|
|
Post by zou on May 25, 2024 11:01:08 GMT
YouTube suggested a video to me, it was a camera long term review. The title was something like "after 1 year and 50,000 shots, my review of the _____.”
That's about 137 shots per day. Seems like a good way to learn enough about a camera to review it, but seriously, what would you do with 137 new images daily? Are we to assume that the handful which might be shared are the only keepers? Is the reject rate that high? Does the photographer perhaps need to slow down?
In short, I think the idea of shooting that much in a year is more negative than positive. This wasn't a sports/wildlife photographer shooting burst, this was a Leica rangefinder shooter.
Is it just me or do others feel that's just a bit much?
|
|
|
|
Post by MJB on May 25, 2024 11:53:29 GMT
Even of a good day with plenty of targets I'd struggle to take 300 photos using slow burst mode on wildlife. I saw a post on a local Facebook group where someone posted about a dozen okay, but not spectacular, shots of birds at a lake, alongside the comment "a few from the 3,000 pictures taken today". It must have sounded like someone running a whole belt of ammo through an MG42.
|
|
|
|
Post by peterob on May 25, 2024 11:54:56 GMT
Leica rangefinder user taking bursts.
Some people just like taking lots and lots of near identical photos. I don't think it is unusual for an event photographer to take 5,000+ in a day as part of the job. Years ago I got the impression from the Canon Pro support service that it was not "unusual" for some folk to wear out several 1 series bodies in a year - but I guess that is press work. When out birding and sitting in a hide it isn't unknown to see someone burst shooting dozens and dozens of exposures of something asleep where my one shot was more than enough.
The other forum I visit had a discussion the other day as to what burst rate to use for a portrait - so as to be sure that the person's eyes were open. The debate settled on 5 fps.
I've got as of this minute 31669 images in Lightroom that is 2007 to 2024 and some of them are by other members of the family - so call it 17 years as 2007 wasn't a whole year and this year isn't finished - so in round numbers that is less than 2000 a year. I don't discard that many - maybe 10% - so about a fortnight's worth for that Leica user.
|
|
|
|
Post by dorsetmike on May 25, 2024 12:05:51 GMT
I probably got into the low hundreds in a day at Bournemouth air shows, shooting from the top of the cliffs I could follow aircraft for a fair distance just holding the button down; get home and pick the best from each pass.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chester PB on May 25, 2024 16:05:18 GMT
YouTube suggested a video to me, it was a camera long term review. The title was something like "after 1 year and 50,000 shots, my review of the _____.” That's about 137 shots per day. Seems like a good way to learn enough about a camera to review it, but seriously, what would you do with 137 new images daily? Are we to assume that the handful which might be shared are the only keepers? Is the reject rate that high? Does the photographer perhaps need to slow down? In short, I think the idea of shooting that much in a year is more negative than positive. This wasn't a sports/wildlife photographer shooting burst, this was a Leica rangefinder shooter. Is it just me or do others feel that's just a bit much? Perhaps somebody who thinks that mechanical camera shutters last forever and never wear out? |
|
|
|
Post by nimbus on May 26, 2024 7:41:10 GMT
Many people machine-gun now. A friend went out to photograph a steam train charter, the person next to him said after it passed "I took fifty-two frames there, how many did you take?". His response "one".
|
|
|
|
Post by nimbus on May 26, 2024 7:42:50 GMT
YouTube suggested a video to me, it was a camera long term review. The title was something like "after 1 year and 50,000 shots, my review of the _____.” That's about 137 shots per day. Seems like a good way to learn enough about a camera to review it, but seriously, what would you do with 137 new images daily? Are we to assume that the handful which might be shared are the only keepers? Is the reject rate that high? Does the photographer perhaps need to slow down? In short, I think the idea of shooting that much in a year is more negative than positive. This wasn't a sports/wildlife photographer shooting burst, this was a Leica rangefinder shooter. Is it just me or do others feel that's just a bit much? Perhaps somebody who thinks that mechanical camera shutters last forever and never wear out? It depends on the camera, barring early failure a heavy duty pro camera can exceed 1m, a light entry level might not make 100k. |
|
|
|
Post by zou on May 26, 2024 8:26:15 GMT
Many people machine-gun now. A friend went out to photograph a steam train charter, the person next to him said after it passed "I took fifty-two frames there, how many did you take?". His response "one". Obviously it would have been impossible to shoot sports until the motordrive era  I wonder what black arts sports photographers employed back in the day to capture action shots? Other than those overrated things like skilled technique and sense of timing, obviously! |
|
|
|
Post by aitch on May 26, 2024 8:42:19 GMT
Many people machine-gun now. A friend went out to photograph a steam train charter, the person next to him said after it passed "I took fifty-two frames there, how many did you take?". His response "one". Obviously it would have been impossible to shoot sports until the motordrive era I wonder what black arts sports photographers employed back in the day to capture action shots? Other than those overrated things like skilled technique and sense of timing, obviously! Deskilling. It's been going on for a while now. Replace skill and learning with technology and anyone can do anything. Though not necessarily do it well. And it means the media can can get rid of expensive experts - why bother having decent photographers when everyone is photographing everything on their phones and you can just get hold of their pics for, near as damn it, free?
|
|
|
|
Post by spinno on May 26, 2024 8:58:02 GMT
1 swan plus 8 cygnets equals 9 shots...actually a few more because first time out for the camera and lens combination...my bad
|
|
|
|
Post by Kath on May 26, 2024 9:14:34 GMT
I take as many shots as I need to get what I want. Sometimes that's one, sometimes it's more. My hugely expensive book of Magnum contact sheets shows that the good and great hardly ever got their famous works in one shot. I am not sure I like the implied snobbery that you can only be a good photographer if you only take minimal shots. What happened to 'exploring your subject'? Admittedly I take fewer shots now than I did when I first started. I spend a bit more time looking through the viewfinder before pressing the shutter button but still. Each to their own, eh?
|
|
|
|
Post by MJB on May 26, 2024 9:51:54 GMT
I take as many shots as I need to get what I want. Sometimes that's one, sometimes it's more. My hugely expensive book of Magnum contact sheets shows that the good and great hardly ever got their famous works in one shot. I am not sure I like the implied snobbery that you can only be a good photographer if you only take minimal shots. What happened to 'exploring your subject'? Admittedly I take fewer shots now than I did when I first started. I spend a bit more time looking through the viewfinder before pressing the shutter button but still. Each to their own, eh? I totally agree, however 3,000 frames to capture what were essentially 'bird on a stick' photos seems extreme by anyone's standards. My Canon R7 is capable of 30fps, but I've never looked to see how to set it at that. The only occasions I've used the 15fps is targeting high speed birds in flight such as Swifts, Swallows, Martins, and stooping falcons. Even then it's just a few frames in well under a second, as there's a limit to how long the eye/head is in view. Unless there are some amazing markings or plumage no one really needs a view of an animal's arse end. |
|
|
|
Post by zou on May 26, 2024 10:54:48 GMT
What Martin said. Burst mode and working a scene have a time and place.
"High shot count = pro" sounds like more YouTube clickbait.
|
|
|
|
Post by peterob on May 26, 2024 13:49:18 GMT
I take as many shots as I need to get what I want. Sometimes that's one, sometimes it's more. My hugely expensive book of Magnum contact sheets shows that the good and great hardly ever got their famous works in one shot. I am not sure I like the implied snobbery that you can only be a good photographer if you only take minimal shots. What happened to 'exploring your subject'? Admittedly I take fewer shots now than I did when I first started. I spend a bit more time looking through the viewfinder before pressing the shutter button but still. Each to their own, eh? I do think there is a difference between taking more than one shot, exploring subject or whatever, and taking multiple shots of essentially the same thing. When using a long lens I do tend to take 2 shots, using a double tap, because it goes some way to stop me letting the lens drop at the same time I first press the shutter release, which is a nasty habit I have. I'll tend to set a 3 or 5 fps "backup" which makes me think about the second tap. It is a fail if the camera itself makes more than one exposure in burst mode. I can't beat 7 fps or faster. If the subject is moving very quickly then burst mode can help take away the distraction of timing the shutter release while at the same time panning and focussing but the results are pot-luck on focus and composition. |
|
|
|
Post by Kath on May 26, 2024 15:42:18 GMT
What Martin said. Burst mode and working a scene have a time and place. "High shot count = pro" sounds like more YouTube clickbait. True. |
|
I wonder what black arts sports photographers employed back in the day to capture action shots? Other than those overrated things like skilled technique and sense of timing, obviously!
