Hi John, I find it interesting how so many people talk about sports photographers as if they were the ONLY people to consider when talking about camera usage. Or photojournalists <smile> Sure, maybe you've a point, but the discussion centered about Rob's use of the camera, and he's quite far from a sports photog or a pj. As are most people on this list, and 95+% of all photographers. It's the amateurs who take their gear for weekend strolls that seem to make up the bulk of photographers, and the type of amateurs often found on the internet, in mail groups and various forums, often love gear more than they love photography, or at least as much.
What is often so amusing is how the folks shooting rocks and bugs and trees denigrate a piece of gear because the frame rate isn't high enough, or the autofocus isn't fast enough, or because some lens doesn't have a hypersonic motor and image stabilization and run on a better grade of jet fuel. Most photogs don't need, nor do they use, all those high tech features. Now, if you need it, fine, but I even question if you do. We've been to Infineon a couple of times, and I stood right beside you at a couple of places along the track. Most of the time you were just standing there waiting for the cars to come around again. Now don't misunderstand me, maybe when you were actually shooting your motor drive was zipping along at 5 fps, and your lens was focusing at top speed, but mostly I just saw you standing there waiting for the cars to come around again. Yet it seemed you had ample time to reload film, and, had you been shooting digital, you'd have had even more time to replace your memory card. As for the photogs looking at the perfect shot while the film is rewinding, well, anything one can do to avoid that is probably a Good Thing. But y'know, sooner or later the film must be rewound, the CF card replaced or downloaded, the camera batteries replaced. Planning ahead reduces the chances of such things happening - it doesn't prevent it. Anyway, I still don't understand the mentality of having to capture Every Thing ;-)) Maybe the world has changed remarkably over the past few years, and people are driven by money, and editors demand thousands of frames to choose from (perhaps because they need that many because most shots are of poor quality). I laughed my ass off looking at some of the pics of the "photographers" behind the lineups of hundreds of Canons set to fire by remote control. No one could look through all those viewfinders at once. It was just a numbers game - capture hundreds of frames and maybe something'll be good. No wonder editors have to look through thousands of frames. Anyway, you and I are so often at opposite ends of the technical aspects of contemporary photography, and I doubt we'll ever agree on much. Our points of reference, shooting styles, subject matter, and philosophy are quite different. Best we can do is enjoy what we do and enjoy the gear we use. Shel > From: John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Because editors aren't naturally forgiving? > > All sports photographers know the experience of looking at the perfect > shot through the viewfinder while listening to the film rewinding :-( > > (Or, today, having the camera refuse to fire because the buffer is full) > > > Shel Belinkoff mused: > > > > To paraphrase any number of photogs: There are no photos when I'm changing > > film. IAC, there will always be missed shots, either by accident or > > intent. I don't quite understand the mentality of having to capture > > everything ;-))
