WakeWorld (http://www.wakeworld.com/forum/index.php)
-   Archive through December 14, 2003 (http://www.wakeworld.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=92755)
-   -   Best affordable sequence shot camera (http://www.wakeworld.com/forum/showthread.php?t=90733)

board4food1 12-02-2003 9:40 AM

Any ideas? Good and bad experience with any brand or certain camera? <BR> <BR>I want one that will take 8-12 pictures a second (if possible), digital, and without a delay from the time i push the button to the time it takes the picture.

peter_c 12-02-2003 10:13 AM

If you find one let me know! I have an Olympus that shots 15fps up to 28 frames, but it only has 1.5 megapixels. I want a camera with interchangeble lenses and at least 5+ megapixels. <BR> <BR>Most digicams if set in manual mode have negligable delay times. It is when using auto functions that a delay is created. <BR><img src="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/messages/65919/90736.jpg" alt="Byerly">

sdboardr99 12-02-2003 1:38 PM

Sorry, they don't exist. You'll need to stay with film if you want high speed and low cost. The digital cameras from Nikon and Canon that shoot 8fps are only 4 megapixel.

board4food1 12-02-2003 2:09 PM

I think 4 megapixel is more than enough for my purposes. I'm not shooting for a magazine or anything. i've been looking all over the web and can't find the specs for the shots per second. what models are those your are talking about Bill? <BR> <BR>Peter, nice picture! That's the best wakeskate picture I've seen!!! <BR> <BR> <BR><a href="http://www.enemyofevil.com" target="_blank">www.enemyofevil.com</a>

salmon_tacos 12-02-2003 2:12 PM

The Nikon D2H shoots 8fps for up to 40 consecutive JPEG images but I don't think it is out quite yet. <BR> <BR>Shutter lag time is 37 milliseconds. <BR> <BR>cameraworld.com has it listed for pre-order at $3199. <BR> <BR>dpreview.com usually has the continuous drive specs but when a camera has options for higher speed at lower resolution, I don't think they list that. <BR> <BR> <BR>(Message edited by salmon_tacos on December 02, 2003)

salmon_tacos 12-02-2003 2:33 PM

Following up.... <BR> <BR>I had to do a little research on the Canon because it turns out the one Bill must have been talking about is a couple of years old cost over $7000 (body only). Hmm...that must be why I never noticed it. <BR> <BR>Anyway, it's the EOS-1D and it looks like you can get a new one for around $3K now. I think that and the new Nikon will be your only choices if you really want that kind of speed. <BR>

salmon_tacos 12-02-2003 2:58 PM

Oops, I just noticed that your subject says "affordable". While that is a relative term, I'm thinking $3K plus lenses is not usually considered affordable. <BR> <BR>For an affordable camera, the Fuji S5000Z has the fastest continuous drive I've seen (though it's only 3.1 megapixel: 5fps. It will only do 5 frames that way though. It does give you the choice of taking the first 5 or the final 5 frames though, which is nice. <BR> <BR>It also gives you 10x optical zoom. <BR> <BR>Besides the extra 3fps and larger buffer, you'll be giving up higher shutter speeds and ISO equivalents with a camera like this (along with other stuff but these are the features that really go with the high continuous drive rate). <BR> <BR>It's only about $399. <BR> <BR>If you are willing to go with around 3fps, there are lots of options, including ones with higher resolution. Go to dpreview.com and check them out.

captainfreedom 12-02-2003 3:03 PM

What about the Nikon Coolpix 5700? Hahn has one and I don't know the exact specs, but we can usually get about 8 pictures out of a wake to wake jump. It is a very impressive camera for the money. Here are some details: <BR> <BR><a href="http://reviews.cnet.com/Nikon_Coolpix_5700/4507-6501_7-9985065.html?tag=subnav" target="_blank">http://reviews.cnet.com/Nikon_Coolpix_5700/4507-6501_7-9985065.html?tag=subnav</a> <BR> <BR>For under $600, it is a pretty sweet camera.

salmon_tacos 12-02-2003 3:23 PM

Here are the continuous drive specs for that camera: <BR> <BR>1.5 fps for max. 8 frames <BR>3 fps for max. 3 frames <BR> <BR>The newer Coolpix 5400 will do 3 fps for 7 frames or 1.5 fps for 18 frames. <BR> <BR>The 5700 does, however, have a couple of nice advantages for action shots, over some of the other options: ISO 800 and 1/4000 shutter speed. 5400 lacks the ISO 800. <BR> <BR>The faster Fuji that I mentioned on has 1/1000 and will only do ISO 800 at a low 1 megapixel resolution.

captainfreedom 12-02-2003 3:46 PM

LOL! I don't even know what that means Salmon! Does that mean the 5700 is good or bad? Seems to be pretty good as far as the pics I have on my computer, but I have no idea what those specs mean.

peter_c 12-02-2003 3:51 PM

Folow this auction for the same camera that I have. It should sell for around $500. They do not make them anymore but....there is still not a faster digi on the market. <BR> <BR><a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&amp;item=2969349073&amp;cat egory=43457" target="_blank">http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&amp;item=2969349073&amp;cat egory=43457</a> <BR> <BR>More pictures from my camera to see if it is something you are interested in. <BR><a href="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/messages/65919/49292.html" target="_blank">http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/messages/65919/49292.html</a> <BR><a href="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/messages/65919/55001.html" target="_blank">http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/messages/65919/55001.html</a> <BR><a href="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/messages/65919/49292.html" target="_blank">http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/messages/65919/49292.html</a> <BR><a href="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/messages/65919/64993.html?1052276567" target="_blank">http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/messages/65919/64993.html?1052276567</a> <BR><a href="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/messages/65919/61512.html?1049942912" target="_blank">http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/messages/65919/61512.html?1049942912</a> <BR><a href="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/messages/65919/43976.html?1035951028" target="_blank">http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/messages/65919/43976.html?1035951028</a> <BR><a href="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/messages/65919/37590.html?1034724985" target="_blank">http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/messages/65919/37590.html?1034724985</a> <BR><a href="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/messages/65919/46275.html?1038985953" target="_blank">http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/messages/65919/46275.html?1038985953</a> <BR>

wakeworld 12-02-2003 4:04 PM

Peter, I use that same camera for most of the shots you see from me on WakeWorld the past two years. If you're using the pics for the web and you need something that zooms and takes sequences, this camera can't be beat. I actually had my eye on it when it was going for over $1000 and ended up getting it at Fry's for $399. I wish I had bought them all at the time because I've had tons of people ask me where they could get one. It can't be beat for that price!

board4food1 12-03-2003 10:37 AM

Great imput, thanks guys!!!

isler 12-04-2003 2:40 PM

The Nikon and Canon interchangeable-lens Digital SLR's are both available now. While they're both 4MP, they produce good enough quality files for any reasonable purpose. Many two-page spreads in Sports Illustrated, as well as covers, come out of these cameras. If it's good enough for them, it's good enough for most others. <BR> <BR>The Canon is the Canon 1D, and is about $2,800 now. <BR> <BR>The Nikon is the Nikon D2H, and is about $3,200 right now. They are both available right now...the D2H is shipping in limited quantities. <BR> <BR>Both are 8fps <b>professional</b> cameras. While they are expensive, they're the best you're going to get. Don't be fooled by the 4 MegaPixel figure...you'll get better files and prints out of either of these two cameras than any consumer 5+ megapixel camera.

rock_n_boardin 12-04-2003 2:53 PM

Hey the Cannon Digital Rebel, does anyone know how many FPS it will shoot? I am thinking about getting one but I can't find the specs that show FPS.

salmon_tacos 12-04-2003 2:58 PM

It's only 2.5 fps for 4 frames. That's kind of disappointing because, other than that, it looks like a hell of a good value.

rock_n_boardin 12-04-2003 3:55 PM

Thanks for the info. Yeah I wish it was a little faster, but I really like the camera, and have seen some pretty nice shots taken with it.

levi 12-04-2003 4:34 PM

Hey Salmon, <BR> <BR>Can you explain what "2.5 fps for 4 frames" means? <BR> <BR>Does that mean that it will shoot 2.5 frames a second, but max out w/ 4 frames in a row before it has to rebuffer or something? I know jack about this new fangled technology! <IMG SRC="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/clipart/happy.gif" ALT=":-)" BORDER=0>

sdboardr99 12-04-2003 7:15 PM

Levi, yes that is correct. <BR>

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 1:27 PM.