[kthung]

Excellent picture of Safin. I'm jealous you get to be at Roland Garros. I definitely agree with not wanting to have to sort through a sea of pictures every time I do a shoot. One example (though not high fps related) was during a casual photoshoot with friends. A friend of mine was shooting with a D60 and taking studio shots of her friends and was just firing off pictures non stop often several of the same poses and even in-between poses when they were just standing. I had to process these pictures because I was the only one with Lightroom and the result was 10gigs and staying up till 2AM processing the photos, 90% of which were completely unnecessary.

Case in point, Less is more.

[Class A]

Rother_valley_0229 on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Excellent shot! Another forum member used the same technique for RC car races and got some spectacular results.

[Arpe]

I often read on this forum (and others) that Pentax simply isn't good enough for sports shooting. A frequently used reason is that the FPS burst rate isn't up to par with Canon & Nikon.

But . . .

I shoot sports fairly often and never use burst mode. Ever. It's simply not practical. With my K20D, the files are so big that shooting in burst mode would blow away my memory card and then take ages to download to my laptop, sort through, edit, and post to my online storage area.

Anticipating the athlete's movement usually works just fine for me. I'm not exactly on payroll with SI, and if I were I might have a different opinion. However for the advanced amateur / semi-pro, aren't results like this good enough?

Most often, I find my limiting factor is the lens. If I could afford better glass, I'd get it, but I'm 100% satisfied with the performance of the K20D for sports.

I disagree. I also shoot a fair bit of sport. Rugby, where the players are not confined to such a small area as those per thsoe tennis shots. And they come running, straight at me at times, sometimes across me. Then there are tackles, I press the button at the tackle point, who can predict what's going to happen next? No one. So I keep the button down for another 2 or 3 frames, sure the first shot may be good, but sometimes the one of the others is better, couldn't have predicted that (no matter how much rugby you watch), or reacted in time to get it. Some people just don't seem to realise that you can't anicipate all sports to the same degree, tennis is very predictable, I know, I play it. I could also do great shots of snail racing - just prefocus and predict where they're going to be. Yes you can use the K20D for sports, I do, but would some other cameras (not all of course) be better, I have no doubt. Actually the slow AF is more of a problem than the frame rate.

There's a few threads on here with posters saying "Who says you can't shoot sport with Pentax?". Well I don't believe anyone has said that. It is good enough, for me (maybe) or you, but not for others.

I guess all those great sports shots taken before autofocus and burst modes were just flukes, huh?

No not flukes, it's just that now we can get more great shots than then.

[MRRiley]

These to shots were taken a split second apart using only my finger to control the shutter.

and

Burst mode and high FPS not required. The only reason I don't have a third shot of him hitting the ground (posted) is because a cornerworkers station was in the way and all I got in the frame was an umbrella.

Mike

[cwood]

These are all fine points but it is worth noting that Canon did not make a 10fps camera out of pure ego.

Since I have the 1D I have the option to shoot any frame rate I want from 1-10. 99% of the time I set it to 4fps (but I take only one picture) because at >= 5fps you get a lot of double shots. When I'm on a paid assignment and I have only ONE chance to get the perfect picture (usually a downhill mountain bike race) I will shoot 10fps.

The example below is perfect illustration. Its a great shot but it would be much better without the racket in his face. A burst mode of 10fps would have taken at least one better picture than this. Anticipation is the key to a good action photo but did you really know that he was going to off the ground, with the ball in the frame when you took this shot or was there a little luck involved? 10fps reduces the need for a little luck to get the perfect shot. If you can handle the boat load of pictures to sort through later you will definitely have some more 'slightly' better shots

Gael Monfils - Roland Garros - 2009
K20D, Tamron 70-300mm, 240mm, 1/750 at f/6.7, ISO 800

[mike3legs]

Following this to its logical conclusion and sports photography will end as we know it sooner rather than later. When the quality of a still frame from a video shot on a DSLR gets to be sufficient for publication then still sports photography will be no more.

After all if you are shooting at 60/100 fps then you really aren't going to miss anything.

OK there is some luck involved but doesn't a higher frame rate on a camera take some of the skill out of it?

[Arpe]

OK there is some luck involved but doesn't a higher frame rate on a camera take some of the skill out of it?

Probably, so does AF, long lenses, fast lenses, monopods, gumboots, warm coats, media passes...

[Arpe]

These to shots were taken a split second apart using only my finger to control the shutter.

and

Burst mode and high FPS not required. The only reason I don't have a third shot of him hitting the ground (posted) is because a cornerworkers station was in the way and all I got in the frame was an umbrella.

Mike

I think a shot of him stil all in frame, but about to leave it would have been better still, but well done to react so quickly.

[Wheatfield]

I guess all those great sports shots taken before autofocus and burst modes were just flukes, huh?

Educate yourself and look at some Sports Illustrated photos taken pre AF, and compare them to what is being done today. The world of high end sports photography has evolved since the days before autofocus made what they are doing today possible.
It's not that those manual focus shots weren't good, it's just that they couldn't do then what a good sports shooter with a top notch SLR can routinely do today

[palmor]

I have a prediction that this thread is going to go downhill fast Lets hope it doesn't!

No matter that camera you have, to get the good sports shot you should know your sport. High FPS or low FPS won't matter if you are pressing that shutter at the wrong time.

A higher FPS just increases your chances of getting the shot during that small window of opportunity. For example you could get a shot of a person when they blink and it ruins the shot while getting that extra frame in means you still get the shot with their eyes open. For most of us it isn't a big deal, but if you are trying to sell your photos it is a huge deal.

I also agree with what someone else said, that the AF speed/tracking is more of an issue then the FPS. Lets hope the K-7 closes that gap!

To the OP, great shots. I play a lot of tennis (3-4 times a week) and I'm jealous that you got to go to the French Open

John

[Wheatfield]

I have a prediction that this thread is going to go downhill fast Lets hope it doesn't!

I'll just make this last non inflammatory post and bow out. Your sensibilities should be able to handle it.

No matter that camera you have, to get the good sports shot you should know your sport. High FPS or low FPS won't matter if you are pressing that shutter at the wrong time.

A higher FPS just increases your chances of getting the shot during that small window of opportunity. For example you could get a shot of a person when they blink and it ruins the shot while getting that extra frame in means you still get the shot with their eyes open. For most of us it isn't a big deal, but if you are trying to sell your photos it is a huge deal.

I also agree with what someone else said, that the AF speed/tracking is more of an issue then the FPS. Lets hope the K-7 closes that gap!

I think for frame rate to make a significant difference, it does need to be really high, in the 8+ FPS range, otherwise it's just not going to make up for pushing the button at the wrong time. Just a wild guess, but I expect this is why companies like Canon have pushed frame rates as high as they have.
As many of the people posting pictures here have shown, Pentax AF is fast enough for many sports photography situations, though much of what I've seen would also be doable by a person with good reflexes using manual focus.
From what I've read so far from people who have used early K7s, it should be fast enough to shut a lot of people up (myself included).

[palmor]

I'll just make this last non inflammatory post and bow out. Your sensibilities should be able to handle it.

Hey Wheatfield,
Hope you didn't think I said that in reply to your post in anyway. It was just a general comment because the "sports", "AF", "FPS" threads sometimes (always ) spiral out of control.



John

[mike3legs]

Well I must be strange because I mainly shoot sport with my pentax gear. OK I may miss some shots but I am more than happy with the pefromance of my K10d. The times it lets me down is under floodlights. Hopefully the K7 will be much much better for this.

Then again, I am not going to be getting one for some time yet.

Also I shoot football (soccer) and hockey (field not ice) and they are possibly 2 of the most unpredictable games. Hockey is so quick and that ball is so small it can be really difficult. For me a fps of 3 means if I hit the shutter .2 sec too early and shoot burst I've still missed the shot in the next frame. It really is just fractions of a second we are talking about. It's even less that that between getting a shot of a header with the ball compressed on the players head and the ball not being in the frame. I suppose if I had a quicker fps rate I'd use it but I still think anticipation is the key.

[OregonJim]

These are all fine points but it is worth noting that Canon did not make a 10fps camera out of pure ego.

I wouldn't be so sure about that - over the years, the Canon-Nikon fps race has all the earmarks of a pi**ing match. I'm sure they did it mostly to 1-up Nikon and hold on to market share. I can't think of a single valid reason to shoot >3-5fps unless you're doing scientific research...

[pingflood]

Probably, so does AF, long lenses, fast lenses, monopods, gumboots, warm coats, media passes...

roll film, through-the-lens viewfinders....