1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Shooting at lower res?

Discussion in 'General Equipment Chat & Advice' started by pixelpuffin, Nov 2, 2020.

  1. MJB

    MJB Well-Known Member

    Don't take 1,000 shots of a football match is another option. That's one shot for every 3.5seconds based on the time the ball is in play during a typical game.
    RogerMac likes this.
  2. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    That was discussed some while back (several months if not years).
  3. GeoffR

    GeoffR Well-Known Member

    It might actually be easier to just video the whole game. However, my opinion on football isn't appropriate for this thread but sufficient to say that I wouldn't be there.
  4. ChrisNewman

    ChrisNewman Well-Known Member

    I’m with Tony. I chose to upgrade to a high-quality, high-resolution camera, and I want to get the best I can out of it. My shots are stored on hard drives which cost far less than the camera and lenses that took them.

    I’ve never yet had a memory card fail (unlike two freebee USB memory sticks that failed the first time I used them, half-way through trying to load a set of holiday photos to show to family). But storing on external hard drives costs far less than using memory cards would. I’d also find spreading my photos over different memory cards, USB sticks or drives awkward, although that depends on what and why you shoot, and searching behaviour. So I’ve replaced full drives with larger ones still able to hold all my collection, which is obviously more costly than continuing to use the smaller ones as well. (The manufacturers have managed to enlarge their drives to keep up with me, but have no longer kept the price of such drives down to £100.)

    To avoid risks such as drive failure, house fire or theft, I have three drives in service, one with my master set and two backup copies. My son always holds at least one of the backups at his house, taking one when he visits, and returning the other on his next visit. If my master drive fails while he has both backups, I’ll still have the latest shots on the computers’ internal drives.

  5. pixelpuffin

    pixelpuffin Well-Known Member

    Considering I only use single shot I think 1000 shots is extremely conservative.
    Besides, might I ask what else to photograph that can offer that same split second, never to be repeated, jaw dropping moment as time is frozen (often in mid air) muscles taunt, facial expressions straining. Covering sport is amaziing...especially in bad weather!!
    I’ll leave others to stare ( salivate ) at their 200mp shot of a bloody flower, maybe a lone tree (!!!) maybe a sunset, a train or some other static vision that could easily and far more cheaply have been captured with a phone.
    Each to their own, but I’ll leave the anals with their primes and massive RAW files amongst other would be club photographers as they try (desperately) to manipulate (read cobble ) their images in post to create something that justifies the outlay of aforementioned expensive gear.

    Personally, Anything out of sport genre (possibly macro too) I’ll use a phone....looks far less SAD.
  6. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member

    There's nothing sad about using your toys for whatever you wish to in whatever way you wish to. (subject to not frightening the horses, of course) Anyone who thinks a photographer with a camera looks sad seems to me to be sadly deficient in happiness and therefor sad themselves. :cool:
  7. Geren

    Geren Well-Known Member

    Bit rude.
  8. GeoffR

    GeoffR Well-Known Member

    I think the suggestion was meant to be that you become more discriminating in what you actually capture, but I may be wrong.

    As for other subjects, have you tried wildlife, birds in particular?
  9. MJB

    MJB Well-Known Member

    No, you weren't wrong.
  10. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    Well that is true, but going back in time across many posts the OP’s objective has always been to fully document a young lad playing football. This is not about “photography” in general but capturing in as much detail as possible one young man’s playing. Hence the 1,000 shots a match is “old news”.
    EightBitTony likes this.
  11. GeoffR

    GeoffR Well-Known Member

    If I were to take 1,000 images every week-end and not reuse the cards I would be spending £6,500 a year on memory cards! Financially unsupportable for me. Reusing the cards I would need to spend £520, once and have more capacity than I would need. The savings would pay for a new Nikon D6 or a Canon EOS 1DX MK III, alternatively some very nice lenses.
  12. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    Absolutely - but if he wants to take 1000 pics of his son that's up to him :)
    EightBitTony likes this.
  13. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member

    Indeed it is. It was the "looks far less SAD" comment that was a little annoying, to me at least.
  14. GeoffR

    GeoffR Well-Known Member

    SAD stands, I understand, for Seasonally Affected Disorder which results from the lack of sunlight during the winter months. I would doubt any photographer who was out with a camera would be affected, but what do I know?
  15. Fen

    Fen The Destroyer

    I think the OP was using it in the way that meant that people doing whatever it was are 'sad' just that he shouted it.
  16. spinno

    spinno Well-Known Member

    "Oi, you with the big camera, you're such a SAD paedo", or words to that effect are heard up and down the country most weekends.:(:mad:
  17. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member

    Damn! How come I miss out on all the best insults? :p
  18. spinno

    spinno Well-Known Member

    "You're just another weirdo "
    Andrew Flannigan likes this.
  19. Mark101

    Mark101 Well-Known Member

    What is football? My Wife is thankful that I don't know anything about football.
    ChrisNewman likes this.
  20. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    It is a popular sport best watched on the TV. Unfortunately I haven't enjoyed watching it this last 20+ years. What killed it was the kids playing computer game football with realistic sound effects and voice over commentary. I can only watch replays now, where they put a circle around the key player, just like in the games.

Share This Page