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 > P� 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 > >
