From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: SV: Any reason not to buy a *istD?
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 13:27:04 -0600


----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom C"
Subject: Re: SV: Any reason not to buy a *istD?



It all depends on the situation Ken. My shooting style changes with the situation I'm presented with (as I'm sure yours must as well). If the subject is relatively stationary, there's plenty of time to think more about the shot. If all of the sudden an opportunity appears and the subject is moving quickly and there is only a few seconds to capture it, I'll fire rapidly. After all, that's why the continuous AF/shutter release capability was built into the camera.

To the point of the topic... Having the ability to rapid fire and only take 7 shots... is sort of like using a film camera with a winder and starting to shoot at the end of the roll.

Back when I had a camera with a high speed drive, I discovered that pushing the shutter button and praying was an excellent way to shoot a lot of film with little of worth to show for it. I always managed to get a picture just before, or just after what I actually wanted, almost never capturing the exact moment when the subject presented itself at it's best. I have found this to be true with auto racing, motorcycle racing, dogsports and such disparate people sports as fencing, football, baseball, track and field, and soccer. While i haven't done a lot of wildlife photography, I believe the decisive moment method is probably the best one.

I have found a low speed drive, perhaps a frame or two a second is useful, but that is more as an electric thumb than as a drive. When I am shooting amateur models, it is nice to be able to shoot more than six frames a minute, and I am more interested in a bigger buffer, higher write speed for that reason.

William Robb


Yes. I didn't mean to imply I just hold the shutter release down. Even a shot a second or every two seconds will quickly put one in a wait and watch state.

Tom C.


Reply via email to