Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
08-24-2009, 02:03 PM   #16
Veteran Member
GLXLR's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Sugar Land, TX
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 686
QuoteOriginally posted by Gooshin Quote
Please entertain us with scenarios where you yourself have shot 6.5 fps (such a specific number), or have failed to attain a shot due to being limited to shooting 3 FPS.
Some people really do need 6 or 7 fps. Isn't that the biggest reason for the 1D mark III instead of a 1Ds mark iii?

08-24-2009, 02:17 PM   #17
Senior Member




Join Date: May 2009
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 110
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Gooshin Quote
Please entertain us with scenarios where you yourself have shot 6.5 fps (such a specific number), or have failed to attain a shot due to being limited to shooting 3 FPS.
Not inclined to provide entertainment to the ignorant proletariat ; however, I shoot major league batters and pitchers, in which a faster burst rate would be desirable. Even shooting fastpitch middle-school softball would ideally call for a faster fps. Recently shot some pics at the Junior Nationals Diving competition and clearly could have used a faster fps for some of the shots.

I have used the low-res 21fps burst for shooting batters and pitchers; fine for a training aid. Not so fine for producing decent pics.

Would prefer the K20D over the K7, primarily because of the price difference and the fact that I have no interest at all in shooting videos with a DSLR. I think I would like the size/weight of the K7, and might pick one up, when the price gravitates to the "real price" of about $600...probably in less than a year.
08-24-2009, 02:21 PM   #18
Senior Member




Join Date: May 2009
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 110
Original Poster
Pentaxor: "including freezing the action of a fast rotating wheels of a racing car . the 1/4000 sec shutter speed on the K20D would leave a bit of a motion blur or prolonged action which I found unwanted."

That's surprising news to me. I've shot crop dusters @ 1/2000th and stopped the prop. You mean a race car wheel's spinning faster than a cropduster prop?

IstDs2; 1/2000, f8


Last edited by WalterGA; 08-24-2009 at 02:36 PM.
08-24-2009, 02:24 PM   #19
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,400
just to be clear 5 FPS or 10 FPS is not enough for baseball.


at 90 mph a ball is moving 132 feet per second, therefore at 10FPS it moves 13.2 feet between frames,

getting a shot of the ball on the bat is pure luck and nothing more.

In fact the fastest reaction time might be much more critical than the frame rate, except for that horribly slow filter attached to the shutter- you

08-24-2009, 02:25 PM   #20
Ash
Community Manager
Loyal Site Supporter
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 22,695
Walter, don't hold your breath about the K-7 coming down in price that fast... it's a concept cam that may not be superceded for a while. For your budget, you probably won't get 6.5fps for a long time as well.

Shooting batters and pitchers could probably be reasonably well captured using the K20D's burst mode - fix the cam to a tripod and compose, fix the focus, and set it off when ready - and you have 1.5Mp images (more than enough for computer screens) getting it all.

Though if you want them full-sized, I'm not even sure 6.5fps will be enough for you - you may need to be looking at 9fps like you can get from the Nikon D3X - but see how far you get to your wallet to get that beauty...
08-24-2009, 02:44 PM   #21
Senior Member




Join Date: May 2009
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 110
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Ash Quote
Walter, don't hold your breath about the K-7 coming down in price that fast... it's a concept cam that may not be superceded for a while. For your budget, you probably won't get 6.5fps for a long time as well.

Shooting batters and pitchers could probably be reasonably well captured using the K20D's burst mode - fix the cam to a tripod and compose, fix the focus, and set it off when ready - and you have 1.5Mp images (more than enough for computer screens) getting it all.

Though if you want them full-sized, I'm not even sure 6.5fps will be enough for you - you may need to be looking at 9fps like you can get from the Nikon D3X - but see how far you get to your wallet to get that beauty...
I could have bought a Canon 40D for just a tad more than I paid for the K20D. Prefer the K20D, despite the 6.5 fps of the 40D.

Lowell: Not to belabor the point, but shooting a batter @ 6.5 fps would be better for me, particularly considering my "slow reaction" time. Actually, if one had shot many batters, one would realize that reaction time has nothing at all to do with getting good shots of a batter. You watch the batter's face. You learn to press the shutter button in anticipation of the ball. When you're shooting a pitcher, you just press the shutter button when the pitcher starts the delivery. 6.5fps is superior to 3 or 5.2 fps for those purposes. John Smoltz's daughters are in my granddaugters' classes. I got some pretty good shots of John vs. Glavine, using the slow-fps IstDs2. Smoltz was pitching in the mid-high 90s. Got quite a few pics of the ball just a couple of feet out of his hand. Also got some good pics of the ball right in front of the bat; contacting the bat; and escaping the bat towards the playing field.

I'll stick with the K20 for now and just keep on "getting by."

Thanks, everybody, for your input...even the ignorant proletarian!
08-24-2009, 02:53 PM   #22
Veteran Member
nostatic's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: socal
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,576
I tried to shoot a baseball once but missed and before I could reload the cops showed up.

That wasn't very sporting of them...
08-24-2009, 03:00 PM   #23
Veteran Member
GLXLR's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Sugar Land, TX
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 686
QuoteOriginally posted by WalterGA Quote
I think I would like the size/weight of the K7, and might pick one up, when the price gravitates to the "real price" of about $600...probably in less than a year.
LOL... Pentax would be LOOSING money if they sold it that little... Don't expect the price to drop below $1000 until the successor comes out, and even then it would still be around $900-$1000. Look at the price of the used D200. 2 models later and it is still $600-$700 USED on ebay.

Keep dreaming... I wish it would be $600 too.

08-24-2009, 03:48 PM   #24
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,400
QuoteOriginally posted by WalterGA Quote
Actually, if one had shot many batters, one would realize that reaction time has nothing at all to do with getting good shots of a batter. You watch the batter's face. You learn to press the shutter button in anticipation of the ball.
Thank you for proving my point, it has nothing at all to do with FPS but anticipation and familiarity with your camera (and brain) reaction time. Once you learn to anticipate, the first shot is the only one you need, because the second shot will take place, even at 10FPS, when the ball is either firmly in the catcher's mit, or somewhere on it's way over second base
08-24-2009, 04:02 PM   #25
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
QuoteOriginally posted by WalterGA Quote
Pentaxor: "including freezing the action of a fast rotating wheels of a racing car . the 1/4000 sec shutter speed on the K20D would leave a bit of a motion blur or prolonged action which I found unwanted."

That's surprising news to me. I've shot crop dusters @ 1/2000th and stopped the prop. You mean a race car wheel's spinning faster than a cropduster prop?

IstDs2; 1/2000, f8

Yes, it is possible ! have you shot a car rally or formula racing before or tried the bullet test or water splash test?

I think you'll get the idea of what I meant once you tried shooting these with 1/2000, 1/4000 and 1/8000. if you think that there is no difference with shooting 1/2000 with 1/4000 in capturing high-speed motion, then you are misinformed.

I already made shot comparisons with 1/4000 and 1/8000 in the past and saw the difference. shutter speed purpose is not merely for exposure, but also affects motion capture/definition and sequence. in the car rally (sorry I could not provide the pics anymore) shot at 1/4000, the wheels were a bit blurry and the background was dusty. shot around 1/8000, the wheels were more defined and you could even see some of the peebles or mud being thrown off that created a dusty background were captured in focus and in detail. this was absent at 1/4000.

btw, that propeller shot at 1/2000 has still a bit of a blur. trying shooting a much faster subject and shoot again at 1/2000, if you could produce something with a much refined and defined as to shooting at 1/4000, or aleast produce the same results (which I highly doubt) , then I rest my case. I think you already got the idea of what I'm talking about, otherwise, do the tests.

Last edited by Pentaxor; 08-24-2009 at 04:12 PM.
08-24-2009, 04:11 PM   #26
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
QuoteOriginally posted by WalterGA Quote
I could have bought a Canon 40D for just a tad more than I paid for the K20D. Prefer the K20D, despite the 6.5 fps of the 40D.

Lowell: Not to belabor the point, but shooting a batter @ 6.5 fps would be better for me, particularly considering my "slow reaction" time. Actually, if one had shot many batters, one would realize that reaction time has nothing at all to do with getting good shots of a batter. You watch the batter's face. You learn to press the shutter button in anticipation of the ball. When you're shooting a pitcher, you just press the shutter button when the pitcher starts the delivery. 6.5fps is superior to 3 or 5.2 fps for those purposes. John Smoltz's daughters are in my granddaugters' classes. I got some pretty good shots of John vs. Glavine, using the slow-fps IstDs2. Smoltz was pitching in the mid-high 90s. Got quite a few pics of the ball just a couple of feet out of his hand. Also got some good pics of the ball right in front of the bat; contacting the bat; and escaping the bat towards the playing field.

I'll stick with the K20 for now and just keep on "getting by."

Thanks, everybody, for your input...even the ignorant proletarian!

better make sure that those 6 frames that you'll produce will be all in focus. otherwise, having a 6 fps with 1 out of 6 frames is in focus would be pretty much useless. as one person and I mentioned, an accurate AF system should be the first priority. don't waste your 6 shots in a sec if you cant hit a single target.
08-24-2009, 04:15 PM   #27
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,400
QuoteOriginally posted by Pentaxor Quote
better make sure that those 6 frames that you'll produce will be all in focus. otherwise, having a 6 fps with 1 out of 6 frames is in focus would be pretty much useless. as one person and I mentioned, an accurate AF system should be the first priority. don't waste your 6 shots in a sec if you cant hit a single target.
unless you are the military, then the higher rate just adds to the confusion
08-24-2009, 04:16 PM   #28
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,400
QuoteOriginally posted by Pentaxor Quote
Yes, it is possible ! have you shot a car rally or formula racing before or tried the bullet test or water splash test?

I think you'll get the idea of what I meant once you tried shooting these with 1/2000, 1/4000 and 1/8000. if you think that there is no difference with shooting 1/2000 with 1/4000 in capturing high-speed motion, then you are misinformed.

I already made shot comparisons with 1/4000 and 1/8000 in the past and saw the difference. shutter speed purpose is not merely for exposure, but also affects motion capture/definition and sequence. in the car rally (sorry I could not provide the pics anymore) shot at 1/4000, the wheels were a bit blurry and the background was dusty. shot around 1/8000, the wheels were more defined and you could even see some of the peebles or mud being thrown off that created a dusty background were captured in focus and in detail. this was absent at 1/4000.

btw, that propeller shot at 1/2000 has still a bit of a blur. trying shooting a much faster subject and shoot again at 1/2000, if you could produce something with a much refined and defined as to shooting at 1/4000, or aleast produce the same results (which I highly doubt) , then I rest my case. I think you already got the idea of what I'm talking about, otherwise, do the tests.
just remember that all cameras shooting 1/2000 are not equal, there are 2 parts to shutter speed, the sweep rate of the blades, and the gap between blades. both impact the ability to "freeze" action
08-24-2009, 04:29 PM   #29
Senior Member




Join Date: May 2009
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 110
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Lowell Goudge Quote


Thank you for proving my point, it has nothing at all to do with FPS but anticipation and familiarity with your camera (and brain) reaction time. Once you learn to anticipate, the first shot is the only one you need, because the second shot will take place, even at 10FPS, when the ball is either firmly in the catcher's mit, or somewhere on it's way over second base
Maybe you don't know quite as much about baseball, Lowell, as you obviously do about photography, so please bear with me. You apparently don't understand why a few fps can make a difference. I'm talking about experience, not hypothetical speculation. The point of shooting the batter isn't just to catch the ball at "just the right moment." It's also to catch the batter's form through his entire swing. If you don't understand how a few more fps would be of benefit for that purpose, then we're so far off the same page as to ever agree on some of the subjective values of sports photography. Of course, 10-15 fps would be better for some shots than 3-6.5. However, the discussion was primarily about the paltry 3 that my K20 offers, vs. the 6.5 that a Canon 40D offers, which was my alternative camera choice. Might have gone for the 50D.

There's no doubt in my mind that photography was invented and perfected in Canada; however, we Rebels to your South invented baseball!

As a matter of fact, I didn't start this thread to discuss the subjective opinions of fps, but, rather, to find out the mechanical or firmware reason that Pentax offers such an embarrassing fps.
08-24-2009, 04:47 PM   #30
Ash
Community Manager
Loyal Site Supporter
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 22,695
Come on Walter... paltry? embarrasing?
You speak about fps as if it's a measure of the size of certain parts of human anatomy.

While I understand your point about how important it may be in what you want from your photos, I'm still not convinced 10fps would be enough. Those guys swing the bat mighty fast - what you'd be more inclined to get (just win the lotto) is one of those extra slow-mo capable video cameras. I see them in action during the Australian Open, and man, that gear is just phenomenal. I just don't see a still cam being fast enough to get what you want.

But with a little luck, you can still time your shots to get the quintessential baseball swing shot others want to have as a pin up.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, dslr, fps, k20d, pentax, photography, thread
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Continous High/Low Speed FPS Reportage Pentax DSLR Discussion 4 11-18-2009 06:32 PM
K20D + 22 fps + water dropplets dopeytree Pentax DSLR Discussion 0 04-24-2009 06:06 AM
How does the K20D achieve 22 FPS? Lowell Goudge Pentax DSLR Discussion 7 01-28-2008 02:16 PM
FPS rate petition for new K20D time-snaps Pentax News and Rumors 49 01-28-2008 11:22 AM
K20D FPS Rumor codiac2600 Pentax News and Rumors 13 12-28-2007 07:41 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:15 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top