Remind us why high ISO and fps are important

carlk said:

tony field said:

Heck, I shoot a lot of action work single frame and 95% of the decent images are a result of the ability to anticipate and understand what you are shooting. Some guys who shoot motor drive along side of me are amazed at what I get - and other shooters who are single-frame oriented just grin with understanding.

Click to expand...

I don't think so. Scott Larson's post reminded me any anticipation will not let you to predict what will happen right AFTER you pressed the button.

Click to expand...

Although many sports are quite different when it comes to before/after the button press, for those sports I shoot, I find that single frame yields better results. Over all, I try to shoot specific compositions (i.e. the exact attitude of a horse, the exact relationship between the arms and body, etc) The motor drive will actually deliver less good images.

For example, the required timing of this type of show jumping image is to have the horses hoof between 10 and 25 cm above the grass. If you shoot this with motor drive, you will not do as well as single shot. It is also interesting to note that shooting the 1D-IV requires one set of anticipation - if I switch to the 5D-II, it takes at least a few shots before I readjust my timing to compensate for the 20 or so millisecond difference in shutter timing. I hate mixing cameras in a shoot.



For this shot, the objective is to have the horses legs exactly parallel to the jump - again easier to achieve single shot than motor drive:



Dance is another action sport that is better shot single frame - motor drive misses the peak action:



I always shoot single frame for sporting events, however motor drive is enabled at 5fps just in case a spill happens and a motor drive (all be it not very fast) can get some extra images that were not anticipated. I just shot a World Cup speed skating championships and shot a skater in the corner as planned with one shot, however she fell and I held the shutter release down and did get 6 frame motor drive sequence - one of which was useful. On the other hand, I just shot some roller derby in single frame only. I caught two fine crashes simply with multiple presses of the shutter button - I can easily fire three (and some times 4) singles frames in a second.

Probably if I shot soccer or hockey which can be explosive action I might have a different need for motor drives. I find that, for things I like to shoot, I can anticipate single shots.
--
tony
http://www.tphoto.ca

photo_rb said:

But in the day of film it seemed to be the specialist that needed this and now it seems to be the majority...at least based on the posts I read.

Click to expand...

in film days a lot of the shots couldnt be made by an ordinary camera, that is why it was a specialist sort of thing. today every SLR can do them so people make use it.

another reason is of course back then it was very expensive to shoot fast FPS, the cost of buying a developing a roll of film was around 2 hours of wage. but today it is very common, even conservative to shoot a one hour session of your favourite bird or sport and get a few hundrend frames. you may end up deleting 95% of them and left with 10 or 20 keepers, it is still a worthy, satisfying experience, all for the cost of....nothing at all.

You and some other posters still don't seem to understand. It's not holding the button and let the camera do the work. It's push the button at the right moment and getting 10 shots instead of just one. You think the one you got is the best only because you don't have chance to see the nine you missed.

photo_rb said:

It really isn't about Cartier-Bresson but the difference between taking the photo when you push the button at the right moment or holding the button down and hoping the camera took the picture at the right moment.

Great Bustard said:

photo_rb said:

Is it because we now can take better pictures than Henri Cartier-Bresson because all we have to do is hold the button down without waiting for that "decisive moment" plus no 400 ASA limitations?

Click to expand...

No -- it's because we take different pictures than HCB took, and, in fact, take pics that he couldn't have taken.

photo_rb said:

Is that the reason? Just curious...

Click to expand...

It's like asking what the use of 400mm is. Would you tell the photographer with the 400mm lens that he could do just as well with the 50mm lens?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I do understand that there are times when this might be useful in the rare occasion or more often in some fields. Certain sports and wildlife photography.

carlk said:

You and some other posters still don't seem to understand. It's not holding the button and let the camera do the work. It's push the button at the right moment and getting 10 shots instead of just one. You think the one you got is the best only because you don't have chance to see the nine you missed.

photo_rb said:

It really isn't about Cartier-Bresson but the difference between taking the photo when you push the button at the right moment or holding the button down and hoping the camera took the picture at the right moment.

Great Bustard said:

photo_rb said:

Is it because we now can take better pictures than Henri Cartier-Bresson because all we have to do is hold the button down without waiting for that "decisive moment" plus no 400 ASA limitations?

Click to expand...

No -- it's because we take different pictures than HCB took, and, in fact, take pics that he couldn't have taken.

carlk said:

Is that the reason? Just curious...

Click to expand...

It's like asking what the use of 400mm is. Would you tell the photographer with the 400mm lens that he could do just as well with the 50mm lens?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

It doesn't matter how many good ones you got there are always one you did not get that could be better. You just don't know what you have missed. Anyway there are different way to take good pictures just used whatever is comfortable to you. Only thing is to argue continuous shooting is not useful is kind of silly.

carlk said:

Who said spray and pray? Taking 10 shots is always better than just one even when you're doing the best to time it right.

Click to expand...

Exactly.

It might not be a big deal if you're a hobbyist but for those shooting sport for a living you won't last long rolling the dice trying to get the winning shot with a slow camera when your competition are shooting at 8fps+.

Coming from a film background I often have to force myself to shoot more frames with digital than I want to, but I remind myself that cards and HDD space are cheap and even if it means going through more files later to pick out the ones that I want, at least I know I've given myself the best chance to capture them in the first place. Stubbornly gambling on perfect timing could cost you the shot and you'll feel stupid later.

Technology frees one from complexity and can't by itself do anything. I have at least $20K worth of modern photography equipment sitting within a few feet of where I am typing this and I don't feel compelled to be any lazier with regard to using a camera than I was yesterday.

I may not share the same "our" photographic vision. I like looking at the black and white film street photography genre, but it's only one of many uses for a camera. I don't idolize Bresson. Some of his work had artistic merit, but I tend to agree with his self description of being a photo journalist. A lot of what he did could get you arrested today. The world has changed considerably since his heyday.

If one can't get their photographic vision on with a modern camera, they might want to consider hanging it up.

photo_rb said:

Of course technology can hamper a photographer. Technology can make you lazy. Why do you think we sometimes only go out with a 50mm lens, or shoot with a Diana, or a pinhole camera? Removing the complexity of technology can often sharpen our photographic vision.

Schwany said:

I get the bohemian reference. The premise of this post however is ridiculous and irrelevant. More technology wouldn't hamper any photographer.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

high ISO is important for those who take pictures in low light or want quality images

high fps is nice to have, it was a gripe for most people that the fps on the 5D2 was too slow. it can help with action shots.

as for better than HCB only if you think his stuff was anygood which I don't

tell me do you only use a 80 year old range finder with film these days?

photo_rb said:

Is it because we now can take better pictures than Henri Cartier-Bresson because all we have to do is hold the button down without waiting for that "decisive moment" plus no 400 ASA limitations?

Is that the reason? Just curious...

Click to expand...

Silverwind said:

While I agree that 8-10 shots are better than 1, I have spent hours trying to perfect shooting volleyball. It doesn't matter how many FPS I have, there are times I never get it right.

Click to expand...

That's one sport I totally agree that spray and pray doesn't always work very well. A simple serve or set-and-kill at 10 fps will often only give you one shot of the ball as it's coming down and another when it's been knocked almost out of the frame. You have to anticipate when the ball is going to be hit or you'll never get a shot of it.

It's still very useful when the ball is getting knocked around and you have no idea what's going to happen. For digs, 10 fps per second is wonderful for getting a reaction shot when the player hits the floor.

It's the toughest sport. That stupid net is always in the way and the AF loves locking on it. Players are constantly moving and getting in the way. Everything happens so fast. I'm going to try harder at it next season.

You may even close your eyes while shooting

photo_rb said:

Ha, never in my life been called a troll before and I guess I deserve it this time. I wrote this kind of tongue in cheek and I realize the importance of high fps for some types of photography and also the need for high ISO performance. But in the day of film it seemed to be the specialist that needed this and now it seems to be the majority...at least based on the posts I read.

Any dinosaurs out there like me who never take their camera off single frame and only shoot at 200ISO max?

BTW, I love DSLRs. The day I bought my 1DS was the day I turned off my colour lab for good.

Click to expand...

Sorry for troll accusation, you appear now to be a perfectly reasonable individual. I just have an enormous pet peeve about this subject, i.e. dogmatic allegiance to the equipment/techniques of the past and rejecting those of today. I see it a lot in discussions about street photography where some think that if it's not black and white and shot with a Leica it's not really street photography, which is of course idiotic. If someone wants to shoot a certain way that is a bit more Luddite, more power to them, but using the best technology available to get your shots is something no one should have to apologize for.

Anyway, happy shooting to you.

photo_rb said:

photo_rb said:

You and some other posters still don't seem to understand. It's not holding the button and let the camera do the work. It's push the button at the right moment and getting 10 shots instead of just one. You think the one you got is the best only because you don't have chance to see the nine you missed.

Click to expand...

I do understand that there are times when this might be useful in the rare occasion or more often in some fields. Certain sports and wildlife photography.

Click to expand...

And high ISO photography? Is that also "useful in the rare occasion or more often in some fields"? Or might it be more useful than that?

I used my 5D2 at iso 400 and above more than I did iso 100

iso 100 is fine if you have great light or you are using a tripod and your subject is not moving.

Great Bustard said:

photo_rb said:

Great Bustard said:

You and some other posters still don't seem to understand. It's not holding the button and let the camera do the work. It's push the button at the right moment and getting 10 shots instead of just one. You think the one you got is the best only because you don't have chance to see the nine you missed.

Click to expand...

I do understand that there are times when this might be useful in the rare occasion or more often in some fields. Certain sports and wildlife photography.

Click to expand...

And high ISO photography? Is that also "useful in the rare occasion or more often in some fields"? Or might it be more useful than that?

Click to expand...

(nt)
A

sorry you did not get it

It was a straight reply to your opening post. Perhaps you had expectations on what you want to hear?

if its HCB that you could not comprehend, it's the poor Henri Cartier-Bresson that you dragged into your opening post

photo_rb said:

PicPocket said:

The real reason is that HCB isn't the be all end all of photography. He did very well with what he had, but then since then people and photography have evolved a lot. If you simply mimic what HCB did back in his days, don't expect to gain his fame. Society expects improvements not just repetations

If you don't believe this, you are wasting your time on a forum titled 1D-5D. HCB had no idea what they are

--
PicPocket
http://photography.ashish-pragya.com

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
PicPocket
http://photography.ashish-pragya.com