[Wheatfield]

Not sure what you're suggesting here?

From a personal stand point I have over 3000 pictures on flickr, and spent over 2yrs with Pentax, only this last week have I encountered some more 'pressure' style photography. If I was doing a course in photography I'd be exposed to even more techniques that I currently am, only this very week did I even discover the Brenizer technique.
I'm not on the defense here, I am just puzzled by the remark, it's quite vague.

I started this thread to get some answers but also because perhaps someone researching photography can be better educated between the pros and cons of brands. If action shooting was my passion, and I had invested several thousands into Pentax then perhaps that wasn't the best decision. Luckily for me that's not quite the case, but I really feel if I was at either of my events this week with just one shooter I would have felt very frustrated waiting for the buffer to finish. Having a second body gives the shooter a way to continue shooting and capturing those moments.

The Brenizer technique is completely off topic to the discussion.

Your best bet is any kind of action scenario is to learn what to expect, and then shoot bursts of perhaps 3 or 4, preferably less, 2 or 3 is probably better in most situations, when you know the action is going to peak.
I gave up on high speed motor drives over four decades ago. I had a Nikon F2 and bought the 9FPS motor drive for sports. Having to reload film frequently is a side discussion, but what I found was that if I shot an extended sequence of 6 or more shots, I was guaranteed a near miss, catching just before and just after the peak of the action.
In my opinion, it is a fallacy that a long burst around the time of peak action will do a better job than pushing the button at the exact correct moment. My sport of choice was fencing, and the photography of same. It is a very fast moving sport. I shot everything from curling to football at one time or another. In every one of them, at least some rudimentary knowledge of the activity at hand will serve you better than the fastest frame rate, deepest buffer or fastest write time.

[monochrome]

I’m not a pro shooter but I’ve paid for them. I think the pros I’ve hired just have years of experience and ‘sell’ their confidence. I understand the conundrum when you’re just starting, and that your customers might have wanted a portfolio that we didn’t, but maybe there’s something useful for you below.

My wedding was shot by one man with a Pentax 6x7 and flash on the wooden handle. We just came across the 120* some negs last month (which we bought when the tog retired). That’s right - a total of 120 clicks for an entire wedding. I do recall he had coached the wedding party beforehand and moved us rapidly in and out of the set shots in less than an hour. We had a champagne + petit fours reception so candids were just set shots of talking groups. My wife had studio portraits so there were fewer wedding shots to catalog.

My daughter was married last summer in an historic, scenic, outdoor setting. Hers was more eleborate, with seated dinner under a tent and dancing on a terrace (with LED Lighting for the DJ after the ballroom set). We used a two man team (men in their 50’s wearing dark suits, Oxford shoes and a tie) using 5DMkll’s. Rather than using two active cameras on one tog we had two cameras on two togs. I believe both were in single shot Mode for the entire event. They were disciplined, coordinated and supported each other, alternating primary and secondary with just a look or hand signal. The set shots were all three-singles, then reset. The candids seemed random but I’d bet they were very deliberate in their positioning, framing, backgrounds and timing. I’d bet their vision and muscle memory allows them to anticipate where to be and when to release to get the shot - and they don’t miss many. They moved quickly but not rushing. They had scouted the location. My daughter thinks they captured the special nature of the historic setting and the eclectic mix of 80 guests completely and perfectly, but I never noticed them. They showed us about 450 jpeg proofs - not a CD with 4900 tiny files, 90% of which had eyes closed or poor exposure. .

We had a different tog for studio portraits on film. My wife thinks the shooter used a Hassy and he had an assistant to do positioning, lighting and reflector changes. He also had a hair/makeup person in the studio. We spent our real money on the formal prints from this guy, not the day-of shooters.


The key is they each had at least 30 years of experience when we hired them.

* I initially wrote 80 some negs, but I counted them just now.
** My son shoots High School and college Lacrosse with a 70D / 24-70 + 70-200. He uses web-sized images from these games to market his business. He typically does 3-4 release bursts and has a high hit rate, but he played HS and D-lll college Lacrosse, so he knows where to be and what to shoot. During the season he wants to edit and post to his store website and social media every night, and he doesn’t want to wade through 1500-2000 files to get 15 or 20 images. He gets 150-250 clicks per event.

[beachgardener]

about slowing down, i agree, stick the dslr on single shot (see what happens, see just how well one can record the scenes, good practice), or try it as an exercise take two film cameras and three rolls of film (36 = 108 shots), one for each of the three songs, choose single shot, take time to anticipate the shots if you can't or haven't researched the band. Chat to lighting see if there is scheduled certain lighting aspects that enhance the chance of good shots of given usual routines/performances by the band members, sometimes they schedule amazing lighting, then is the time to photograph, anyway there is lots too it if you keep going at it. Just saying if a photographer can record some amazing scenes manual with film or single shot dslr then all the fancy burst rates or fancy camera features are a bonus. I am a believer of old school techniques then use the modern fancy stuff
If you are now using two cameras as a kit, then maybe a back up camera is still needed
Having said that I prefer camera with big buffer and fast buffer clear times

[stevebrot]

That’s right - a total of 120 clicks for an entire wedding.

We had a friend with a Nikon shoot our wedding for the cost of film and processing. We paid for two rolls of Ektachrome. He got the standard shots and we were happy with the results. That was over 40 years ago and times were simpler then.


Steve

[Tas]

It looks like you've started a lively discussion here mate.

I don't shoot weddings and have only done some informal gig work but as some of your experience resembles mine I thought I'd throw my hat in the ring too.

I only use the one camera (not being paid) and I've done a number of sporting events with the K-1. When tracking a racing motorcycle through a corner or a jump I use constant-high to ensure I capture a sequence of images through what is usually the most interesting point to capture. It's not so much 'spray & pray' but using a feature of the camera to improve my chances of capturing a moment that I won't know's going to happen, but if it does it will be fast. This way I've captured blokes crashing (MX and road racing) and even have a series of images where the rider is cranked over on a Superbike with his front wheel skipping on & off the ground. In that case the front end nearly folded on him judging by the gasps of those watching around me, and as the succession of shots showed me afterwards. Not sure how he got away with it actually.

Shooting that way means I risk hitting that buffer and yeah, it's a real problem once you do so adapting your style is the best way to manage it. Something I've tried is using the two slower options for constant shooting, this might work better with some subjects and prevent you hitting the buffer so often whilst still capturing a series of images in sequence. This might work better for you as I assume most weddings are a bit slower than racing motorcycles. Well, at least whilst they're still all sober.

I'd not skimp on SD cards, I've been using the Extreme Pros for years as they're reliable and compared to other items of kit not really that expensive. The faster cards will be better for future cameras too.

Not sure if any of the above is of use so having focused on all that high frame rate stuff above, I'm going to point you towards this bloke: https://jamessimmonsphotography.com.au/ He's down your neck of the woods (south of Sydney I believe) and he MAY be a forum member (check out the medium format forum). He seems to shoot with Film (Pentax 67) and Digital (Pentax 645Z and Canon). He does all that wedding stuff and if you're talking about buffers being slow for weddings then the 645Z and that 6 x 7 film camera are in another league compared to the K-1. Not sure if he works with an assistant or only works with certain assistants but it can't hurt to ask. It's a good way to learn and raise your profile too I'd imagine.


Tas

[BruceBanner]

The Brenizer technique is completely off topic to the discussion.

Your best bet is any kind of action scenario is to learn what to expect, and then shoot bursts of perhaps 3 or 4, preferably less, 2 or 3 is probably better in most situations, when you know the action is going to peak.
I gave up on high speed motor drives over four decades ago. I had a Nikon F2 and bought the 9FPS motor drive for sports. Having to reload film frequently is a side discussion, but what I found was that if I shot an extended sequence of 6 or more shots, I was guaranteed a near miss, catching just before and just after the peak of the action.
In my opinion, it is a fallacy that a long burst around the time of peak action will do a better job than pushing the button at the exact correct moment. My sport of choice was fencing, and the photography of same. It is a very fast moving sport. I shot everything from curling to football at one time or another. In every one of them, at least some rudimentary knowledge of the activity at hand will serve you better than the fastest frame rate, deepest buffer or fastest write time.

Well i would disagree with the Brenizer method, it's now widely used in wedding photography, it can really set the photographer apart from the rest if well executed. The buffer issue is easily ran into using this mode and it's not even continuous shooting mode, it is single shot and even taking a second between shots. For sure we have to accept some drawbacks for this style of shot, its better to use jpg than RAW (so we lose some PP maneuverability). Having two cameras doesn't really help too much here, a camera with a better buffer clearance will be attractive prospect if this is an important technique.


And then there are times when shooting wildlife or a rock concert and you cannot predict the next movement or sway, AF.C and burst can help, especially as I said if trying something tricky like shooting very wide open.

And then there are wedding group photos, I could be bursting on Medium for these rather than high, but the story goes; Bride and Groom first>Then add parents>then take them away and add siblings>then add them all back>then take them away and just bride and bridesmaids>now its time for blokes etc...
Have you never taken a group photo, come back with 2-3 pics and not one shot has everyone looking their best? Taking a few more gives the photographer a better choice of which version to use. And if you're using a dying light opportunity you need to be fast, hence you can encounter buffering issues.

Remember my thread title! I only meant to say that having a second camera body was incredibly useful from this perspective, I could capture (safely via bursting/getting multiple shots) till I ran into buffer issue, drop the camera, pick up the second shooter and take over till that one encountered the buffer (but by then the first camera has recovered). If I was shooting with just one camera that day I would have had to walk away with less shots and HOPE everyone looked their best in them. You can't control everyone, especially younger subjects, they wriggle, look away, get distracted etc etc.

I'm not hating on Pentax, I'm hoping this thread is useful for someone one day, having two cameras has many benefits and this week I found out it can also be very handy with buffering issues.

[monochrome]

We had a friend with a Nikon shoot our wedding for the cost of film and processing. We paid for two rolls of Ektachrome. He got the standard shots and we were happy with the results. That was over 40 years ago and times were simpler then.


Steve

Yes, our expectations were simpler 37 years ago. My wife’s mother and aunt made her dress. I still marvel at the embroidery on the bodice and train. My daughter wore her veil.

[beachgardener]

Have you never taken a group photo, come back with 2-3 pics and not one shot has everyone looking their best? Taking a few more gives the photographer a better choice

it can be very hard with group shots, especially weddings, but, this is where the photographer is the director of the scene (assistants can be helpful) to produce that good image, not burst rate.
I used to shoot theatre (local theatre) and dance (dance classes and their shows) ages ago, all on film, no screen to look at, mainly manual with some auto focus, paid work and to get paid we had to get the right shots, in my view this is what makes it. We had to see the light and know what we are recording.

[UncleVanya]

To the OP:

The problem is this. I have literally NEVER seen a single person work the way you suggest. To me it doesn't seem rational. The gap in time when you change cameras will occur frequently and will cause missed shots. Additionally many of the use cases you mention don't resonate with us. My photographer at my wedding took maybe 100 -150 shots and it was with a manual focus medium format film camera. I shot football using manual focus. Yes we missed shots. But we also got them. Time and experience taught us when to press that button.

Two bodies? Yes every pro uses at least two on most assignments. One is a backup. If your workflow requires both - you need at least 3. Most weddings I see have at least two bodies in use and some spares. The bodies in use can be on a single photog or multiple and typically carry different lenses for perspective differences not for buffer depth.

HOWEVER - in the end who cares what we think. If this works for you - go for it. I do suggest trying crop mode on the K-1, that should greatly improve your burst lengths. I would also suggest you set the camera to SEQUENTIAL mode not backup since the hardware in the K-1 writes to each card separately and thus doubles the time required when using this method.

Pentax K-1 Review - Performance and Burst Mode | PentaxForums.com Reviews

[Digitalis]

Well i would disagree with the Brenizer method, it's now widely used in wedding photography, it can really set the photographer apart from the rest if well executed.

If it is so widely used, how it it going to set you apart from the rest?

The buffer issue is easily ran into using this mode and it's not even continuous shooting mode, it is single shot and even taking a second between shots.

Even my K10D is faster than that. If you have a lot of in camera processing going on it is always going to add to your shot-to-shot delays. Shooting raw+jpg is going to slow you down even more due to the processing overhead. Either shoot RAW or High quality Jpg - not both. If you have good lenses, they should only need minimal correction. There are times when a big heavy fast zoom is worse in low light than a smaller slightly slower but better corrected prime.

And then there are times when shooting wildlife or a rock concert and you cannot predict the next movement or sway, AF.C and burst can help, especially as I said if trying something tricky like shooting very wide open.

Yes, there are always unexpected moments, and it really boils down to luck whether you get the image or not. This is why a lot of acts are going for videographers armed with 4K cameras instead of pure photographers. In these situations having all the cameras in the world wouldn't help. One instance I can recall where I had that happen to me was During an Oboe Masterclass, the Prinicipal oboe of the London symphony orchestra was bouncing around on stage like a kangaroo - he had recently been to a wildlife park, and was speaking of the experience. I just had to accept that none of the equipment I had would in a single image, be able do adequately capture the moment: and if anyone hadn't been there and heard what he was saying, or understood what he was doing and why, any image I produced wouldn't have made any sense anyway. Before I press the shutter I contemplate the narrative the images i'm making, how they make sense.

I have done a lot of concert photography*, and if you listen to the artists work you can get an idea of what their performing style and stage presence is going to be like. I have taken photos for artists like Marilyn Manson,The Dandy warhols, the Adelaide symphony orchestra, U2, Pink, Garbage, Muse, Karnivool ,the Sydney symphony orchestra, Alphabette, George, Thom Lion. I've often had the privilege to get backstage and get a chance to speak to the bands and instrumental soloists themselves and get an idea of what they want. As a classical musician myself, I have intimate knowledge of orchestral works being performed, so I know when I can fire off a few shots during din of a loud passage where my camera is least likely to be heard**.

* And I have the slight hearing loss to prove it.
** In the middle of a Marilyn Manson concert you could be using a Pentax 67 without MLU and no one would notice.

[BruceBanner]

It looks like you've started a lively discussion here mate....

Never a dull thread when it's a 'Bruce thread'!

... Shooting that way means I risk hitting that buffer and yeah, it's a real problem once you do so adapting your style is the best way to manage it. Something I've tried is using the two slower options for constant shooting, this might work better with some subjects and prevent you hitting the buffer so often whilst still capturing a series of images in sequence. This might work better for you as I assume most weddings are a bit slower than racing motorcycles. Well, at least whilst they're still all sober.

If my first wedding was anything to go by then during the early part of the day the buffer isn't an issue, you have more control can direct people and get more 'capture the moment' style shots that don't seem to throttle the buffer. It was indeed as the night goes on and the alcohol flows that 'getting your monies worth' comes to mind and the demands pour in thick and fast. I think you're right about toggling to slower continuous mode, might just give a little more time before 'buffer time'!

I'd not skimp on SD cards, I've been using the Extreme Pros for years as they're reliable and compared to other items of kit not really that expensive. The faster cards will be better for future cameras too.

Not sure if any of the above is of use so having focused on all that high frame rate stuff above, I'm going to point you towards this bloke: https://jamessimmonsphotography.com.au/ He's down your neck of the woods (south of Sydney I believe) and he MAY be a forum member (check out the medium format forum). He seems to shoot with Film (Pentax 67) and Digital (Pentax 645Z and Canon). He does all that wedding stuff and if you're talking about buffers being slow for weddings then the 645Z and that 6 x 7 film camera are in another league compared to the K-1. Not sure if he works with an assistant or only works with certain assistants but it can't hurt to ask. It's a good way to learn and raise your profile too I'd imagine.


Tas

Just checked him out, wow he is exceptional, one of the better ones I have seen for sure and I'd also like to point out he has two cameras hanging off his person <mic drop> just kidding

I honestly have no idea if 8-9yrs down the track I would be in that ball park, I have no crystal ball but his work looks exceptional it's definitely inspirational and something to work towards emulating which I think is important for pushing your own ability forward.

The thing about wedding photographers is they all come in different shapes and sizes. Some photographers cost $10,000 or more, some don't even cost $1,000 (<<< me lol). There will always be weddings where they hire the photographer they can afford. As long as you offer a service at a price that reflects the ability of your work then I think that's fair and also serves a market that is in need of some semi decent shots of the day. I think it's terribly restrictive for families on lower incomes to have nowhere to turn because all their local photographers are out of their budget.

---------- Post added 12-16-17 at 06:21 PM ----------

To the OP:

The problem is this. I have literally NEVER seen a single person work the way you suggest. To me it doesn't seem rational. The gap in time when you change cameras will occur frequently and will cause missed shots. Additionally many of the use cases you mention don't resonate with us. My photographer at my wedding took maybe 100 -150 shots and it was with a manual focus medium format film camera. I shot football using manual focus. Yes we missed shots. But we also got them. Time and experience taught us when to press that button.

Two bodies? Yes every pro uses at least two on most assignments. One is a backup. If your workflow requires both - you need at least 3. Most weddings I see have at least two bodies in use and some spares. The bodies in use can be on a single photog or multiple and typically carry different lenses for perspective differences not for buffer depth.

HOWEVER - in the end who cares what we think. If this works for you - go for it. I do suggest trying crop mode on the K-1, that should greatly improve your burst lengths. I would also suggest you set the camera to SEQUENTIAL mode not backup since the hardware in the K-1 writes to each card separately and thus doubles the time required when using this method.

Pentax K-1 Review - Performance and Burst Mode | PentaxForums.com Reviews

The fact you have never seen a single person work this way is not the problem, the problem is that the K-1 takes 17 RAW pics in relatively quick succession before being throttled. I have shot over 3000 pictures, 2yrs with a Pentax and until last week had also not encountered this issue, however under certain shooting conditions this throttling can be problematic. Certain camera manufacturers seem to be very aware of this fact and develop technology/design towards selling points to allude to the fact that their particular camera does x, y and z to help in this regard. I've seen many shooters in the past wear two cameras, of course it makes sense to use different focal lengths as well, but how often are these photographers dropping one camera (which takes half a second) and reaching for the other (another 1 second) to continue shooting, due to focal length or actually a buffer issue? This was one of my initial questions, is this a Pentax thing or more commonly widespread.
We spent approximately 12mins in the photo pit, I took 250 shots, averaging 1 shot every 2.88 seconds, you don't get a second chance, once it's done its done. So you tend to shoot a lot and fast to try and maximise the outcome. You're not panicking, you're still being steady, still thinking, still lining the shot up, but its not really comparable to other styles of shooting, unless of course you're being hounded to take multiple group pictures by drunken party members () back to back in quick succession to take advantage of dying sunlight (which was pretty much my experience on Sunday). Like i said... been an interesting week for me and really pushed my cameras hard!

Even bursting like this is going to miss shots as well, and even 'back in the day' you got some and missed some, this is only always about increasing the odds of capturing that one shot that has everything you're looking for in it. That's the major advantage of digital cameras. Had your photographer had the same equipment available today he may be shooting differently, or if he took pics maybe you woulda had a better replacement picture or more photos. Manual Focus isn't the issue anyway, you could arguably still run into the buffering issue by using MF only.

Sequential mode, yes I think that would alleviate the throttle somewhat, I wanted to set the cameras up with a User Mode dedicated to Sequential writing rather than to both sd cards at the same time, but then I discovered that's not possible. If you change that setting its applied globally throughout all modes (which is a bit of a shame). Toggling between the two modes during a shooting session will get quite interesting too, likely resulting in one card being full before the other, but the other still has a good 1/4 of space left...

If it is so widely used, how it it going to set you apart from the rest?

come now... don't be pedantic, you know what I mean. The intent was to say that it's widely used by accomplished professionals, the sorts that can justify premium rates. If you want to join them in those ranks it can certainly help to master this method.

Even my K10D is faster than that. If you have a lot of in camera processing going on it is always going to add to your shot-to-shot delays. Shooting raw+jpg is going to slow you down even more due to the processing overhead. Either shoot RAW or High quality Jpg - not both. If you have good lenses, they should only need minimal correction. There are times when a big heavy fast zoom is worse in low light than a smaller slightly slower but better corrected prime.

Yep this is with everything off and writing RAW only, I'm well aware (now) of the additional time in camera jpg PP can have.

Yes, there are always unexpected moments, and it really boils down to luck whether you get the image or not. This is why a lot of acts are going for videographers armed with 4K cameras instead of pure photographers. In these situations having all the cameras in the world wouldn't help. One instance I can recall where I had that happen to me was During an Oboe Masterclass, the Prinicipal oboe of the London symphony orchestra was bouncing around on stage like a kangaroo - he had recently been to a wildlife park, and was speaking of the experience. I just had to accept that none of the equipment I had would in a single image, be able do adequately capture the moment: and if anyone hadn't been there and heard what he was saying, or understood what he was doing and why, any image I produced wouldn't have made any sense anyway. Before I press the shutter I contemplate the narrative the images i'm making, how they make sense.

I have done a lot of concert photography*, and if you listen to the artists work you can get an idea of what their performing style and stage presence is going to be like. I have taken photos for artists like Marilyn Manson,The Dandy warhols, the Adelaide symphony orchestra, U2, Pink, Garbage, Muse, Karnivool ,the Sydney symphony orchestra, Alphabette, George, Thom Lion. I've often had the privilege to get backstage and get a chance to speak to the bands and instrumental soloists themselves and get an idea of what they want. As a classical musician myself, I have intimate knowledge of orchestral works being performed, so I know when I can fire off a few shots during din of a loud passage where my camera is least likely to be heard**.

* And I have the slight hearing loss to prove it.
** In the middle of a Marilyn Manson concert you could be using a Pentax 67 without MLU and no one would notice.

I don't think we're exactly talking about the same thing if we're gonna talk in terms of 'luck'. It's more about increasing ones chances of 'luck' going there way. I hand you a camera, its a rock concert, yer in the photo pit, you have 8 seconds and are only allowed to take one picture in that 8 seconds. The music or song is new to you, unpredictable, you cannot know what's coming next, besides its 8 seconds right.
Now I give you the same scenario all over again this time you can take as many shots as you like of that musician in 8 seconds.

I know which choice I'd rather be given in tackling that scenario, which is exactly what I faced last night. There are other shooters in the pit, you need to shoot, move, repeat. Bursting in the manner I explain previously greatly increases the odds of walking away with a usable shot (or one you feel worthy of your name and reputation). We can do the same example all over again but with a group photo now with wriggling kids. Do you want to restrict yourself to one shot, or multiple so you can head back home and see which shot in that 8 second burst portrays the best look.

FWIW the KP has excellent silent shooting properties, literally I can shoot and not be heard when standing right next, AF.C, OVF or LV, it's ES mode is superb!

And FWIW last nights performance was Paradise Lost, similar in power and energy to Manson no doubt.

[leekil]

We spent approximately 12mins in the photo pit, I took 250 shots, averaging 1 shot every 2.88 seconds, you don't get a second chance, once it's done its done. So you tend to shoot a lot and fast to try and maximise the outcome. You're not panicking, you're still being steady, still thinking, still lining the shot up, but its not really comparable to other styles of shooting, unless of course you're being hounded to take multiple group pictures by drunken party members () back to back in quick succession to take advantage of dying sunlight (which was pretty much my experience on Sunday). Like i said... been an interesting week for me and really pushed my cameras hard!

I was at a concert earlier in the year, and a friend of mine happened to be there to shoot the first 3 songs for the Boston Globe. I had a good view of him as I was on an upper level, and he didn't shoot continuously the whole time, he didn't even have the camera up to his face the whole time, he moved around and took a moderate number of shots. The pictures were used the next day in the Globe. He has at least 20 years of experience, and makes a living off photography.

Personally, whenever I shoot any kind of performance, too many shots drive me crazy afterward. I don't want to look at 5 shots of the basic same thing and try to figure out which is the best, and then repeat this across an entire performance. This is in fact my very least favorite part of photography, and I try to keep it down, if only because of that. But also, when I'm at a concert without a camera, I am often annoyed as I see that someone is not taking what I think would be a great photo. (Whether it would be or not is another issue.) Plus, many bands are kind of visually boring and do the same things over and over again. You don't need to photograph that exact same thing in every song.

[BruceBanner]

I was at a concert earlier in the year, and a friend of mine happened to be there to shoot the first 3 songs for the Boston Globe. I had a good view of him as I was on an upper level, and he didn't shoot continuously the whole time, he didn't even have the camera up to his face the whole time, he moved around and took a moderate number of shots. The pictures were used the next day in the Globe. He has at least 20 years of experience, and makes a living off photography.

Personally, whenever I shoot any kind of performance, too many shots drive me crazy afterward. I don't want to look at 5 shots of the basic same thing and try to figure out which is the best, and then repeat this across an entire performance. This is in fact my very least favorite part of photography, and I try to keep it down, if only because of that. But also, when I'm at a concert without a camera, I am often annoyed as I see that someone is not taking what I think would be a great photo. (Whether it would be or not is another issue.) Plus, many bands are kind of visually boring and do the same things over and over again. You don't need to photograph that exact same thing in every song.

Because he took a few and could produce some shots the next day, whereas everyone else has 100's to sift through bahahahah!

I actually ended up with 15 shots of the 250 taken, and had them ready before 9am next day. I have found a sifting through process that makes things a lot easier and quicker.

[Digitalis]

The intent was to say that it's widely used by accomplished professionals, the sorts that can justify premium rates. If you want to join them in those ranks it can certainly help to master this method.

I have taught a lot of photographers, some of them are quite successful - I have never used or taught the Brenizer method, I don't have to use it when I own an 8X10 view camera.

I hand you a camera, its a rock concert, yer in the photo pit, you have 8 seconds and are only allowed to take one picture in that 8 seconds.

I don't do pit photography, but it is useful to build a portfolio. Personally I use my contacts in the music industry to get in touch with the manager of the act and cut a deal.

The music or song is new to you, unpredictable, you cannot know what's coming next, besides its 8 seconds right.

As a musician with very extended tastes in music, nothing could take me by surprise...ever been to a performance of 4'33"?

[hcc]

You already got some good comments. I am not a professional, but I shoot Hi-continuous burst sequences all the time, and I have done so since I move to Pentax. Pentax has some of the best buffer in its APS-C cameras like K-7, K-5 and K-3. Clearly a fast SD is required to empty as quickly as possible the camera buffer; simply the card must be faster than the output bus rate of the camera. In practice, an after some rigorous tests with my camera bodies, I selected to shoot JPEG [***] to avoid any buffering issues. With a fast card and no in-camera processing, I have been able to shoot long-sequence (> 30 sec) at 8 fps on my K-3.
I fully acknowledge that you may prefer shooting RAW. However, and as noted earlier by others, Canikon and other brand camera have the same or often worst buffering issue. IMHO, Pentax is one of the better brand with its high-end APS-C camera bodies for high-speed bursts.
My 5 cents...