking flight, (maybe first flapping of his wings) ???

Never would be a subject I would consider but sounds straight forward if I had a silent mirrorless

How about that rider "before" he falls, and then (a complete sequence) as he begins the fall ??

Overall generally implausible for my shooting however can easily be done practically with similar effects.

None of this is rocket science

I don't need a special camera to do the many things that you seem to need

--
Charles Darwin: "ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge."
tony

 

[PhotoTeach2]

The issue is that if you do not have a (newer) SUPER-HIGH frame-rate (aka 20/30fps), then you HAVE to rely on a (well timed) single shot, (and I am not denying you are indeed skilled with these very good shots).

However ... if you indeed do have a 20/30fps then you can capture (possibly) even better shots, (because the above are still only "guesses" of the "peak" -- where you "anticipated the peak").

Conventional (high) frame-rates were simply not fast enough to allow what is now possible (w/ 20/30+fps).

But I repeat those are excellent shots above.

Anyone can post Random shots and claim they were the decisive moments. Hence the problem. Ask someone to go out on a given today for a exact set of moments, then you see what they can or can't do.

I have shot sports and dance single shot for many decades. Look through my gallery for examples. Surprisingly it is not magic. Mostly it is practice and anticipation which are simple skills that can usually be acquired.

Tony, I repeat again that those are excellent shots.

But do you deny that if they were instead shot @ 20/30fps, you could potentially/probably have selected one (or even several) that could be better ???

No matter how well timed you think you are, (and I am very-good/excellent also), they are still (educated) "guesses" of the "best" timed. No matter how satisfied I may have been in the past, I am not vain enough to not concede they could potentially have been even better.

There are also things like lighting and birds starting to fly that are impossible to "anticipate", (aka "Anticipate The Action") only Pre/Pro-Capture can capture spontaneous events.

Also, think of a football player running to catch a pass. Is the best shot of the (running0 player as he is looking back at the ball approaching, -or- maybe a split-second later when the ball is 'inches" from his fingers, -or- a split-second later when the ball is firmly in his hands (with his head still looking back where the ball camera from), -or- when he has tucked his hands/ball to his chest and now looking toward the goal, -or- OOPS ... he is now being grabbed tackled and an entire new series of "best" possible shots start.

With single shot, (or even conventional "fast" fps), was NOT fast enough to allow possibly 5 or 6 usable/sellable shots from those (closely-timed) sequences.

Both the newer (20/30fps) frame-rates, and Pre-Pro Capture, are a new paradigm for action-photography, (including the never-possible before ability to capture the "peak" of action AFTER the "peak").

Arguing against paradigm-changing technology is the same as those who argued against built-in & auto metering back in the 60's, AF in the 90's, and more recently MirrorLess cameras.

Remember that the new stacked-sensors also allow <5ms shutter-lag, compared to up to 300ms in (past) dSLR's.

I also don't understand why the reluctance to FULLY-articulating (and reversible) LCD, to enable shooting positions never before (accurately) possible.

Indeed shooting paradigm can change with technology. What I interpret from these and other comments is that good video cameras with small number of tweeks would be great for general photography.

All you need to ensure is that sufficient sensor resolution is available for scenic, studio, and other genres.

Extracted was never practically possible w/ conventional 512/1024, but is now possible w/ 4/8K video.

True

But the new stacked-sensor technology now allows even faster and higher-resolution.

Indeed

But the real paradigm change is Pre-Pro Capture, (enables capturing "peak" of action AFTER the "peak").

There are simple and practical ways to do this even for single frame shooter like me. I set my Canon 1D 4 to a frame rate of 5 fps but not faster. I shot one frame and release the shutter button. If the rider or skater has a fall, I can keep the shutter button depressed and usually record a few motor drive Images in the aftermath of the fall. This occasionally results in a useful image with no unnecessary motor drive images.

I don't see any practical use for possible 'pre peak' capture.

How do you capture a lightning strike ?

Not difficult. I did this in the 1990s with a light activated switch from Radio Shack. Designing the electronics was fun.

May I ask what specific camera you used ??? (I am willing to bet it had "leaf" shutter ???)

How do you capture a complete sequence of a bird first taking flight, (maybe first flapping of his wings) ???

Never would be a subject I would consider but sounds straight forward if I had a silent mirrorless

I think it would be an "interesting" sequence of images.

But don't forget the (250ms) human-reaction time, (and I suggest it could be as much as 500ms since even when a bird first starts moving, you don't -yet- know it is actually planning on flying). To that you then have to add your mirror/shutter-lag.

How about that rider "before" he falls, and then (a complete sequence) as he begins the fall ??

Overall generally implausible for my shooting however can easily be done practically with similar effects.

None of this is rocket science

Actually, it is "rocket" science, since you can't easily/reliably do it w/out "Pre/Pro Capture".

 

[yardcoyote]

Not regularly, though I'll give 'em a go if I run across 'em. You can stop a lot of stuff a good old fashioned fast shutter speed.