sport video camera comparison image
ilovepurpl
for example the one of the slr is 3 or 3.5fps. and the point and shoot has a higher one. which would be faster?
can 3 to 3.5fps be fast enough to capture sports games in slr's?
Answer
It will depend upon the cameras and specifications. FPS stands for frames per second, so the specifications should be comparable...unless you're talking video vs. still frames.
Many point and shoots will shoot low-resolution (tiny image) video at 30 fps, but people think that specification could be compared with the still frame rate of an SLR. It's not comparable, because an SLR has a much bigger photo. You need to compare the still frame fps rate and then you'll be able to make a correct comparison.
Casio does make a camera with a 60 fps rate for still frames.
In any case, 3 to 3.5 fps is fast enough to capture sports in most situations, but full-time professionals use SLRs that shoot at 8 to 11 frames per second. For general purpose use though, 3 fps is sufficient, 5 fps is great, and anything above that is fantastic.
If you time your shot right, you only need 1 frame though---so timing your shot is the most important thing you can do. Then worry about the fps rate. But to answer your two questions directly: yes 3 fps can be fast enough and as long as you compare the *still* frame rates, you can pick the camera with the higher fps rate.
It will depend upon the cameras and specifications. FPS stands for frames per second, so the specifications should be comparable...unless you're talking video vs. still frames.
Many point and shoots will shoot low-resolution (tiny image) video at 30 fps, but people think that specification could be compared with the still frame rate of an SLR. It's not comparable, because an SLR has a much bigger photo. You need to compare the still frame fps rate and then you'll be able to make a correct comparison.
Casio does make a camera with a 60 fps rate for still frames.
In any case, 3 to 3.5 fps is fast enough to capture sports in most situations, but full-time professionals use SLRs that shoot at 8 to 11 frames per second. For general purpose use though, 3 fps is sufficient, 5 fps is great, and anything above that is fantastic.
If you time your shot right, you only need 1 frame though---so timing your shot is the most important thing you can do. Then worry about the fps rate. But to answer your two questions directly: yes 3 fps can be fast enough and as long as you compare the *still* frame rates, you can pick the camera with the higher fps rate.
What is the best digital cam you can get?
OUTLANDSGi
My husband loves photography and I want to get him a new digital cam for our anniversary. It doesn't matter how much it is as long as its really good.
Answer
Nikon has really found the perfect camera for beginner's and advanced shooter's alike, and it's call the D90. I am not a beginner, but let me tell you if I was, this is the camera to get. It has a lot of buttons but that is no problem, if you don't know what something is in the menu's just hit the question mark button and a descriptive explanation lights up the D90's beautiful improved high res screen. The screen is why I bought the D90 instead of the D40 or D60, it lets me eyeball my exposure accuratley that way I can make the necessary adjustments to my EX comp, WB, and ISO. This camera is often compared to the D300, I can tell you this, if you are thinking of buying one or the other, there are only 3 differences between these 2 camera's. 1. If you are a casual shooter who does not need 1/8000 shutter speed then get the D90 with its 1/4000 SS, this is more than adequate for most sports and action shooting. The D300 excels when it comes to faster moving objects, like racecars. 2. The D300 has 51 Autofocus points while the D90 has 11. You will only need the extra AF points if you are doing really high speed Action, although the AF on the D300 is really sweet, it has lighting speed AF, but like most things in life, people will pay for this feature and never use it, thats where you will save you hard earned cash buying the D90. 3. SIZE, the D90 is a lot smaller and weighs less, due to the fact that the D300 has and Aluminum frame, and better weather sealing, I will say that the D90 is no slouch in the construction department though it feels very well built. So if you are really pondering which one to get, I say for most purposes the D90 is a year newer, has video, the same picture quality and low light capability (except for the AF of the D300, which focuses a bit faster in lowlight) You can save 500 bucks, and get better Lenses, I shoot Nikons pro glass with my D90 and love it, I have the 70-200 VR 2.8, and the 24-70 2.8 and let me tell you there is no comparison. Those lenses are tack sharp with this camera. Or if you cannot afford those lenses, then get the D90 body and the 16-85 VR Nikon lens, you won't be disappointed.
Nikon D90 DX 12.3MP Digital SLR Camera with 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G ED AF-S VR DX Nikkor Zoom Lens
price: $1,159.95
reference: http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-D90-Digital-18-105mm-3-5-5-6G/dp/B001ENOZY4/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=photo&qid=1235404750&sr=1-6&tag=commentglitte-20&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325
hope that help.
Nikon has really found the perfect camera for beginner's and advanced shooter's alike, and it's call the D90. I am not a beginner, but let me tell you if I was, this is the camera to get. It has a lot of buttons but that is no problem, if you don't know what something is in the menu's just hit the question mark button and a descriptive explanation lights up the D90's beautiful improved high res screen. The screen is why I bought the D90 instead of the D40 or D60, it lets me eyeball my exposure accuratley that way I can make the necessary adjustments to my EX comp, WB, and ISO. This camera is often compared to the D300, I can tell you this, if you are thinking of buying one or the other, there are only 3 differences between these 2 camera's. 1. If you are a casual shooter who does not need 1/8000 shutter speed then get the D90 with its 1/4000 SS, this is more than adequate for most sports and action shooting. The D300 excels when it comes to faster moving objects, like racecars. 2. The D300 has 51 Autofocus points while the D90 has 11. You will only need the extra AF points if you are doing really high speed Action, although the AF on the D300 is really sweet, it has lighting speed AF, but like most things in life, people will pay for this feature and never use it, thats where you will save you hard earned cash buying the D90. 3. SIZE, the D90 is a lot smaller and weighs less, due to the fact that the D300 has and Aluminum frame, and better weather sealing, I will say that the D90 is no slouch in the construction department though it feels very well built. So if you are really pondering which one to get, I say for most purposes the D90 is a year newer, has video, the same picture quality and low light capability (except for the AF of the D300, which focuses a bit faster in lowlight) You can save 500 bucks, and get better Lenses, I shoot Nikons pro glass with my D90 and love it, I have the 70-200 VR 2.8, and the 24-70 2.8 and let me tell you there is no comparison. Those lenses are tack sharp with this camera. Or if you cannot afford those lenses, then get the D90 body and the 16-85 VR Nikon lens, you won't be disappointed.
Nikon D90 DX 12.3MP Digital SLR Camera with 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G ED AF-S VR DX Nikkor Zoom Lens
price: $1,159.95
reference: http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-D90-Digital-18-105mm-3-5-5-6G/dp/B001ENOZY4/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=photo&qid=1235404750&sr=1-6&tag=commentglitte-20&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325
hope that help.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
