Re: Interesting conversation yesterday
On Jun 7, 2005, at 6:40 AM, Bob W wrote: The only thing that's predictable about football is that England will never again win a major championship. And nobody wants to focus on that. Don't worry Bob, we'll let the Lions win a test match. Considering how cold wet it's been lately, they'll be feeling right at home! Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
RE: Interesting conversation yesterday
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005, Bob W wrote: football (sorry, I just can't call it 'soccer' g). Bob, Don't be ashamed to call it 'soccer' on the grounds that the Americans have stolen 'football' for that daft dressing-up game they play :-) It's supposed to come from a public school contraction of 'Association Football' as opposed to 'Rugby Football'. Hence we get 'soccer' and 'rugger', which is even more English than before. Chris
RE: Interesting conversation yesterday
I know, but if I say 'soccer' it will feel as though I'm letting the Americans keep 'football' for their game. They seem to throw the ball a lot in their version of the game, so to distinguish it from 'soccer' and 'rugger' I think they should call it 'tosser'. g -- -- Cheers, Bob -Original Message- From: Chris Stoddart [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 07 June 2005 10:36 To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: RE: Interesting conversation yesterday On Mon, 6 Jun 2005, Bob W wrote: football (sorry, I just can't call it 'soccer' g). Bob, Don't be ashamed to call it 'soccer' on the grounds that the Americans have stolen 'football' for that daft dressing-up game they play :-) It's supposed to come from a public school contraction of 'Association Football' as opposed to 'Rugby Football'. Hence we get 'soccer' and 'rugger', which is even more English than before. Chris
Re: Interesting conversation yesterday
Bob W [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I know, but if I say 'soccer' it will feel as though I'm letting the Americans keep 'football' for their game. They seem to throw the ball a lot in their version of the game, so to distinguish it from 'soccer' and 'rugger' I think they should call it 'tosser'. g -- You know, I'm *still* disappointed that you didn't make it to the London PDML meet :) -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
RE: Interesting conversation yesterday
You weren't going to beat me up were you? If not, I'll try next time. -- Cheers, Bob -Original Message- From: Mark Roberts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 07 June 2005 19:55 To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Interesting conversation yesterday Bob W [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I know, but if I say 'soccer' it will feel as though I'm letting the Americans keep 'football' for their game. They seem to throw the ball a lot in their version of the game, so to distinguish it from 'soccer' and 'rugger' I think they should call it 'tosser'. g -- You know, I'm *still* disappointed that you didn't make it to the London PDML meet :) -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Interesting conversation yesterday
On 7/6/05, Bob W, discombobulated, unleashed: You weren't going to beat me up were you? I think if poor Bob didn't attend to family precedents, he would have been beaten up anyway :-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Interesting conversation yesterday
- Original Message - From: Collin Brendemuehl [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 9:03 AM Subject: Interesting conversation yesterday Had a nice chat with a Canon 1D owner @ a graduation party yesterday. Anyway, he like to shoot sports. Especially baseball. What he likes to get is the ball coming off the bat, and 5fps isn't fast enough for him. Hmmm. Hmm indeed. This shot was with the LX (pretty sure the winder was on, but there are no before or after shots on the negative strip so I know it was a single press of the shutter button): http://www.skofteland.net/displayimage.php?album=12pos=0 LX, Sigma AF 300/4 APO macro. Exposure infor unrecorded. Tri-X We discussed 'trap focus' as a useful feature, like catching slides. He'd never heard of it. ;) From the same day as the shot above, I have a two-frame sequence of a runner sliding into 2nd, just as the in-fielder is throwing the ball to first for a double play. I'll upload those two shots if anyone is interested. Christian.
Re: Interesting conversation yesterday
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005, Christian wrote: - Original Message - From: Collin Brendemuehl [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 9:03 AM Subject: Interesting conversation yesterday Had a nice chat with a Canon 1D owner @ a graduation party yesterday. Anyway, he like to shoot sports. Especially baseball. What he likes to get is the ball coming off the bat, and 5fps isn't fast enough for him. Hmmm. Hmm indeed. This shot was with the LX (pretty sure the winder was on, but there are no before or after shots on the negative strip so I know it was a single press of the shutter button): http://www.skofteland.net/displayimage.php?album=12pos=0 LX, Sigma AF 300/4 APO macro. Exposure infor unrecorded. Tri-X Nice, but is that what he had in mind? I visualised Collin's initial email with the ball much closer to the bat (possibly deformed, does this ball deform from the force?) We discussed 'trap focus' as a useful feature, like catching slides. He'd never heard of it. ;) From the same day as the shot above, I have a two-frame sequence of a runner sliding into 2nd, just as the in-fielder is throwing the ball to first for a double play. I'll upload those two shots if anyone is interested. I would, if it's not a big job, thanks. Kostas
Re: Interesting conversation yesterday
On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 09:03:44AM -0400, Collin Brendemuehl wrote: Anyway, he like to shoot sports. Especially baseball. What he likes to get is the ball coming off the bat, and 5fps isn't fast enough for him. Hmmm. I've said it before, and I'm sure I'll have to sy it again: You can't rely on using the camera in machine-gun mode to get a timed shot - you have to time the shutter press yourself. The advantage of a 5fps camera is that it is ready for the next shot in half the time a 2.5fps camera takes, so it is more likely to be ready for the next shot.
Re: Interesting conversation yesterday
På 6. jun. 2005 kl. 18.40 skrev John Francis: On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 09:03:44AM -0400, Collin Brendemuehl wrote: Anyway, he like to shoot sports. Especially baseball. What he likes to get is the ball coming off the bat, and 5fps isn't fast enough for him. Hmmm. I've said it before, and I'm sure I'll have to sy it again: You can't rely on using the camera in machine-gun mode to get a timed shot - you have to time the shutter press yourself. The advantage of a 5fps camera is that it is ready for the next shot in half the time a 2.5fps camera takes, so it is more likely to be ready for the next shot. I agree. A good and prepared photographer can react in 1/10 second. To match that you need 10 pictures/second. DagT
Re: Interesting conversation yesterday
On 6/6/05, Christian, discombobulated, unleashed: This shot was with the LX (pretty sure the winder was on, but there are no before or after shots on the negative strip so I know it was a single press of the shutter button): http://www.skofteland.net/displayimage.php?album=12pos=0 NICE shot Christian. You *sure* you didn't PS that ball just so? ;-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Interesting conversation yesterday
I'll certainly agree with you on the timing aspect. If this guy is blindly holding down the shutter button, I'll bet his keeper rate is low and he mostly misses the shot he is after. I can say that lots of practice of the exact timing you are trying to achieve is very helpful - one is to get used to the amount of delay in your camera and the other is to get used to the exact sequence of the event. I can say that I have plenty of misses of the moment I am trying to capture, but I don't have 4 or 5 other misses to go along with each of them grin. -- Best regards, Bruce Monday, June 6, 2005, 9:40:48 AM, you wrote: JF On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 09:03:44AM -0400, Collin Brendemuehl wrote: Anyway, he like to shoot sports. Especially baseball. What he likes to get is the ball coming off the bat, and 5fps isn't fast enough for him. Hmmm. JF I've said it before, and I'm sure I'll have to sy it again: JF You can't rely on using the camera in machine-gun mode to get JF a timed shot - you have to time the shutter press yourself. JF The advantage of a 5fps camera is that it is ready for the JF next shot in half the time a 2.5fps camera takes, so it is JF more likely to be ready for the next shot.
Re: Interesting conversation yesterday
- Original Message - From: Kostas Kavoussanakis [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.skofteland.net/displayimage.php?album=12pos=02 Nice, but is that what he had in mind? I visualised Collin's initial email with the ball much closer to the bat (possibly deformed, does this ball deform from the force?) Yeah, you are probably right. That shot would take really quick reflexes and high FPS might give you an advantage. From the same day as the shot above, I have a two-frame sequence of a runner sliding into 2nd, just as the in-fielder is throwing the ball to first for a double play. I'll upload those two shots if anyone is interested. I would, if it's not a big job, thanks. nope not a big deal, but it may screw up the URL for the original shot of the hit. :-( http://www.skofteland.net/displayimage.php?album=12pos=0 http://www.skofteland.net/displayimage.php?album=12pos=1 Christian
Re: Interesting conversation yesterday
In days long gone when I shot a lot of drag racing, I frequently tried to time shots. I soon learned that if I saw it in the viewfinder, I didn't get it. The mirror, of course, has to be up at the opportune moment. Another interesting aside: When airbags were a big deal in cars, every manufacturer wanted to show them opening. We shot them with a camera that did two thousand frames per second. That's right, 2000/second. The camera screamed for each three second shot. It was air cooled and powered by a ten horsepower motor. The tripod was huge. It must have weighed close to 1000 pounds and it was bolted to the camera on all four sides and secured to anchors embedded in the concrete floor of the studio. Needless to say, the film sometimes broke. Every time that happened it meant another $500 or so worth of film went in the trash can. The machine gun approach can work, but it's expensive vbg. Lots of fun. Paul På 6. jun. 2005 kl. 18.40 skrev John Francis: On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 09:03:44AM -0400, Collin Brendemuehl wrote: Anyway, he like to shoot sports. Especially baseball. What he likes to get is the ball coming off the bat, and 5fps isn't fast enough for him. Hmmm. I've said it before, and I'm sure I'll have to sy it again: You can't rely on using the camera in machine-gun mode to get a timed shot - you have to time the shutter press yourself. The advantage of a 5fps camera is that it is ready for the next shot in half the time a 2.5fps camera takes, so it is more likely to be ready for the next shot. I agree. A good and prepared photographer can react in 1/10 second. To match that you need 10 pictures/second. DagT
Re: Interesting conversation yesterday
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Another interesting aside: When airbags were a big deal in cars, every manufacturer wanted to show them opening. We shot them with a camera that did two thousand frames per second. That's right, 2000/second. The camera screamed for each three second shot. I bet it sounded like the General Electric GAU-8 30mm canon as mounted under the A-10's nose Lots of fun. I bet! Christian
Re: Interesting conversation yesterday
- Original Message - From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax list pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 12:52 PM Subject: Re: Interesting conversation yesterday http://www.skofteland.net/displayimage.php?album=12pos=2 NICE shot Christian. You *sure* you didn't PS that ball just so? ;-) LOL, no. It was shot and scanned (from Tri-X gasp!) well before I knew how to do anything in PS... :-) Thanks. Christian
Re: Interesting conversation yesterday
A classic baseball shot. Love it. Impeccable timing of course. Paul - Original Message - From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax list pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 12:52 PM Subject: Re: Interesting conversation yesterday http://www.skofteland.net/displayimage.php?album=12pos=2 NICE shot Christian. You *sure* you didn't PS that ball just so? ;-) LOL, no. It was shot and scanned (from Tri-X gasp!) well before I knew how to do anything in PS... :-) Thanks. Christian
Re: Interesting conversation yesterday
On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 06:48:34PM +0200, DagT wrote: A good and prepared photographer can react in 1/10 second. If you're prepared, and the action is predictable, you can do a great deal better than that. As most here know, I spend quite some time photographing cars travelling at a high rate of speed. The most extreme case of this is at the super speedways, where cars get up to speeds of 240mph - that's 352 feet/second. If I could only rely on 1/10 second accuracy, I'd never be able to get a shot with a car crossing the field of view of a fixed camera - in 1/10 of a second the car travels twice its own length. But I have managed to get shots like that; in fact I can (with a little practice) get the car within five feet of perfect positioning. That's a ten-foot window, which means I'm achiving closer to 1/30 of a second precision.
Re: Interesting conversation yesterday
Hello John, So an interesting follow on question is: Obviously practice is critical to your timing. Do you find, given practice, that some bodies do much better for you than others? If so, which ones? Seems that there are two different issues at play - one is shutter lag and the other is how fast the camera is ready for another shot. I'm not sure if the second is nearly as important for a timing shot. I'm sure it is important for follow on action, but not for a single timing shot. Care to elaborate? -- Best regards, Bruce Monday, June 6, 2005, 10:35:43 AM, you wrote: JF On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 06:48:34PM +0200, DagT wrote: A good and prepared photographer can react in 1/10 second. JF If you're prepared, and the action is predictable, you can JF do a great deal better than that. JF As most here know, I spend quite some time photographing JF cars travelling at a high rate of speed. The most extreme JF case of this is at the super speedways, where cars get up JF to speeds of 240mph - that's 352 feet/second. If I could JF only rely on 1/10 second accuracy, I'd never be able to get JF a shot with a car crossing the field of view of a fixed JF camera - in 1/10 of a second the car travels twice its own JF length. But I have managed to get shots like that; in fact JF I can (with a little practice) get the car within five feet JF of perfect positioning. That's a ten-foot window, which JF means I'm achiving closer to 1/30 of a second precision.
Re: Interesting conversation yesterday
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 1:34 PM Subject: Re: Interesting conversation yesterday A classic baseball shot. Love it. Impeccable timing of course. Paul Thanks, Paul. Good seats helped too! Christian
Re: Interesting conversation yesterday
I haven't done serious experimentation, but if I knew I was going to be trying stuff like this I would take the camera bodies with the fastest fps, because they usually have the shortest shutter lag. It's a great deal easier with digital, because you can see when you got it right, but even with a film camera you can hear when the shutter operates (although that can be a little hard when a race car is going past you with the throttle wide open). The trick is to squeeze the shutter almost up to the point of release, and then just nudge it over as the car passes some selected landmark ahead of time; by the time the shutter actually trips, the car should be in frame. The most important thing, for me, is a camera with a very positive shutter release. Unfortunately this is one area where I feel Pentax lag behind others; both the Nikon D100 and the Canon 20D have a far crisper release than the *ist-D. Shutter lag isn't the critical measure (longer lag time just means you move the release point a little further up-track); what matters is repeatability, and knowing when you are at the brink of release. An extra 1/50 of a second because you had to push the shutter button a little further can be the difference between a great shot and a merely adequate one. But in general the faster frame rates also means a tighter, more precise shutter release. The exception to that rule would probably be the MZ-S; I suspect that would have done as well or better than the PZ-1p. On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 10:50:02AM -0700, Bruce Dayton wrote: Hello John, So an interesting follow on question is: Obviously practice is critical to your timing. Do you find, given practice, that some bodies do much better for you than others? If so, which ones? Seems that there are two different issues at play - one is shutter lag and the other is how fast the camera is ready for another shot. I'm not sure if the second is nearly as important for a timing shot. I'm sure it is important for follow on action, but not for a single timing shot. Care to elaborate? -- Best regards, Bruce Monday, June 6, 2005, 10:35:43 AM, you wrote: JF On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 06:48:34PM +0200, DagT wrote: A good and prepared photographer can react in 1/10 second. JF If you're prepared, and the action is predictable, you can JF do a great deal better than that. JF As most here know, I spend quite some time photographing JF cars travelling at a high rate of speed. The most extreme JF case of this is at the super speedways, where cars get up JF to speeds of 240mph - that's 352 feet/second. If I could JF only rely on 1/10 second accuracy, I'd never be able to get JF a shot with a car crossing the field of view of a fixed JF camera - in 1/10 of a second the car travels twice its own JF length. But I have managed to get shots like that; in fact JF I can (with a little practice) get the car within five feet JF of perfect positioning. That's a ten-foot window, which JF means I'm achiving closer to 1/30 of a second precision.
RE: Interesting conversation yesterday
You shouldn't be reacting to a baseball pitch (or a bowler bowling in cricket). You know where the ball is, and can predict where and when the bat and ball will make contact (if at all). Anybody with decent hand/eye coordination should be able to get the shot. -- Cheers, Bob -Original Message- From: DagT [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 06 June 2005 17:49 To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Interesting conversation yesterday På 6. jun. 2005 kl. 18.40 skrev John Francis: On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 09:03:44AM -0400, Collin Brendemuehl wrote: Anyway, he like to shoot sports. Especially baseball. What he likes to get is the ball coming off the bat, and 5fps isn't fast enough for him. Hmmm. I've said it before, and I'm sure I'll have to sy it again: You can't rely on using the camera in machine-gun mode to get a timed shot - you have to time the shutter press yourself. The advantage of a 5fps camera is that it is ready for the next shot in half the time a 2.5fps camera takes, so it is more likely to be ready for the next shot. I agree. A good and prepared photographer can react in 1/10 second. To match that you need 10 pictures/second.
Re: Interesting conversation yesterday
John, I've found that the soft releases can provide a greater amount of control. I use 'em on just about all my camera bodies. The best ones seem to be those made by Tom Abrahamsson for the Leicas, which fit a number of Pentax and other camera bodies as well. Shel [Original Message] From: John Francis The most important thing, for me, is a camera with a very positive shutter release. Unfortunately this is one area where I feel Pentax lag behind others; both the Nikon D100 and the Canon 20D have a far crisper release than the *ist-D.
Re: Interesting conversation yesterday
In predictable situations, and as you say most situations are more or less predictable (I should have written (less than 1/10s), I don´t mind having a short shutterlag. Most slr´s are acceptable once the AF is turned off. You always have to learn how a camera responds, and doing this you learn to adjust for the shutterlag. DagT På 6. jun. 2005 kl. 20.21 skrev John Francis: I haven't done serious experimentation, but if I knew I was going to be trying stuff like this I would take the camera bodies with the fastest fps, because they usually have the shortest shutter lag. It's a great deal easier with digital, because you can see when you got it right, but even with a film camera you can hear when the shutter operates (although that can be a little hard when a race car is going past you with the throttle wide open). The trick is to squeeze the shutter almost up to the point of release, and then just nudge it over as the car passes some selected landmark ahead of time; by the time the shutter actually trips, the car should be in frame. The most important thing, for me, is a camera with a very positive shutter release. Unfortunately this is one area where I feel Pentax lag behind others; both the Nikon D100 and the Canon 20D have a far crisper release than the *ist-D. Shutter lag isn't the critical measure (longer lag time just means you move the release point a little further up-track); what matters is repeatability, and knowing when you are at the brink of release. An extra 1/50 of a second because you had to push the shutter button a little further can be the difference between a great shot and a merely adequate one. But in general the faster frame rates also means a tighter, more precise shutter release. The exception to that rule would probably be the MZ-S; I suspect that would have done as well or better than the PZ-1p. On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 10:50:02AM -0700, Bruce Dayton wrote: Hello John, So an interesting follow on question is: Obviously practice is critical to your timing. Do you find, given practice, that some bodies do much better for you than others? If so, which ones? Seems that there are two different issues at play - one is shutter lag and the other is how fast the camera is ready for another shot. I'm not sure if the second is nearly as important for a timing shot. I'm sure it is important for follow on action, but not for a single timing shot. Care to elaborate? -- Best regards, Bruce Monday, June 6, 2005, 10:35:43 AM, you wrote: JF On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 06:48:34PM +0200, DagT wrote: A good and prepared photographer can react in 1/10 second. JF If you're prepared, and the action is predictable, you can JF do a great deal better than that. JF As most here know, I spend quite some time photographing JF cars travelling at a high rate of speed. The most extreme JF case of this is at the super speedways, where cars get up JF to speeds of 240mph - that's 352 feet/second. If I could JF only rely on 1/10 second accuracy, I'd never be able to get JF a shot with a car crossing the field of view of a fixed JF camera - in 1/10 of a second the car travels twice its own JF length. But I have managed to get shots like that; in fact JF I can (with a little practice) get the car within five feet JF of perfect positioning. That's a ten-foot window, which JF means I'm achiving closer to 1/30 of a second precision.
RE: Interesting conversation yesterday
As far as I understand it, trap focus assumes that the action is going to go over a predictable position. I don't think that's very likely in top-flight football (sorry, I just can't call it 'soccer' g). The only thing that's predictable about football is that England will never again win a major championship. And nobody wants to focus on that. -- Cheers, Bob We discussed 'trap focus' as a useful feature, like catching slides. He'd never heard of it. ;) I'm anticipating that it might be a useful feature for soccer. Perhaps.
Re: Interesting conversation yesterday
Yes, As I just wrote to John Francis I should have written less than 1/10s when the situation is predictable. Learning how you camera responds is important, and having a sufficiently short shutterlag. I´m usually not interested i when the next exposure comes, as it is too late anyway. DagT På 6. jun. 2005 kl. 20.33 skrev Bob W: You shouldn't be reacting to a baseball pitch (or a bowler bowling in cricket). You know where the ball is, and can predict where and when the bat and ball will make contact (if at all). Anybody with decent hand/eye coordination should be able to get the shot. -- Cheers, Bob -Original Message- From: DagT [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 06 June 2005 17:49 To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Interesting conversation yesterday På 6. jun. 2005 kl. 18.40 skrev John Francis: On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 09:03:44AM -0400, Collin Brendemuehl wrote: Anyway, he like to shoot sports. Especially baseball. What he likes to get is the ball coming off the bat, and 5fps isn't fast enough for him. Hmmm. I've said it before, and I'm sure I'll have to sy it again: You can't rely on using the camera in machine-gun mode to get a timed shot - you have to time the shutter press yourself. The advantage of a 5fps camera is that it is ready for the next shot in half the time a 2.5fps camera takes, so it is more likely to be ready for the next shot. I agree. A good and prepared photographer can react in 1/10 second. To match that you need 10 pictures/second.
Re: Interesting conversation yesterday
- Original Message - From: John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] The most important thing, for me, is a camera with a very positive shutter release. Unfortunately this is one area where I feel Pentax lag behind others; both the Nikon D100 and the Canon 20D have a far crisper release than the *ist-D. I don't know about crispness but for me, the Canon releases (on 20D, 10D and 1D) have been much more sensitive. In other words, the *ist D required a full, firm press to meter/focus and take a shot, whereas the Canons take a much lighter touch. To the point that I found myself taking shots when I only meant to half-press for metering/focus until I got used to it. Christian
RE: Interesting conversation yesterday
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005, Bob W wrote: The only thing that's predictable about football is that England will never again win a major championship. And nobody wants to focus on that. Whereas you clearly saw Greece coming last year :-) Even what you say above is not predictable. Which is why we watch it. Kostas
Re: Interesting conversation yesterday
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005, Christian wrote: nope not a big deal, but it may screw up the URL for the original shot of the hit. :-( http://www.skofteland.net/displayimage.php?album=12pos=0 Nice, I like that. Thanks Christian. K
Re: Interesting conversation yesterday
- Original Message - From: Kostas Kavoussanakis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 4:27 PM Subject: Re: Interesting conversation yesterday On Mon, 6 Jun 2005, Christian wrote: nope not a big deal, but it may screw up the URL for the original shot of the hit. :-( http://www.skofteland.net/displayimage.php?album=12pos=0 Nice, I like that. Thanks Christian. thanks! Christian
Re: Interesting conversation yesterday
On 6/6/05, Bob W, discombobulated, unleashed: The only thing that's predictable about football is that England will never again win a major championship. And nobody wants to focus on that. Never say never... Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Interesting conversation yesterday
You hit the nail on the head with that comment, Bob. With an SLR if the bat is moving when you hit the shutter you missed the shot. I seem to remember using the slight hunch of the batter's shoulders before the bat starts swinging as a trigger signal when I was shooting team sports (I never have shot any pro sports). Anticipation is the answer. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Bob W wrote: You shouldn't be reacting to a baseball pitch (or a bowler bowling in cricket). You know where the ball is, and can predict where and when the bat and ball will make contact (if at all). Anybody with decent hand/eye coordination should be able to get the shot. -- Cheers, Bob -Original Message- From: DagT [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 06 June 2005 17:49 To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Interesting conversation yesterday På 6. jun. 2005 kl. 18.40 skrev John Francis: On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 09:03:44AM -0400, Collin Brendemuehl wrote: Anyway, he like to shoot sports. Especially baseball. What he likes to get is the ball coming off the bat, and 5fps isn't fast enough for him. Hmmm. I've said it before, and I'm sure I'll have to sy it again: You can't rely on using the camera in machine-gun mode to get a timed shot - you have to time the shutter press yourself. The advantage of a 5fps camera is that it is ready for the next shot in half the time a 2.5fps camera takes, so it is more likely to be ready for the next shot. I agree. A good and prepared photographer can react in 1/10 second. To match that you need 10 pictures/second. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.6.4 - Release Date: 6/6/2005
