How many FPS is enough?

[tapirek]

How many fps do we need?

About... 1.

Never needed more than that.

 

[yardcoyote]

Enough? For me, my frame rate is as fast I can hit the shutter. I guess I can get two activations per second or even three with a fast shutter speed and proper motivation. I've never needed more than that.

 

[John Crowe]

My current camera shoots at 5 fps and I used to have a camera that shot at 10 fps.

I shoot a variety of motorsports including cars, motorbikes, and snowmobiles.

I use a mix of AF and MF lenses for these purposes. 10 fps is much easier to capture the ideal shot, than 5 fps. I get plenty of awesome keepers at 5 fps, but I know 10 fps can deliver more. Higher fps is obviously more important with MF lenses but it helps with AF to get the shot too.

I was far more careful with film exposing one image at a time. Of course I am 20 years older, and a little lazier, so I rely more on my camera. With my 5 fps camera I shoot a 3 frame burst anticipating that the middle one will be the keeper. With the 10 fps camera I shot a 5 frame burst anticipating that the middle image would be the keeper. So both bursts would be covering almost the same distance of movement of the subject. The 10 fps would deliver more keepers out of its centre 3 images.

I believe going to even 11 to 20 fps would only create more unnecessary photos that end up in the bin. Going through burst images is very time consuming. It also means anticipating going through much more card memory and the expense in that.

Consider also that the lens aperture is opening and closing at that same fps rate, unless one is shooting wide open. Until the past few years only a few pros have been able to shoot at 10 fps. Now that we have many people shooting at high fps we will find out how that affects apertures and how often they need to be repaired or replaced.

Of course we have to consider wear and tear on camera shutters as well and the possibility of replacing shutters or cameras 2 or 3 times more often.

Some specialty motion photography used to rely on fast flash bursts as well. Certainly 20 plus fps would be useful for capturing the motion of water droplets and waves, or perhaps the reaction of colliding subjects. How often are the majority of consumers doing this?

All in all, I think 10 fps is the most efficient rate required.

 

[David Pavlich]

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.

Yep! I haven't had my R5 very long, but I have yet to shoot in electronic shutter. For what I shoot, 12 fps is plenty fast.

David

 

[OSP2017]

I shoot sports and I can clearly see how my "peak action" shots improved when I upgraded from a 1DX to an R3 at 30 fps. For example, with volleyball I get many more frames when the ball is bent against a player's hands - this used to be much rarer previously although I was still getting these shots even at 6 fps. I shoot short bursts and I always cull whenever there is a pause in action as I am on a deadline; there is no problem whatsoever with reviewing the extra frames.

 

[robgendreau]

If one uses the higher rates a lot one soon gets punished for the profligacy back at the computer...and learns to dial it back unless really necessary.

But OTOH when one needs the higher rates I'm sure it's a blessing.

I actually prefer the Pro Capture way of dealing with this that OM has; it caches ahead of a shutter commit and then a bunch that would otherwise be saved get tossed. I haven't checked lately, but I recall they had the best implementation of that idea, which should be offered (if possible) by other manufacturers.

 

[David Pavlich]

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.

Yep! I remember. I also remember that's all we had to shoot with. My expertise is lacking when it comes to trying to figure out just when a deer is going to lift its head and pose in that perfect position, or when a cardinal is going to raise its wings to be in the perfect 'take off' position, or when my granddaughter is running toward me and she looks up and smiles while all the time before that, she had her head down.

We have the ability now to capture moments MUCH easier than we did 'back in the good ole' days'. The camera companies have made obtaining that perfect moment a ton easier. I say embrace it!

David

 

[Bobo Hodls]

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 don't use continuous shooting much, and I don't need what the top models are offering. But it's nice to have for studies outside the usual, afaic.

Do they still make DSLRs? [grin-duck]

 

[PhotosFlight]

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.

Guess I'm not alone. A short burst at 10-12 fps is more than enough. For sports I study the situation and try to anticipate what will happen. Then, it is a quick burst just before the shot I want unfolds. My goal is no more than 5 shots per burst while still getting the shot.

 

[BGD300V1]

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.

saves a lot of work culling because of the insignificant differences and I manage to get one or two I like from a short sequence.









The whole story of a rounding the fourth image starts the second second. In this case most of the other 15 in the 20fps burst would have the hat down. Shot three is the point where the horse is still minding the barrel position but the rider's attention has moved to the next.

--
I'm a photographer, Jim, not a graphic artist!
My photo blog: http://birdsnbugs.com
RF Stock Portfolio - http://www.dreamstime.com/resp129611

 

[JohnSil]

Of course we have to consider wear and tear on camera shutters as well and the possibility of replacing shutters or cameras 2 or 3 times more often.

Hmmm, that's an interesting theory, or could be one. The manufacturers are giving us something we can use but in the backs of their minds they're really smirking knowing we'll have to buy 2 or 3 times as many cameras and lenses because we'll wear them out!? Remember in the old film days, many of us used a camera for years, there wasn't as much urgency to get new cameras, just better films. Everyone wanted the pro models with the interchangeable prisms, remember those? Now the prism is GONE and we need a new camera every 2 years!!!

John

 

[Carol T]

Perhaps round up to 0.02...

 

[JRP64]

My guess is when camera manufacturers give you the feature where you can take a frame from a 8K video and make it a real quality image FPS won't mean to much for most people (I'm not saying all). People will be will be able to choose the image out of the video though in my opinion it will take the fun out of photography.

 

[RIPbiker13]

My guess is when camera manufacturers give you the feature where you can take a frame from a 8K video and make it a real quality image FPS won't mean to much for most people (I'm not saying all). People will be will be able to choose the image out of the video though in my opinion it will take the fun out of photography.

I like stills but I shoot video too, and with video comes editing software. I shoot video in the highest frame rate possible, then the highest resolution at that frame rate. Sometimes I can get a still from that footage. Getting a decent (not large print quality, but good enough for social media) from 60fps 4k is easy.

As far as shooting stills, 99 times out of 100, I just shoot the one or two frames. Very rarely do I shoot high speed. When I do, I find that right around 10fps is still more than I need. For my needs, I will not select a camera based on fps shooting ability over another feature I may value more.

 

[SelrahCharleS]

Generally. But more is nice sometimes.

In the situations I'm wanting more I'm not sure there is an upper limit.

 

[PhotosFlight]

Of course we have to consider wear and tear on camera shutters as well and the possibility of replacing shutters or cameras 2 or 3 times more often.

Hmmm, that's an interesting theory, or could be one. The manufacturers are giving us something we can use but in the backs of their minds they're really smirking knowing we'll have to buy 2 or 3 times as many cameras and lenses because we'll wear them out!? Remember in the old film days, many of us used a camera for years, there wasn't as much urgency to get new cameras, just better films. Everyone wanted the pro models with the interchangeable prisms, remember those? Now the prism is GONE and we need a new camera every 2 years!!!

John

I've mapped a button on the R6 and 7 to seamlessly switch between mechanical and electronic shutter. If there is little or no chance of rolling shutter I switch to electronic. No moving parts...nothing to wear out. And, shutterless in all cameras is just around the corner.

 

[BackToNature1]

Of course we have to consider wear and tear on camera shutters as well and the possibility of replacing shutters or cameras 2 or 3 times more often.

Hmmm, that's an interesting theory, or could be one. The manufacturers are giving us something we can use but in the backs of their minds they're really smirking knowing we'll have to buy 2 or 3 times as many cameras and lenses because we'll wear them out!? Remember in the old film days, many of us used a camera for years, there wasn't as much urgency to get new cameras, just better films. Everyone wanted the pro models with the interchangeable prisms, remember those? Now the prism is GONE and we need a new camera every 2 years!!!

John

I've mapped a button on the R6 and 7 to seamlessly switch between mechanical and electronic shutter. If there is little or no chance of rolling shutter I switch to electronic. No moving parts...nothing to wear out. And, shutterless in all cameras is just around the corner.

I think every Camera Brand should have an dedicated switch to go between Mech and electronic shutter. As well as an Pre-Burst button. Also, I agree, the Global Shutter should be but a few years away, if not sooner.

 

[BackToNature1]

Both cameras will do 15 fps Mech. Shutter while the X-H2S can do 40 fps E. Shutter. But in spite of the fact that I would love the faster FPS, I value the higher MP more. So many times we can't just have it all, without massive increases in cost.

 

[KLO82]

I think 15 or 16 FPS should be enough for almost anyone. If you need more FPS, may be you should shoot small burst of videos instead.

 

[Bob A L]

Just so it can keep up with my shutter button finger - don't use continuous, but often get several shots per second using the shutter button with my DSLR's.