Ok so im looking ofr a camera which has good FPS, ive looked at one which has 1000fps and its £111. i looked at a Canon but it only filmed in 50 fps would this make a difference at all?


If you have any ideas say so,
tell me which camera you have


im mainly looking for bridge cameras as they get the better fish-eyes but anyway tell me what you got and what attachments


thanks

~James~

the frame rate doesn't matter that much but, the lower the frame rate the better slow-mo the higher the frame rate the better the effects. the cannon would be a better picture but the 1000fps would be high motion..

Lol im having this same problem!

just save money and get a cannon 550D

^This, you can't go wrong with one haha

jesus fucking christ, why don't you just put this in off topics? If you know you're doing something wrong then don't do it ._.

1000fps = highspeed, i.e. not normal filming. Everything is in slow motion. Highest normal speed framerate you can get is basically 60fps. I film in 50 even though I have 60 on my camera, 60 makes lighting weird for some reason.

canon eos 550ds are amazing cameras, you really cant go wrong. BUT ask yourself do you REALLY want a mega expensive camera? Are you at the level where you need a £500 hdslr?

Have you considered go pros? They're cheap and do a pretty nice job.

>every time you put a thread in the wrong place your penis gets smaller

So what happens to girls that put threads in the wrong place?

Girls don't have penises? : o

kerryDETH wrote:

jesus fucking christ, why don't you just put this in off topics? If you know you're doing something wrong then don't do it ._.

1000fps = highspeed, i.e. not normal filming. Everything is in slow motion. Highest normal speed framerate you can get is basically 60fps. I film in 50 even though I have 60 on my camera, 60 makes lighting weird for some reason.

canon eos 550ds are amazing cameras, you really cant go wrong. BUT ask yourself do you REALLY want a mega expensive camera? Are you at the level where you need a £500 hdslr?

Have you considered go pros? They're cheap and do a pretty nice job.

This, and you would have to ask yourself if you are capable of using a dslr, and it's array of controls. Compared to other high-end filming setups, the T2i may seem pretty cheap, but in reality, all of the things you will need are gonna be costly in the end.

ive considered a go-pro, but they dont do the best job, people have said get the contour HD but yeh



ive looked a 550D it looks good my budget can stretch to £800 but i wanna get a bridge camera whats cheap like the cassio and get a nice fisheye
any help


ive read your comments but i think there are things better than the canon for a better price soo ye.

james-parsonage wrote:

ive considered a go-pro, but they dont do the best job, people have said get the contour HD but yeh



ive looked a 550D it looks good my budget can stretch to £800 but i wanna get a bridge camera whats cheap like the cassio and get a nice fisheye
any help


ive read your comments but i think there are things better than the canon for a better price soo ye.

don't get a bridge camera, as for me im buying a nikon d3100 in the summer hopefully.
550D im telling you

and wtf is this man you would rather buy a bridge camera than a 550D , you are the stupidist person on earth!

go pros are solid cameras but the sound is bad.


no offence man but i think you don't know shit about cameras :/

I must chime in and agree with how crazy it is to think that a bridge beats a 550d. Everyone isn't bumming the 550d just for 'cool' factor. I got mine for £480 shipped brand new with the 18-55mm lens. Amazing price for what it is, and a brilliant fisheye for them costs another £200.

I think go pros are your best bet, given what you've said. The HD ones are rad!

ok thanks dude this realy helps and saves me atleast £300

lol and the 550d is a bridge camera?

where is the ffi selfheadsmash emotion?

up your arse

trolololol

kerryDETH wrote:

. I film in 50 even though I have 60 on my camera, 60 makes lighting weird for some reason

(you probs know this but) i think it's because lights aren't constantly producing a steady flow of light they flicker very very fast, so fast the human eye doesn't pick it up, however your camera films at a sufficient fps that it reveals this.
because of this there is an interference where there are some frames in which there is light and some which there isn't any light so you see the flicker when you play it back. (the flicker speed varies between different lights, hence it doesn't always happening) hope you understand what i mean..