[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: > > Explain it to us again. What exactly are you shooting that you need a fast > 300 or 200... Why are you shooting at 4,000 of a second? That seems like > overkill no matter what you are shooting.
Well, okay. I'm shooting aerosport models. I'm into rocketry...I've posted some of my scans in an online hobby forum. An interesting 3-set of pictures not done at 1/4000 can be seen here: http://www.raketenmodellbau.org/showthread.php?s=cc5aa43e6c73280245f40997521867b6&threadid=3007&perpage=10&pagenumber=8 In fact, I've done lots of shots at 1/1000 on ISO100 film which where not sharp enough to my taste. Some interesting shots I have done are one page further: http://www.raketenmodellbau.org/showthread.php?s=8307f018c63ef991a12213fe5b6d003c&threadid=3007&perpage=10&pagenumber=9 I am the guy with the nickname "rocketom" in that forum. The post from 19:30 shows a model only a split second before it breaks apart... (now tell me 2,5 fps of the MZ-S are enough most of the time, HA!) > The narrow depth of field on the 300 f2.8 could be a problem. Well maybe ... but I also use my F*300 f/4.5 wide open most of the time. > If you are panning the camera anyway, I would think 500 of > a second would be more than adequate for most uses — 1,000 of a sec at the > most... The post from 21:48 shows compression waves inside the flame - you can't see them that clear at 1/500. :-) I don't htink 1/4000s is overkill, but perhaps a 300/f2.8 is overkill for a hobby ;-) Well, have fun scrolling thru' the pages, there are a few pics more on the pages towards the beginning of the thread, but not mine anymore. Thomas
