Photo question

[Squid]

In the glorious 'Deck off Ruby's Cafe' thread, the string of photo's is fucken awesome. There's no way my low-end digital camera would be able to capture action at that speed.

 

What sort of camera would a person need to get images at those speeds? What are the relevant specs for a digital camera?

 

Thanks in advance for your gracious replies.

[olyclimber]

the pictures are presented in a digital format, but they could have been taken with a standard SLR (or a high end digital SLR with fast media).

[Squid]

Understood, but I'd like to get a quality digital camera, and I'm trying to figure out what I should be looking for.

 

Commuteer.

[jon]

You would need something that shoots at least 3 frames per second, so it would need to be a digital SLR. Expect to be dropping a 1k or more for a camera body.

[Cobra_Commander]

I don't know the current state of the Ruby's Cafe thread, but this was discussed on there, somewhere in there. I think it may have been deleted, but then reposted (then deleted again?)

[olyclimber]

The Nikon D70, which has been around for a while can do 3fps.

 

D70 body with a 18-70 DX zoom Nikkor lense for 1030.00 at B&H. (minus $100 rebate) = $930.00

 

B&H is a reputable outfit, my dad has dropped many dimes there.

[Alpinfox]

Anybody know the maximum fps for a digital point and shoot?

 

Say.... a Canon s400?

 

Is it all about the card speed?

 

If so, what kind of fps rate can you get with a "60X Hi-speed" versus a "normal" card?

 

 

edit: yes I meant sd400.

Edited November 22, 2005 by Alpinfox

[jon]

There are some highend point and shoots that are around 2.5 I think, but they tend to be larger then most point and shoot. Mainly it has to do with the buffer in the camera, only when you step up to higher end cameras with large buffers do card speed really have an effect on write performance.

[olyclimber]

you mean, SD400, right? the maximum fps for the camera itsself is 2.1.

[knelson]

There are some highend point and shoots that are around 2.5 I think, but they tend to be larger then most point and shoot. Mainly it has to do with the buffer in the camera, only when you step up to higher end cameras with large buffers do card speed really have an effect on write performance.

 

What he said.

 

Additionally, lower end point and shoot cameras will often advertise "x frames per second" which seems fast. However that speed is normally reserved for a "burst mode" where the camera can fire off say 3 or 4 shots at that speed, but then you have to wait 10-15 seconds to fire off the next one. I believe the resolution of those burst mode shots are also compromised.

 

The Nikon Oly noted above is a LOT of camera for not a lot of bucks, if you're looking to move up to a digital SLR.

 

-kurt

 

(nice quick edit there Jon)

 

((re-edited to say "oops... I misread that and thought you changed something there in your post Jon. Sorry."))

Edited November 23, 2005 by knelson

[jon]

Huh?

 

I've been shooting Nikon for a long time so I don't know much about the Canon cameras, but the D70 is definately a nice camera. I've had one for 2 years and it takes great pictures in any kind of environment. Weight is always an issue versus a point and shoot, but the control and flexability it provides is hard to beat. Nikon just introduced the D200 which looks to be a killer camera for the money but it's still pretty expensive.

[olyclimber]

Sandisk card write speeds:

 

Extreme III SD card=20MB per second (133x)

Ultra II SD card + 10MB per second (66x)

this is based on their own internal testing.

 

they don't list the performance of their standard card (the blue ones) but I've read somewhere that they are ~3MB per second write.

 

so obviously, depending on how big of files your camera is writing, then it could have an impact on your ability to write continous frames to the disk.

[Alpinfox]

Sandisk card write speeds:

 

Extreme III SD card=20MB per second (133x)

Ultra II SD card + 10MB per second (66x)

this is based on their own internal testing.

 

they don't list the performance of their standard card (the blue ones)

 

OK, but how do those transfer speeds translate into fps?

 

[olyclimber]

depends on what resolution you're shooting at (and thus the file size being written).

[Squid]

Quality information, boys. Thanks a million. and in spray, no less!

[snugtop]

I've seen the D70 for less than $900. Shop around.

[olyclimber]

I've seen the D70 for less than $900. Shop around.

 

Just make sure you're comparing apples to apples (i.e., is it shipped with the lense like the B&H offer or is it just the body). That is a sweet Nikkor lense with a great range.

[snugtop]

good point.

[Squid]

, meet .

 

, meet .

[Distel32]

well the write speed would have to do with the fps if you had a camera that wouldn't allow you to take another picture until the pic has been written to the card. some cameras are made that way

 

the d70 has a buffer so you can take a ton of pictures, (like 20-30 or so) before it starts to slow down, and even after slowing it is still like 2.2 fps or something.

 

I think it's worth the money.

 

[MisterMo]

Huh?

 

I've been shooting Nikon for a long time so I don't know much about the Canon cameras, but the D70 is definately a nice camera. I've had one for 2 years and it takes great pictures in any kind of environment. Weight is always an issue versus a point and shoot, but the control and flexability it provides is hard to beat. Nikon just introduced the D200 which looks to be a killer camera for the money but it's still pretty expensive.

 

I'm very close to going out and plunking down for the D200. Unlike the D70 it will accept and meter with all my old non-autofocus Nikon lenses of which I have several very good ones. 5 or 6 fps, I think, 10+ megapixels. Very close to the D2X in many respects and at $1600 is about $3000 or so cheaper.

[JoshK]

You also have to consider lens speed, not just write/bufer speed. It doesn't matter how big the buffer is if your shitty lens isn't up to the task.

 

The D70 is a great camera. I have the D100 and I'd rather have the D70 for the better buffer and lighter body. The Canon Rebel is alright (not the equal of the D70, imho) but if you have Canon lenses, that would be the way to go.

 

-josh

[MisterMo]

I've got several fast/sharp Nikkor AI lenses, for which I once shelled out a bunch of money. I'd like to be able to continue to use them. The D70 will accept, but not meter through, AI lenses. The D200 will do both in at least some modes. While correct exposure is not as fussy with digital as it was with Kodachrome, TTL metering is still something I'd like to have. That's one reason I haven't gone to D70; another is that while I'm less happy with the results, carrying my little Canon point and shoot is a lot less work and hassle than lugging an SLR and 4 or 5 lenses.