AKA gray asphalt wrote:
> "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]
>
> I 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.
> : -)
Get an f/2 (or 1.8) lens. It's a full stop of light faster than f/2.8,
two more than f/4, four times the speed of f/5.6.
|
