Digital Camera World posted a story that we can only see at 10 frames per second so why are we wasting our money on gear than claims to be faster. I don't know what the author was thinking, but this argument is fundamentally flawed.
He accepts that a faster frame rate improves the smoothness, so the argument is flawed he asks? His answer, ” is “no”.
The premise of the article is that our eyes can only see 10 fps so spending more money on gear that can deliver better refresh rates, and fps is a waste of money. If the result of faster frame rates is smoother video, then the outcome is improved. If we could not perceive a difference, we'd still be shooting movies at 16fps.
And for stills, shooting at 10, 20 or even 40 fps is not about being able to see the difference, it is about being able to capture the moment in time of a fast moving subject. We improve our accuracy, our ability to get the shot quicker. Spending more money on cameras that can shoot faster stills continuous is better regardless if our eyes can perceive it at all.
Photo by vikram sundaramoorthy
It's about outcomes. Fast frame rates allow us to get smoother video, they allow us to slow down time giving us slow motion. They allow us to capture stills at a faster frame rate to ensure we capture the moment for a fleeting subject. I say to Adam that the results, the outcomes are clear, that we are not wasting our money.
And having a EVF with 120 Hz refresh rate does make a difference. If one shoots using an EVF, there is a noticeable flicker at lower refresh rates that feels artificial. Perhaps the author needs to pick up a camera and revisit his argument. I just don't buy it.
The article misses the point. It's about using faster frame rates to capture the moment, slow things down, or provide a different look at feel. That is why we shoot faster than 10 fps.