fps or ISO?

[JerseyGirl]

In terms of action/sports wildlife (think running wildlife) what is more important the fps or ISO speeds. If the ISO is high enough can you get by with fewer fps. Yes, I know I am stuck on the fps thing but could get a 50d with 6.3 fps for a little more than the 450d which has 3.7 fps. The ISO on them might be similar don't know. The 450d has other updated features so hmm - 6 of 1 and half a dozen of the other? But want focused crisp, clear action shots so what is the minimum I would want in both ISO and fps? Thanks.

JG

[RichardTaylor]

Comparison.

Digital Cameras Side-by-Side, 2 cameras: Digital Photography Review

Read the reviews (link via the above comparison)

I would go with the 50D
(1) Better erganomics
(2) Better focussing.
(3) Higher FPS
(4) Increased buffer size.

[inkista]

I've done bird-in-flight shots with a 350D/XT which maxed out the iso at 1600 and only shot 3+ fps. So, I don't think either body would necessarily hamper you. But having the 50D means my iso 1600 is a lot cleaner than it was on the XT, and the 6+ fps can be nice. It can also be a PITA to edit down. Of course, I was also using an EF 400mm f/5.6L USM, which helped a ton. With a 75-300 III on the front of my XT, my keeper rate was very very very low. The L helped me out by multiplying my keeper rate by a factor of ten, at least.

fps count doesn't mean much, btw, if you can't time your shot to get it framed and focused in time. I'd opt for the higher iso. Which the 50D also has over the 450D. The 450D maxes out at 1600. I'd recommend at least a T1i/500D, which has the same iso range as the 50D: 100-3200 (and pushed 6400 and 12800). You may never want to use the 3200 and above settings, but 800 and 1600 will be a lot cleaner. And if you're using an f/5.6 telephoto, you're going to need them. All the time.

And one technique you want to master is back-button autofocus.

[autofocus]

Originally Posted by JerseyGirl

In terms of action/sports wildlife (think running wildlife) what is more important the fps or ISO speeds. If the ISO is high enough can you get by with fewer fps. Yes, I know I am stuck on the fps thing but could get a 50d with 6.3 fps for a little more than the 450d which has 3.7 fps. The ISO on them might be similar don't know. The 450d has other updated features so hmm - 6 of 1 and half a dozen of the other? But want focused crisp, clear action shots so what is the minimum I would want in both ISO and fps? Thanks.

JG

I guess I'm a little confused by your question...to me, we're talking apples and oranges here. If most of your sports/wildlife shooting is done outside and in good light, ISO becomes much less of an issue. In most of those cases, ISO 100 or 200 should be fine. Frame rate and buffer is a completely different matter, and I think you should be more concerned about that. Having a camera that shoots 6-7 fps is certainly better than one that only does 3 fps. Also worth considering in that choice is weight and balance, and focus tracking of your equipment especially if you are panning and shooting fast. I'm liking the Canon T1i, lighter than the 50D and using the same sensor as the 50D with almost equal processing power + video, and less expensive. Downside-not a magnesium body, and not sealed as well, and not sure if it focus tracks as well (and I don't know the frame rate of the T1i)

[inkista]

ISO matters with some wildlife--they tend to be more active around sunrise and sunset, and less so in the middle of the day. While I have been able to use iso 200 on brilliantly sunny days to shoot birds in flight with my 400/5.6, I'm more often in the 400-1600 range, both because I'm limited to f/5.6 on aperture, and because I need at least 1/500s to eliminate camera shake blur from handholding, and because the hawks are out and circling around dusk to take advantage of the thermals.

[autofocus]

Originally Posted by inkista

ISO matters with some wildlife--they tend to be more active around sunrise and sunset, and less so in the middle of the day. While I have been able to use iso 200 on brilliantly sunny days to shoot birds in flight with my 400/5.6, I'm more often in the 400-1600 range, both because I'm limited to f/5.6 on aperture, and because I need at least 1/500s to eliminate camera shake blur from handholding, and because the hawks are out and circling around dusk to take advantage of the thermals.

Don't do a lot of wildlife shooting myself, so I'll yield to you the expert on this one

Vince

[inkista]

Well, like I said, it depends. If you're not using a slow supertelephoto, then high ISO isn't such a big deal. It's just that with supertelephotos, thanks to the pricetags, slow lenses are a lot more common among hobby shooters. A Canon 400mm f/5.6L is $1200. The 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS USM is $1600. The 400mm f/4L DO IS is $5800. The 500mm f/4L IS $6100. The 400mm f/2.8L IS $7200.

f/5.6 is the only way you stay under $5000 if you're going past 300mm. It's one heck of a price leap.

[autofocus]

Originally Posted by inkista

Well, like I said, it depends. If you're not using a slow supertelephoto, then high ISO isn't such a big deal. It's just that with supertelephotos, thanks to the pricetags, slow lenses are a lot more common among hobby shooters. A Canon 400mm f/5.6L is $1200. The 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS USM is $1600. The 400mm f/4L DO IS is $5800. The 500mm f/4L IS $6100. The 400mm f/2.8L IS $7200.

f/5.6 is the only way you stay under $5000 if you're going past 300mm. It's one heck of a price leap.

ouch......!

[inkista]

Originally Posted by auto-focus

ouch......!

Yup. The "great whites" take a big nasty bite outta your wallet.

[JerseyGirl]

Hey ya know what, I just realized I wrote 450d when I meant to write 550d the new T2i is what I have been comparing to the 50d. I'm guessing that doesn't change anything you have said. If I was to go in the direction of the 50d then my question is this...is the 50d worth the extra money over the 40d as I might be able to find a 40d for a good price new or used because it is a few years old. I have read some reports that those who had the 40d didn't see that much improvement in the 50d and in fact there have been some issues with the 50d that the 40d didn't have, I can't remember what they were off hand. Thanks for your input.
JG