FPS for dog photo shooting

[hoboahoy]

Hi all. I take a few hundreds pictures a month by just taking dogs pictures using my canon P&S (SD1000) but now I want a SLR. I want to know what you think should be the minimum requirement in the # of frame per second (FPS) for the SLR body to be able to capture, so I could comfortably keep shooting the photos of randomly & rapidly moving dogs at the field, then throw away bad frames. I've been doing it with my Canon P&S SD1000 and it doesn't work well at all. My SD1000 is impotent, and it sucks. More specifically I'm considering a Nikon D90 (4.5 FPS) or a D300 (6.5FPS). Does D90 shoot fast enough for my particular requirement? Thank you in advance for your opinions.

 

[hoboahoy]

By the way my Canon SD1000 shoots at continuous 1.7 FPS, and it's useless for dogs running around. So it needs to be faster than that. Thank you.

 

[Flash Harry]

Any DSLR will do, they'll all be better than a P&S, but, besides your FPS rate its probably more to do with your shutter speed and technique. What type of dog shots are you after, are they race dogs? Post an example then someone here could give you "pointers". H

 

[hoboahoy]

Thank you Flash Harry. I currently don't have the photos unfortunately (I'm away from my PC). The dogs are at the medium size outdoor fields. They are generally running around and my dogs especially go so very fast (Corgis as they try to herd other dogs around). I literally guess our dogs may be running & unexpectedly turning really at 30mph if not faster (I'm just guessing). What's difficult is to keep shooting them as they UNEXPECTEDLY turn and keep running nonstop. Another difficulty is that I shoot at sunset situation, then once we come home, we shoot indoor under poor lighting, though they tend to move around less indoors but they are obviously not still. So the challenge I face is rapidly & unexpectedly moving dogs at the field particularly at sunset, plus poor lighting indoor (but still dogs chase after another fast indoors). Thank you.

 

[dEARlEADER]

It shouldn't all be about frames per second.. it should be about the quality of shots within the frames per second.... ie proper freezing of action, good focus and composition.... any entry level DSLR and some skill by you should be able to achieve this at 3 fps...

btw... if you utilize the D90 4.5 frames per second you get a total of 6.17 hours of shooting before you've reached the expected life cycle of the shutter mechanisms (100,000).... lol... you could buy a brand new D90 on friday and blow it up in one weekend of intense shooting....

I guess then you could sell it on ebay and says it's only three days old....

 

[SpeedTrap]

any entry level DSLR and some skill by you should be able to achieve this at 3 fps...

Still trying to unload that D60...........
I know you still want the D300

 

[Big Mike]

Thank you Flash Harry. I currently don't have the photos unfortunately (I'm away from my PC). The dogs are at the medium size outdoor fields. They are generally running around and my dogs especially go so very fast (Corgis as they try to herd other dogs around). I literally guess our dogs may be running & unexpectedly turning really at 30mph if not faster (I'm just guessing). What's difficult is to keep shooting them as they UNEXPECTEDLY turn and keep running nonstop. Another difficulty is that I shoot at sunset situation, then once we come home, we shoot indoor under poor lighting, though they tend to move around less indoors but they are obviously not still. So the challenge I face is rapidly & unexpectedly moving dogs at the field particularly at sunset, plus poor lighting indoor (but still dogs chase after another fast indoors). Thank you.

It sounds like you are having problems shooting fast objects in lower light situations. Are you getting shots that are blurry? If so, a faster fps won't help with that.
You could shoot at 10 frames per second, but if the shutter speed for those shots is only 1/30 or slower, you are still going to get blur.
What you probably want is a fast shutter speed...and to get that, you need either or a lens with a larger max aperture or a higher ISO setting. ISO performance (how much noise it shows) will differ from camera to camera...so you would want to choose a newer one with good high-ISO performance.

 

[dEARlEADER]

Still trying to unload that D60...........
I know you still want the D300

meh.... read my siggy.... i'm a big boy now....

you ready to sell that D700 yet?

 

[hoboahoy]

Thanks dEARlEADER, so basically you are saying both D90 & D300 between my choices are suffice in terms of the FPS.

Big Mike, yes I'm getting quite many blurry pictures using my P&S. First I was shooting with the auto mode, then as I started learning the camera, I have switched to manual mode to bring up the ISO but anything beyong 800 is useless with my Canon SD1000 P&S. I can't remember what specific ISO setting is more prone to a blurry photo, but I do get many to say the least. And I was aware of the importance of capability to shoot at high ISO, so that's why I was looking at Nikon D90 and D300.

If you guys are saying the FPS don't matter at all for my application, then I'd consider the D90. It's cheaper than D300, and they say D90 is better at higher ISO than D300.

Are you sure faster FPS doesn't help me at all? I've heard a higher FPS is for sport shooting, and my application involves much of fast moving animals and for that I was particularly interested in the 3D tracking focus of these cameras.

Thank you.

 

[dEARlEADER]

Are you sure faster FPS doesn't help me at all? I've heard a higher FPS is for sport shooting, and my application involves much of fast moving animals and for that I was particularly interested in the 3D tracking focus of these cameras.

Thank you.

A faster FPS will surely give you more selection... but if your technique is off.. all you will end up with is more crap frames per second (CFPS)... if your shutter/aperture and ISO combinations are CORRECT for the exposure you might be perfectly happy with the results of 3 FPS

pro sports photographers need serious FPS because this is what puts steak on the table... if ur not shooting pro you can get desirable images at slower frame rates with a little effort...

 

[Big Mike]

Are you sure faster FPS doesn't help me at all? I've heard a higher FPS is for sport shooting, and my application involves much of fast moving animals and for that I was particularly interested in the 3D tracking focus of these cameras.

A faster fps will help you to get more shots when the action is happening, so you have a better chance at getting a shot at the optimal moment. However, practice and good timing will also help that. But none of that will matter if the shots are blurry...which is solely a result of the shutter speed and had nothing to do with how many frames per second you are shooting.

When choosing your camera, also consider the price of a good lens. You want a 'fast' lens (large maximum aperture). For example, if you have a lens with a maximum aperture of F5.6, you might get a shutter speed of 1/30 (not very fast). If you have a lens with a max aperture of F2.8, that is two stops bigger, so you would get a shutter speed of 1/120 (1/125)...which would go a long way to helping you get sharp shots. If you had a lens with a max aperture of F1.8, you could get a shutter speed of 1/250 or faster.
Shooting fast moving subjects in low light, is just about the hardest thing to do well, because of the limitations of the equipment. The best lenses for the job are very large and expensive, just look at the gear that pro sports shooters use.

 

[SpeedTrap]

they say D90 is better at higher ISO than D300.[/quote]

Not sure where you heard that, but I have used both the D90 (Don't ask how) and I own a D300 and the D300 has lower noise in my opinion. Please keep in mind that both are very clean up to ISO 1600.
The one thing you should be more concerned with is faster lenses (Larger Aperture - F2.8) this will allow you to keep the ISO down and still get good shutter speed.

I do not know what your budget is, but if you went with the D90 and a fast lens you would be all set. You may want to look at sigma lenses for a less expensive alternative to Nikon glass. It is good value for the money when starting out.

 

[hoboahoy]

dEARlEADER, Big Mike, SpeedTrap, thank you all for valuable comments. I'm reading your posting carefully to learn from them. I have no skill much, but from what you say either D90 or D300 is good with a combination of fast lens. I'd say my budget is $3000-ish max, anything beyond that is outrageous for my recreational photo shooting. You are all very helpful. I do see you guys do not necessarily recommend a D300 over D90 for higher FPS. I got that. Thank you.

 

[hoboahoy]

Speedtrap, I'm thinking of a D90, plus 18-200mm VR, plus a prime 50mm F1.8. I saw someone's dog photo taken with the prime, and got blown away, but I still need the convenience of zoom. My dog parks are pretty large, and I see the dogs as dots from the other side of the field. For that I just have to have a zoom. Thanks again.

 

[Big Mike]

The problem with the 18-200mm is that the max aperture at the long end of the zoom is only F5.6...which will make it hard to get sharp shots of moving subjects. A better option, would be the 70-200mm F2.8...but of course it's bigger, heavier and more expensive. You might also consider the Sigma or Tamron 70-200mm F2.8.

The 50mm F1.8 would certainly help you to get faster shutter speeds, but it's not great for subjects that are far away.

Like I said before, this is why pro sports shooters use lenses that are huge, and really expensive.

Of course, an easy solution is to shoot during the day when it's bright out.