Most underestimated camera currently available

Ergo607 wrote:

Tom Lusk wrote:

While I agree that there are probably better camera's in that department and while I have yet to do any action photography with the MKII, I feel that I would have close to 100% keepers rate if I were to do any.

You're being serious?

Yes.

People nowadays want a camera where they can machine gun an action scene, come home with tons of images and select the best one. While anyone does what she or he wants, what's wrong with the good all approach of timing your moment and making the photo at that exact while? If you want the former, there are obviously better camera's than the MKII, if, however, you choose for the latter, it is more than a capable camera.

So - let's see how to respond.

"You have yet to do any action photography with the MK11", yet you rate it 5/5.

Hmmm...

Then you decry the use of fast frame rates to get the best possible shot from a fast action situation.

Hmmm... again.

Then you drag out the tired, oft-repeated "anticipate the action and time your shutter release to capture the exact moment to get the optimum shot".

Final Hmmm...

Every time I read a statement like that, I shake my head because anyone who uses that method (or used it in the past) is/was depriving themselves of getting the absolute best shot possible.

Some people kid themselves that "the good old approaches" of manual focus and timing the shot" resulted in great photographs. Sorry, but the best fast-action photos taken using those techniques would be laughed at for their technical quality today, and would be considered misses. Note I said technical quality. There are many old action photos that are fantastic despite being technically flawed. They are great photos simply because of the subject matter.