I almost want a canon camera.....
Dec 23, 2017 10:42:25 #
My 10 year old 1D MkIII can do 10 FPS and you can probably buy a nice one for $500-$600. But it is only 10mp. There are many factors in trying to successfully shoot wildlife and sports besides FPS. I suggest you spend a few dollars and purchase Steve Perry's book on shooting wildlife. Lots of good practical information from an experienced shooter. I believe his website is www.backcountrygallery.com.
Best,
Todd Ferguson
Best,
Todd Ferguson
billnikon wrote:
You are talking top of the line $6000.00 Canon. The $6500 Nikon can do 12 frames a second, the $1800.00 Nikon D500 can do 10 frames a second. The Canon D7II at a sale price of $1300 can also do 10 fps. You have to decide if 4 frames a second is worth the extra $4700. That comes out to about $1200 a frame per second.
Dec 23, 2017 11:00:40 #
ICN3S
Loc: Cave Junction, OR
Bill_de wrote:
Or get a faster Nikon 
--
--
A faster nikon body and new lens!
Dec 23, 2017 13:14:32 #
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....
If you are already invested in Nikon lenses you'd be better off buying a new Nikon body. They make great bodies that shoot very fast burst modes. Not quite 14fps but they do make em that shoot 12fps and the new D500 which is what I'd get if I were a Nikon shooter does 10fps which is plenty fast.
Dec 23, 2017 13:51:45 #
Bugfan
Loc: Toronto, Canada
If that speed is something you really need, get a faster Nikon. Canon and Nikon both build very fast cameras. Each year one is ahead of the other but eventually the lagard always catches up too.
But ... faster means more expensive, sometimes much more expensive. And faster assumes a strong light source so at dusk or sunrise or a very overcast day you aren't going to get those speeds unless you set the ISO very high. Today's cameras come with amazing capabilities but how many times do you need those capabailities and are they worth the money they cost?
As to the owl ... unless it's in a screaming dive to catch something it usually just sits around. And when it sits around you don't need 14 frames per second at all. Even a slow point and shoot can get that kind of a picture.
But ... faster means more expensive, sometimes much more expensive. And faster assumes a strong light source so at dusk or sunrise or a very overcast day you aren't going to get those speeds unless you set the ISO very high. Today's cameras come with amazing capabilities but how many times do you need those capabailities and are they worth the money they cost?
As to the owl ... unless it's in a screaming dive to catch something it usually just sits around. And when it sits around you don't need 14 frames per second at all. Even a slow point and shoot can get that kind of a picture.
Dec 23, 2017 13:55:53 #
WDCash wrote:
Better lenses cost much less than body upgrades
You must use cheap lenses!!! LoL
SS
Dec 23, 2017 13:57:09 #
If you have a lot invested in Nikon gear guess I would stay with that and update. About 15 or so years ago sold all my Nikon gear and entered the Canon world. Have no regrets. Love their "L" series lenses...Started out with a 5D which I still use today and the puppy has over 100,000 clicks on it and still performs very well. I shoot a lot of sports and find the 7DmarkII at 10FPS is very adequate with the 70-200f/4 for outdoors. Indoor sports use the 70-200 f/2.8. Depends where you want to put your$$$... To change gear can be costly especially if you have money invested in good glass, if using kit lenses on an older camera now is the time if you decide to change. Most here appear to be Nikon users, which is fine but I find Canon does me better....
Dec 23, 2017 14:01:14 #
FPS has nothing to do with high ISO or the amount of light unless you get to a super slow shutter speed that would preclude shooting 12 or 14 frames per second. I am not sure what you are saying unless you mean that more expensive camera bodies often have better high ISO capability than less expensive bodies.
Best,
Todd Ferguson
Best,
Todd Ferguson
Bugfan wrote:
If that speed is something you really need, get a ... (show quote)
Dec 23, 2017 14:08:34 #
billnikon wrote:
You are talking top of the line $6000.00 Canon. The $6500 Nikon can do 12 frames a second, the $1800.00 Nikon D500 can do 10 frames a second. The Canon D7II at a sale price of $1300 can also do 10 fps. You have to decide if 4 frames a second is worth the extra $4700. That comes out to about $1200 a frame per second.
Yes, but Bill, there are cheaper ways to achieve those stats for those willing to take the time to look.
For example, I bought a used 1Dx for $1750 and it will do exactly what that $6000 camera will do! That's because it IS that $6000 camera but at just over 1/4 the cost!
SS
Dec 23, 2017 14:52:42 #
Dragonfly wrote:
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.
Maybe a quarter mile away is just unreasonable. Get closer.
Dec 23, 2017 18:08:44 #
James Slick
Loc: Pittsburgh,PA
jpwa wrote:
I believe you have that backwards WDCash. Good glass costs way more than a camera body.
The good news is that good glass can be hung on multiple bodies! (I count lens purchases as an investment,bodies ALMOST as consumables - they change models too damned fast!)
Dec 23, 2017 18:29:46 #
Dec 23, 2017 22:17:48 #
If you are talking DSLR video I think the issue becomes resolution if you want to pull prints out of the video. I am not a DSLR video shooter at this point but my 20mp camera can shoot HD or 4K video but you can only pull 8mp stills out of it. Plus you then have video to go through and see what you might want to pull stills of to. I would like to play around with video on my camera more but it is not my primary interest. Others might have much more insight into this option than I do.
Best,
Todd Ferguson
Best,
Todd Ferguson
rwww80a wrote:
Why not go video? Frame rate goes up dramatically!
Dec 24, 2017 02:06:59 #
wdross
Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado
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....
If it is frames per second that you want, look at the Olympus E-M1 mrII. 60fps of 20mp RAW images. With the new Sony memory chips it slows down at 20 to 25 seconds of shooting. That more that 1000 images before it slows down - which you will have to learn to edit quickly. Also, it has Pro capture. With Pro capture, when you press half way down it starts capturing photos and putting them in the buffer. When you press the shutter the rest of the way down, it takes the last 16 photos in the buffer, before the final pressing of the shutter, and sends them to the memory card. That way if you are a little slow in capturing the action, there are 16 photos, before the photo you took, to chose from that may have the exactly the action you wanted and where looking for.
Dec 24, 2017 02:11:15 #
wdross
Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado
Architect1776 wrote:
Even faster then.
Still limited by lack of lens options.
Still limited by lack of lens options.
Olympus and Panasonic are not limited by lenses. I have over 95 lenses to choose from; full frame fisheye f1.8 to what amounts to 1200mm f5.6 in 35mm terms. That can not be termed "limited".
Dec 24, 2017 02:18:45 #
wdross
Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado
tdekany wrote:
You must be thinking of another brand. M4/3 has over 90 lenses - you can go from 14mm to 840mm in FF term.
Actually, tdekany, if you can find someone willing to sell the 300mm f2.8 non-micro lense and use a 2X teleconverter, it becomes a 1200 f5.6 in 35mm terms.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.