Taking continous Pictures

[Mr.Hollywood]

What camera would be good for taking continous pictures? Ca. 8 pictures a sec. for up to 5 or 10 min or more.


Would a Samsung NX2000 be capable of doing this? Or others max budget is 700 Dollars


Pictures of me

 

[KmH]

I don't know of any $6000+ professional grade cameras that can do 8 frames-per-second (FPS) for any longer than a few seconds, let alone minutes. The limiting factor on how long a digital camera can continuously shoot stills in burst mode is the image file buffer size in the camera.

Basically you're wanting to shoot video at a lower than standard frame rate.

 

[Mr.Hollywood]

I have looked at the what ever color magic camera! Don`t like the name... but.. 4k. Looked at the stills(oause) on youtube and they look pretty good! Clear. + then I would also have a music video camera that I need.

What do you think?

 

[robbins.photo]

What camera would be good for taking continous pictures? Ca. 8 pictures a sec. for up to 5 or 10 min or more.


Would a Samsung NX2000 be capable of doing this? Or others max budget is 700 Dollars


Pictures of me

The only way I can think of to achieve anything even remotely close to this is going to be with a good DSLR that has a high frame rate, an expensive and fast SD card (Sandisk Extreme Pro, 95 MPS write speed) and you will need to shoot in JPG only mode, you won't be able to sustain a burst for more than a few seconds using RAW, they are just too big. But 5 to 10 minutes? Seriously doubt your going to get anywhere close to that before you overrun the buffer or completely fill the card even using JPG.

I guess my first question would be, what are you trying to shoot that would require 8 frames per second with such an incredibly long burst?

 

[DarkShadow]

Hypothetically speaking, Even if you found a Camera that can do all that, a $700 price budget would not even be close to getting one.

 

[DarkShadow]

What camera would be good for taking continous pictures? Ca. 8 pictures a sec. for up to 5 or 10 min or more.


Would a Samsung NX2000 be capable of doing this? Or others max budget is 700 Dollars


Pictures of me

The only way I can think of to achieve anything even remotely close to this is going to be with a good DSLR that has a high frame rate, an expensive and fast SD card (Sandisk Extreme Pro, 95 MPS write speed) and you will need to shoot in JPG only mode, you won't be able to sustain a burst for more than a few seconds using RAW, they are just too big. But 5 to 10 minutes? Seriously doubt your going to get anywhere close to that before you overrun the buffer or completely fill the card even using JPG.

I guess my first question would be, what are you trying to shoot that would require 8 frames per second with such an incredibly long burst?

Maybe a comet falling to earth.LOL

 

[epeddy1]

DSLR camera sensor is going to get very hot and add noise snapping that many shots. Some astrophotographers use cooling fans for long exposures. 8 FPS I imagine would be even worse.

You could get a decent quality webcam and use computer software to record exactly 8 FPS. Pretty sure theres software that can separate each frame from the recorded video as well. I have a setup like this for imaging planets in my telescope.

I might even look into tethering a regular camera or camcorder and using recording software to achieve 8 FPS. Not sure if such a method is possible, but it could solve most of your problems.

 

[Gavjenks]

Pffft. Y'all are so pessimistic.

Option 1, slightly over $700 but not much
Canon 7D - $750 used
Use a UDMA card - $100
Shoot Jpeg, medium "fine" settings
Maximum burst, according to the manual = 35,020 shots = more than enough to fill your entire card, i.e. half an hour or so at 8 FPS

Option 2
Basic camcorder, ~$250 If you just need the speed and not super high quality or still frame features (why do you need these to be still frames??)

Option 3 Depending on the intended use (one time project?)
Rent an FS700 for $350 which can shoot at 1080p HD at 240 frames per second for 8 second bursts, and a very high quality sensor and stills pulled from video at normal 60 or lower FPS the rest of the time



And I'm sure a dozen others I'm not thinking of.

 

[Scatterbrained]

I have looked at the what ever color magic camera! Don`t like the name... but.. 4k. Looked at the stills(oause) on youtube and they look pretty good! Clear. + then I would also have a music video camera that I need.

What do you think?

I think it would be helpful to know what exactly you are trying to do. Pulling stills from video can work, but it's going to be hit or miss. Video relies on a bit of motion blur to keep things looking smooth and natural. That means that if there is subject movement in the frame you likely won't be able to pull stills. Likewise if you use a fast shutter speed for video you'd have sharper stills, but then the video would look choppy and unnatural.

 

[KmH]

I could not find anywhere in the Canon 7D manual that claimed 35,020 high speed continuous burst mode shots using JPEG Medium/Fine, but basic math shows 35,020 images as the approximate total image file capacity of a 4 GB UMDA card using JPEG Medium/Fine.

The 7D specifications (page 254) shows that in high speed continuous burst mode you can shoot at a max of 8 fps and if JPEG Large/Fine (approx 17.9 MP) is selected the max burst limit is (approx) 126 shots using a 4GB UDMA card.

Page 59 of the Canon 7D user's manual show a maximum high speed continuous burst limit using JPEG Medium/Fine (approx 8 MP) of (approx) 1122 frames using a UMDA card.
JPEG Small/Normal (approx 4.5 MP) looks to have a max burst limit of (approx) 3297 frames.

 

[Gavjenks]

KmH, I just googled the manual is where I got it. Didn't do any math:
View attachment 70204

I don't know what "possible shots" is supposed to mean, or how it relates to max burst, but max burst is what everybody talks about. And here it claims 35,000.
If possible shots turns out to the the correct number to use, then whatever, that still represents 5 minutes of constant shooting at 8 FPS (or 10+ for lower qualities), and thus still meets the OP's specifications.

 

[astroNikon]

Cant you use a mirrorless camera. Those supposedly had high frame rates on a subject that isn't moving.
Then shoot the format on something less than RAW .. one of the mid JPEGs ??
and possibly be in budget ??

 

[ConradM]

KmH, I just googled the manual is where I got it. Didn't do any math:
View attachment 70204

I don't know what "possible shots" is supposed to mean, or how it relates to max burst, but max burst is what everybody talks about. And here it claims 35,000.
If possible shots turns out to the the correct number to use, then whatever, that still represents 5 minutes of constant shooting at 8 FPS (or 10+ for lower qualities), and thus still meets the OP's specifications.

According to this test the 7D will start to buffer after 22 shots. So I'd say that's a no go on the continuous for 5 minutes.

Canon 7D Review: Full Review - Performance

 

[epeddy1]

I think it would be helpful to know what exactly you are trying to do. Pulling stills from video can work, but it's going to be hit or miss. Video relies on a bit of motion blur to keep things looking smooth and natural. That means that if there is subject movement in the frame you likely won't be able to pull stills. Likewise if you use a fast shutter speed for video you'd have sharper stills, but then the video would look choppy and unnatural.

I was able to make my Avatar pic of Jupiter taking still frames from a video on a ~$100 modified webcam and free software at about 8 FPS. Plenty of motion blur from tracking error and wobble in my entry-level telescope mount. Granted this is a stacked image where a percentage of "bad" frames were removed. But again, motion blur from the telescope is much worse (depending on what this guy is shooting). Jupiter would literally jump around the frame (like boom boom one side to the other) and sometimes out of frame during shooting despite my best efforts. Not to mention the blur caused by atmospheric conditions (referred to as poor "seeing").

With his $700 budget, he could get a much better quality webcam (or quality camera capable of acting as a webcam) and even have money leftover to buy a sturdy tripod and some software.

 

[Scatterbrained]

I think it would be helpful to know what exactly you are trying to do. Pulling stills from video can work, but it's going to be hit or miss. Video relies on a bit of motion blur to keep things looking smooth and natural. That means that if there is subject movement in the frame you likely won't be able to pull stills. Likewise if you use a fast shutter speed for video you'd have sharper stills, but then the video would look choppy and unnatural.

I was able to make my Avatar pic of Jupiter taking still frames from a video on a ~$100 modified webcam and free software at about 8 FPS. Plenty of motion blur from tracking error and wobble in my entry-level telescope mount. Granted this is a stacked image where a percentage of "bad" frames were removed. But again, motion blur from the telescope is much worse (depending on what this guy is shooting). Jupiter would literally jump around the frame (like boom boom one side to the other) and sometimes out of frame during shooting despite my best efforts. Not to mention the blur caused by atmospheric conditions (referred to as poor "seeing").

With his $700 budget, he could get a much better quality webcam (or quality camera capable of acting as a webcam) and even have money leftover to buy a sturdy tripod and some software.

...and you still have no idea what he is trying to do. Which is my point. The most we know is that he may have intentions to at some point try to make a music video, somehow. Watch this video to see what I'm talking about with regards to frame rates: