"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:87tzinrv9z.fld@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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]
just really like tha effect of combining pics from a
single subject, ie into a sort of slide show with a fade
transition. Most of the time the images are a little too
different to blend well but when it works, it really is
unique and emotional, in a good way. So I'm thinking
that a faster camera could get enough different poses
but without having the subject change too much ...
I probably should save my money.
: -)
|
