Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Woodyg3" data-source="post: 441589" data-attributes="member: 24569">Yeah, Mike, I hate the phrase &quot;spray and pray&quot; as well. I agree that it is used in a derogatory manner at times when people don't understand the usefulness of continuous shooting in certain situations. There are doubtless people out there who hope that by keeping the shutter release down and hammering away they will magically get a great shot, and I'm sure that's where the term originated. That doesn't change the fact that in sports, certain wildlife and other action situations continuous shooting is a great tool. Back in my college days I made some money on sports photography. I had to advance each frame manually and my longest lens was 135mm on a 35mm SLR. I managed to get the job done most of the time, but I would have loved even a couple of frames per second. Of course, I would have run out of film pretty quickly. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />If I could get 10 frames a second instead of 6, I would certainly take it for birds in flight and certain sports sequences. 6 per second fine, though. BTW, I often fire off 3 or 4 continuous shots on a static subject if it is at a distance and I am using a long lens when it's hard to get a steady shot. Almost every time, one of the sequence is in slightly better focus than the others.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Woodyg3, post: 441589, member: 24569"] Yeah, Mike, I hate the phrase "spray and pray" as well. I agree that it is used in a derogatory manner at times when people don't understand the usefulness of continuous shooting in certain situations. There are doubtless people out there who hope that by keeping the shutter release down and hammering away they will magically get a great shot, and I'm sure that's where the term originated. That doesn't change the fact that in sports, certain wildlife and other action situations continuous shooting is a great tool. Back in my college days I made some money on sports photography. I had to advance each frame manually and my longest lens was 135mm on a 35mm SLR. I managed to get the job done most of the time, but I would have loved even a couple of frames per second. Of course, I would have run out of film pretty quickly. :) If I could get 10 frames a second instead of 6, I would certainly take it for birds in flight and certain sports sequences. 6 per second fine, though. BTW, I often fire off 3 or 4 continuous shots on a static subject if it is at a distance and I am using a long lens when it's hard to get a steady shot. Almost every time, one of the sequence is in slightly better focus than the others. [/QUOTE]

Verification