>
> I'll second that. A friend of mine shoots a lot of sequence shots for
> motocross, snowboarding, skateboarding, mountain biking, etc. It's not
> about capturing the one decisive moment--it's about showing a series of
> photos that capture the jump/stunt at various stages. He needs a high fps
> rate to capture a good sequence.
>
Agreed.The D1 handles this quite well.D2h is supposed to be even better.
> Some digital cameras aren't bad at this, but they tend to limit their high
> fps rates either to a few frames at a time or to low-res shots only. If
> you need to make enlargements from these shots, film is still the best
> option. Digital does have the advantage of instant review, but that's
> pointless here, as these types of sports tend to give you only one chance
> to make the shot... unless you want to ask the nice mountain biker to
> pretty please jump off that 50 foot cliff again. :)
>
> Bottom line... cranking the motor drive isn't always about laziness or
> lack of skill.
Its more of"proper tool for the job at hand.Well said Chris.
Dave
>
> chris
>
>
> On Sun, 9 Nov 2003, Christian wrote:
>
> > Bill, What if you wanted to catch a sequence of a
> > car going into the gravel trap, or a rider being
> > ejected from his motorcycle? Can you shoot (on
> > film) 5 frames in in one second (the time it takes
> > for a spin to happen) winding with your thumb?
> >
> > This fps argument has been going on for ages.
> > High frame rates are extremely useful in certain
> > situations and worthless in others.
> >
> > Obviously experience in how to shoot action is
> > very important, but getting a sequence requires
> > high fps.
>
