Megapixels or fps

POSTIE22

POSTIE22

Suspended / Banned
Messages
457
Name
Des
Edit My Images
Yes
I attended a presentation in Manchester which was held by the Royal Photographic Society. The subject was LEARN FROM THE PROs.There were three professional togs there showing their fantastic/brilliant work. Whilst we were having our tea break i asked them which would they prefer if they had to choose another camera. Would they go for more pixels or Frames per second.The answer was fps.........would you agree ?
 
Yep. I think I would. Even more so if I did sport or wild beasties for a job.
You can never have enough px, but if you miss the moment then all those pixels are pointless.
 
Depends what you are shooting........pieces of cheese on a plate don't need FPS. Horses galloping past the post possibly do.

Where there is time, you want quality. Where there isn't time you want speed - unfortunately you cannot have the best of both, not even with film. To get the quality, you need size. To get the speed you need transport - and so to move a big piece of film takes longer.

With digital, the only way to improve quality is to increase the size of the sensor. To get the speed AND the sensor size you lose portability - there has to be a trade off and you end up with a happy medium somewhere in the middle.

The closest there is so far is the Nikon D3. It has the speed, but not quite the resolution of a Hasselblad H2 yet. There comes a point where resolution is lost, so it is unecessary in the first place. Likewise speed, there a comes a point where yu have sufficient FPS and do not need more. Where that point is depends on what you are shooting. So we come back to square 1........pieces of cheese don't need frames per second (nor do shoes, or handbags, or paper clips or anything other pack shot for that matter).

You will get two conflicting answers depending on what your pros shoot although they would all agree that BOTH is best.
 
8 or 10mp is more than enough for most jobs and as the pixel count increases it has a huge impact on the rest of the pipeline - downloading from the card, backing up, processing, storage, uploading for printing, etc. and at times I already feel bogged down with 10mp!

A4 prints at 300dpi from 10mp look stunning, far better than I ever got from 35mm film so having more mp really doesn't rate highly.

If I was shooting gorgeous landscapes, nudes, etc. I'd probably give a very different answer...
 
I suppose if you are an action photographer then more FPS is useful but does it encourage a machine gun style of shooting,remember timing is still a skill you really want to cultivate
 
It has the speed, but not quite the resolution of a Hasselblad H2 yet.
Click to expand...

Well that does rather depend what you bolt on to the back of that hassy, Film or digi? And if digi, which? You can have anything from 11 to 50 pixies and there's obviously quite a difference. :)

I'm not much of fan of spray and prey and the only time I can think that I might use it would be for catwalk stuff. Nothing moves faster than the human expression.

Then on the flip side, I'm not a huge fan of massive files either but I'd still take another couple of pixies over my current kit and go from 17 to 22, or 28 perhaps.
 
I personally agree with you lensflare, but i think i would soon get tired of taking shots of cheese etc and would want the flexibility of faster fps if i could get it for nature, sports, candid etc.. I also agree that 10megs should be ample for A3 printing as mentioned by px18. I wouldn't mind betting that Nikons D4 comes out with 16megs and 12 fps!!
 
CaptainPenguin said:
I suppose if you are an action photographer then more FPS is useful but does it encourage a machine gun style of shooting,remember timing is still a skill you really want to cultivate
Click to expand...



Go on then.. Player jumps for a ball.. you want to get the ball just as it leaves his head.. sweat spraying ... Whats the technique to do that in one shot? Or somehting more simple.. A player running towards you.. the difference between his eyes open and shut are massive... hes only running towards you for a couple of seconds.. how do you ensure one shot gets his eyes open?

What about when a player goes in for a tackle.. you take one shot.. but the player misses the ball and follows through on the player... that player flies through the air... all in a second.. but you only took the one shot..


theres a reason for high frames on a proferssional camera that costs thousand of pounds... it isnt so you can point at somehting and press for ages hoping you got a pic :) there are good reasons for it.

I can get a really good picture of a plant pot in one shot :)

So.. I really would like to know your tips on timing to get the best action shots ?


PS I do burst of 2 or at the most 3 frames.. unless theres a fight or something between players at a distance.. i will fire away making sure i dont miss a thing :)
 
Another good reason for high fps and sports/action is when things go wrong - crashes, falls, stumbles, etc. What than happens every single frame you can squeeze out counts :thumbs:
 
Megapixels for studio/advertising/fashion
fps for sport/action

Most cameras are a compromise until you get into hasselblad territory or 1DmkIII.
No doubt Nikon have done well with the D3 as it is probably the most complete camera if you want to do both.
 
one thing that is important here is response time, the cameras that are built for fast action have a high fps but they also focus and fire single shots very fast, with a very very small lag between pressing the shutter and the shot being taken

who need 8fps? well if you take a shot of someone kicking a ball hard, you may find the first shot has the ball in contact with the foot and 1/8th of a second later it is completely out of the frame - a lot can happen in 1/8th of a second in news and sport.
 
For weddings - fps. As sportysnaps has said a high fps camera can be single-fired very quickly, invaluable if a scene is developing in front of you. But you need a big buffer of course.
 
It all depends on what you do with the pixels. If you compare a 1M & 10M camera both with a 50mm lens you can crop the 10M camera down to 1M pixels & give the FOV of a 500mm lens.

(I'm not sure if my maths is right on this but you get the idea :))
 
If you ask me, my answer will be Clean High ISO performance.
 
I'd rather have that too Strobemonkey but that wasn't really the question was it. What you have to answer is which of two things you don't need would you rather have? ;)

Even half the folks that have chosen FPS have said they don't really want the rapid fire but the rapid response. Which is worth it's weight in camera, if not gold. :D
 
KIPAx - the answer to your football hypotheses, is TIMING, not FPS.

Even at 1/1000 and 5 FPs (or 7 FPS if oyu like) shoot for a 1 second burst and you catch 5 (or 7) 1000 of that second - which means you MISSED 995 or (993) of them!

Timing is everything. A fast follow up shot is all well and good, but the initial timing and anticipation IS WHERE THE BEST PHOTOGRAPHERS GET THEIR SHOTS FROM, NOT BURST RATES. oops, blasted button is too close ot the "A" and I am not going back to change them all!

It is the same with my powerboats, you see the wave comig, you seethe boat approachng and you can anticipate for the moment the hull leaves the water, before it happens. Itis normally the first or sometimes the second picture that is the best one.
 
Even with 10+ FPS, you have to have a bit of luck, a good eye and be able to calculate what could come next or when could something start happening.
Then again, I'm not a pro and I don't need more then 6 MP IF I'm not cropping a lot, I only have 2.5-ish FPS and buffer for only 3 RAWs, but that just makes it more thrilling.
I'm not sure I'd want that thrill in daily work, though.
 
No it wouldn't, you would just fill your card up faster and then spend more time looking at the reviews than taking the next piece of the action!

Selective shooting and anticipation and good timing will win every time.
 
Lensflare said:
KIPAx - the answer to your football hypotheses, is TIMING, not FPS.
Click to expand...


So tell me.. how do you time it so a player running towards you.. you get his eyes open in one shot ? take into consideration you cant even see his eyes proper on a long lens and he is so far away...

I will do a small burst becasue i want eyes open... you will time it just right???? go on your pulling my leg :)
 
fps without a doubt for me, after seeing a mkIII used at 10fps in anger by a pro this weekend I'd have the frame rate over pixels any day.
 
The DECISIVE MOMENT - it would be worth you looking it up!
 
KIPAX said:
So tell me.. how do you time it so a player running towards you.. you get his eyes open in one shot ? take into consideration you cant even see his eyes proper on a long lens and he is so far away...

I will do a small burst becasue i want eyes open... you will time it just right???? go on your pulling my leg :)
Click to expand...

How many FPS do you really need for that? More than 3?
I'm not entirely sure, but if I have the ball (while playing a ball sport... what were you thinking?!), I don't think I wink very often.
 
FPS for me definitely... I don't need 10fps all of the time, but knowing when something happens I can hold the button down and achieve that is the confidence I need for motorsport.

I've had 3fps on my 350D and 5 (and a bit) FPS on my 30D and it makes the world of difference to those crashes and key overtake manoveurs etc.

I'd also say in the world of "red carpet photography" it also makes a difference - your subject is moving and talking, not posing - from a burst of ten you will find most have them with a horrid contorted facial expression and maybe one is something approaching usable.

Basically, if its moving at all and not repeatable, you need fps.
 
KIPAX said:
Go on then.. Player jumps for a ball.. you want to get the ball just as it leaves his head.. sweat spraying ... Whats the technique to do that in one shot? Or somehting more simple.. A player running towards you.. the difference between his eyes open and shut are massive... hes only running towards you for a couple of seconds.. how do you ensure one shot gets his eyes open?

What about when a player goes in for a tackle.. you take one shot.. but the player misses the ball and follows through on the player... that player flies through the air... all in a second.. but you only took the one shot..


theres a reason for high frames on a proferssional camera that costs thousand of pounds... it isnt so you can point at somehting and press for ages hoping you got a pic :) there are good reasons for it.

I can get a really good picture of a plant pot in one shot :)

So.. I really would like to know your tips on timing to get the best action shots ?


PS I do burst of 2 or at the most 3 frames.. unless theres a fight or something between players at a distance.. i will fire away making sure i dont miss a thing :)
Click to expand...

The point I was trying to make was that you need to understand your subject,taking football as an example just taking a machine gun approach and firing away merrily may if you are lucky get you a good shot occasionally.However if you understand the game you know who and where to focus thus meaning that you will end up with more successfully images although I agree that for sports a fast frame rate is a major advantage .
 
CaptainPenguin said:
The point I was trying to make was that you need to understand your subject,taking football as an example just taking a machine gun approach and firing away merrily may if you are lucky get you a good shot occasionally.However if you understand the game you know who and where to focus thus meaning that you will end up with more successfully images although I agree that for sports a fast frame rate is a major advantage .
Click to expand...

I think the point here is the difference between firing 2-3 shots in continuous mode at the right moment and holding the shutter down for 30 seconds hoping that you'll capture something good in all of it.

So I would say you're both right! :thumbs::D
 
Slapo said:
How many FPS do you really need for that? More than 3?
I'm not entirely sure, but if I have the ball (while playing a ball sport... what were you thinking?!), I don't think I wink very often.
Click to expand...

wink???? more than 3 ? did you even read my post ? I said I take bursts of 2 or 3 at the most.
 
CaptainPenguin said:
The point I was trying to make was that you need to understand your subject,taking .
Click to expand...

thanks but I already do

the point I was making was that you cant just generalise.. there is a perfectly good reason for having the extra FPS on a profesional camera.. it has a use and shouldnt be labled as somehtign that promiotes lazy photography

so we both have a good point eh :)
 
Even in portrait photography i believe fps outweighs megs.That blink of an eye or subtle frown or smile is gone in an instant, and to ask your model to create that special look again because you missed it is impossible for them. Same when taking L/scapes, clouds, shadows, magical beams of light which last just a fraction of a second could be missed, and you could wait months in the same spot waiting for that same image ! Having discussed this with many, many togs i am of the opinion that it's got to be fps for me.
 
FPS, At what point does a dslr stop being a dslr and become a camcorder.

With higher and higher frame rates and bursts it shouldnt be long. The D90 is only the start of things to come.

Why not just buy an industrial video camera with huge sensor and selectively pick each frame.

I think I'll stick to quality rather than quantity
 
TrevDR said:
Why not just buy an industrial video camera with huge sensor and selectively pick each frame.

I think I'll stick to quality rather than quantity
Click to expand...

we all agree that sitting there in machine gun mode is pointless and that short bursts have there use... was you just agreeing with us all ?
 
Just a general comment Kipax.

I've not done sports I do wildlife, and same as you I sometimes use a very short burst of 2 or 3 frames.

So an 8fps camera would be a waste of time for me. Thats why I chose the 1ds MkIII with its 5 fps but 21Mp sensor.

With such a high and also ever increasing frame rate, how is it possible to keep the subject exactly where you want it in the frame and know its perfectly in focus.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top