Essentially, I agree with you, but there are a lot of people here who find a need, for whatever reason, right or wrong, to knock of a few shots in succession. While I only shoot a minimum amount of digital, being able to bracket a few shots is sometimes a handy way to go, so a quicker buffer in such cases may be helpful..
Shel > [Original Message] > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Dallman)> > To: <[email protected]> > Date: 6/2/2005 1:30:58 PM > Subject: Buffer speed (Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?) > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > (Shel Belinkoff) wrote: > > > Higher resolution and a faster, bigger buffer make sense, shouldn't add > > bulk or weight to a camera. > > Higher resolution is fine, but I'm baffled by the need for a faster > buffer. I spot the potential picture, get ready, and take it. If it's a > moving or changing subject I wait for the right moment, near as I can > guess, and press the button. > > I guess having learned my photography on a twin-lens reflex with > twelve shots per roll, where you had to wind on with several turns of a > knob, and cock the shutter by hand[1] explains this. I've never used a > camera with any kind of power wind or motor drive; I just don't feel any > need to shoot in bursts.
