Sure was. And 1/30 of a second froze the action much better. Mind you, you also had to lug that heavy camera equipment around - uphill both ways, of course.
Tell that to the kids of today, and they won't believe you. On Fri, Feb 24, 2006 at 03:44:54PM -0500, graywolf wrote: > I always wonder how those oldtime racing shots were taken with a Graflex > 5x7 SLR back around 1910 or so. Maybe 100mph was slower back in those days? > > graywolf > http://www.graywolfphoto.com > http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf > "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" > ----------------------------------- > > > John Francis wrote: > >On Fri, Feb 24, 2006 at 08:18:24PM +0100, Jens Bladt wrote: > > > >>A 5 FPS camera from Pentax (Autumn 2006) is a little late, isn't it? > >> > >>I am speaking from experience, you know. I have shot almost 30.000 frames > >>with a *ist D. I believe I know very well, what I'm talking about. > >> > >>I don't really do action shots. > > > > > >Well, make up your mind. > > > >If experience matters, then I think my thousands of action shots, > >taken with the *ist-D, suggest that perhaps *I* know what I'm > >talking about when I say that the D is adequate for all but the > >most demanding situations. Not ideal, by any means, but adequate. > >And some of the limitations were fixed, some time ago, in the DS; > >I've yet to encounter a situation where a D with the write speed > >and buffer size of the DS, (plus, on a few occasions, the 4fps > >frame rate of the PZ-1p), would have prevented me getting just > >the shot I was trying for. > > > >As, by your admission, you don't do action photography, then your > >experience isn't really relevant, no matter how many frames you > >have shot. > > > >As others have pointed out, it's the photographer, far more than > >the equipment, that determines how good a shot you can bring home. > >I've even managed to get first-class results from a simple Canon > >Powershot G1 (an 8x10, from a 3.3MP camera, of a Porsche 911 at > >racing speeds) - when I mix it in with my best DSLR and scanned > >shots nobody has yet been able to pick it out as the P&S sample. > > > >If you expect the camera to do everything for you, then of course > >you're going to be disappointed. It's best to pre-focus at about > >the right distance, so that even if you're using focus tracking > >the camera is starting from roughly the right setting. That's > >where the *ist-D and siblings are much better than the MZ-S - the > >AF logic predicts which way to correct far more often, so you lose > >less shots while the AF hunts to the end-stop and back again. > >It's also best to select the AF point, rather than letting the > >camera choose (this becomes more important at long focal lengths). > >This isn't rocket science. In fact if you look carefully at how > >most of those full-time professionals with a truckload of Canon > >gear work, you'll find that they use their equipment in just > >that way - letting their experience guide the camera's automation. > > > >
