[cindersmom]

Hello All: I am new to this forum and looking forward to your input. I am looking for a digital SLR to use for dog agility work (action shots), wildlife photos, travel and, well, things I probably have not thought of yet. After much research and debate, I am leaning toward the Nikon D80. Here is my question: How fast is 3fps and do I need to look at spending the extra dollars just for the 5fps the D200 would get me? I appreciate any insight you have on this subject.

[JMitchell]

Sometimes you want it when you don't have it, but not very often, but once you have (for example 8fps on the D300 with grip) you think everything else is positively lethargic and yearn after it. I think 5fps is enough, but to me that feels slow now

[Dabhand16]

Welcome to Pixalo Cindersman

For what you are going to use the camera for, you might as well go for the fastest fps you can stretch to. You don't have to use it at the maximum, but if you find 3 fps too slow, it will be far more expensive and more hassle to sell one and buy another that is faster.

Cameras that have a faster frame rate will also usually have faster write speeds too, so that is probably worth having as the buffer will be emptied faster. On this subject, SD cards (as used on the D80) cannot match CF (as used on the D200) for write speeds, so for action based shots, I'd go for the D200.

I think the D200's are getting very cheap now and are probably now better value for money than the D80.

[Sonsey]

I found that 3fps was just too slow to capture anything moving at a decent rate (and those dogs really move quick!) resulting in quite a few missed shots. I think you really need to look at the 5fps models. Also don't forget that you'll have to factor in buying a reasonably fast lens to help get those high shutter speeds, f/4 shouldn't be too bad but f/2.8 would be better if you can afford the extra.

Unless your completely set on a Nikon, the Canon 40D with it's 6.5fps would certainly do the job for you, and it's very nicely priced with the current cashback... something to think about.

[Dabhand16]

Originally Posted by Sonsey

Unless your completely set on a Nikon, the Canon 40D with it's 6.5fps would certainly do the job for you, and it's very nicely priced with the current cashback... something to think about.

Good point, and another VFM camera. As Iain said unless you are settled into one particular make, it might be an idea to handle them both to see which one feels better.

[Markulous]

Well, must admit I'd put focus, whether auto or manual, ahead of fps. But then I never really use the multishot, partly because I dislike trawling through identical copies of shots but mainly as I've never actually succeeded in getting a better shot out of multi over single. But tracking the subject can be somewhat testing - which is why I usually go to manual! And yes, that's running dogs, galloping horses, speeding cars, birds in flight, etc.

[VinnyP]

The 40D also manages it's top speed at 14 bit which is very impressive. The 6.5fps is excellent (6.3 really) for what you want but the focus tracking is not as good as some competitors.

[gsgary]

No you don't it's all about timming, i have 8.5fps but hardly ever use it

[Larne]

Having recently upgraded to the 40D I was pleased to discover that it has two modes, one shooting at ~3 fps and the other at 6.5 fps. Most of the time I find the 3 fps is fine but I did find the 6.5 fps useful when (for example) I was trying to catch a wave breaking against some rocks and wanted to catch just the right moment.

I guess what you need to think about is just how fast what you are shooting is going to change. Or rather, how long is the window in which it is going to stay the same? If the scene you want to capture is likely to remain relatively static for 1/3 of a second then a 3 fps camera will do you fine. If you are looking to capture a fleeting instant then you need the highest fps you can get.

Having said all of that, I would recommend buying the best camera you can afford. The speed in fps is just one part of that equation and the more money you spend the better performance you are going to get in a wide variety of areas.

[M1ke A]

Like Gary I can also call on 8.5fps but very rarely do.

The biggest issue I have is filling the buffer. A lot of big running events have you constantly shooting and I can regularly kill my camera's buffer, even with Sandisk Extreme IV cards and medium jpg. Burst rates have no bearing on constant shooting.

Now this is a fairly unique shooting situation but it's my roundabout way of agreeing with earlier comments about write speeds, focus response and fast(er) lenses. There's a whole load of factors that are all inter dependant upon one another that just 'solving' the FPS requirement may not be sufficient.

That said, your shopping list is fairly broad and with a bit of practice (OK, lots ) you can get your timing sorted and 3fps on dog work might be ample.

[VinnyP]

Originally Posted by M1ke A

Like Gary I can also call on 8.5fps but very rarely do.

The biggest issue I have is filling the buffer. A lot of big running events have you constantly shooting and I can regularly kill my camera's buffer, even with Sandisk Extreme IV cards and medium jpg. Burst rates have no bearing on constant shooting.

Just an aside hopefully Canon will add UDMA support soon. The Nikon UDMA is a big selling point for sport togs. Easy 100+ frames at over 9 fps before you hit the buffer in fine JPG and after that the buffer clears much much quicker.

[Rob Barron]

The buffer in the Canon does clear pretty quickly though because it starts writing the pictures to the card straight away. If you shoot a burst of shots, it is writing the first shoot while you take the second and so forth. The 6.5fps is not 6.3fps, it is an average of 6.5fps most of the time but can be more or less. The speed attained will be affected by the lens you are using and so forth and obviously whether shooting in RAW or jpeg but it also depends on the amount of detail in the shot as to how many you'll fire off before filling the buffer. You can test this very easily: look out into a busy scene and hold the shutter speed down and it will probably slow down or stop in the 20s but point it at a blank wall and you'll get loads more. I have achieved over 80 shots before it filled the buffer. The speed will get slower as you near the buffer limits too. All i am saying then is the figures are 'normally expected' rather than a fixed speed you will get on every occasion.

In terms of do you need it, I am going to be bold enough to say 'No' you don't. I am not deriding your photography in any way at all but if you have never been shooting fast action and have had a problem because the camera was too slow to capture the shot accurately, then you will almost certainly not be needing the difference between 3 and 5fps.

Personally I have the 40D and rarely need the 6.5fps. It sounds like a quiet machine gun as it is so fast but in reality I can hardly see any difference between two adjacent shots. I totally agree that if you do shots where hundredths of a second might make a real difference (the waves crashing is a good example) then the high burst rate will be of some use to you but apart from sports professionals and the like, most of us would need the fastest speeds on very few occasions.

Obviously the 40D is best.... it's a Canon

Cheers,
Rob

[AQ]

Cindesrmom originally listed wildfile as one of the requirements. If she is going to try for birds or inscets in flight then 6.5 fps is a big advantage. In these cases there is a huge difference between each shot.

GSgary mentioned timing. While you can do a lot with single shot timing you cannot watch both the bird flying past and the background at the same time. I know I have tried.

[cindersmom]

Wow, you have all given me much to think about. Mainly that I have a long way to go in learning all it will take to get a really good shot. Lucky for me, I am patient and willing to put in the time. I am not committed to Nikon or Canon. A friend has taken beautiful dog action shots with her Nikon D70, so that's