>> You are right, if your only scale of quality is speed. WR> In this example, speed and handling is what the job is about.
Yes. But really good sports photography is quite different from the sometimes boring studio strobed stuff Sports Illustrated publish. Look at VII Photo feature on Olympics 2004 (truly excellent), or last year World Press Photo awards (one of them shot on LF, I believe!). Majority of the sport features and singles are simply different. Yes, there are some great sport photos almost impossible to do without state-of-art technology, but in the end, in most cases, it goes back to the photographer's vision - just because, there is too many photographers producing decent enough shots with 1DSmII or D2Hs or D2x, that to produce a truly compelling feauture, you have to think differently - and it doesn't depend on the technology that much. Mind you, I am talking about the top-tier features and top-tier photographers. For my bread-and-butter work, I was pretty annoyed shooting sport with 3 FPS camera. Just because it's hard to pay the bills without doing the mundane boring stuff... Frantisek
