Hurdles how difficult are photos like this?

D

davholla

Messages
2,672
Name
David
Edit My Images
Yes
Or if you set focus on the hurdle itself and waited for the athlete? How did togs manage in the past? exactly.
 
Thank you both they look impressive - particularly the hair frozen still - but I have never taken any sporting photos apart from a few ice skating ones (an awful sport to photograph the light is so poor).
 
Gav. said:
It's the photographer not the tech, new tech just makes it easier, ie high FPS
Yes your gear can do this.

No differant to wildlife..
Click to expand...
Thanks that I was wondering.

I think that in order to show the camera's performance something like fast moving in very low light would have been better that the photos they published.
I don't think my 7DMKII can do those very easily.
(Believe me I have taken photos in really low light).
 
At 120fps you're almost picking the best frame from a video file. I've managed to get some great in motion shots of fast moving subjects with the lowly 9fps mechanical shutter my camera body can do. Higher the frame rate, the better your odds of the 'perfect' shot I guess but conversely I don't know if I'd fancy wading through 600 photos from a 5 second burst.

The composition and intent are still the most important thing for me, if they're wrong then I'm left with nothing but a folder of multiple awful yet technically sound photographs.

There's decades of proof of amazing sporting images taken before the advent of new technologies to make things easier for the photographer. I think you could definitely get great results shooting fast moving sport on your set up, the results might just take a little more skill and patience to achieve.

I'd definitely get more keepers on a global shutter beast like that, but at £6000, it's not something I could justify when my current equipment has never let me down or left me feeling disappointed.
 
Adam-G said:
At 120fps you're almost picking the best frame from a video file. I've managed to get some great in motion shots of fast moving subjects with the lowly 9fps mechanical shutter my camera body can do. Higher the frame rate, the better your odds of the 'perfect' shot I guess but conversely I don't know if I'd fancy wading through 600 photos from a 5 second burst.
Click to expand...


120 fps is pretty much slow motion video, so yes, you would be picking out the best frame(s) from a video sequence (but possibly in higher resolution.) As for wading through loads of images, I'd just watch the sequence as a video, pick the best much shorter bit then go through 20-30 shots one-by-one.
 
Nod said:
120 fps is pretty much slow motion video, so yes, you would be picking out the best frame(s) from a video sequence (but possibly in higher resolution.) As for wading through loads of images, I'd just watch the sequence as a video, pick the best much shorter bit then go through 20-30 shots one-by-one.
Click to expand...
Yeah, 120fps on a 24MP sensor is like a 6K video format equivalent. I usually shoot video in 24 or 30 fps depending on where it's going to end up so it's basically 4x or 5x slow motion in my world.

I think in arenas where the 'decisive shot' is imperative this will be a godsend but it's still overkill for me at this stage. That won't be the same for everyone of course but judging by how quickly 6K video fills up my memory cards I'm definitely not ready for this yet. Fantastic to see this tech at a 'consumer' level though, even if it's not for me.
 
It seems to me that you'd have to be dedicated to use 120 frames per second.
How long would it take to choose the image you want from a 2 second burst? :tumbleweed:
 
It's easier now with 120FPS but we managed back in my press days with Nikon FM2 and F3's with I think an MD4 drive, something like 6FPS? max. Aand a top shutter spedd of 1/2000 You prefocus on the hurdle and get your timing right. We're spoiled now..
 
davholla said:
In this review of the sony A9 III
www.techradar.com

Sony A9 III review – the high speed camera to beat

A sports and wildlife camera like no other
www.techradar.com www.techradar.com
There are some amazing photos of a woman hurdling
This is just out of interest because I am not going to be taking photos of hurdling but could my Canon 7D MKII and Sigma contemporary get these? (I doubt it)
Click to expand...
The Sony A9, A9ii and A1 would get that shot very easily and I imagine most decent focusing cameras could. I never got on with the 7Dii when I had one but this image isn't too big a challenge with the athletes relative distance not changing that dramatically and you know where she is heading

In terms of flicking through all the images of 120fps the A9iii will allow them to play as a video that can be paused at peak action so it won't take too long.
 
I dont know why anyone would want 120 FPS a second for sports at least. Shooting on 20 fps I get far too many images and the time taken to review/pick/delete all the frames is just prohibative even at that frame rate..... and this is 6x more

Imagine a 4 second burst at 120 a second you are going to get 500 images to review - not viable for sports - maybe for stop capture with fire/water where you only need to nail one frame, once, but for repetitive action like sports - no good.
 
A_S said:
I dont know why anyone would want 120 FPS a second for sports at least. Shooting on 20 fps I get far too many images and the time taken to review/pick/delete all the frames is just prohibative even at that frame rate..... and this is 6x more

Imagine a 4 second burst at 120 a second you are going to get 500 images to review - not viable for sports - maybe for stop capture with fire/water where you only need to nail one frame, once, but for repetitive action like sports - no good.
Click to expand...
I doubt anyone will use it for a full game and looking at the footage it won't take long to find the peak action images and choose the best. I use 30fps and there are often times you hope the shot would be in between the two you are choosing from. Most bursts are way less than a second
 
The photograph itself isn't too difficult - its a fast shutter speed and a wide aperture and will require a high ISO. A modern camera should focus nicely on the runner and track them (or pre-focus on the hurdle)

Getting the timing exactly right is the hard bit. You either have to use a one shot mode and hope you get it, or rely on the cameras ability to rattle frames off.
 
A_S said:
I dont know why anyone would want 120 FPS a second for sports at least. Shooting on 20 fps I get far too many images and the time taken to review/pick/delete all the frames is just prohibative even at that frame rate..... and this is 6x more

Imagine a 4 second burst at 120 a second you are going to get 500 images to review - not viable for sports - maybe for stop capture with fire/water where you only need to nail one frame, once, but for repetitive action like sports - no good.
Click to expand...


For the Men's Final of the Olympic 100 meters? Yup, I'd be using 120 fps if I had it.
 
DemiLion said:
For the Men's Final of the Olympic 100 meters? Yup, I'd be using 120 fps if I had it.
Click to expand...
Exactly - where it's a huge international event, where fractions of a second will be the difference between a good shot, and the shot that makes the front page worldwide, then the cost of an A9iii suddenly looks a reasonable investment!
For most people, it's way more than they need, and crazy expensive, but there are certainly situations where it will be the right camera for the job.
 
DemiLion said:
For the Men's Final of the Olympic 100 meters? Yup, I'd be using 120 fps if I had it.
Click to expand...
Exactly right.

It doesn’t take long to find the best frames. Can take longer to pick the very best one though.

Don’t underestimate the importance. I get more bookings by delivering more great frames and that doesn’t happen by chance. Higher frame rates for critical moments is part of it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nod
Faldrax said:
Exactly - where it's a huge international event, where fractions of a second will be the difference between a good shot, and the shot that makes the front page worldwide, then the cost of an A9iii suddenly looks a reasonable investment!
For most people, it's way more than they need, and crazy expensive, but there are certainly situations where it will be the right camera for the job.
Click to expand...

very much a case of "lets think of of the shortest possible sporting event and use it as en example"..... Might work for a 9 second race, but hardly gonna work on every lap of the 10,000m very much a case of finding an event to suit an argument rather than thinking broadly about the wider context in which I was talking.... Its obvious that it might be useful in certain circumstances and not others. I'd say as a generalisation there is only a limited amount of time when it would be needed.
 
Last edited:
I made my comment because you said this:

A_S said:
I dont know why anyone would want 120 FPS a second for sports at least.
Click to expand...

No ambiguity there what-so-ever.

A_S said:
very much a case of "lets think of of the shortest possible sporting event and use it as en example"..... .
Click to expand...

No. The example that I gave is world sport's most prestigious moment. The Olympic 100m Mens' Final is the pinnacle of
any sports moment or event. It is the absolute Blue Riband.

You use the tool to suit the job. Would you have the camera set to shoot 120fps for every event? Absolutely not.

My camera can take up to 40fps and yet most of the time I have it set to 10 or 15.

But 40 fps is there. For when I need it.
 
fujilover said:
yes it is possible to get a good sequence of sports shots with a 7d mk 2
Click to expand...
Absolutely it is but you will find that the best shot in a sequence may fall between the one you chose and the one before or after that. There are definitely diminishing returns with higher fps in terms of the difference between frames and the extra time to sort and storage space needed but having the ability to shoot fast is definitely something most shooters like.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top