Sorry for the delay...Ikea Day For New Digs Furniture = 3 Me = 0.
You're thinking of those ice figure-skating pix, maybe? I think that with practice and familiarity would come a paring-down of the number of shots taken.
Yep, ice skating is my frame of reference as that is what my experiences are solely based on, in reference to the OP's queries, I can't directly answer as I don't know the first thing about shooting wildlife, but I've had a go.
One thing that I can assume remains the same in terms of importance, is the speed and nature of the subject.
Timing and selection of shot is, as Squizza mentioned earlier, a necessary foundation but having the extra room is not excessive or an excuse to be lazy by any means.
I'm far from the 'spray and pray' type. It's not about blasting away in the hope of getting a better shot, it's all about short, controlled bursts during as many sequences that will maximise the yield of saleable shots to the maximum amount of clients.
During the first Euro's, I had 6 clients iirc, and all of them want a piece of the pie. Timing and anticipation is
everything and you need the tools that can keep up with demand.
Compare your own shooting-rate to what you were doing four or five years ago, maybe?
I'm willing to bet you're shooting shorter sequences now and the images themselves will be better as your familiarity with the sport has increased - you're better able to predict shots before they happen...
Basically, I shoot far less shots in a sequence but far more sequences of as many good manoeuvres as possible. Some manoeuvres aren't desirable material, like spins for example, it doesn't matter how beautiful or handsome as skater is, during a spin, they look like satan awakening from a binge or a little hamster under serious G-force. Some clients though, find the undesirable very desirable. In fact I got a *******ing from the picture desk at Bongarts for not shooting a pair of breasts when they fell out of one skaters costume. I don't do falls and I don't sell anything like that :thumbsdown:
True that the upgrade was at a premium and IMO a feature that the camera should have had fresh out of the box as with the D3s, you have to realise that the buffer was tiny in comparison to a Canon 1D, 16 raw files? for sports? Absolute Poo!
None the less the truth is that my selection of shots is far more ruthless but as I can keep up with the competitor, I get a higher yield of good and useable action shots.
In the larger events, there is a detailed info sheet on each competitor, which basically mentions what manoeuvres they are trying for, the point scoring is based upon this proposal, we don't know exactly where the skater will be on the ice but we have an idea of what they're up to.
So this knowledge combined with the skill, anticipation, timing and selectiveness with your shot, plus the technology being able to keep the pace, is basically the whole engine.
There's a world of difference between frantic continuos shooting and then carefully selecting your sequences.
A skater performs many manoeuvres in a very, very short space of time, so less frames but more sequences is a good thing. Trust me.
Besides, there's not much size-difference between a JPEG-F straight from the camera and one taken from a RAW - both are between 8-10Mb from a D3.
In a stadium-shoot, you do have time to set custom white balance and perform on-site tests to make sure your in-camera settings are optimised for the light there...
It's only if you're having to convert to TIFF for Library-use that things change and shooting RAW becomes more desirable.
Quite right, most of the time a full res jpeg will do but I've had many requests for 14 bit .NEF, the clients know what files the camera's kick out, whether the client really
needs that or not is not up to me to question, their a paying client and if they want to buy or process a raw, for whatever purpose, (some have made banners and posters out of my images before now), the client is asking for it, I'd prefer to give them what they want as opposed to having to tell them "Sorry, I shot jpeg only".
Isn't RAW and JPEG fine essentially the same resolution? I understand you have more control with RAW with regard to editing but I'm sure they are still the same resolution.
True but as above, a retoucher or graphic designer, sometimes want the absolute maximum file size possible, especially when blowing them up to bus stop advert size for example.
Think you guys need to spend a month with a film camera and a motor drive. Shooting in bursts of 20 frames, for an event that lasts for more than 5 mins seems crazy to me - what happened to anticipation and timing?
While a baked bean tin and a bit of string pulled taught may still be a functional method of communication, try it's application in a modern world, when you have a business to run, competitors to compete with and an industry that moves as aggressively as it's technolgy advances.
Then you may realise that your missing the point somewhat with your above comment
It's not about being an arse photographer and trying to compensate with technology.
The most important issue here, is justifying the cost of a feature, in this case an upgrade to the tune 500€/£400, in relation to your requirements, means, circumstances and the demands your up against.
...fark that...
Nothing silly about shooting 9fps for a couple of seconds - when you just have to get the shot!