Paul Furman <paul-@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>AKA gray asphalt wrote:
>> "Paul Furman" <paul-@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:AjSHj.3212$p24.3149@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> AKA gray asphalt wrote:
>>>> Joel wrote:
>>>>>>>> AKA gray asphalt wrote
>>>>>>>>>> digital that can take 5 fps or so. I'm happy
>>>>>>>>>> with the Canon SD-100
>>>>>>>>>> and 200 except for the limitation on FPS. Is
>>>>>>>>>> it possible with flash?
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks very much
>>>>>>>>>> : -)
>>>>>>>> Has anyone heard anything about Casio EXILIM PRO EX-F1 ?
>>>>>>>> Looks too good to be true, including high speed flash and 60 FPS
>>>>>>>> still and 1200 FPS video.
>>>>>> I have never paid any attention to Casio, but
>>>>>> 60FPS is very fast, and it's
>>>>>> 8-10 times faster than most top-notch DLSR cameras.
>>>> It claims to have a flash that does 7 FPS.
>>>> Popular Mechanics Editor's Choice '08
>>>> http://www.casio.com/products/Cameras/Exilim_Pro/EX-F1/
>>>>
>>>> One problem, It's not out yet.
>>> How about a fast lens on a full frame DSLR at high ISO?
>>> Is flash really needed?
>> I'm not sure if flash is needed or not. If I can avoid
>> having extra lights, it would be nice. Is the price of
>> one of them quite a bit lower than the $1K for the
>> Casio? Would it do 5 FPS?
>> Thanks : -)
>
>The Nikon 85mm f/1.4 is $1000
For just the lense though...
Regardless, I think the OP, "AKA gray asphalt", needs to
be more specific about what sort of images he wants to
take. The quality and price differences between several
of the options presented is significant. A digicam just
doesn't provide the same sort of image that a Nikon D3
does, but for some purposes it is good enough. Is that
the case here? Or not?
If the higher quality of a DSLR is needed, and using
flash is not desired (for either reasons of speed or
image quality), then yes something like a Nikon D3 with
a fast lense certainly is capable! At ISO 3200, or
higher, with an f/1.4 lense, the D3 can see in the dark,
and using live preview just to find your subject may be
useful... :-)
The 85mm f/1.4 (or the f/1.8) is great for full body or
nearly so images, but either an older 80-200mm f/2.8 or
a newer 70-200mm f/2.8 would be preferred if greater
camera-subject distance is useful or if tighter images
(head shots, for example) are desired.
But all of that comes with a serious price tag too...
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
