Capturing Fast Action: It is 60', 6" from the pitching rubber to home plate and the average change up is about 82 mph (let's round that of to 120.27 ft/sec). So the ball is in the air...

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

It is 60', 6" from the pitching rubber to home plate and the average change up is about 82 mph (let's round that of to 120.27 ft/sec). So the ball is in the air about 0.5 seconds

My camera will shoot ten frames per second, or five frames in that half second. Now, I want a little bit of blur on the ball, so I'm going to shoot at 1/500. OK, let's do the math. Five frames at 1/500 second per frame means I'm going to get a total of 5/500 - or 1/100, that is one percent - of the action during that pitch. Even if I keep shooting through the end of the swing, I might get two percent of the action.

Well, let's move over to Churchill Downs on the first Saturday in May. Some horse is going to try to run 1¼ miles in 2 minutes, an average speed of 37.5 mph or 55 ft/sec. I assume that the jockey will hold back and try to get a bit more, maybe 60 ft/sec at the finish line. I find it hard to believe what these professional photographers say, but I'm going to follow their advice, which is to focus on the saddle of the lead horse, shoot at a slow speed (let's use 1/200 for easy math) and pan. I'll start shooting when the horses are about 40 feet from the finish line and shoot continuously for that last second. This time I'm going to get ten shots or 10/200, a whopping five percent of that last second of the race.

And no, I won't go into what it's like to catch the winning car as it reaches the finish line at the Indianapolis 500.

Now, here's my question. If I'm shooting fast action, what chance do I have of catching that crucial moment, the batter's swing (and possible impact with the ball) or the winner crossing the finish line. If I shoot faster, I capture less of the action; the camera, after all, only takes ten frames in a second, no matter how fast my shutter is. I'm going to miss 95 to 98 percent of the action - and that's if my reaction and technique are perfect! More to the point, what good is there in have in a camera with a shutter capable of 1/8000 of a second (or faster) if the camera only fires ten times in a second. Wouldn't it make more sense to have a camera with a maximum shutter speed of 1/2000, but a frame rate of 100-200 frames per second. Or maybe we should stop trying to take still pictures that are really great and concentrate on better methods to extract high quality frames from high rate video.

RichardTaylor Loc: Sydney, Australia

Anticipation is the key.
One problem you have if a camera was shooting 200 frames per second is how big is the buffer?

I bigger technical problem is, for subjects that moving towards you, is how quickly will you camera focus on, and track the subject.

As a hobbyst (with an ocassional "client" I shoot a bit of motor sport, with a camera that shoots 6 frames/second for a maximum of about 3 seconds (if shooting raw)
The pros use cameras shooting 10 fps and with biggger buffers.

ppenrod Loc: Salt Lake City

RichardTaylor wrote:

Anticipation is the key. br One problem you have ... (show quote)

I agree with Richard. That and lots of practice.

I make the occasional visit to the drag strip.
Some cars cover the 1/4 mile in about 3 secs.
You can still capture the "victory" by hand - but it takes good anticipation. Some grab a video and play find the peanut with all the frames. I know some pros that will use expensive motion sensor rigs to trip the camera to grab the shot.

There is an old hot rodder's adage that fits your query:

Speed is a function of money. How fast do you want to go ?

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Mogul wrote:

It is 60', 6" from the pitching rubber to home plate and the average change up is about 82 mph (let's round that of to 120.27 ft/sec). So the ball is in the air about 0.5 seconds

My camera will shoot ten frames per second, or five frames in that half second. Now, I want a little bit of blur on the ball, so I'm going to shoot at 1/500. OK, let's do the math. Five frames at 1/500 second per frame means I'm going to get a total of 5/500 - or 1/100, that is one percent - of the action during that pitch. Even if I keep shooting through the end of the swing, I might get two percent of the action.

Well, let's move over to Churchill Downs on the first Saturday in May. Some horse is going to try to run 1¼ miles in 2 minutes, an average speed of 37.5 mph or 55 ft/sec. I assume that the jockey will hold back and try to get a bit more, maybe 60 ft/sec at the finish line. I find it hard to believe what these professional photographers say, but I'm going to follow their advice, which is to focus on the saddle of the lead horse, shoot at a slow speed (let's use 1/200 for easy math) and pan. I'll start shooting when the horses are about 40 feet from the finish line and shoot continuously for that last second. This time I'm going to get ten shots or 10/200, a whopping five percent of that last second of the race.

And no, I won't go into what it's like to catch the winning car as it reaches the finish line at the Indianapolis 500.

Now, here's my question. If I'm shooting fast action, what chance do I have of catching that crucial moment, the batter's swing (and possible impact with the ball) or the winner crossing the finish line. If I shoot faster, I capture less of the action; the camera, after all, only takes ten frames in a second, no matter how fast my shutter is. I'm going to miss 95 to 98 percent of the action - and that's if my reaction and technique are perfect! More to the point, what good is there in have in a camera with a shutter capable of 1/8000 of a second (or faster) if the camera only fires ten times in a second. Wouldn't it make more sense to have a camera with a maximum shutter speed of 1/2000, but a frame rate of 100-200 frames per second. Or maybe we should stop trying to take still pictures that are really great and concentrate on better methods to extract high quality frames from high rate video.

It is 60', 6" from the pitching rubber to hom... (show quote)

Mogul, you have to know exactly what you're after and experience will tell you exactly how to get it. Then you want your shots to be unique as well, not the same old tired shots!!
Mogul, I'll let YOU worry about the technical aspects of this shot, I'll just show you the shot!!!
Is this shot technical enough for you?!?! I'm off to BED you night owl!! :lol:
SS

college ball, yes, it was taken THROUGH the mesh!!!

(Download)

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

SharpShooter wrote:

Mogul, you have to know exactly what you're after and experience will tell you exactly how to get it. Then you want your shots to be unique as well, not the same old tired shots!!
Mogul, I'll let YOU worry about the technical aspects of this shot, I'll just show you the shot!!!
Is this shot technical enough for you?!?! I'm off to BED you night owl!! :lol:
SS

Yeah, sure, SS. College ball so they can't throw as fast, and you know the light waves slow down coming through the mesh!

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Mogul wrote:

It is 60', 6" from the pitching rubber to home plate and the average change up is about 82 mph (let's round that of to 120.27 ft/sec). So the ball is in the air about 0.5 seconds

My camera will shoot ten frames per second, or five frames in that half second. Now, I want a little bit of blur on the ball, so I'm going to shoot at 1/500. OK, let's do the math. Five frames at 1/500 second per frame means I'm going to get a total of 5/500 - or 1/100, that is one percent - of the action during that pitch. Even if I keep shooting through the end of the swing, I might get two percent of the action.

Well, let's move over to Churchill Downs on the first Saturday in May. Some horse is going to try to run 1¼ miles in 2 minutes, an average speed of 37.5 mph or 55 ft/sec. I assume that the jockey will hold back and try to get a bit more, maybe 60 ft/sec at the finish line. I find it hard to believe what these professional photographers say, but I'm going to follow their advice, which is to focus on the saddle of the lead horse, shoot at a slow speed (let's use 1/200 for easy math) and pan. I'll start shooting when the horses are about 40 feet from the finish line and shoot continuously for that last second. This time I'm going to get ten shots or 10/200, a whopping five percent of that last second of the race.

And no, I won't go into what it's like to catch the winning car as it reaches the finish line at the Indianapolis 500.

Now, here's my question. If I'm shooting fast action, what chance do I have of catching that crucial moment, the batter's swing (and possible impact with the ball) or the winner crossing the finish line. If I shoot faster, I capture less of the action; the camera, after all, only takes ten frames in a second, no matter how fast my shutter is. I'm going to miss 95 to 98 percent of the action - and that's if my reaction and technique are perfect! More to the point, what good is there in have in a camera with a shutter capable of 1/8000 of a second (or faster) if the camera only fires ten times in a second. Wouldn't it make more sense to have a camera with a maximum shutter speed of 1/2000, but a frame rate of 100-200 frames per second. Or maybe we should stop trying to take still pictures that are really great and concentrate on better methods to extract high quality frames from high rate video.

It is 60', 6" from the pitching rubber to hom... (show quote)

You are not going to like the answer - it is not technology that will get you the shot, but technique. Look through old magazines, newspapers, etc. Images like the ones you are seeking have been the hallmark of the experienced sports and action photographer - often taken with medium format, sometimes cut sheet film cameras. 10 fps? Hardly. More like a frame every couple of seconds, as you snap the shutter and then spin the film advance knob. Later, 35mm cameras had motor drives that could do 3-4 fps. Did you ever see finish line images taken at a horse race done with a twin lens reflex? Spectacular expertise on the part or the shooter. These guys earned their living based on that fraction of the second when the lead horse made it through the finish line. You took the shot when the shot was ready to be recorded - all about anticipation and paying attention. That takes lots of patience, practice, and you will make lots of mistakes in the process. Don't rely on the speed of the camera, rely on your own ability to press the shutter at the precise moment. You'll get more keepers that way.

Tpharm Loc: Central PA

Why did you position yourself (camera) on the right of the batter? The batter is batting left and I would think a better shot(S) would be achieved taken on batters left, directly over or just off the plate.

Jim Bob

Mogul wrote:

It is 60', 6" from the pitching rubber to home plate and the average change up is about 82 mph (let's round that of to 120.27 ft/sec). So the ball is in the air about 0.5 seconds

My camera will shoot ten frames per second, or five frames in that half second. Now, I want a little bit of blur on the ball, so I'm going to shoot at 1/500. OK, let's do the math. Five frames at 1/500 second per frame means I'm going to get a total of 5/500 - or 1/100, that is one percent - of the action during that pitch. Even if I keep shooting through the end of the swing, I might get two percent of the action.

Well, let's move over to Churchill Downs on the first Saturday in May. Some horse is going to try to run 1¼ miles in 2 minutes, an average speed of 37.5 mph or 55 ft/sec. I assume that the jockey will hold back and try to get a bit more, maybe 60 ft/sec at the finish line. I find it hard to believe what these professional photographers say, but I'm going to follow their advice, which is to focus on the saddle of the lead horse, shoot at a slow speed (let's use 1/200 for easy math) and pan. I'll start shooting when the horses are about 40 feet from the finish line and shoot continuously for that last second. This time I'm going to get ten shots or 10/200, a whopping five percent of that last second of the race.

And no, I won't go into what it's like to catch the winning car as it reaches the finish line at the Indianapolis 500.

Now, here's my question. If I'm shooting fast action, what chance do I have of catching that crucial moment, the batter's swing (and possible impact with the ball) or the winner crossing the finish line. If I shoot faster, I capture less of the action; the camera, after all, only takes ten frames in a second, no matter how fast my shutter is. I'm going to miss 95 to 98 percent of the action - and that's if my reaction and technique are perfect! More to the point, what good is there in have in a camera with a shutter capable of 1/8000 of a second (or faster) if the camera only fires ten times in a second. Wouldn't it make more sense to have a camera with a maximum shutter speed of 1/2000, but a frame rate of 100-200 frames per second. Or maybe we should stop trying to take still pictures that are really great and concentrate on better methods to extract high quality frames from high rate video.

It is 60', 6" from the pitching rubber to hom... (show quote)

Do you really expect anyone on this forum to answer that question?

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Jim Bob wrote:

Do you really expect anyone on this forum to answer that question?

Jimmy Boy, I tought YOU would have the answer!!!
I mean, if not you, then WHO?!?! :lol:

PS: I actually know the answer...., but I'm not gonna give it up!!!!!! :lol:

SS

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

Jim Bob wrote:

Do you really expect anyone on this forum to answer that question?

Possibly. But all I would expect from you would be a sarcastic remark.

ole sarg Loc: south florida

Know what your are doing and forget the math!

Get a range finder camera and keep both eyes open then you can see an event developing and then take the pic when it comes into view. Also, learn how to pan! this is not rocket science unless you make it so. Lastly, shoot in manual.

Mogul wrote:

It is 60', 6" from the pitching rubber to home plate and the average change up is about 82 mph (let's round that of to 120.27 ft/sec). So the ball is in the air about 0.5 seconds

My camera will shoot ten frames per second, or five frames in that half second. Now, I want a little bit of blur on the ball, so I'm going to shoot at 1/500. OK, let's do the math. Five frames at 1/500 second per frame means I'm going to get a total of 5/500 - or 1/100, that is one percent - of the action during that pitch. Even if I keep shooting through the end of the swing, I might get two percent of the action.

Well, let's move over to Churchill Downs on the first Saturday in May. Some horse is going to try to run 1¼ miles in 2 minutes, an average speed of 37.5 mph or 55 ft/sec. I assume that the jockey will hold back and try to get a bit more, maybe 60 ft/sec at the finish line. I find it hard to believe what these professional photographers say, but I'm going to follow their advice, which is to focus on the saddle of the lead horse, shoot at a slow speed (let's use 1/200 for easy math) and pan. I'll start shooting when the horses are about 40 feet from the finish line and shoot continuously for that last second. This time I'm going to get ten shots or 10/200, a whopping five percent of that last second of the race.

And no, I won't go into what it's like to catch the winning car as it reaches the finish line at the Indianapolis 500.

Now, here's my question. If I'm shooting fast action, what chance do I have of catching that crucial moment, the batter's swing (and possible impact with the ball) or the winner crossing the finish line. If I shoot faster, I capture less of the action; the camera, after all, only takes ten frames in a second, no matter how fast my shutter is. I'm going to miss 95 to 98 percent of the action - and that's if my reaction and technique are perfect! More to the point, what good is there in have in a camera with a shutter capable of 1/8000 of a second (or faster) if the camera only fires ten times in a second. Wouldn't it make more sense to have a camera with a maximum shutter speed of 1/2000, but a frame rate of 100-200 frames per second. Or maybe we should stop trying to take still pictures that are really great and concentrate on better methods to extract high quality frames from high rate video.

It is 60', 6" from the pitching rubber to hom... (show quote)

Dave R. Loc: PNW

Mogul wrote:

Possibly. But all I would expect from you would be a sarcastic remark.

Now thats the pot calling the kettle black.
:mrgreen:

mborn Loc: Massachusetts

Wait for the Nikon D5/D500 both have large buffers up to 200 frames

Bloke Loc: Waynesboro, Pennsylvania

SharpShooter wrote:

Mogul, you have to know exactly what you're after and experience will tell you exactly how to get it. Then you want your shots to be unique as well, not the same old tired shots!!
Mogul, I'll let YOU worry about the technical aspects of this shot, I'll just show you the shot!!!
Is this shot technical enough for you?!?! I'm off to BED you night owl!! :lol:
SS

But... Why is only the ball in focus??? :shock:
Nice shot!

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Mogul wrote:

It is 60', 6" from the pitching rubber to home plate and the average change up is about 82 mph (let's round that of to 120.27 ft/sec). So the ball is in the air about 0.5 seconds

My camera will shoot ten frames per second, or five frames in that half second. Now, I want a little bit of blur on the ball, so I'm going to shoot at 1/500. OK, let's do the math. Five frames at 1/500 second per frame means I'm going to get a total of 5/500 - or 1/100, that is one percent - of the action during that pitch. Even if I keep shooting through the end of the swing, I might get two percent of the action.

Well, let's move over to Churchill Downs on the first Saturday in May. Some horse is going to try to run 1¼ miles in 2 minutes, an average speed of 37.5 mph or 55 ft/sec. I assume that the jockey will hold back and try to get a bit more, maybe 60 ft/sec at the finish line. I find it hard to believe what these professional photographers say, but I'm going to follow their advice, which is to focus on the saddle of the lead horse, shoot at a slow speed (let's use 1/200 for easy math) and pan. I'll start shooting when the horses are about 40 feet from the finish line and shoot continuously for that last second. This time I'm going to get ten shots or 10/200, a whopping five percent of that last second of the race.

And no, I won't go into what it's like to catch the winning car as it reaches the finish line at the Indianapolis 500.

Now, here's my question. If I'm shooting fast action, what chance do I have of catching that crucial moment, the batter's swing (and possible impact with the ball) or the winner crossing the finish line. If I shoot faster, I capture less of the action; the camera, after all, only takes ten frames in a second, no matter how fast my shutter is. I'm going to miss 95 to 98 percent of the action - and that's if my reaction and technique are perfect! More to the point, what good is there in have in a camera with a shutter capable of 1/8000 of a second (or faster) if the camera only fires ten times in a second. Wouldn't it make more sense to have a camera with a maximum shutter speed of 1/2000, but a frame rate of 100-200 frames per second. Or maybe we should stop trying to take still pictures that are really great and concentrate on better methods to extract high quality frames from high rate video.

It is 60', 6" from the pitching rubber to hom... (show quote)

Lots of practice.
--Bob