How many FPS is enough?

[JohnSil]

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

 

[tony field]

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

I shoot show jumping, various genres of dance, and speed skating. In all cases except for radio controlled remote release I shoot only single frame. One of my friends shoots exactly three shots at 10 frames per second. He always times things so that the second frame is the money shot and the others are insurance.

 

[Chris Wolfgram]

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

My R5 can do 20 fps with electronic shutter, but I found I racked up too many shots too quickly. So I dropped it down to 12 fps. I think this is fine for me 98% of the time.

 

[Guy Parsons]

All the cameras I end up with the fps set in the 3 to 5 fps range as that suits most human activity. My Sony RX100M6 can do 24fps and early on I made the mistake of shooting a long burst of some street performer activity, and it proved way too much to wade though to look for a possible selected frame.

OK, no birds in flight or birds launching off twigs for me so I'm happy to stay at that 3-5fps range for the rare burst that I may do.

 

[Gam3r01]

Personally or theoretically?

Personally, I cap out around 12 at most, I've never felt like I've missed any shots due to framerate. I did feel like this back on 3-5.

If I had a specific use case, paid jobs doing sports for example, I would certainly be open to higher FPS.

 

[Gato Amarillo]

First off, I don't think this costs us anything. I expect this is an outgrowth of video development, and once the sensor and image pipeline can handle it why not make it available to still photographers? If only for bragging rights.

Do I need it personally? Not for anything I'm doing now, but back in the days when I shot sports action for money I could have used a lot more than the 8 frames per my old cameras would do. Sports can be unpredictable, and the photographer who gets to the top is the one who can get the shots no one else predicted. Which sometime is just a matter of getting a few frames either side of the predictable peak.

I'd say in those days I could have used 30 frames per second, maybe 50. Maybe more -- I wouldn't know until I tried.

As far as wading through too many shots in editing, in sports you don't have to look at every frame or even every play. You know the key plays of the game, and if you're good you know which of them you got the best shots. You can easily go to the peak action of the play, then maybe you only need to look closely at 4 or 5 frames. Even for a sequence with a lot of action you can quickly skim through for the peaks.

One question in my mind is whether this is better than frame grabs from video. Will it give better image quality? Is that important if my bosses also want video from the sequence? If I'm shooting stills at 30 or more frames per second how do they look merged into a video clip?

In the end, I don't need it for anything I'm doing now, but I don't object to the camera makers offering it for those who can use it.

Gato

 

[JohnSil]

Me personally , I shoot currently with an R5. Most of the action I shoot is bicycle racing. I've been practicing the decisive moment since 1965 and can predict the sports I'm interested in pretty well having done them all.

Before the R5 I was shooting both 1Dx bodies and usually kept them on 7 fps. I always felt that was a sweet spot for me. I did max fps only for finish line shots where I felt it was important to maximize my results and chances. With the R5 I've never used or even tried Electronic Shutter(ES). I just don't think I need 20 fps, never have. But worse would be to get a great shot only to be spoiled by Rolling Shutter(RS).

Have any of you gotten Rolling Shutter effect and regretted using ES for a few more fps?

Is ES worth it for BIF's? What about RS on the wing tips? Or for baseball bat-on-ball shots? Better than Mechanical Shutter(MS)

John

 

[a_c_skinner]

Gear only takes you so far and isn't a substitute for expertise. Do you hark back to film? Sadly I suspect a lot of snappers discount this as impossible and therefore do not aspire to it.

 

[Fogel70]

I think I could manage with 0.5 - 1 FPS. But faster like 5 FPS is nice to have sometimes.

 

[JohnSil]

Gear only takes you so far and isn't a substitute for expertise. Do you hark back to film? Sadly I suspect a lot of snappers discount this as impossible and therefore do not aspire to it.

Nothing wrong with 'one shot' or a 100. I try to keep shooting to a minimum but I'm certainly OK with taking advantage of the latest and greatest if I can.

I don't think that it's so much about experience as what works effectively for us to get the shots we need. BUT where do we separate experience from 'spray and pray' which can also be an experienced technique that obviously works well for some!

John

 

[alcelc]

A flagship camera overkills my usage but yet my camera support 30fps high speed shooting (mine are in video format so will get 8Mp JPG only but the flagship model can do 60fps or more and in RAW @full resolution). My cameras are not more than an upper entry class~mid range only.

Its beauty is whenever the camera will do 4K video, it could be used for the type of shooting without buffer size limitation or file writing problem. Hence including the entry class model could do it.

It is useful for motion capturing, fun to have it.

It also has a pre burst mode specially good to capture the critical moment of happening, e.g. burst of bubble, take off of a bird etc...

--
Albert
** Please forgive my typo error.
** Please feel free to download my image and edit it as you like **

 

[River Photography]

For me 3 to 5 , 10 if i really want the money shot (rare)

:-D

 

[JohnSil]

I think I could manage with 0.5 - 1 FPS. But faster like 5 FPS is nice to have sometimes.

LoL, I could never quite understand why the 5Ds was always labeled a niche studio camera? I shot a LOT of sports with it. Side by side with my 1Dxll they were a formidable team! BUT that camera going downhill and with the wind to its back I don't think it ever got over 3.5 fps! LoL And if I ever got carried away with it the buffer very quickly reminded me it was NOT a sports camera, BUT the shots it DID get were a thing of beauty at 50 mp!!!

John

 

[HappyMartin]

8 to 10 is fine for me on the occasions when I’m shooting action. Not very often in truth.
I see why some people need higher and it’s a fine bragging point for manufacturers. When I first got the A9 some years back I shot thousands of images of my dogs playing in the park. The novelty wore off.

 

[Mika Y.]

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?

I do mostly just use single shot mode and any burst mode only rarely in the first place, and I don't feel particularly limited by my camera's fairly pedestrian burst rate. But that's me and my personal needs for things I tend to photograph. Others can have different requirements and needs, and I don't mind if they get what they want too.

Does everyone with a dslr have to feel inadequate and immediately go buy a ML?

Quite obviously the answer is the same as for any feature one's current camera doesn't have: "no, unless you actually need feature X".

 

[Joseph S Wisniewski]

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?

Motion analysis, and I was using a Z7 in video mode at 120fps plus a couple of regent Samsung Galaxy phones at 480fps for some motion analysis work the other day.

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?

Absolutely. EVIL cameras are so far ahead of DSLRs for macro, landscape, product, and video that it's not even a close race.

Well, you asked.

 

[GodSpeaks]

One, maybe 2 FPS is more than adequate.

 

[sybersitizen]

I have two cameras that can do 60fps, although only for 40 frames at most. It's fun to play with ... but I don't actually use burst shooting at any speed with any of my cameras. The things I like to shoot don't require it.

 

[tbcass]

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

Obviously, there is no set rule. It depends on what you are shooting, how fast it's moving, and probably other variables. I have cameras that shoot up to 24fps. When shooting sports most of the time 10fps is enough but when shooting a batter or golfer hitting a ball even 24fps isn't always enough.

I have found that with group shots burst shooting is useful if you want to get all of them with the right smile and their eyes open. No matter how hard you try too often there seems to be someone who isn't posing well with a single shot. I used to simply take a lot of single shots but with a series of short bursts, it's even better.

--
Tom

 

[BackToNature1]

Gear only takes you so far and isn't a substitute for expertise. Do you hark back to film? Sadly I suspect a lot of snappers discount this as impossible and therefore do not aspire to it.

Expertise can't make the camera shoot 40fps if it only shoots 10fps. Expertise won't make a camera shoot 8k straight out of camera if it only shoots 4k, straight out of camera. A inch sensor won't give you the quality of an FF sensor an if you do post process to improve the quality, you can do the same thing to the FF image.

I strongly suspect, most folks whom continually critique those that do want more FPS, are very limited in what they do. I say that as one whom mostly shoots, 1 FPS in Manual Mode, regardless of what camera I am using. But I can clearly see the reason why so many, shoot at far higher FPS an or use far different setting for their case usage.