1200 FPS for $999. As well as 60p at 720p?

Adam J McKay

Adam J McKay

Veteran
Sounds too good to be true? Well it's not. I picked up the most recent issue of HD video pro. ( It's great what your doing Barry ) Turns out Casio has made a still camera for the talentless photographer which takes 60 full res pictures in a second. You might be thinking great what does that have to do with video, well it also records 720p video at 60fps and can record up to 1200 fps, im assuming at such a high frame rate the resolution is going to be absolute rubbish, but it might be a fun tool to play around with.

Here is a link to an article about the camera.
http://gizmodo.com/341234/casios-exilim-pro-ex+f1-takes-still-pics-at-60-fps-video-at-1200-fps

Turns out the resolution for 1200fps is 336 x 90. And there is a much better review at:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0801/08010601casiof1.asp
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't go so far as to say a talentless photographer is the only one to use a high burst.

Ever hear of sports photographers? I guess all of those guys with ESPN are talentless....

And high-speed photography...those guys are talentless too.

Just because a camera has a high burst doesn't mean only talentless photographers shoot them. Even with the original film cameras - people bracket to be sure they get the shot. That hardly classifies as talentless.
 
seriously if you need 60 fps to make sure you get a shot, your not a very good photographer. I am a sports photographer and do you know how I get the shot I want? Take it right. Why not invest in the red cam video everything take a still and call it photography. Seems like I might have struck a soft spot with you. I mean if you need to burst go right ahead you do what you need to do. But pointing a camera at someone take 60 images picking the best one and calling it photography is the lamest thing I have ever heard.
 
Well, I worked for a paintball magazine for two years as a staff photographer, Paintball 2Xtremes Magazine. Yes, I got the angle, I got the spot on the field, and eventually I got the shot. You have one chance to get that timing, to stop that ball in motion right before the player gets hit. Or that moment before the baseball player hits the ball. The single 1/60th of a second before the quarterback gets sacked.

I'm glad you can press the shutter at that exact second or 1/100th of a second to get that shot that will be printed on the magazine cover. Really, I like getting paid, as did the rest of my colleagues and other photogs on the field. Seeing as that little paintball is traveling at 300Feet Per Second. I think the extra frame rate would help to get that money shot. My Digital Rebel only took 6 frames a second. Our head photog took 17 a second. He was printed on the cover many a time.

People look for the money shot. I don't take 60 frames a second with a landscape. But I do bracket. Especially with 35mm. Especially at night when exposure is hit or miss. I think everyone brackets. For sports photography, or fast motion photography. Read: taking a picture the moment the bullet hits the water balloon. Yes, the extra frame rate makes that possible. Unless you are that good to take the picture that exact 1/100th of a second. I only use high frame rates when photographing sports or highspeed stuff.
 
Ok, but does that require skill. I dont want to sound like a pretentious nob. But lets face it, any bloke can set a camera on a tripod burst like there is no tomorrow and claim they took a wonderful picture. But is it photography? When your capturing images at twice the speed of normal video can you really call yourself a skilled photographer? I am not saying this feature wouldnt be beneficial, nor im I saying I wouldnt use it. But I would never dare think I was talented for taking what is essentially a grab from high speed footage.
 
Yes yes you can. And you are sounding like a Noob.

Any idiot can put a camera on a tripod, but a good photographer points it at something beautiful/poignant/important.

You clearly have never worked as a photo journalist. They want Options options options...

If you can present them 15 images of the same moment they like you. if you can present them 60, they love you.
 
Your seriously going to sit here and tell me that literally video taping something at high speed and taking out a still is skilled photography? If anything you are a skilled videographer. Taking a picture of something beautiful doesnt require 60 fps now does it. And if you need to be able to take 60 pictures at any given second in order to make 1 good one then how in your right mind can you say you are skilled? You did nothing except frame a shot and press a button. It's the same as hunting with a full automatic assault rifle, ya sure you killed the dear, but who wouldnt with that kind of fire power. Takes away from the art.

So I say once again, I will continue to make money do things the way I do one picture at a time, you can do what you do. In the end were all making a living.

That said I still think the need for freakish frames per second in order to capture that perfect moment is cheap. I do agree there are many practical uses. The example with the paintball field or catching a bullet in flight. But using that to capture a field goal at a football game? Really? That's sad. All personal opinion of course.
 
it has nothing to do with "overkill" in the commercial world it has to do with coverage.
 
Also as a pro photographer I agree with you Zergtherobot. Its all about opening the shutter at the exact right moment...not sifting through thousands of images lol
 
I am not talking necasarrily commercial world. I am talking as a photographer who loves to take photos. I rely on my sense of when to take a picture not technology to do it for me. I shoot film as well as digital and the satisfaction of knowing you took a great photo on your own is far better then grabbing a still from high speed video. But again, you can go make your money whichever way you see fit and I will continue to make mine the, dare I say, old fashioned way.

But with all that said, back to the camera. I do think it looks pretty sweet and would love to get a chance to play around with it. Mainly the 1200 FPS video. I wonder what the 720p looks like? Im sure there will be some test footage up sooner then later.
 
Mattykins said:
Well, I worked for a paintball magazine for two years as a staff photographer, Paintball 2Xtremes Magazine. Yes, I got the angle, I got the spot on the field, and eventually I got the shot. You have one chance to get that timing, to stop that ball in motion right before the player gets hit. Or that moment before the baseball player hits the ball. The single 1/60th of a second before the quarterback gets sacked.

I'm glad you can press the shutter at that exact second or 1/100th of a second to get that shot that will be printed on the magazine cover. Really, I like getting paid, as did the rest of my colleagues and other photogs on the field. Seeing as that little paintball is traveling at 300Feet Per Second. I think the extra frame rate would help to get that money shot. My Digital Rebel only took 6 frames a second. Our head photog took 17 a second. He was printed on the cover many a time.

People look for the money shot. I don't take 60 frames a second with a landscape. But I do bracket. Especially with 35mm. Especially at night when exposure is hit or miss. I think everyone brackets. For sports photography, or fast motion photography. Read: taking a picture the moment the bullet hits the water balloon. Yes, the extra frame rate makes that possible. Unless you are that good to take the picture that exact 1/100th of a second. I only use high frame rates when photographing sports or highspeed stuff.
Click to expand...

That's how professional photographers shoot. They use the appropriate toolset to capture the subject at-hand. You nailed it.

I got to the point where I could guess exposure without an external or camera meter, but I always bracketed anyway. Metering only bolstered and improved my capacity to understand light.

There are thousands of examples of art captured by craftspeople who make the most of their toolsets. Everyone's working style differs - why call names if they differ from you. I'd rather be published or signed or have a showing than argue that multi-burst equals hackery.

e
 
Pro photographer at what though?

As a journalist coverage is a huge thing. Especially in the fact that the money shot might be hidden in the rest of the shots. You bracket like hell, and shoot to kill when you are on assignment. I mean, you could just pull the shutter once, but in the event that that one shot is obscured, out of focus, technical issue, or what-have-you - that can't be printed. That can't get you paid.

If you want to travel to an event and take a select number of shots, sure. Have at it. I know some photogs that do just that, they shoot 35mm still. Black and White. But go through roll after roll after roll. Fact of the matter is, even if you are an amazing photog, you are bound to get a bad shot. I highly doubt that you guys have more than a 6 to 10 print ratio. Especially if you are a journalist.

If you shoot landscapes, or portraits - take that one shot and move on...I guess. Me personally, I bracket. Since I still use film here and there, for nature. And my DSLR for every thing else. I bracket. Which means I am a terrible and talentless photographer.

Sports photography, sure, take that one picture. But don't be surprised if one of the twenty other photographers gets the shot Sports Weekly wanted to see on their cover. Note how at big events there are hundreds of photogs? Many of them employed by the same company. They have runners that go from the shooter to a edit and offline bay, so the money shot makes it to MSN.com homepage minutes after it happens. Clients have that photo literally within minutes.

I guess since they have so many photogs, all shooting like mad, they are all talentless.

Am I saying that taking one picture is bad? Not at all. Like I said, If I see something really amazing, I take three to four shots in the same spot. In the event one of them gets destroyed during processing I have extras.

At night I bracket and take like, 5 to 10 shots, since i need to get the exposure right.

When I am on location, and I see something interesting, I shoot and keep shooting. Since I am not normally checking to be sure it is perfect when something is happening in front of me. Since if you do, the moment passes.

It's called coverage. Even in videography and film there is coverage. Hollywood productions have a 4 to 1 ratio at the minimum. That means they can take the take again up to four times. I guess since they don't take it in one take, they are talentless.

There are different types of photography. And everyone that I have ever worked next to is indeed very talented. When I am at events, there are at least 10 photogs on the field. All shooting basically the same thing. Of course all bickering about angles and spots. But everyone is shooting the same thing. Out of all of those shots, only one of them will be printed. And the one that got the shot will be the printed one.
 
I am not debating that taking a few pictures or bracketing is talentless. It is not. I am saying that if you need to take SIXTY pictures in a second in order to get a good one then you are cheap. Ya you probably will find a better picture in your high speed video then the guy shooting film at 2 or 3 fps, then you can get your photo printed on the cover of whatever magazine and feel real proud of yourself. Just like the hunter with the Ak-47 can feel real good when he takes out that dear, knowing skill and effort went into the kill,
shooting a hundred or maybe even 60 rounds into the beast before it hit the ground.

So yes, if you are making a living capturing images, by deffinition you are a pro. But you hand anyone a camera that shoots 60 fps and set them up at a sporting even and I gurantee you they will be able to take just as good of a picture then you. Does this make them a better photographer? No.

So I suppose if you had some magical device to setup and frame shots for you as well as take a 1000 pictures per second, you would still consider yourself a skilled photographer because you are simply using the right tool for the job?

Rubbish I say.
 
Last edited:
Any photographer worth his salt should know the term "decisive moment".
It is the simultaneous recognition, in a fraction of a second, of the significance of an event as well as the precise organization of forms which gives that event its proper expression.
To capture this precise moment in time takes a lot of skill and artistry. Something that this camera will not require.
I agree with you Zergtherobot (interesting screen name).
 
haha yea what hunter said... i opened this up expecting talk about the camera... not an argument about photography... oh well. haha
 
I as well started this thread to talk about the camera, if you notice I even tried to bring it back to the camera. So here we go again.

So ya 720p still cam. What does everyone think?
 
i'm a photographer and i use burst for fast moving sports photography to capture that perticular sequence.. nothing wrong with that. Other ocasions dont call for burst..thats normal.. just like hwn you shoot high shutter or low shutter with video/film. Each ocasion is different.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top