I almost want a canon camera.....
Dec 22, 2017 21:41:48 #
Was talking to someone today watching the snowy owl and his canon camera does 14 frames a second.
My poor little nikon only does 5 frames....
Wondering if it's worth changing over to canon....
My poor little nikon only does 5 frames....
Wondering if it's worth changing over to canon....
Dec 22, 2017 21:44:24 #
Dragonfly wrote:
Was talking to someone today watching the snowy owl and his canon camera does 14 frames a second.
My poor little nikon only does 5 frames....
Wondering if it's worth changing over to canon....
My poor little nikon only does 5 frames....
Wondering if it's worth changing over to canon....
Or get a faster Nikon
--
Dec 22, 2017 21:46:38 #
mwsilvers
Loc: Central New Jersey
Dragonfly wrote:
Was talking to someone today watching the snowy owl and his canon camera does 14 frames a second.
My poor little nikon only does 5 frames....
Wondering if it's worth changing over to canon....
My poor little nikon only does 5 frames....
Wondering if it's worth changing over to canon....
That camera costs $6000. Nikon also makes one close to the same fps. Why in the world do you think you need 14 fps to capture a snowy owl?
Dec 22, 2017 22:01:59 #
I don't and I got a picture of the snowy owl....grainy and heavily cropped as it was a quarter of a mile away....but still....
Spray and pray works better with faster frames.....lol
And I can't afford the better cameras either nikon or canon, so I'll stick with my d7100 for now.
And will go back tomorrow and hope the owl isn't in the middle of the field....
We usually don't get snowy owls around Indiana, so it's kind of a big deal to see them here.
Spray and pray works better with faster frames.....lol
And I can't afford the better cameras either nikon or canon, so I'll stick with my d7100 for now.
And will go back tomorrow and hope the owl isn't in the middle of the field....
We usually don't get snowy owls around Indiana, so it's kind of a big deal to see them here.
Dec 22, 2017 22:04:36 #
Dragonfly wrote:
Was talking to someone today watching the snowy owl and his canon camera does 14 frames a second.
My poor little nikon only does 5 frames....
Wondering if it's worth changing over to canon....
My poor little nikon only does 5 frames....
Wondering if it's worth changing over to canon....
The Sony only does 20fps.
Dec 22, 2017 22:04:52 #
Dec 22, 2017 22:09:50 #
jpwa
Loc: Inland NorthWest
I believe you have that backwards WDCash. Good glass costs way more than a camera body.
Dec 22, 2017 23:17:10 #
jpwa wrote:
I believe you have that backwards WDCash. Good glass costs way more than a camera body.
Top camera, EOS 1DX MII @ 16 fps = 5,499.00
Best quality lens available to date (long), 800mm f 5.6 L, 12,999
Best quality wide lens available to date, 11-24mm f 4 L, 2,699.00
So it depends on which lens as these are examples of the pinnacle of lens technology yet vary widely in cost.
But for speed I believe the Sony A9 is current king for FF in speed @20 fps but is lacking in lens quality options @4,498.00 which again puts it between the best lenses available.
Finally to the OP if you are invested in the Nikon system the excellent D500 is designed specifically for what you are wanting to do at 10 fps which is pretty incredible and does 4K to boot but video focus is primitive. But for about 1,796.00 is a real bargain for a fabulous high speed camera that many here own and use to capture BIF which seems to be your goal. And for the savings get a good 100-400mm range lens and you have a great easy to hold kit for that owl.
Good luck in getting it and have fun pondering the options.
Dec 22, 2017 23:29:07 #
If the owl was that far away, no camera would give you a good result. In fact, you would have been far better off with a D500 than the 1DXII - the D500 would have put a LOT more pixels on the subject.
Dec 22, 2017 23:31:10 #
Dragonfly wrote:
Was talking to someone today watching the snowy owl and his canon camera does 14 frames a second.
My poor little nikon only does 5 frames....
Wondering if it's worth changing over to canon....
My poor little nikon only does 5 frames....
Wondering if it's worth changing over to canon....
Or get a video camera. 32fps!
Dec 22, 2017 23:33:16 #
Steve Perry wrote:
If the owl was that far away, no camera would give you a good result. In fact, you would have been far better off with a D500 than the 1DXII - the D500 would have put a LOT more pixels on the subject.
Dec 22, 2017 23:33:56 #
Architect1776 wrote:
Top camera, EOS 1DX MII @ 16 fps = 5,499.00 br br... (show quote)
The Olympus em1 mark2 can do 60fps, full resolution raw files.
Dec 22, 2017 23:35:44 #
tdekany wrote:
The Olympus em1 mark2 can do 60fps, full resolution raw files.
Even faster then.
Still limited by lack of lens options.
Dec 22, 2017 23:38:06 #
Dragonfly wrote:
Was talking to someone today watching the snowy owl and his canon camera does 14 frames a second.
My poor little nikon only does 5 frames....
Wondering if it's worth changing over to canon....
My poor little nikon only does 5 frames....
Wondering if it's worth changing over to canon....
How many "fps" did Ansel shoot? Perhaps 2 per 8 hours! There is a famous wildlife photographer who shoots with a Pentax 6x7 120 film camera. I don't imagine he works very fast with that. Quantity does not equal quality, I'm sure you'd do fine with 4 fps.
Dec 22, 2017 23:42:19 #
Architect1776 wrote:
Even faster then.
Still limited by lack of lens options.
Still limited by lack of lens options.
You must be thinking of another brand. M4/3 has over 90 lenses - you can go from 14mm to 840mm in FF term.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.