skibum5 wrote: gdanmitchell wrote:
For all but the tiniest handful of shooters this would, of course, be nonsense. And, in fact, the difference between, say, 5 and 7 fps is truly academic for the vast majority of shooters. Yesterday I spent the evening photographing migratory birds, many of them in flight. Most of the time I didn\'t even use burst mode, and when I did, a slower rate than either of these worked quite well.
I think you underestimate how many people shoot sports.
skibum5 wrote:
So no, the differences are not all tech specs pixel peeping nonsense made up by clueless people who never actually take photos.
Perfect example of the \"straw man argument\". (Hint: You made up that silly point of view, so that you could \"argue\" against it. Problem is, it isn\'t mine, and I didn\'t read anything close to it elsewhere in this thread.)
skibum5 wrote: gdanmitchell wrote:
For all but the tiniest handful of shooters this would, of course, be nonsense. And, in fact, the difference between, say, 5 and 7 fps is truly academic for the vast majority of shooters. Yesterday I spent the evening photographing migratory birds, many of them in flight. Most of the time I didn\'t even use burst mode, and when I did, a slower rate than either of these worked quite well.
I think you underestimate how many people shoot sports.
skibum5 wrote:
So no, the differences are not all tech specs pixel peeping nonsense made up by clueless people who never actually take photos.
Perfect example of the \"straw man argument\". (Hint: You made that silly point of view. It isn\'t mine, and I didn\'t read anything close to it elsewhere in this thread.)
Dan
Feb 05, 2012 at 04:55 PM
Previous versions of gdanmitchell's message #10313009 « A bit of perspective »
