FPS, how important is it to the average user?

vievetrick · 01-28-2008, 08:11 PM

Originally posted by Duck Dodgers

Something like this?

YouTube - Missile caught by high speed camera

That camera is going fair bit faster than 20 FPS...

That is COOL!!!

codiac2600 · 01-28-2008, 08:26 PM

I'm not too sure on it being a selling feature because it's not anywhere in the same league as MP, durability, battery life, how far the built in flash fires, kit lens, oh and of course screen size.

Very few of my customers ask about FPS and the ones that do work for the local newspaper or they are birders. When I tell them the K10D or Rebel XTi does 3FPS they are surprised as all heck and tell me they'd never use it.

I personall want better FPS because I want to do Eagle/Hawk/Hummingbird and Tennis photography, but I'd use it selectively. Most pro's that I know that shoot birds hardly use the higher FPS, but rather set the camera at the slow mode, 3FPS, because they burst when the bird stops, wait, burst, wait, burst.

When I shoot with guys that own MKII's they typically switch between track focus and the area select and between slow burst and full burst. Not once have I seen these guys bring me a stack of perfectly made shots, but having the bursts has the advantage of being able to pick the sharpest image of the bunch as well as different wing angles and such. We have a couple of huge birders that frequent the store on a daily basis and they are amazing shooters, but each technique seems to vary, but the constant has always been that the best guys never use the full burst mode more than 1% of the time.

stewart_photo · 01-28-2008, 08:42 PM

Originally posted by Duck Dodgers

...(snip) Better, I think, to refine one's technique, IMHO.

Originally posted by vievetrick

...(snip)... Timing it is all about timing. ...(snip)...

Actually, I suspect the ideal would be to have technique AND adequately quick tools available to do the job. Notice I did not define 3-fps as inadequate since that would very much depend on the situation.

Regardless, in my opinion, the skill and timing arguments are rather silly in this context since there is absolutely nothing inherent in a higher frame rate camera which prevents that photographer from developing the exact same skills and timing as a photographer (yourself, for example) with a slower frame rate camera.

stewart

Phil · 01-28-2008, 08:58 PM

Hi Duck,

Thats not a missile, its a fin stabilized projectile fired from the main gun of a tank.

Hi Kguru,

Yep, I've seen 155's go, and 8" also. If you get right behind the gun and slightly above you can see the rounds from an M2 HB also, if the shooter is firing at something far enough away so you can see the rounds above the horizon. Also see .30 rounds the same way. Lots of fun, long ago.

Cheers,

Phil

Phil · 01-28-2008, 09:03 PM

Hi Stewart,

I've taken thousands of photos at car races (long time ago) with a Canon Pellix with no motor drive and with excellent results. There is some technique involved but its easily done. Had a great time at the Spa (Francorchamps?) Belgium GP's and the Nurburgring GP's back in the sixties. Also the Indianapolis National Drag Races. A few years ago I had to throw about the whole lot out (mostly Ektachromes) due to fungus or something on them. Couldn't get it off, it ruined about all of them. Hated that.

Cheers,

Phil

robgo2 · 01-28-2008, 09:05 PM

Originally posted by Kguru

Have you seen the photo of a projectile just after it left the barrel of the 155mm howitzer? Now try to time that!! I reckon with 20fps I'd have a good chance of capturing it in one of the frames and 1500x1000 resolution still shows up pretty good on my monitor.

Pardon my asking, but have you ever actually tried to photograph a projectile being fired from a howitzer, or do you have plans to do so in the near future? If not, I should think that you have no real need for 20fps, even if it is fun to dream about.

Rob

SpecialK · 01-28-2008, 09:13 PM

Though it seems like something good, I don't use continuous mode, except in the rarest cases. The small buffer causes more problems than low FPS.

When I see someone blasting away - pht, pht, pht, pht - I wonder why they paid so much for a "Point and Shoot" :-)

kittykat46 · 01-28-2008, 09:15 PM

3 fps is no issue for the majority of users. I guess most of the pro-shooters who are into that kind of high-speed continuous shooting won't buy Pentax anyway.

The small buffer and slow buffer clearing time of the K100D IS a problem. Even a casual user like me have filled up the buffer before, and it felt like AGES before the camera was ready to go again.

I had to tell the kids - wait a while, the camera isn't ready yet. Their response - "Get a new camera." But my camera IS new- hmmm....

I really enjoy using the K100D, but this particular limitation is annoying...

robgo2 · 01-28-2008, 09:17 PM

I have not yet had a need for continuous shooting, so I guess that 3fps is more than enough. I suspect that all the gnashing of teeth over this feature is confined to a relatively small percentage of users. Some of them probably have a legitimate need for a higher fps rate, but I'd be willing to bet that others only imagine that they do. Seriously, does anyone really need 6fps to photograph a child running around on a soccer field?

Rob

Finn · 01-28-2008, 09:28 PM

Before the advent of xxFPS, do you think many people said to themselves, "you know, I really wish I could take a picture of a projectile coming out of that tank, you know, for kicks"?

Yeah, I don't think so.

When you get your 20FPS at 14MP, no doubt you'll wish for 50. You'll never be happy, so please. Chill. Working within the constraints of the medium is half the challenge and half the fun.

Kguru · 01-28-2008, 09:57 PM

Originally posted by robgo2

Pardon my asking, but have you ever actually tried to photograph a projectile being fired from a howitzer, or do you have plans to do so in the near future? If not, I should think that you have no real need for 20fps, even if it is fun to dream about.
Rob

I used the projectile example in response to the opinions that timing skill is a better answer than high fps. I don't necessarily have an opportunity to photograph a projectile, but there are similar situations in which timing is a matter of luck rather than skills, hence higher fps = better odds.

stewart_photo · 01-29-2008, 04:11 AM

Originally posted by Phil

Hi Stewart,

I've taken thousands of photos at car races (long time ago) with a Canon Pellix with no motor drive and with excellent results. (snip)...

Well, greetings to you, Phil. I've also shot my share of fairly quick subjects over the years, also with a manual film advance or slow motor drive camera. However, that was years ago, things have changed, and I certainly don't want to go back to all of that. As such, I expect a bit more convenience when laying my money down on a more modern camera today. And a reasonably quick fps shooting rate (as defined earlier) is just one of the conveniences I expect. The K10D and K20D cameras provide that, but just barely.

stewart

Kguru · 01-29-2008, 04:17 AM

Not trying to prove any point

just want to show you a (fairly old-tech looking) US Navy photo.
By the way it was noted photo taken by D Menta, so it wasn't a frame out of a movie camera.

stewart_photo · 01-29-2008, 04:31 AM

Originally posted by robgo2

I have not yet had a need for continuous shooting ...(snip).... a relatively small percentage of users. Some of them probably have a legitimate need for a higher fps rate, but I'd be willing to bet that others only imagine that they do. Seriously, does anyone really need 6fps to photograph a child running around on a soccer field?

You seem to be focusing your arguments on the basis of "need" alone, Rob. Why would you not consider "want" a legitimate reason for seeking a higher continuous frame rate? There are lots of things in life I don't absolutely need, but certainly some of them are things I might want.

stewart

Duck Dodgers · 01-29-2008, 04:59 AM

Originally posted by Phil

Hi Duck,

Thats not a missile, its a fin stabilized projectile fired from the main gun of a tank.

Yeah, I know. They mislabeled the video.

01-28-2008, 09:57 PM	#26
Kguru Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Perth - WestAust Posts: 602	Originally posted by robgo2 Pardon my asking, but have you ever actually tried to photograph a projectile being fired from a howitzer, or do you have plans to do so in the near future? If not, I should think that you have no real need for 20fps, even if it is fun to dream about. Rob I used the projectile example in response to the opinions that timing skill is a better answer than high fps. I don't necessarily have an opportunity to photograph a projectile, but there are similar situations in which timing is a matter of luck rather than skills, hence higher fps = better odds. Last edited by Kguru; 01-28-2008 at 10:18 PM.

01-29-2008, 04:17 AM	#28
Kguru Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Perth - WestAust Posts: 602	Not trying to prove any point just want to show you a (fairly old-tech looking) US Navy photo. By the way it was noted photo taken by D Menta, so it wasn't a frame out of a movie camera. Last edited by Kguru; 01-29-2008 at 04:34 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
K-7 and below average dynamic range	harleynitelite	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	9	01-18-2010 01:05 AM
Nature Not your average seagull - M400 F5.6	goddo31	Post Your Photos!	11	11-12-2009 05:47 AM
The average DSLR owner	ftpaddict	General Talk	52	05-28-2008 03:13 AM
Average price for A* 85mm f1.4?	nils	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	4	04-15-2007 07:11 AM
P-TTL VS TTL.... what is the difference to the average user?	slip	Pentax DSLR Discussion	16	01-17-2007 12:22 PM

01-28-2008, 08:11 PM	#16
vievetrick Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Easthampton - Massachusetts - USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 5,183	Originally posted by Duck Dodgers Something like this? YouTube - Missile caught by high speed camera That camera is going fair bit faster than 20 FPS... That is COOL!!!

01-28-2008, 08:26 PM	#17
codiac2600 Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Rockford, Illinois Posts: 2,027	I'm not too sure on it being a selling feature because it's not anywhere in the same league as MP, durability, battery life, how far the built in flash fires, kit lens, oh and of course screen size. Very few of my customers ask about FPS and the ones that do work for the local newspaper or they are birders. When I tell them the K10D or Rebel XTi does 3FPS they are surprised as all heck and tell me they'd never use it. I personall want better FPS because I want to do Eagle/Hawk/Hummingbird and Tennis photography, but I'd use it selectively. Most pro's that I know that shoot birds hardly use the higher FPS, but rather set the camera at the slow mode, 3FPS, because they burst when the bird stops, wait, burst, wait, burst. When I shoot with guys that own MKII's they typically switch between track focus and the area select and between slow burst and full burst. Not once have I seen these guys bring me a stack of perfectly made shots, but having the bursts has the advantage of being able to pick the sharpest image of the bunch as well as different wing angles and such. We have a couple of huge birders that frequent the store on a daily basis and they are amazing shooters, but each technique seems to vary, but the constant has always been that the best guys never use the full burst mode more than 1% of the time.

01-28-2008, 08:42 PM	#18
stewart_photo Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Heidelberg, Germany Posts: 1,864	Originally posted by Duck Dodgers ...(snip) Better, I think, to refine one's technique, IMHO. Originally posted by vievetrick ...(snip)... Timing it is all about timing. ...(snip)... Actually, I suspect the ideal would be to have technique AND adequately quick tools available to do the job. Notice I did not define 3-fps as inadequate since that would very much depend on the situation. Regardless, in my opinion, the skill and timing arguments are rather silly in this context since there is absolutely nothing inherent in a higher frame rate camera which prevents that photographer from developing the exact same skills and timing as a photographer (yourself, for example) with a slower frame rate camera. stewart

01-28-2008, 08:58 PM	#19
Phil Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Indiana Posts: 25	Hi Duck, Thats not a missile, its a fin stabilized projectile fired from the main gun of a tank. Hi Kguru, Yep, I've seen 155's go, and 8" also. If you get right behind the gun and slightly above you can see the rounds from an M2 HB also, if the shooter is firing at something far enough away so you can see the rounds above the horizon. Also see .30 rounds the same way. Lots of fun, long ago. Cheers, Phil

01-28-2008, 09:03 PM	#20
Phil Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Indiana Posts: 25	Hi Stewart, I've taken thousands of photos at car races (long time ago) with a Canon Pellix with no motor drive and with excellent results. There is some technique involved but its easily done. Had a great time at the Spa (Francorchamps?) Belgium GP's and the Nurburgring GP's back in the sixties. Also the Indianapolis National Drag Races. A few years ago I had to throw about the whole lot out (mostly Ektachromes) due to fungus or something on them. Couldn't get it off, it ruined about all of them. Hated that. Cheers, Phil

01-28-2008, 09:05 PM	#21
robgo2 Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: New Mexico Photos: Albums Posts: 1,125	Originally posted by Kguru Have you seen the photo of a projectile just after it left the barrel of the 155mm howitzer? Now try to time that!! I reckon with 20fps I'd have a good chance of capturing it in one of the frames and 1500x1000 resolution still shows up pretty good on my monitor. Pardon my asking, but have you ever actually tried to photograph a projectile being fired from a howitzer, or do you have plans to do so in the near future? If not, I should think that you have no real need for 20fps, even if it is fun to dream about. Rob

01-28-2008, 09:13 PM	#22
SpecialK Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: So California Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,480	Though it seems like something good, I don't use continuous mode, except in the rarest cases. The small buffer causes more problems than low FPS. When I see someone blasting away - pht, pht, pht, pht - I wonder why they paid so much for a "Point and Shoot" :-)

01-28-2008, 09:15 PM	#23
kittykat46 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 923	3 fps is no issue for the majority of users. I guess most of the pro-shooters who are into that kind of high-speed continuous shooting won't buy Pentax anyway. The small buffer and slow buffer clearing time of the K100D IS a problem. Even a casual user like me have filled up the buffer before, and it felt like AGES before the camera was ready to go again. I had to tell the kids - wait a while, the camera isn't ready yet. Their response - "Get a new camera." But my camera IS new- hmmm.... I really enjoy using the K100D, but this particular limitation is annoying...

01-28-2008, 09:17 PM	#24
robgo2 Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: New Mexico Photos: Albums Posts: 1,125	I have not yet had a need for continuous shooting, so I guess that 3fps is more than enough. I suspect that all the gnashing of teeth over this feature is confined to a relatively small percentage of users. Some of them probably have a legitimate need for a higher fps rate, but I'd be willing to bet that others only imagine that they do. Seriously, does anyone really need 6fps to photograph a child running around on a soccer field? Rob

01-28-2008, 09:28 PM	#25
Finn Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Phoenix Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,056	Before the advent of xxFPS, do you think many people said to themselves, "you know, I really wish I could take a picture of a projectile coming out of that tank, you know, for kicks"? Yeah, I don't think so. When you get your 20FPS at 14MP, no doubt you'll wish for 50. You'll never be happy, so please. Chill. Working within the constraints of the medium is half the challenge and half the fun.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-29-2008, 04:11 AM	#27
stewart_photo Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Heidelberg, Germany Posts: 1,864	Originally posted by Phil Hi Stewart, I've taken thousands of photos at car races (long time ago) with a Canon Pellix with no motor drive and with excellent results. (snip)... Well, greetings to you, Phil. I've also shot my share of fairly quick subjects over the years, also with a manual film advance or slow motor drive camera. However, that was years ago, things have changed, and I certainly don't want to go back to all of that. As such, I expect a bit more convenience when laying my money down on a more modern camera today. And a reasonably quick fps shooting rate (as defined earlier) is just one of the conveniences I expect. The K10D and K20D cameras provide that, but just barely. stewart

01-29-2008, 04:31 AM	#29
stewart_photo Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Heidelberg, Germany Posts: 1,864	Originally posted by robgo2 I have not yet had a need for continuous shooting ...(snip).... a relatively small percentage of users. Some of them probably have a legitimate need for a higher fps rate, but I'd be willing to bet that others only imagine that they do. Seriously, does anyone really need 6fps to photograph a child running around on a soccer field? You seem to be focusing your arguments on the basis of "need" alone, Rob. Why would you not consider "want" a legitimate reason for seeking a higher continuous frame rate? There are lots of things in life I don't absolutely need, but certainly some of them are things I might want. stewart

01-29-2008, 04:59 AM	#30
Duck Dodgers Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: in the 24½th Century! Photos: Gallery Posts: 439	Originally posted by Phil Hi Duck, Thats not a missile, its a fin stabilized projectile fired from the main gun of a tank. Yeah, I know. They mislabeled the video.