A high frame rate can correlate with sharpness, when a subject is periodically moving and you want a frame where it is not. In the case of bird photography specifically, birds have periods of fast action, interleaved with moments of stillness. You need at least 6fps, better 8-10fps, such that in any burst of frames you get one where the subject is perfectly still. Even at high shutter speeds like 1/1250th or 1/1600th and a perfectly stable camera, the fast motion of a bird can still cause blurring. The 5D III is certainly better in this regard than its predecessor. Obviously there are even better options, but that does not invalidate the fact that the 5D III is better than its predecessor, by 54%.
Very true and this also applies to trying to get away with natural light macro shots of bugs.
Ah, good point. Macro is a great example of a more niche use of higher frame rate.
QuoteSure, if you were a professional sports shooter. But there are also wildlife shooters. Bird photographers. Arial photographers (some who use the 1D line, some who were using the 7D line but have been all too happy to move to the 5D III). Sports is not the only source of high speed action. I chose my terms carefully. The 5D III, as a general purpose camera, is ideal in an extremely broad set of circumstances. The 1D X is obviously the better choice for the highest speed action, but the 5D III does the job extremely well well when money is an issue.
It is and the 6fps a big key. Some people shoot everything from landscapes to wildlife to action and it can be nice to have one camera that can manage all of that at least decently.
Exactly. The higher frame rate and better AF system really make the 5D III an ideal general purpose FF camera with extremely broad applicability.
QuoteAgain, your missing the point. The notion that IQ is purely dependent upon the sensor is a fallacy. Getting a quality image means getting the little aspects of each key thing within the image correct. And that means all of the little aspects correct...not just exposure, not just sharpness, but composition, subject position, pose, head angle, and eye contact. More frames per second, larger frame buffer, better AF system, etc. all lead to better IQ. The sensor is certainly the most important factor in getting each and every individual pixel that is recorded perfect, but if you don't record the right thing...well, it doesn't matter how good your pixels are. The wrong frame is the wrong frame. Bad focus is bad focus. The best pixels in the world won't give you enough post-process editing latitude to fix those issues.QuoteIQ is dependent upon multiple factors. Sensor is only one of many. As I said previously (not sure which thread, maybe this one), if one were to rank the most important factors in IQ, I'd say the best rankings would be: Sensor is #3. Frame rate is #2. AF system is #1! Sensor only matters if the other two factors do their job, *lock focus* and capture the *right* frame.
It depends what you are shooting, if it is landscapes then sensor is far and away #1.
True, there are some kinds of photography where sensor is #1. I'd say at least landscape and studio photography, although a lot of studio photography can benefit from a highly capable AF system and even frame rate as well. I guess those who shoot very high contrast scenes that might actually have a strong argument for needing 14 stops of DR (which again includes landscape photography, but may also include things like street photography) could say sensor is #1 as well.