View Full Version : Frames per second
10-12-2007, 04:39 PM
In the world of Wakeboarding, considering the distance traveled, the speed, and assuming you are shooting from the boat, is a 3 fps camera sufficient. I know that is a very open ended question because sufficient in one person's eye is different than anothers, but it seems to me that taking pics of Nascar for example would be different than Wakeboarding when it comes to frames per second.
On the other hand , I am asking this trying to decide which way to go, coming from point and shoot digitals. I am a beginner .
I know a lot of you have experience in this.
So for good shots of Wakeboarding, and assuming a 3fps camera is $700 and a 6.5 is $1400 .
What would you suggest ?
10-12-2007, 04:45 PM
I have the Digital Rebel XT, which shoots 3 fps. Great pics, but I'd sure like to get a couple more frames on the typical wakeboard jump. I'd go for more than 3 fps on a new camera if your budget allows it.
east tx skier
10-12-2007, 05:13 PM
Minota 5D at 3 fps has been for than adequate for slalom pictures. Find out if the camera you're looking at supports a high speed card and be sure to get one. My Minolta supposedly doesn't support it, but I've used both and I'd swear the high speed gets me shooting more quickly.
10-12-2007, 05:16 PM
The more the better 5 fps is a big difference
Go to the watersports section then wakeboarding and the "wakeboarding shots". There is a lot of camera talk on there and some of the shots, specific info ect. Good source for you.
I have a Canon Rebel also. Went from a Sony CyberShot to the Rebel. I like it. For me the 3fps suits my needs fine. We looked at several cameras before deciding on the Rebel. My decision to get the Rebel was based on price and the camera itself. One of the nicer cameras would have just been to much for me and overwhelming. I plan to learn on the Rebel and by the time I have moved beyond the beginning photography stages and needed more fps, then technology will have moved on to higher resolutions, more fps, etc. than is out there now.
I would recommend really shopping around. We looked at several places and ended up finding my Rebel at an open box sale at Best Buy. Got it for less than half price. Good luck. :)
10-12-2007, 09:35 PM
I have the Nikon D50 and it is also in the ~3pps range. Having shot around 4000 pictures in the past two years with it I would say most important is:
Knowing it will shoot when you press the button. Most camera in this range are pretty good with this. Most of the time you want a perfectly timed picture. With 3 pic per second you get a picture every .3 seconds and if you miss the timing you do not get the right picture in most sports.
Get the best lens you can afford. I have the basic low end lens and they work great with enough light, but I wish I had better lens, especially telephoto.
If you want to take good sequence shoots wakeboarding get the 6. Most wake to wake air time is about 1 second so you can have 3 pictures from take off to landing or one at take off, one in the middle and one landing. With 6 you get much better sequence.
Like x2momma says the Rebel range camera is really great.
east tx skier
10-12-2007, 11:35 PM
Another thing to consider ... if you have a 35 mm SLR, the lenses may be interchangeable with your new digital SLR. They were on my Minolta. The zoom may be a bit more magnified though.
10-13-2007, 12:53 AM
From a strictly Film and Video standpoint, you really need about 6 frames per second to convey enough detail for sequenced motion. Have been working for years with frame rates and compression, and have participated in group research that has concluded the same.
That being said, it is all really personal preference. Rent or Demo both cameras and give em a try.
10-13-2007, 10:27 AM
I have a digital Rebel XT and I get some pretty nice action sport shots with 3 frames per second.
When selecting a camera I suggest looking at the entire range of features before focusing on just one or two of your most important ones. While wakeboard shots are really important to you, as you get better with your camera your interest in doing creative things expands. You may end up wanting other features even more than the speed. When buying a lens look at its range of features too.
10-13-2007, 10:18 PM
talked to a guy today that said the Cn 40 D has a new feature on it that let's you view the pic on the LCD before taking the pic
Hell, I have been use to that on the point and shoot camera's I have had.
Didn't know that the professional camera's didn't have it , like the Rebel XTi.
Of course, his comment of having to snap and look through the view finder was well taken with regard to less movement on your part with the camera closer to you.
I am confused as what to do.
However from my limited knowledge so far, it sounds like the Rebel with a 75x300 lens may be my ticket, with all things considered amd my pocket book.
I sure wish my business would get better. Then , my pocket book wouldn't be such a factor.
Oh , well, it will ...................
10-14-2007, 10:43 AM
I have the rebel xti and although I very much like the camera and it's a far cry from what I had before at 3fps it is not going to give you the motion shots like what Skeeler has demonstrated here on the forum.
I looked at the Xti and the Nikon D80, both essentiall 3fps and the review's all stated both were very close to each other in performance of the Body itself. In all articles/comparisons I found the limiting factor in both camera's was not the body itself but the lenses they're packaged with... If you want great pics, plan to spend some cash on nice lenses.. The threshold I saw was anything over $800 was when you got into the "good glass."
10-15-2007, 12:38 PM
If you need more then 3fps, then buy a video camera. Save the money and put it into the lens. 1.5 years later, I'm upgrading my lenses, but right now don't have any plans to upgrade the body. If you're really thinking of taking that many pictures, you better have plans to deal with that much storage space. Don't waste your money on storage faster then the camera can write. Doesn't matter if the storage media writes at 40x or 592x, if the camera can't exceed 24x, then it's a waste. You will see a difference on transfer time to the computer, but it's literally only seconds more.
10-15-2007, 01:06 PM
All good points here, but the lens you are considering may not be the best bet. Starting at 70 is a pretty long lens, and at 80 feet, my 200 does just fine at getting nothing but the rider (I usually take at around 170-180mm).
Right now I am extremely happy with my 55-200 and my 28-70. Both are relatively cheap and readily available lenses.
I went through the same questions when I chose my D50, the higher fps camrea bodies are just so much more, and to me, getting into the camera and taking pictures was more important than spending a fortune on a body, then not having any money for accessories.
For wakeboarding you definitelly need more than 3 fps. My nikon D50 takes great pics, but I wish it a few more fps. Typically, unless the rider goes really big) I can get a pic right before takeoff, one right near the apex of the jump, and on just on touchdown. However, there is alot that goes on between those points.
10-16-2007, 02:39 PM
Skeeler uses a Canon 20D which is just over 3 FPS. I am upgrading to the 40D. None of that will matter though if you get that 70-300 lens. It is too slow to take a decent "pro-quality" wakeboard shot. You are going to have to drop the money on one of the L-series lenses. Either one of the 70-200 2.8 L lenses (what I use) or the new 70-200 F4 L IS (would work fairly well).
You could even buy a digital Rebel if you get one of those lenses but a used 10D, 20D or 30D is going to be your best bet. You will also have to learn to use the camera. The preset "sports mode" setting is garbage. You will have to manually set exposure, iso, white balance, and f-stop to get a good shot.