Who says you can't do fast action with a Pentax!

Oldphoto678 · 05-16-2009, 07:28 AM

Capturing fast action. It's the level of your skill. Not the type of camera you have!!!

kkoether · 05-16-2009, 08:20 AM

[QUOTE=Oldphoto678;597895]Capturing fast action. It's the level of your skill. Not the type of camera you have!!!

QUOTE]

Yes, I have to agree. When I bought my ME Super auto-focus was a dream. I learned then that I had to pick a spot, focus on that spot and track my subject to that spot. It's all about technique not pressing and holding the shutter button. I don't have any experience with the other brands but I would think even they have problems tracking focus on something moving 200+ mph.

I just wanted to post another example for those who are on the fence. It can be done and once you master the technique you just do it automatically. I'm just getting back into this type of photography. Last weekend at Indy was the first time in probably 15 years that I seriously tried to do any of this type of shooting. I was surprised how fast it came back once I started doing it again. Here is my favorite from the day.

Wheatfield · 05-16-2009, 11:49 AM

Here we go again. A couple of pictures trotted out that don't test the speed of the camera used to make a pseudo point.
Do you really think that if it didn't matter, the pro sports shooters would be spending gobs of money on high end, high performance cameras?

nanok · 05-16-2009, 12:32 PM

while i agree to some extent, your argument is even worse: it is normally called "appeal to authority" if i am not mistaking, and it is, obviously, an invalid argument ("x is doing this, so it must be right"). basically, you are not proving a point or helping understand what the reality is, you are just transfering the responsibility of choosing/deciding what's required to a tier party which you assume we all should trust as unqestionable. if that's your best argument for the requirement of faster/smarter/greater af (the fact that pro sports shooters don't buy pentax), the discussion is long finished from your point of view (and your point of view is long irrelevant for most people trying to discuss rationally), but knowing you from previous posts i doubt that's the case. i doubt, hope, but i don't really know..

GeneV · 05-16-2009, 12:32 PM

Originally posted by pingflood

I think this whole discussion is revolving around a strawman -- nobody around here is saying you _can't_ do it, they're just saying that it's not the best tool for it and other cameras might do it better.

Perhaps that impression comes from the word "can't" in the subject line of this thread.

Ratmagiclady · 05-16-2009, 12:35 PM

[QUOTE=kkoether;597939]

Originally posted by Oldphoto678

Capturing fast action. It's the level of your skill. Not the type of camera you have!!!

QUOTE]

Yes, I have to agree. When I bought my ME Super auto-focus was a dream.

Hee. In those times I never even dreamed about usable AF: Dreamed about in-camera image stabilization, though: I was picturing very small gyroscopes, though.

nanok · 05-16-2009, 12:47 PM

Originally posted by pingflood

I think this whole discussion is revolving around a strawman -- nobody around here is saying you _can't_ do it, they're just saying that it's not the best tool for it and other cameras might do it better.

something like that, yeah, but in my opinion it's wrong. the camera is not a tool for the job in itself, it's a tool for the job and the photographer. there is a desperate desire these days to rank on a linear scale, and have "objective measurements" of things which are not so trivial to measure. numbers are nice, but it's easy to become unable to see the forest for the trees. one of the most extreme examples that comes to mind from my experience is "measuring quality" in "corporate" environments. they got so used to this stupidity they can't even see how absurd it is anymore, and they love throwing big words around it; the results are mindblowing, in most cases you don't know if to laugh or cry.

this is why i ask "what is it that doesn't work for _you_", i admit there might be things missing, and which could be improved, but if people keep telling "it's slow" "it sucks" "it's jsut not up to the competition", we're not going to get anywhere.

**Just1MoreDave** · 05-16-2009, 12:51 PM

Originally posted by nanok

do those cars have bigger wheels on the leftside, or am i seeing things?

All these posts about focus speed and no one has addressed this important question! Short answer, no.

It's common for race cars on oval tracks to use tires with larger diameters on the right side. It's called "stagger". On tracks with high banking, the difference can be pretty large. Indy is kind of flat (9º) and has long straight sections, so the stagger is only 0.32". If you think about the physics of a car getting through a banked turn, stagger makes sense. In the old days, stagger was a carefully guarded secret trick, and the crew used to search for tires that were the right size. Today the tire makers build it into the tire and there's usually rules about it. In some forms of racing, all four tires are different sizes.

nanok · 05-16-2009, 12:57 PM

thank you dave, i was thinking about that when i asked. by banked turns you mean that the track is tilted to put less strain on the lateral grip of the tires, i assume? (much like in nascar, i think). as i am european, and a "rally fan", for me oval shaped tracks ("turning right all day") is a hard concept to graps, to put it mildly

, so thanks for the explanation

pingflood · 05-16-2009, 01:51 PM

Originally posted by Wheatfield

Here we go again. A couple of pictures trotted out that don't test the speed of the camera used to make a pseudo point.
Do you really think that if it didn't matter, the pro sports shooters would be spending gobs of money on high end, high performance cameras?

Clearly pro photographers are just being scammed by the Canikon empire, or they are so inferior that they need to rely on crutches like auto exposure and auto focus to get pictures anybody could get as easily with all manual cameras and the proper skillset.

Duh.

Rener · 05-16-2009, 03:46 PM

Sadly Nanok, the mindset of some is hard to change, no matter how much proof you presented them, they are still not convinced.

cheers,

Rene

Wheatfield · 05-16-2009, 05:15 PM

Originally posted by pingflood

Clearly pro photographers are just being scammed by the Canikon empire, or they are so inferior that they need to rely on crutches like auto exposure and auto focus to get pictures anybody could get as easily with all manual cameras and the proper skillset.

Duh.

Right.
My bad.

julianactive · 05-16-2009, 05:56 PM

It come down to lots of things. Subject, framing, lighting, timing, skill, camera settings, and the performance of the camera. I think toooooooo many people get caught up with the specifications of the equipment and forget about the other things.
Lots of naysayers on every forum who want to keep trotting out the same answers.
The finest camera with the most expensive lenses and the best performance specs is useless in the hands of a hack.
Make the most of the equipment at hand and be happy.
How many people make a living shooting photos? And how many can afford the best sports shooting equipment?

pingflood · 05-16-2009, 06:16 PM

Originally posted by julianactive

It come down to lots of things. Subject, framing, lighting, timing, skill, camera settings, and the performance of the camera. I think toooooooo many people get caught up with the specifications of the equipment and forget about the other things.
Lots of naysayers on every forum who want to keep trotting out the same answers.
The finest camera with the most expensive lenses and the best performance specs is useless in the hands of a hack.
Make the most of the equipment at hand and be happy.
How many people make a living shooting photos? And how many can afford the best sports shooting equipment?

I have to add a couple of pennies here. You can get a 1D Mark II used for under $1000 these days, and that gets you 8+ fps and a fantastic AF system. You don't have to spend eight grand. A 1D Mark II with the 400/5.6 ($850-900 used) would make for an amazing setup under $2k.

julianactive · 05-16-2009, 06:23 PM

Originally posted by pingflood

I have to add a couple of pennies here. You can get a 1D Mark II used for under $1000 these days, and that gets you 8+ fps and a fantastic AF system. You don't have to spend eight grand. A 1D Mark II with the 400/5.6 ($850-900 used) would make for an amazing setup under $2k.

So I have a K200D with an 18-50mm, a 1.4 50mm and a 55-300 zoom for under 1K, all new except the 1.4 with warranty.
For the other 1K I could take a nice trip.

Have fun with your old canon and big heavy lens. Good luck trying to make your 2K system work at anything less than a hundred feet.

05-16-2009, 08:20 AM	#47
kkoether Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Huber Heights, OH, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 731 Original Poster	[QUOTE=Oldphoto678;597895]Capturing fast action. It's the level of your skill. Not the type of camera you have!!!QUOTE] Yes, I have to agree. When I bought my ME Super auto-focus was a dream. I learned then that I had to pick a spot, focus on that spot and track my subject to that spot. It's all about technique not pressing and holding the shutter button. I don't have any experience with the other brands but I would think even they have problems tracking focus on something moving 200+ mph. I just wanted to post another example for those who are on the fence. It can be done and once you master the technique you just do it automatically. I'm just getting back into this type of photography. Last weekend at Indy was the first time in probably 15 years that I seriously tried to do any of this type of shooting. I was surprised how fast it came back once I started doing it again. Here is my favorite from the day.

05-16-2009, 12:35 PM	#51
Ratmagiclady Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: GA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,563	[QUOTE=kkoether;597939] Originally posted by Oldphoto678 Capturing fast action. It's the level of your skill. Not the type of camera you have!!!QUOTE] Yes, I have to agree. When I bought my ME Super auto-focus was a dream. Hee. In those times I never even dreamed about usable AF: Dreamed about in-camera image stabilization, though: I was picturing very small gyroscopes, though.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
K-x good enough for fast action?	LinXitoW	Video Recording and Processing	12	03-09-2010 02:30 AM
What is the best lense I can get for very fast action shots?	CrossStealth	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	31	02-14-2010 01:00 PM
Fast action shot...	sawtooth235	Post Your Photos!	10	06-05-2009 06:23 PM
(Very) Fast action pictures	ismaelg	Post Your Photos!	18	04-13-2009 02:26 PM
Learning to shoot fast action with a Pentax	JasonS	Pentax DSLR Discussion	25	10-18-2007 03:45 PM

05-16-2009, 07:28 AM	#46
Oldphoto678 Inactive Account Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Athens GA. Posts: 98	Capturing fast action. It's the level of your skill. Not the type of camera you have!!!

05-16-2009, 11:49 AM	#48
Wheatfield Moderator Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: The wheatfields of Canada Posts: 15,981	Here we go again. A couple of pictures trotted out that don't test the speed of the camera used to make a pseudo point. Do you really think that if it didn't matter, the pro sports shooters would be spending gobs of money on high end, high performance cameras?

05-16-2009, 12:32 PM	#49
nanok Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 969	while i agree to some extent, your argument is even worse: it is normally called "appeal to authority" if i am not mistaking, and it is, obviously, an invalid argument ("x is doing this, so it must be right"). basically, you are not proving a point or helping understand what the reality is, you are just transfering the responsibility of choosing/deciding what's required to a tier party which you assume we all should trust as unqestionable. if that's your best argument for the requirement of faster/smarter/greater af (the fact that pro sports shooters don't buy pentax), the discussion is long finished from your point of view (and your point of view is long irrelevant for most people trying to discuss rationally), but knowing you from previous posts i doubt that's the case. i doubt, hope, but i don't really know..

05-16-2009, 12:32 PM	#50
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	Originally posted by pingflood I think this whole discussion is revolving around a strawman -- nobody around here is saying you _can't_ do it, they're just saying that it's not the best tool for it and other cameras might do it better. Perhaps that impression comes from the word "can't" in the subject line of this thread.

05-16-2009, 12:47 PM	#52
nanok Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 969	Originally posted by pingflood I think this whole discussion is revolving around a strawman -- nobody around here is saying you _can't_ do it, they're just saying that it's not the best tool for it and other cameras might do it better. something like that, yeah, but in my opinion it's wrong. the camera is not a tool for the job in itself, it's a tool for the job and the photographer. there is a desperate desire these days to rank on a linear scale, and have "objective measurements" of things which are not so trivial to measure. numbers are nice, but it's easy to become unable to see the forest for the trees. one of the most extreme examples that comes to mind from my experience is "measuring quality" in "corporate" environments. they got so used to this stupidity they can't even see how absurd it is anymore, and they love throwing big words around it; the results are mindblowing, in most cases you don't know if to laugh or cry. this is why i ask "what is it that doesn't work for _you_", i admit there might be things missing, and which could be improved, but if people keep telling "it's slow" "it sucks" "it's jsut not up to the competition", we're not going to get anywhere.

05-16-2009, 12:51 PM	#53
Just1MoreDave Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Aurora, CO Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,340	Originally posted by nanok do those cars have bigger wheels on the leftside, or am i seeing things? All these posts about focus speed and no one has addressed this important question! Short answer, no. It's common for race cars on oval tracks to use tires with larger diameters on the right side. It's called "stagger". On tracks with high banking, the difference can be pretty large. Indy is kind of flat (9º) and has long straight sections, so the stagger is only 0.32". If you think about the physics of a car getting through a banked turn, stagger makes sense. In the old days, stagger was a carefully guarded secret trick, and the crew used to search for tires that were the right size. Today the tire makers build it into the tire and there's usually rules about it. In some forms of racing, all four tires are different sizes.

05-16-2009, 12:57 PM	#54
nanok Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 969	thank you dave, i was thinking about that when i asked. by banked turns you mean that the track is tilted to put less strain on the lateral grip of the tires, i assume? (much like in nascar, i think). as i am european, and a "rally fan", for me oval shaped tracks ("turning right all day") is a hard concept to graps, to put it mildly , so thanks for the explanation

05-16-2009, 01:51 PM	#55
pingflood Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Borås, Sweden Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,169	Originally posted by Wheatfield Here we go again. A couple of pictures trotted out that don't test the speed of the camera used to make a pseudo point. Do you really think that if it didn't matter, the pro sports shooters would be spending gobs of money on high end, high performance cameras? Clearly pro photographers are just being scammed by the Canikon empire, or they are so inferior that they need to rely on crutches like auto exposure and auto focus to get pictures anybody could get as easily with all manual cameras and the proper skillset. Duh.

05-16-2009, 03:46 PM	#56
Rener Inactive Account Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Canada Posts: 292	Sadly Nanok, the mindset of some is hard to change, no matter how much proof you presented them, they are still not convinced. cheers, Rene

05-16-2009, 05:15 PM	#57
Wheatfield Moderator Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: The wheatfields of Canada Posts: 15,981	Originally posted by pingflood Clearly pro photographers are just being scammed by the Canikon empire, or they are so inferior that they need to rely on crutches like auto exposure and auto focus to get pictures anybody could get as easily with all manual cameras and the proper skillset. Duh. Right. My bad.

05-16-2009, 05:56 PM	#58
julianactive Guest	It come down to lots of things. Subject, framing, lighting, timing, skill, camera settings, and the performance of the camera. I think toooooooo many people get caught up with the specifications of the equipment and forget about the other things. Lots of naysayers on every forum who want to keep trotting out the same answers. The finest camera with the most expensive lenses and the best performance specs is useless in the hands of a hack. Make the most of the equipment at hand and be happy. How many people make a living shooting photos? And how many can afford the best sports shooting equipment?

05-16-2009, 06:16 PM	#59
pingflood Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Borås, Sweden Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,169	Originally posted by julianactive It come down to lots of things. Subject, framing, lighting, timing, skill, camera settings, and the performance of the camera. I think toooooooo many people get caught up with the specifications of the equipment and forget about the other things. Lots of naysayers on every forum who want to keep trotting out the same answers. The finest camera with the most expensive lenses and the best performance specs is useless in the hands of a hack. Make the most of the equipment at hand and be happy. How many people make a living shooting photos? And how many can afford the best sports shooting equipment? I have to add a couple of pennies here. You can get a 1D Mark II used for under $1000 these days, and that gets you 8+ fps and a fantastic AF system. You don't have to spend eight grand. A 1D Mark II with the 400/5.6 ($850-900 used) would make for an amazing setup under $2k.

05-16-2009, 06:23 PM	#60
julianactive Guest	Originally posted by pingflood I have to add a couple of pennies here. You can get a 1D Mark II used for under $1000 these days, and that gets you 8+ fps and a fantastic AF system. You don't have to spend eight grand. A 1D Mark II with the 400/5.6 ($850-900 used) would make for an amazing setup under $2k. So I have a K200D with an 18-50mm, a 1.4 50mm and a 55-300 zoom for under 1K, all new except the 1.4 with warranty. For the other 1K I could take a nice trip. Have fun with your old canon and big heavy lens. Good luck trying to make your 2K system work at anything less than a hundred feet.