Want-a-leica Posted February 24, 2011 Share #1 Posted February 24, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Something that I got thinking about recently after I took shots of a parkour group with the M8 and got some quite nice shots. Is there any technical reason why the M8 (or M9) doesn't have high continuous burst speeds like some DSLRs? Or is it actually possible, but would be "un-Leica-ish"? I was daydreaming about an RF that could blast away like a high level DSLR, which would be just insanely cool....and probably cost a fortune. I said on the other thread that there is something to be said for only really having one chance to get an action shot because it really makes you concentrate and choose the moment well, and I stand by that but I was just curious about if it would be theoretically possible for a digital RF to be able to blast off shots at a million miles an hour like something from Canon or Nikon. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 24, 2011 Posted February 24, 2011 Hi Want-a-leica, Take a look here Machine gun speed and rangefinders. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Nicoleica Posted February 24, 2011 Share #2 Posted February 24, 2011 I think that you may receive a few 'interesting' responses to your question. But as far as I am aware, the main limitations on the M8 would be the speed of the processor and the limited battery capacity. Also, I'm not too sure about how the mechanical parts would appreciate being asked to go at warp speed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Want-a-leica Posted February 24, 2011 Author Share #3 Posted February 24, 2011 I think that you may receive a few 'interesting' responses to your question. You mean "flames":) I'm not at all trying to be provocative though, I'm actually just wondering out loud. The fact that I managed to get a pretty decent percentage of good, in-focus shots tells me that it's not even that necessary to have a high FPS. I was more interested in whether or not there's something in the RF design that makes such a thing difficult or even impossible. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicoleica Posted February 24, 2011 Share #4 Posted February 24, 2011 I was trying to be subtle. In theory, you should be able to achieve faster speeds than a DSLR, as there is no mirror to move. But in order to support such speeds, you'd need some pretty hefty processing power, large buffers and probably beefed-up mechanics too. Not to mention a bigger battery or three. All of this would have quite an impact on the size of the camera. Maybe it will happen in the future, but I think it's probably unlikely. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeicaMSeattle Posted February 24, 2011 Share #5 Posted February 24, 2011 It has more to do with the internal processor, buffer, and file size that occur every time the shutter is pressed as the files are saved to the memory card. Watch thev LED on the back the next time you try a rapid burse. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted February 24, 2011 Share #6 Posted February 24, 2011 Heat dissipation in a small crowded body precludes extreme processor loads as well, I guess. And of course the Leica philosophy of the decisive moment... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik Gunst Lund Posted February 24, 2011 Share #7 Posted February 24, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Some of us might remember the Nikon F2H 7 fps using a Pellicle Mirror design, the modern version is Sony's SLT single-lens translucent A55, BUT AS Japp points out; you cook the sensor. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
!Nomad64 Posted February 24, 2011 Share #8 Posted February 24, 2011 IMHO shooting at machine gun speed subtly implies that one has poor to no control over the image he intends to take and relies on the raw number statistics in the hope that amongst the many there'll be at least one image that will save the day. On the other hand one deliberately elects to shoot once or a few times but make them count. Who do you think has the most remarkable skills, a machine gunner or a sniper? Cheers, Bruno Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted February 24, 2011 Share #9 Posted February 24, 2011 ... if it would be theoretically possible for a digital RF to be able to blast off shots at a million miles an hour like something from Canon or Nikon. There's no theoretical reason for a digital RF not doing 7 or even 10 frames a second. It just happens that no one appears to build such a device. IMHO shooting at machine gun speed subtly implies that one has poor to no control over the image he intends to take ... Who do you think has the most remarkable skills, a machine gunner or a sniper? It's not all that uncommon that a photographer does not have any kind of control over the scene he is trying to photograph. Some photographers do not really care about the remarkability of the skills but rather about the shot itself. Otherwise, I could have saved much money and time by taking my shots while standing on one hand. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik Gunst Lund Posted February 24, 2011 Share #10 Posted February 24, 2011 On the other hand one deliberately elects to shoot once or a few times but make them count... I agree, my preferred shoting style. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted February 24, 2011 Share #11 Posted February 24, 2011 There is nothing about non-SLR viewing per se that limits frames per second. The Contax G2 could do an "honest" 4 frames per sec, even dragging film along. In fact, if anything, the lack of the mirror and aperture stop-down mechanisms make it easier to motor through the images faster (see post 7 regard D2H's pellical mirror) with a camera that doesn't need all that TTL viewing baggage - i.e. a rangefinder. And there are times when the sequence itself can be the final image - see attached (Contax G2, 21 Biogon, 4 fps, Coach and offensive linewomen - Women's Professional Football League, 2000.) Sequences can be fun (ask Elliott Erwitt), and they can be informative. I'd love to be able to produce such sequences with the M8/M9, even though MOST of my work is shot one image per press of the button. There may well be restrictions due to size, heat, battery strength and loudness that make high speeds incompatible with a Leica-M-sized digital camera. I.E., an M8/M9 might have to blimp up to the size and loudness of a 1D or D3S to make it work. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted February 25, 2011 Share #12 Posted February 25, 2011 There's no theoretical reason for a digital RF not doing 7 or even 10 frames a second. Yes there is; CCD sensors are prone to overheating. And a ff DRF is not possible with a CMos (at present) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted February 25, 2011 Share #13 Posted February 25, 2011 Yes there is; CCD sensors are prone to overheating. And a ff DRF is not possible with a CMos (at present) Since this is the M8 forum - how did "full-frame" creep in as a limitation? The Canon EOS 1D (Mk. 1) = CCD and 8 fps and less crop than the M8. Remove the mirror and prism, attach a rangefinder, build some coupled RF lenses - et voila. CCDs may be sensitive to overheat - but realistically, the processor speed and image buffer will limit the total burst length. So it is not as though the sensor must put out 8 fps for a long time. Interestingly, a Google of "Canon 1D overheating" brings up only references to the CMOS versions (II-IV) - NOT to the CCD version. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zombii Posted February 25, 2011 Share #14 Posted February 25, 2011 IMHO shooting at machine gun speed subtly implies that one has poor to no control over the image he intends to take and relies on the raw number statistics in the hope that amongst the many there'll be at least one image that will save the day.On the other hand one deliberately elects to shoot once or a few times but make them count. Who do you think has the most remarkable skills, a machine gunner or a sniper? Cheers, Bruno Your point is well taken but the obvious question is whether the subject is any less dead no matter which he's shot with? If you get a lot of practice shooting that one special image in fast action situations, than a single shot may be fine. If you don't get much practice, than the machine gun approach may be the difference between getting or not getting the shot. Sports shooters use Canon 1D series cameras because they have to get the shots and those bodies have a high FPS rate. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted February 25, 2011 Share #15 Posted February 25, 2011 Aw, just get a Panasonic's M43 digital video AG-AF 100 with a 64gb SDXC card, and shoot at 60 frames-per-second. It ain't exactly a pocket camera. Chances are very good that an amateur so outfitted will not get one single shot as useful as a pro with a straight still-camera. Seriously, I have known two outstanding sports photographers who used a motor-drive only to eliminate thumbing the advance. They did not shotgun. One of them, I swear, lived 20 milliseconds in the future - he was that good with prefocus and follow focus and getting The Moment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.