Originally posted by FullertonImages First off, how in the world do you get 10 'moments' at 9fps?
Ya, that was a typo on my part. I was going to say 10fps, but 9fps is 3x of 3fps, so...
Originally posted by FullertonImages Second off, people always make those justifications for needing more fps.
I don't make them, my customers do when I'm looking thru proofs with them and the *perfect* shot (according to them, which is content based, not technically based) isn't there.
Originally posted by FullertonImages But it really doesn't make much of a difference.
It makes a huge difference if you're selling prints, because nobody buys a print when their hairdo is hovering over their bald head.
Originally posted by FullertonImages It's just another magic bean that people think will make their photography better,
Nothing to do with 'better', you missed the point. Everything to do with getting the client images they like, and will buy.
Originally posted by FullertonImages and help them stop missing shots. But non of your examples are a good argument for needing more fps. Is the ringbearer really moving his finger to and from his nose so many time per second that you need 9 fps to catch a shot with his nose clear? Same with Aunt Mary and Uncle Bob. Those are all examples where good timing is needed, not more fps. I'm not trying to single you out or say you suck, you just happen to be the one who made those examples.
I totally get what you're saying. I never said that I just hammer the shutter button from sun-up to sun-down, but during critical moments that have large unpredictability in them, it helps. Most of the time I do take great care to time my shots. But when there are a group of people and all these unpredictable things are happen 'at once', you have a 3x greater chance of getting a shot where everyone has their eyes open, looking generally in the same direction, and nobody is accidentally photobombing the shot.
Originally posted by FullertonImages If you figure your shutter speed is 1/200th, then there are 20 possible moments to capture in that second. In fact, there are infinite moments to capture, but that's just too complicated. So if you're shooting at 3 fps, you will catch three out of 200 moments. If you shoot at 9 fps you will catch 9 out of 200 moments.
I'd actually argue this point, because the 9 shots are spread out over the one second. So are the 3 shots at 3fps, but the key thing is to capture more of those in-betweens. I guess it's that I perceive the passage of time differently.
If you combine this with shooting portraits at f/1.2 (or f/1.4) and the subject is untrained (not a model) then you have that many more shots where, for example, the eyes will be tack-sharp because the person isn't trained to sit still relative to the glass.
Originally posted by FullertonImages When I only had a K10d and K20d, I always felt that the fps was too slow and I could never capture good moments on burst mode as well as I could just shooting single frames and timing them well. Then when the k-7 came out with 5.2, I was all excited and thought, now I'll be able to catch great moments on burst speed. Well, guess what, I still find that I'm more able to catch great moments shooting well timed single frame than blasting on burst mode.
I still only have the K10D and K20D. I like the K10D because Pentax cheaped out on the image pipeline on the K20D and is basically trying to push 1.5x the number of pixels thru the K10D circuitry ... so the K10D can do longer sustained bursts.
Should I have upgraded to the K-7 to get the higher burst? At the time, the $2200 CDN (or whatever it was) didn't justify the 2.2 fps increase, neither did the other features. Between then and now I've gone pro, and I'm coming up against the limits of the K20D for
that particular style of shooting, which I only use about 10-15% of the time during
those particular events.
What I've found is that when you have exposure, general composition, focus, and most importantly mood of the subject nailed , you can time
when to shoot a burst, and the keeper rate that you can select from becomes much much higher. I then delete the shots that do not absolutely rock, and to all outward appearances I've captured every moment
perfectly. You and I (and everyone else reading this) know this isn't true, but it doesn't matter
at all to the client. They are just really, really happy.
Does this mean that for this style (machine gun, spray and pray, whatever) I should be shooting a 1DsMkIII? Probably, yes. But I just love all my old glass... It's tough to give up!
Maybe a D700, 5DMkii or whatever is coming out in the fall. I've heard that both are getting a refresh at the same time Pentax announces it's offerings. Maybe I'll switch, maybe I'll just get a canikon rig to shoot for that style... we'll all know our personal choices in a few months!