A little too much burst - a personal look: Photographers seem to be infatuated with a camera's ability to have as many shots per second as possible. But why when for most it just means...

GENorkus Loc: Washington Twp, Michigan

Photographers seem to be infatuated with a camera's ability to have as many shots per second as possible. But why when for most it just means you need a huge memory card then lots of time in post processing just to cull the batch down to a manageable amount.

In several videos of nature and events, it becomes obvious to me the person only wanted one shot here or there. After all, how many shots of a bird popping or a bride and groom in a lip-lock position does anyone need? Then I hear the camera taking at least three shots and often more.

Thinking about that, I realized a photographer can't react fast enough to only take just one shot. Everytime they push the button, two or three shots fired off before lifting their finger off the button.

For those rare times a burst it really needed, why not just repush the button a few times. I've seen some generation "Z" people with very fast fingers!

jonjacobik Loc: Quincy, MA

When photographing living things, I want the photo where the eagle is looking right at me, the yellow rumped warbler is questioning why I'm there, or the hawk is sizing me up for breakfast. No one can react fast enough to the subject's eye movement to get the photo that has the right expression. I'll gladly go through 80 or hundred raw files to find the one that looks the best.

What else could be more important to my art?

BebuLamar

GENorkus wrote:

Photographers seem to be infatuated with a camera'... (show quote)

Back in the film days I determined that 5fps is enough. That is I always shoot in single frame and at 5fps is about as fast as I can move my finger. My idea of frame rate or using a motor drive back in the film day was and is that I want the camera to take the shot whenever I push the button. I don't do burst.

Drip Dry McFleye

I keep my D500 on low speed continuous exposure mode most of the time. I'm pretty good at getting just one or sometimes two exposures with this setting but can still avail myself of the constant exposure feature at will. The high speed setting is different story. I'm just not quick enough to leave it on that setting. I find that I don't use that setting very often at all.

SpyderJan Loc: New Smyrna Beach. FL

jonjacobik wrote:

When photographing living things, I want the photo where the eagle is looking right at me, the yellow rumped warbler is questioning why I'm there, or the hawk is sizing me up for breakfast. No one can react fast enough to the subject's eye movement to get the photo that has the right expression. I'll gladly go through 80 or hundred raw files to find the one that looks the best.

What else could be more important to my art?

Ditto Jon.

Mark Sturtevant Loc: Grand Blanc, MI

I don't know about being infatuated, as I am sure there are occasions when it seems unnecessary such as when shooting a static subject. But for live subjects with any movement it can make the difference between getting a flawed picture versus the picture you intended. Or taking the intended picture versus an unexpectedly good picture. I vote for being prepared. Be prepared to capture the unexpectedly good picture.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

I only use it for "action", which is rare. Like waves at the ocean.
Then again, most of the time I simply press the shutter again, real quick.
(Since I store RAW+JPEG, I'm only good for four at a clip.)

PHRubin Loc: Nashville TN USA

There are 2 reasons I can think of for multiple shots.

1) High Dynamic Range. When a scene has HDR, taking multiple shots can improve odds of getting the best exposure on a fleeting scene. Then again, HDR software can merge muliple shots for improved dynamic range.

2) In fast moving subjects the delay between pushing the button and the actual shot can cause one to miss the best moment. Knocking off several can improve odds of getting the best moment.

Dngallagher Loc: Wilmington De.

GENorkus wrote:

Photographers seem to be infatuated with a camera'... (show quote)

Shooting sports events, action shooting in nature, events with high speed, a decent sized buffer and the ability to press once and get a burst of 6 or 7 shots often means the difference between getting the shot, and just missing it.

For me I am much happier discarding 5 shots out of a series to retain the 1 “money shot” from the burst.

No way my finger is quick enough, nope, not even close.

Now, for none action shooting, yes, why burst.

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

My cameras shoot 8 megapixel images at 30 per second. The files can be played as movies or JPEG stills can be extracted. The next wave of cameras coming in a couple years will be recording 33 megapixel images at the same rate.

My cameras also have an "pre-record" function. It can be recording what is in the viewfinder but NOT writing to the card. When you press the shutter button, it writes from a few seconds back and continues. It helps at getting the "memory shot".

Ched49 Loc: Pittsburgh, Pa.

Cameras that have 10-15fps is more than enough for sports or kids running around playing to get the perfect shot. anything above that is overkill.

saxman71 Loc: Wenatchee

I absolutely love firing off a burst of 10 to 20 shots with my D500. Its ability to do that is one of the primary reasons I bought it. When subjects are moving fast (BIFs, dancers, etc) I find this feature to be extremely valuable. A burst will usually give me a couple keepers with, for instance, the birds eye turned towards me and in perfect focus or an interesting expression on performers face. They're not all "keepers" but a couple of them very well may be. I personally have my best photographic "success" with moving subjects by using this approach.

GENorkus Loc: Washington Twp, Michigan

jonjacobik wrote:

When photographing living things, I want the photo where the eagle is looking right at me, the yellow rumped warbler is questioning why I'm there, or the hawk is sizing me up for breakfast. No one can react fast enough to the subject's eye movement to get the photo that has the right expression. I'll gladly go through 80 or hundred raw files to find the one that looks the best.

What else could be more important to my art?

I fully understand and respect your reasoning. Short of a Marvel comic book character I haven't heard of anyone with reflects that quick!

pendennis

While the burst modes are invaluable, they won't help if you're "missing the moment".

Going back to the days of non-motor driven cameras, e.g. Speed Graphics, the photographer only had one chance to get the shot. Success came from experience. With the advent of the motor-driven camera, it was thought that missed opportunities would vanish. Not so.

Getting the right pictures of the runner at the finish line, of the eagle in flight, or of the menacing hawk, takes experience and studying your subject.

PixelStan77 Loc: Vermont/Chicago

Dngallagher wrote:

Shooting sports events, action shooting in nature, events with high speed, a decent sized buffer and the ability to press once and get a burst of 6 or 7 shots often means the difference between getting the shot, and just missing it.

For me I am much happier discarding 5 shots out of a series to retain the 1 “money shot” from the burst.

No way my finger is quick enough, nope, not even close.

Now, for none action shooting, yes, why burst.

Agree 100 Percent.