Considering the k10d but don't know if the 3fps will be enough for me as I'm a relative newbie at sports shooting therefore need more margin for error. haha.
3fps k10d for sports?
- Thread starter dukebluedevil
- Start date
- Status
All depends on what you wanna achieve. If you wanna take some flying/running sequence shots, 3fps might not be good enough. But for general shooting, should be okay:
Even the DA50-200 can take some nice sports photos:
Even the DA50-200 can take some nice sports photos:
As a novice (I don't really like the term newbie) you should concentrate more on getting the shot at the peak of the action rather then relying on a motor drive - guaranteed the best shot will be the one you didn't get and will sit in between the frames you did (even at 8-10 frames a sec on top-end pro cams).
Better equipment does not compensate for lack of capability or talent (except by luck).
Better equipment does not compensate for lack of capability or talent (except by luck).
tis the photographer, not the camera
5fps, 3fps, if you think about it, 2 less shots per second, does it really matter? like someone put it in another thread, if you just try to shoot movie in jpg all the time, chances are you won't get any good results since there is no thought going into the picture.
pentax k10d is an excellent choice, got sr some more. most of the popular brands lack this.
5fps, 3fps, if you think about it, 2 less shots per second, does it really matter? like someone put it in another thread, if you just try to shoot movie in jpg all the time, chances are you won't get any good results since there is no thought going into the picture.
pentax k10d is an excellent choice, got sr some more. most of the popular brands lack this.
3fps for sequence action shots might not be good enough if you want sequence shots of fast action sports like wakeboarding.
sequence shots i took with K10D.
sequence shots i took with K10D.
If your goal is to photograph action, then it's not the end of the world. On a lot of situations your first shot will be the best shot in the sequence anyway. Occasionally, more frames does help but it's not the end of the world. If on the other hand you want to capture a sequence of images within the same action, then clearly more fps is beneficial there.
Here is a "quite a newbie" comment.
I read from a book about shooting sports. Well, there were clearly certain points which seems reasonable such as the range of your lens and the "speed" of your lens. And usually for pro, they would have 2 bodies with different lenses attached to capture the action.
So I feel that it is other than considering the rate of FPS, but you may also like to consider which are the lenses you are going to bring along.
Please correct me if I am wrong or should anymore be added
I read from a book about shooting sports. Well, there were clearly certain points which seems reasonable such as the range of your lens and the "speed" of your lens. And usually for pro, they would have 2 bodies with different lenses attached to capture the action.
So I feel that it is other than considering the rate of FPS, but you may also like to consider which are the lenses you are going to bring along.
Please correct me if I am wrong or should anymore be added
Here is a "quite a newbie" comment.
I read from a book about shooting sports. Well, there were clearly certain points which seems reasonable such as the range of your lens and the "speed" of your lens. And usually for pro, they would have 2 bodies with different lenses attached to capture the action.
So I feel that it is other than considering the rate of FPS, but you may also like to consider which are the lenses you are going to bring along.
Please correct me if I am wrong or should anymore be added
That's because the sports photographer is paid to get the shot and can't afford the time to change lenses in the midst of the action, hence 2 bodies. Secondly, they would be working from a vantage spot and would rely on a particular lens to cover the main angles with the second body/lens combo covering other types of supplementary shots.
A faster frame rate is half the story in action photography, unfortunately gearheads overemphasize on all things equipment (5 fps vs 3 fps, blah, blah). The ability to anticipate peak action is the key to successful action shots but this important fact is usually ignored.
Anyway the TS has stated elsewhere that he bought a used D200. :what: Apparently doesn't know useful Pentax's SR is, especially with long teles.
That's because the sports photographer is paid to get the shot and can't afford the time to change lenses in the midst of the action, hence 2 bodies. Secondly, they would be working from a vantage spot and would rely on a particular lens to cover the main angles with the second body/lens combo covering other types of supplementary shots.
A faster frame rate is half the story in action photography, unfortunately gearheads overemphasize on all things equipment (5 fps vs 3 fps, blah, blah). The ability to anticipate peak action is the key to successful action shots but this important fact is usually ignored.
Anyway the TS has stated elsewhere that he bought a used D200. :what: Apparently doesn't know useful Pentax's SR is, especially with long teles.
Oic. Thanks.
Hmm... D200 + K10D Combo for sports? Nice combination of the 2 brands.
Yea. I agree on the anticipate of peak action. I used to play basketball, so it's really important to know how and when the player is going to execute his next move and the right time is really important.
I saw the NBA photos which had really a huge punch factor. Perhaps is due to the experience of the pros and their equipment were secondary factor since the pictures were beautiful from Jordan era till now.
Imagine 1980 to early 1990 where technology was not as advance as now, but still great action photos were taken.
First you really have to know the game in order to shoot and capture the event well. All that fps isn't going to be the panacea to bad, irrelevant photos.
i feel that 3 fps is ok, it's the AF speed of the camera... can it keep up with the action?
for eg...
the focus is actually on the splash behind and not the human subject. I believe the photographer had his af box dead fixed on the human, but the camera AI servo can't keep up accurately enough...
for eg...
the focus is actually on the splash behind and not the human subject. I believe the photographer had his af box dead fixed on the human, but the camera AI servo can't keep up accurately enough...
I think AL focus is pretty good already. Photography is not all that convinient. Even 1d mark III can shoot so fast with relatively superb AF accuracy, it is still easy to miss shots.
3 frames per second is good enough and after all, k10d is so much cheaper to be able to achieve so much.
I had a 1d mark II on loan for 2 months shooting inter school lacross competition. It is true that canon could get more shots but more winner come from pentax camera when the images are caught sharp and clear.
Does that help?
3 frames per second is good enough and after all, k10d is so much cheaper to be able to achieve so much.
I had a 1d mark II on loan for 2 months shooting inter school lacross competition. It is true that canon could get more shots but more winner come from pentax camera when the images are caught sharp and clear.
Does that help?
i guess it's really based on the expectation of the users. If one is not fussy abt pin point AF accuracy, enjoy low cost, lightweight, easy to handle general photography, k10d may probably suit him better.
- Status
Similar threads
