Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,524   Posts: 1,543,876   Online: 933
      
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 46
  1. #11
    Peltigera's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Lincoln, UK
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    417
    I can manage about six frames an hour if pushed. I don't need a camera that goes faster than that.

  2. #12
    analoguey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Bangalore, India
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    640
    Images
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Fixcinater View Post
    I used to shoot on motor drive a bunch but timing something correctly (yes, even sports) makes for a better image than just hoping you get it, even at 10FPS.
    +1

    Quote Originally Posted by BradleyK View Post
    A long-time 35mm SLR shooter (Nikon, in case you haven't noticed my signature...lol), I have always been somewhat humoured at the manner in which camera manufacturers have made the speed of their motordrives (pre-integral as well integral) a prominent part of their advertising. Beyond working photojournalists and those in the scientific community, how many other shooters really need the speed offered by these drives?
    /snip

    I am curious as to how many other 35mm shooters out there share my sentiments: Have you ever really had the need or occasion to utilize the full fire-power of your camera? Is a 5/6/7/8/fps drive overkill for most photographers? Do bragging rights (at least in part) underlie the continued need for faster drives? Thoughts?
    Always found anticipating the image or shot/move (sports) to be better than just using the FPS. Although a combination of anticipating the shot and fps might work well.
    Mind you, human reaction time is well over half a second - that plus camera reaction time makes it easily a second (or more) slower - and by modern standards that would be 10 frames late already - even if everything else like focus(AF) and exposure are all already in place and don't need to be changed or calculated - even if the camera tracks and changes them, then its more time spent on it.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks, NY
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    64
    The only motorized camera I have is the Contax 137MD, which gets maybe 3 or 4 fps if the batteries are fresh and it's summertime. I think I used the continuous exposure once during a lumberjack competition, but that's about it! The majority of my photography consists of watching and waiting until the scene is just the way I want. I don't think there have been any other times I had a different camera and wished for a motor drive.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Barcelona/Córdoba
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    61
    In the days when I only shot film the sole camera that I had with motor advance was the T90. I never used continuous mode with film and now, sometimes using digital, I still don't. I rarely shoot sport, but have successfully covered BMX and some other cycling events with single shot.

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Live Free or Die
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,404
    Images
    89
    I think the motor on my F3 can do 6 fps, I can't think of a time where I truly needed that. Though have been times in my past when I didn't have a motor camera where it would have been nice.

    OTH, it's good discipline to learn how to anticipate action and press the shutter at the right time without relying on a motor to bail you out.
    For me, the big value to the motor is that you can put all your attention on the subject, and not get distracted from "the moment" by pulling the camera away from your eye to wind, plus the camera is always ready for the next shot.

    I am not sure if that matters enough to justify the expense of what the fast motors used to cost.
    I have two cameras with motorized film advance, and many more without it, I hardly ever miss it when I'm using the cameras that aren't motorized.

    I was told by a Nikon rep once that the motor driven cameras actually last longer than their non-motorized cousins (for example, F3's with and without motors), because the motor applies constant, designed-to-be-correct torque to the camera's drive. Dunno if it's a true fact or not though.

    As for companies quoting numbers for advertising, I agree that it's largely specification one-upsmanship. Though for the pros shooting action sports, that have to turn in great shots to keep bread on the table, yeah, faster is better.

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    129
    Quote Originally Posted by Fixcinater View Post
    I have a motordrive for Canon A1: Use it because the grip fits my hands better than bare camera.
    I have a motordrive for Canon 3: Don't use it because it's giant and heavy.
    I have a triggerwind for Canon VT: Use it because it looks dangerous, hence cool.
    The question being posed relates to speed, not ergonomics or appearances: '...fits my hands better...', '...giant and heavy.', '...looks dangerous...'. Speed, man, it's all about speed!

    Quote Originally Posted by Fixcinater View Post
    I used to shoot on motor drive a bunch but timing something correctly (yes, even sports) makes for a better image than just hoping you get it, even at 10FPS.
    I gather your subject matter either affords the opportunity to repeatedly try again and again to get the timing right or the not getting the image wouldn't prove too disappointing. Your focus appears to be heavily weighted on the process rather than the result. Yeah, I enjoy the process as well but at day's end and when it matters, I'd like to have something more than satisfactory to show for my efforts. To each his/her own.

    The question of speed largely comes down to subject matter and the level of desire/need to 'get the shot'. When in doubt, stack the deck!

  7. #17
    winger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Page County, IA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,419
    Images
    47
    My first three cameras had to be wound/cocked in between shots. I occasionally yearned for a motor drive, but mostly so I wouldn't lose those couple of seconds I spent winding. I shot plenty of high school sports without even thinking about a motor drive and it was only when I went on a whale watch and to an airshow that I wished for one. I've never done a burst of shots, however, even now that I have a couple of cameras with the capability. I get irked if I accidentally hold down the shutter and get two when I wanted one.

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Iowa
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,044
    They are invaluable for catching fast(er) moving objects headed towards you, using manually focused lenses. Focus the lens on a certain spot, let the object come towards you, and fire away just before it reaches the focus point. Depending on how fast your motor drive is, one of the images will be sharply focused. It's always amazed me how my Golden Retriever, not a super fast canine, is still fast enough that my EOS-1V can catch him running towards me using autofocus. Close but not *quite*! I don't have the max FPS drive for it, I think mine only does 5 or 6 fps, so using preset focus works the best.
    In life you only get one great dog, one great car, and one great woman. Pet the dog. Drive the car. Make love to the woman. Don't mix them up.

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    St. Louis, Mo.
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    845
    My daughter used to pitch fast pitch softball at the competitive level. I would shoot her with my digital Nikon at five frames per second so we could actually see her pitching motion to make sure everything was correct when she was learning a new pitch. If something was off even a little it was easy to see.

    Shooting fast is great for shooting pitchers and batters in the game to get the "perfect" shot like the ball leaving the pitcher's hand or coming off the bat. It's just a bit expensive if shooting film. Of course the memories are priceless.

  10. #20

    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Finland
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    142
    Quote Originally Posted by 2bits View Post
    I have no need for speed. Although, I see where it might be handy on some wildlife shots.
    +1

    I think being slow generates much better photos. But sometimes a special occasion might come unexpected and you need to respond quickly. Nature can be extremely unpredictable.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin