p.7 #3 · Getting the photo vs the experience of getting the photo
For me, a good photography experience should be relaxed. That's why, when selecting character lenses, I make sure their personalities harmonize with each other to avoid any conflicts.
p.7 #5 · Getting the photo vs the experience of getting the photo
Nifty Fifty wrote:
For me, a good photography experience should be relaxed. That's why, when selecting character lenses, I make sure their personalities harmonize with each other to avoid any conflicts.
I agree, character is often the issue... you don't want them to clash.
p.7 #6 · Getting the photo vs the experience of getting the photo
Regarding blink-and-miss-it photography and the notion that using burst is a skill-free approach, if you think that I doubt if you’ve done it successfully.
I photograph birds in flight in the winter. Having burst mode in my cameras did not help me much when I started — perhaps I got more frames of birds half in the shot or birds doing dumb stuff. I lacked the skills to use the feature effectively.
Today, I sometimes use burst mode for bird photography, though I’m selective about that. But it is far more than a mater of machine gunning as birds fly past. As a track a group of birds I’m consciously aware of layers of stuff. First of all, I have to keep a bird under the AF region. But more than that, I have to think about what that bird is doing. And about what other birds around it are doing. Whether one is blocking another bird’s head. How they are arranged relative to one another as they fly, and how that is constantly changing. How they align with background elements — trees, clouds, etc. — as the y move. What direction the light is coming from.
If you think that is just about burst mode, I challenge any manual-only person who thinks burst makes it easy to give it a try and see how they do… and how much practice it takes to do it well.
BTW: I'm not anti-manual mode. I shot that way for decades, and it is still my default for landscape photography.
p.7 #7 · Getting the photo vs the experience of getting the photo
As far as the op, I really dont like the few small primes bit. Id generally prefer 70-200/4 over 90mm for one thing. And I have a hard time getting my head around super zooms being good quality.
I've found 5fps to be too fast. Wound up getting more than 1 photograph using a good careful press of the shutter button. I generate plenty of data using the lower frame rates, really more than i like to deal with, I'd probably just fill cards unnecessarily with 30fps
p.7 #8 · Getting the photo vs the experience of getting the photo
I spend too much time at the computer for work - even though I don't really need to be tied to it.
Currently just having fun taking photos, I'd rather the experience be fun too. It's like motivation to actually go outside.
If I get something I like, brilliant. If I don't, well at least I got away from the desk, maybe next time.
Same reason for why I like to keep the lenses small, why I won't bring something that covers every focal length if it means taking something bigger etc.
But at the same time I still care about how it looks. So I'll work within the limits of comfortable to carry and use to find the right combos etc.
p.7 #9 · Getting the photo vs the experience of getting the photo
AmbientMike wrote:
I've found 5fps to be too fast. Wound up getting more than 1 photograph using a good careful press of the shutter button.
I tend to agree in principle, though 5fps doesn't quite seem "too fast." But in all but a few cases, going a lot faster than that often just gives me more files that I don't want and doesn't materially increase the odds of getting an ideal instant.
My technique (for birds) is to leave the camera in burst mode most of the time, but most often use a quick shutter press to get only a single frame, holding my finger down to trigger burst only occasionally.
p.7 #10 · Getting the photo vs the experience of getting the photo
Erictator wrote:
If I did more of that type of shooting, I'd definitely want something like an A1ii or A9iii etc and I'd be leaning hard on the shutter with a 1tb cf a card, not my usual little sd cards. The only thing I hate about shooting high frame rate stuff is the culling afterwards, .
Eric
Ain't that true, but its one of those good problems! I always shoot birds at 30 FPS because I remember when I could only shoot at 3 FPS!
p.7 #11 · Getting the photo vs the experience of getting the photo
gdanmitchell wrote:
I tend to agree in principle, though 5fps doesn't quite seem "too fast." But in all but a few cases, going a lot faster than that often just gives me more files that I don't want and doesn't materially increase the odds of getting an ideal instant.
My technique (for birds) is to leave the camera in burst mode most of the time, but most often use a quick shutter press to get only a single frame, holding my finger down to trigger burst only occasionally.
But the user experience is the same with 5FPS or 30 or 40. 5FPS is no-man's land nowadays. Plenty of subjects are better with single frames. 10 or 12 is about the beginning for high speed (slower species) and then as fast as you can practically go for flying BIFs.
p.7 #12 · Getting the photo vs the experience of getting the photo
EB-1 wrote:
But the user experience is the same with 5FPS or 30 or 40. 5FPS is no-man's land nowadays. Plenty of subjects are better with single frames. 10 or 12 is about the beginning for high speed (slower species) and then as fast as you can practically go for flying BIFs.
EBH
I find 3-5 fps good for slow-moving people.
Mar 09, 2026 at 02:02 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.7 #13 · Getting the photo vs the experience of getting the photo
I have avoided responding to the larger question of this thread until now, but I decided I would add my experience this morning. I find for my own shooting that the distinction that I notice isn't between getting the shot and the experience of the shot, it is between capturing the moment and creating an intended image and these are really two very different goals for my photography. Sometimes I am trying to create an image that I am imagining in my mind and that is an expression of a vision that I have and I am consciously thinking about what I hope the shot will become. Other times something interesting is happening and I am just trying to capture it. This feels like two very different goals to me. I have found over the years, I only very rarely am able to pursue both goals at the same time. I have also found that personally, I enjoy photography a lot more when I am trying to create an image that I am imagining in my mind.
I can shoot to capture a moment, and I will in a couple of months when I will likely shoot my son's grade 8 graduation, but I like photography a lot more when I am trying to create something I envision than when I try to document what is happening. So, for me that often means I want to slow down envision something I want to create and think about what it will take to create that vision. I realize some people, and quite a few on this forum, can do that process a lot quicker than I can and can shoot even fast moving subjects with the goal of creating something they envision, but for me I don't typically enjoy shooting fast moving subjects because I end up just trying to capture what is happening without being able to envision what it is I want to create. I understand the impetus to capture the moment and I respect that type of photography, but in my own experience I just rarely ever enjoy shooting when that is the goal. Over the years I mostly strike a balance between enjoying the moment and mostly not trying to capture it, so not shooting at all, and shooting more slowly and trying to create images that manifest what I am envisioning.
p.7 #14 · Getting the photo vs the experience of getting the photo
Finaly read the whole thread
For me it's mainly about the process, but to enjoy the process I've to get the intended result in the photo. The photo is the the recit and validation to the process. Since I've been spending so much time in front of computers every day, I dont want the process to drag in to the computer with a lot of PP. I noticed I take digital photos with about the same frequency and amount, that I would with analog cameras and 35mm film. A photo walk results in 40-70 exposures.
Autofocus, auto-ISO, zoom-lenses and bursts interfere with my version of the process. These practices and tools that makes me loose joy and interest in photography. Sometimes I do take paid jobs, but dont change process, except for taking more exposures and being less relaxed.
This is what works for me, and it's absolutely in a major part functions as meditation or relaxation.
p.7 #15 · Getting the photo vs the experience of getting the photo
For me it's getting the photo. It's about capturing the moment. The handling should be natural and frictionless that it disappears into the background.
Even with the intention of giving myself a box to work around, like as mentioned choosing zooms or primes, my primarily focus is still on getting the moment with the constraints presented.
p.7 #16 · Getting the photo vs the experience of getting the photo
Perhaps this wasn't the OPs intention but when I read this thread I think more about living an experience vs photographing it rather than the difference between enjoying a photo vs enjoying the process of taking the photo. For me the former represents a much bigger dilemma than the latter.
p.7 #17 · Getting the photo vs the experience of getting the photo
It could be both, when my mind is active and focused, Im sometimes more present in the moment. Sometimes i shields me from participating Same with music.
p.7 #18 · Getting the photo vs the experience of getting the photo
johnvanr wrote:
I wonder if anyone here also draws and/or paints. Like many here, I appreciate the fact that photography makes me observe more and better than I would if I didn’t look for images.
Then, a few years ago, I started dabbling in drawing and I was surprised that my photographic observations were nothing compared to what you need to see when you want to capture a reality in a drawing or painting.
Of course, the flip side is that it’s also easier to leave out things or translate that reality into abstraction. Still, what struck me is that when I wanted to draw a building across the street, I’d have to actually SEE each individual window, while with photography I’d seen the whole....Show more →
Yes, I did draw and oil paint a LONG time ago, when I was in high school. I stopped doing it about the time I got into photography.
Starting at it again. Feel like need to relearn to draw again.
Mar 09, 2026 at 12:52 PM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.7 #19 · Getting the photo vs the experience of getting the photo
gdanmitchell wrote:
I tend to agree in principle, though 5fps doesn't quite seem "too fast." But in all but a few cases, going a lot faster than that often just gives me more files that I don't want and doesn't materially increase the odds of getting an ideal instant.
My technique (for birds) is to leave the camera in burst mode most of the time, but most often use a quick shutter press to get only a single frame, holding my finger down to trigger burst only occasionally.
There are probably legit uses for the high frame rates, but I ran into enough machismo stupidity, more than i needed, in E TX a long time ago. And I dont find the "more power" approach to photography very appealing.
p.7 #20 · Getting the photo vs the experience of getting the photo
EB-1 wrote:
But the user experience is the same with 5FPS or 30 or 40. 5FPS is no-man's land nowadays. Plenty of subjects are better with single frames. 10 or 12 is about the beginning for high speed (slower species) and then as fast as you can practically go for flying BIFs.
EBH
True about 5fps these days. One of my cameras — the one I use for landscape photography and some bird photography — only does about 5fps and that’s generally fine. My other camera does something like 15fpg and it doesn’t gain me much… other than three times the number of files to sort through!
.