Luck or Talent?

[Feiertag]

So my take away from all this is you care more about the process than the result. You see being able to time the shot and take a single frame as talent....this seems to be your only definition of talent. Everything else is luck and no skill involved? It is just that ability to have a better human reaction time than the next guy to push that shutter one single time and come home with the perfect shot....that is what you call skill or talent?

If you really believe this then I presume you only shoot in One Shot, AF-S? Because AF-C would be cheating, any FPS setting would be cheating. Somehow I doubt you really subscribe to that extreme.....so please enlighten us with what your criteria is? When does one cross the line from talent to luck? Is it switching the camera from AF-S to AF-C? Is it 3FPS, 10FPS, 20FPS?

I'm pretty sure when you shoot incoming puffins in flight on the cliffs in NL that you aren't shooting AF-S at 1FPS.....and if you are, I wouldn't call that talent or skill....I'd just call it stupid.

First off, AF-S to AF-C has nothing to do with this subject. One mode of focus tracking is for a stationary subject. The other mode is for moving subjects. Where in any of my posts did I mention this at all, let alone it being a cheating method? Do you have a habit of making stuff up? I'll bet you do it all the time.

Calling me stupid because I may have taken many shots of puffins in flight at 1FPS, is an insult to me and anyone else who has chosen to do this.
Because someone doesn't do what you do, they are doing it all wrong? Get real!

These new high-tech cameras are about the same as modern vehicles. They drive, park, brake, etc., with little, to no effort by the operator.
Both photography and driving couldn't be any easier.

 

[gdecamp]

I'm sure that professional wildlife photographer got more than a "few" wall hangers out of a thousand frames. Often times I'll take way too many of the same subject just so I can choose the one I like best since I always think the next frame will be better than the rest. I'll feel lucky that the subject shows up but after that I try and use my skill to try and get the best image I can. Whether I have time to get 2 frames off or many more I'm looking for that head tilt, the wing stretch, that over the shoulder look or something out of the ordinary I never even thought about.

When I started 20 something years ago and was a scuba diver you had a 36 image roll of slide film and you watched and was very careful choosing your shots. Nowadays it's easier but people now are getting way better images. So yeah you need luck but that doesn't help you if you don't have the skill to take advantage of it.

 

[groob]

In my view, it’s anything but luck. He hired an excellent guide who found the lions. Neither of those things is luck. Tin Man intentionally got himself into position and tried all sorts of different compositions to find what worked best. He made intelligent and creative decisions to get beautiful photos that a lesser photographer wouldn’t have gotten in the same situation. Isn’t that the definition of skill, and not luck?

Candidly, I don’t understand your definition of luck. It seems to be all encompassing. By your own terms, it’s luck to study and ace a test because another student could fill out multiple choice bubbles and luck into the correct pattern. Or authors are lucky because they have high tech computers and word processing systems, and anyone could type and arrange words.

It is the photographer’s intention, knowledge, and artistry that requires skill. All of those exist independent of a camera system, just like with authors.

And one final point, your overarching argument seems to be that there is very little under the photographer’s control when making a photograph (e.g., one doesn’t choose a background for BiF shots; any photographer could be driven to a subject by a guide and simply push the shutter button). But that is just not true. I always choose the background for my BiF photos. If I don’t like what’s behind the bird, I move, or change the angle. The same is true for slower or more stationary subjects. If you’re not shooting intentionally, I’d encourage you to do so.

 

[Feiertag]

In my view, it’s anything but luck. He hired an excellent guide who found the lions. Neither of those things is luck. Tin Man intentionally got himself into position and tried all sorts of different compositions to find what worked best. He made intelligent and creative decisions to get beautiful photos that a lesser photographer wouldn’t have gotten in the same situation. Isn’t that the definition of skill, and not luck?

Candidly, I don’t understand your definition of luck. It seems to be all encompassing. By your own terms, it’s luck to study and ace a test because another student could fill out multiple choice bubbles and luck into the correct pattern. Or authors are lucky because they have high tech computers and word processing systems, and anyone could type and arrange words.

It is the photographer’s intention, knowledge, and artistry that requires skill. All of those exist independent of a camera system, just like with authors.

And one final point, your overarching argument seems to be that there is very little under the photographer’s control when making a photograph (e.g., one doesn’t choose a background for BiF shots; any photographer could be driven to a subject by a guide and simply push the shutter button). But that is just not true. I always choose the background for my BiF photos. If I don’t like what’s behind the bird, I move, or change the angle. The same is true for slower or more stationary subjects. If you’re not shooting intentionally, I’d encourage you to do so.

Finding a guide (who makes a living locating lions) can be obtained by anyone who has cash. What talent does it take to do that? When you go on a whale-watching boat tour, you expect to see whales. Where's the difference between the two adventures? A whale breaches, you got lucky. A lion is spotted, you got lucky.

As I stated in my previous post, these new high-tech cameras are about the same as modern vehicles. They drive, park, brake, etc., with little, to no effort by the operator.
Both photography and driving couldn't be any easier. Not that this is a bad thing. It just takes less skill or talent, these days.

I agree, that "Luck" was not the right word for me to have used. It should have been, "Unchallenging". Who can't take 100 photos in record time and not get a few postcard shots?

 

[coachjohn57]

This has been an interesting thread to follow…it has been, at various times thoughtful and respectful and at other times somewhat dismissive and terse. At its best any discussion, particularly in an online forum, is going to be the former.

After watching the video, ano having the opportunity to listen to Tin Man, I believe he did everything you would expect of a professional approaching his craft…he visualized the potential of the moment, he leveraged the capability of his equipment to maximize his opportunity to get the images he wanted, and he carefully considered light, composition, head angle, etc. to capture the best of the moment. That’s not luck…it’s intelligently approaching a subject and scene and intelligent use of the equipment in hand. It was, as mentioned in the previous post, intentional.

Skilled photographers are going to capture great images…skilled photographers that are maximizing the potential of modern equipment are going to capture great images with a higher degree of success in many instances, The AF capabilities modern mirrorless bodies, along with higher frame rates (to name just two of the advantages) are, I believe, precisely what is removing some of the element of “luck” from the equation…capturing the “perfect” wing position of a bird in flight, for example. Capturing that at a higher rate of success isn’t luck…it’s taking advantage of the tools at are disposal.

 

[groob]

As I stated in my previous post, these new high-tech cameras are about the same as modern vehicles. They drive, park, brake, etc., with little, to no effort by the operator.
Both photography and driving couldn't be any easier. Not that this is a bad thing. It just takes less skill or talent, these days.

I agree, that "Luck" was not the right word for me to have used. It should have been, "Unchallenging". Who can't take 100 photos in record time and not get a few postcard shots?

With the caveat that I’m still using a D850 and not a mirrorless camera, it certainly seems to be true that getting a subject in focus and exposing a photograph correctly have gotten easier with stacked sensor mirrorless cameras (and the Canon R5). But a great, and moving, photograph is much more than that. All of the following are more important: the placement of the subject/s in the frame, the use of light, background, depth of field, etc.

Again, a mirrorless camera will make it easier to focus, compose, and expose. But those should be used to augment, not dilute, the vision, knowledge, and skill required to capture a great photograph. It was noted above that we are all going to have different definitions of “wall hangers.” That is certainly true. Perhaps our definitions are different, but no mirrorless camera is going to turn me into Art Wolfe or David Lloyd.

 

[Feiertag]

With the caveat that I’m still using a D850 and not a mirrorless camera, it certainly seems to be true that getting a subject in focus and exposing a photograph correctly have gotten easier with stacked sensor mirrorless cameras (and the Canon R5). But a great, and moving, photograph is much more than that. All of the following are more important: the placement of the subject/s in the frame, the use of light, background, depth of field, etc.

Again, a mirrorless camera will make it easier to focus, compose, and expose. But those should be used to augment, not dilute, the vision, knowledge, and skill required to capture a great photograph. It was noted above that we are all going to have different definitions of “wall hangers.” That is certainly true. Perhaps our definitions are different, but no mirrorless camera is going to turn me into Art Wolfe or David Lloyd.

I own the D850 as well. It is a marvelous piece of equipment. The placement of the subject/s in the frame, the use of light, background, depth of field, etc. are basic things everyone is familiar with, either know or will learn soon enough.

I have a motto. If you can do it, so can I. You are no different. Lookout Wolfe and Lloyd here comes groob. B^)

 

[Mitesh]

I wonder what my wife's reaction would be if I told her that cooking must be so much easier for her since she has an induction cooktop than it was for our grandmothers cooking over open fires in India . I'm sure she'd remind me that her cooktop doesn't grow the herbs and vegetables in the yard, nor does it do the prep, seasoning, or plating.

There is no doubt that newer imaging technology increases the likelihood of success in creating many types of images. Perhaps instead of lamenting how unchallenging the pursuit of photography has become, we should focus on ways to utilize the new technology to create images that were previously impossible for us. Otherwise, framing the discussion as some sort of talent vs. luck purity test really doesn't add any value to anyone, since we are unlikely to convince others to adopt our own opinions.

For the image below, I was lying prone in the water with the camera on a tripod. It was challenging to acquire and track the bird from this position. I shot a burst of probably 50-60 images as it flew directly towards me. I was focused on composing to reduce the need to crop and keeping sharp focus on the bird. It was only later while reviewing images on the computer that I realized I had this fish jumping out of the water to escape the skimmer. There was no other frame which had the fish completely out of the water.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

Now, I accept that it was a lucky shot, because I had no idea this was a possibility. But had I been in single shot mode and captured this image, wouldn’t that also have been luck instead of skill? I did not even see the fish as I was shooting, so there is no question that I would have been physically incapable of seeing, reacting, and successfully photographing this action if I was trying to "time the shot" shooting single frames. This is just one image that I know I probably would not have been able to create without making full use of the advanced features of the camera I had at the time. Thinking about other types of images by other photographers, prior to recent high-frame rate, advanced AF cameras, I had never seen sharp, detailed images of fast, erratic birds in flight, such as swallows, capturing insects in mid-flight. That's a great example of photographers challenging themselves to augment their skill by maximizing the available technology to create previously uncommon images.

One other anecdote. This past winter, I had the good fortune of shooting with a recent WPOTY winning photographer. He’s not a paid professional. He’s a hobbyist. At the end of each day, we showed each other some of our favorite shots of the day. He had a few jaw dropping images that I did not have, despite having stood right next to him for much of the day. The difference was that I sometimes got content with my images of a given scene or situation, while he continued to shoot, often in bursts. He told me, “you never know what’s going to happen and you may capture something that you’ll never see again.” Sure enough, he created the most unique image of a puma preying on a guanaco carcass that I've ever seen. I'm satisfied with my own shots, but he captured a once-in-a-lifetime image that is not likely to be easily reproduced. Is that image somehow devalued because he caught the fleeting moment by shooting in bursts, shot with a 128GB card instead of a 36-exposure roll, or because we had a guide? We still had to hike 8-10 miles a day in cold, windy conditions with occasionally big elevation changes. There was some luck involved, but only after we put in the work to get in position where luck could come into play.

JMO, and frankly, I don't care how another photographer approaches their craft, as they should not care how I do (in the context of this particular discussion).

 

[Not A Speck Of Cereal]

Visit Serengeti National Park. Do one of the following:

1. Look at the subject, decided on how you want to shoot it, take the frame. Go ahead and take a safety or two. Get in your vehicle and leave.
2. Look at the subject, decided on the shot, take the frame. Take some safeties. Put the camera away and wait for the subject or light to change significantly. When it does change to your satisfaction, take the camera out and take another concerned frame or three. Leave.
3. Look at the subject, shoot it. Take more every so often, including safeties, as the subject or light changes. Move your own position, use more than one camera/lens combo, take more. Of course you attempt to compose well for each shot.

You use the term 'talent'. A talented, concerned photographer can be shooting in each of those scenarios, but #3 will probably get some shots that #1 and #2 will not. Talent will not eek that magic moment from a subject—you have to wait for it and keep shooting. Also, not for nothing, the Serengeti is an expensive journey.

And #3 just might not be your thing, but there's no reason for you to think lesser of one that does. I mean, unless you always make a point of getting that person's business card and verifying from their posted galleries that they have no talent.

Chris

 

[Feiertag]

I wonder what my wife's reaction would be if I told her that cooking must be so much easier for her since she has an induction cooktop than it was for our grandmothers cooking over open fires in India . I'm sure she'd remind me that her cooktop doesn't grow the herbs and vegetables in the yard, nor does it do the prep, seasoning, or plating.

There is no doubt that newer imaging technology increases the likelihood of success in creating many types of images. Perhaps instead of lamenting how unchallenging the pursuit of photography has become, we should focus on ways to utilize the new technology to create images that were previously impossible for us. Otherwise, framing the discussion as some sort of talent vs. luck purity test really doesn't add any value to anyone, since we are unlikely to convince others to adopt our own opinions.

For the image below, I was lying prone in the water with the camera on a tripod. It was challenging to acquire and track the bird from this position. I shot a burst of probably 50-60 images as it flew directly towards me. I was focused on composing to reduce the need to crop and keeping sharp focus on the bird. It was only later while reviewing images on the computer that I realized I had this fish jumping out of the water to escape the skimmer. There was no other frame which had the fish completely out of the water.


View attachment 62541

Now, I accept that it was a lucky shot, because I had no idea this was a possibility. But had I been in single shot mode and captured this image, wouldn’t that also have been luck instead of skill? I did not even see the fish as I was shooting, so there is no question that I would have been physically incapable of seeing, reacting, and successfully photographing this action if I was trying to "time the shot" shooting single frames. This is just one image that I know I probably would not have been able to create without making full use of the advanced features of the camera I had at the time. Thinking about other types of images by other photographers, prior to recent high-frame rate, advanced AF cameras, I had never seen sharp, detailed images of fast, erratic birds in flight, such as swallows, capturing insects in mid-flight. That's a great example of photographers challenging themselves to augment their skill by maximizing the available technology to create previously uncommon images.

One other anecdote. This past winter, I had the good fortune of shooting with a recent WPOTY winning photographer. He’s not a paid professional. He’s a hobbyist. At the end of each day, we showed each other some of our favorite shots of the day. He had a few jaw dropping images that I did not have, despite having stood right next to him for much of the day. The difference was that I sometimes got content with my images of a given scene or situation, while he continued to shoot, often in bursts. He told me, “you never know what’s going to happen and you may capture something that you’ll never see again.” Sure enough, he created the most unique image of a puma preying on a guanaco carcass that I've ever seen. I'm satisfied with my own shots, but he captured a once-in-a-lifetime image that is not likely to be easily reproduced. Is that image somehow devalued because he caught the fleeting moment by shooting in bursts, shot with a 128GB card instead of a 36-exposure roll, or because we had a guide? We still had to hike 8-10 miles a day in cold, windy conditions with occasionally big elevation changes. There was some luck involved, but only after we put in the work to get in position where luck could come into play.

JMO, and frankly, I don't care how another photographer approaches their craft, as they should not care how I do (in the context of this particular discussion).

Had I known prior to posting this topic, that there were so many sensitive people out there, I would probably still have posted it!

You just reinforced what I was saying. The more you machine gun a subject, the better the chance that you will get the money shot. Pretty simple and easy to do.

BTW, wonderful capture, and what's the wife making for dinner? B^)

 

[Feiertag]

Visit Serengeti National Park. Do one of the following:

1. Look at the subject, decided on how you want to shoot it, take the frame. Go ahead and take a safety or two. Get in your vehicle and leave.
2. Look at the subject, decided on the shot, take the frame. Take some safeties. Put the camera away and wait for the subject or light to change significantly. When it does change to your satisfaction, take the camera out and take another concerned frame or three. Leave.
3. Look at the subject, shoot it. Take more every so often, including safeties, as the subject or light changes. Move your own position, use more than one camera/lens combo, take more. Of course you attempt to compose well for each shot.

You use the term 'talent'. A talented, concerned photographer can be shooting in each of those scenarios, but #3 will probably get some shots that #1 and #2 will not. Talent will not eek that magic moment from a subject—you have to wait for it and keep shooting. Also, not for nothing, the Serengeti is an expensive journey.

And #3 just might not be your thing, but there's no reason for you to think lesser of one that does. I mean, unless you always make a point of getting that person's business card and verifying from their posted galleries that they have no talent.

Chris

Here we go again. I didn't say people that burst shoot have no talent. I said that it doesn't take talent to hold down the shutter for a second or two to get 100+ shots.
It has nothing to do with lighting conditions, exposure settings, positioning yourself, framing, shutter speed, aperture, (auto) ISO setting, etc.
If you don't know these simple principles, then sell your camera equipment and take up the sport of golfing instead.

 

[Mitesh]

Had I known prior to posting this topic, that there were so many sensitive people out there, I would probably still have posted it!

You just reinforced what I was saying. The more you machine gun a subject, the better the chance that you will get the money shot. Pretty simple and easy to do.

BTW, wonderful capture, and what's the wife making for dinner? B^)

I don't think I am sensitive at all. I'm not belittling your opinion or telling you that you should see things differently. I calmly and rationally presented another viewpoint.

If you read my post carefully and don't attribute meaning to it that isn't there, you'll see that I clearly stipulated up front that, "[t]here is no doubt that newer imaging technology increases the likelihood of success in creating many types of images." High frame rates (which you've called out specifically a number of times) obviously apply. I haven't seen anyone disagree with that. I think the point of contention is that you seem to be applying a virtue to limiting oneself to which tools are used. Personally, I would find it amusing if a photographer told me that he only shoots in single frame advance because it's too easy to get the shot when shooting in bursts. I'd probably ask him why he doesn't ditch his tripod, since it is so easy to keep the camera and lens steady with support. There's no skill involved in using a tripod. I'd also ask him if he post processes his images at all, since it is much easier to clone out undesirable elements in the frame or make other adjustments in post than in the field. That's fine if that is how you enjoy your photography. But minimizing or questioning others' results simply because they make full use of every available resource to increase their odds of success is unfairly dismissive. We each have different goals for our photography. For some, that may include self-imposed limits on the process that goes into image capture or post processing. Others may give themselves more latitude in either or both of those.

 

[Feiertag]

Thank you to everyone that took the time to post their thoughts and opinions.
Cheers!

 

[MikePapple]

My subjects are in Newfoundland. I travel there each year for the subjects (Atlantic Puffins, Northern Gannets, and Humpback Whales).

and moose. I am traveling there mid-June.

 

[Feiertag]

and moose. I am traveling there mid-June.

Great time to visit. I had difficulty finding moose, for the number of years I've been in Newfoundland.
I came up with my own highway warning sign: "See Moose Don't Feel A Moose"

 

[JoPoV]

I wonder what my wife's reaction would be if I told her that cooking must be so much easier for her since she has an induction cooktop than it was for our grandmothers cooking over open fires in India . I'm sure she'd remind me that her cooktop doesn't grow the herbs and vegetables in the yard, nor does it do the prep, seasoning, or plating.

There is no doubt that newer imaging technology increases the likelihood of success in creating many types of images. Perhaps instead of lamenting how unchallenging the pursuit of photography has become, we should focus on ways to utilize the new technology to create images that were previously impossible for us. Otherwise, framing the discussion as some sort of talent vs. luck purity test really doesn't add any value to anyone, since we are unlikely to convince others to adopt our own opinions.

For the image below, I was lying prone in the water with the camera on a tripod. It was challenging to acquire and track the bird from this position. I shot a burst of probably 50-60 images as it flew directly towards me. I was focused on composing to reduce the need to crop and keeping sharp focus on the bird. It was only later while reviewing images on the computer that I realized I had this fish jumping out of the water to escape the skimmer. There was no other frame which had the fish completely out of the water.


View attachment 62541

Now, I accept that it was a lucky shot, because I had no idea this was a possibility. But had I been in single shot mode and captured this image, wouldn’t that also have been luck instead of skill? I did not even see the fish as I was shooting, so there is no question that I would have been physically incapable of seeing, reacting, and successfully photographing this action if I was trying to "time the shot" shooting single frames. This is just one image that I know I probably would not have been able to create without making full use of the advanced features of the camera I had at the time. Thinking about other types of images by other photographers, prior to recent high-frame rate, advanced AF cameras, I had never seen sharp, detailed images of fast, erratic birds in flight, such as swallows, capturing insects in mid-flight. That's a great example of photographers challenging themselves to augment their skill by maximizing the available technology to create previously uncommon images.

One other anecdote. This past winter, I had the good fortune of shooting with a recent WPOTY winning photographer. He’s not a paid professional. He’s a hobbyist. At the end of each day, we showed each other some of our favorite shots of the day. He had a few jaw dropping images that I did not have, despite having stood right next to him for much of the day. The difference was that I sometimes got content with my images of a given scene or situation, while he continued to shoot, often in bursts. He told me, “you never know what’s going to happen and you may capture something that you’ll never see again.” Sure enough, he created the most unique image of a puma preying on a guanaco carcass that I've ever seen. I'm satisfied with my own shots, but he captured a once-in-a-lifetime image that is not likely to be easily reproduced. Is that image somehow devalued because he caught the fleeting moment by shooting in bursts, shot with a 128GB card instead of a 36-exposure roll, or because we had a guide? We still had to hike 8-10 miles a day in cold, windy conditions with occasionally big elevation changes. There was some luck involved, but only after we put in the work to get in position where luck could come into play.

JMO, and frankly, I don't care how another photographer approaches their craft, as they should not care how I do (in the context of this particular discussion).

50/60 isn't 1000.
from what i've heard.

And your shot is a great shot.

 

[MikePapple]

Great time to visit. I had difficulty finding moose, for the number of years I've been in Newfoundland.
I came up with my own highway warning sign: "See Moose Don't Feel A Moose"

I will be near Gros Morne for a few days.

 

[Winston Churchill (Sir)]

The other day I watched a video of a professional nature photographer. The location was Serengeti National Park with a guide. During a short time frame, 1000 shots were taken of this one particular lion. Of course, he ended up with a few wall hangers. The odds are in your favour when you take that many shots of a slow-moving and sometimes stationary animal.

To me, this does not require talent or skill. You may as well take a video and pick your best frame from it.

What do you think? Luck or what.

A successful photographer is one that will produce good photos consistently - that is not left to chance or luck

On the other hand - If his luck is consistent - he probably doesn't need talent.

 

[Anjin San]

It's both really…talent to be in the right place at the right time with the right settings in the camera and the light coming from the right direction and with the correct lens on the camera…and luck that the lion does something really interesting and also…a bit of equipment because at 20FPS you're more likely to get the decisive moment in the something really interesting than you are with 3FPS or a roll of 36 exposures of film.

And toss in a bit of being willing to lay down in the mud or wade out waist deep in the water to get to the other side of the stream/river to help get that stuff that the talent gave you. And toss in a bit more of the luck for the very helpful Brown Bear who never read the rule in Katmai that says you can't approach the bears closing than 75 yards…and walks by you 10 feet away…and gives you an eyeball and a toothy grin as he does so.

 

[splatbass]

Finding a guide (who makes a living locating lions) can be obtained by anyone who has cash. What talent does it take to do that? When you go on a whale-watching boat tour, you expect to see whales. Where's the difference between the two adventures? A whale breaches, you got lucky. A lion is spotted, you got lucky.

As I stated in my previous post, these new high-tech cameras are about the same as modern vehicles. They drive, park, brake, etc., with little, to no effort by the operator.
Both photography and driving couldn't be any easier. Not that this is a bad thing. It just takes less skill or talent, these days.

I agree, that "Luck" was not the right word for me to have used. It should have been, "Unchallenging". Who can't take 100 photos in record time and not get a few postcard shots?

If you think making it as hard as possible to get a good shot is “challenging” and a better way to do it, great. Knock yourself out. But don’t disparage people who choose a different (and more efficient) way of doing it. Live and let live.

 

[bronaldo]

Parts of this thread are seemingly dripping in envy.

 

[Feiertag]

50/60 isn't 1000.
from what i've heard.

And your shot is a great shot.

You heard correctly. Metesh's 50/60 burst, is a far cry from Lee's 1000 shots on a slow-moving lion.

 

[arbitrage]

First off, AF-S to AF-C has nothing to do with this subject. One mode of focus tracking is for a stationary subject. The other mode is for moving subjects. Where in any of my posts did I mention this at all, let alone it being a cheating method? Do you have a habit of making stuff up? I'll bet you do it all the time.

Calling me stupid because I may have taken many shots of puffins in flight at 1FPS, is an insult to me and anyone else who has chosen to do this.
Because someone doesn't do what you do, they are doing it all wrong? Get real!

These new high-tech cameras are about the same as modern vehicles. They drive, park, brake, etc., with little, to no effort by the operator.
Both photography and driving couldn't be any easier.

First off, I know I didn't call you stupid because I know you don't shoot puffins in AF-S at 1FPS. So no need to take offence. Now if someone owned gear that could only shoot in AF-S at 1FPS then I would certainly not consider that stupid. In retrospect, I should have qualified that statement with "in modern times with modern equipment capable of AF-C and >1FPS"). Hopefully that clarifies what I meant.

Taking a step back, what I'd be curious to know from you is where you draw the line between luck and skill? You mentioned you have never shot more than 6 frames in a burst. Is that around where you see the cross over point between the two? I'm honestly curious and not trying to start an argument. As Mitesh put it so concisely I don't care how anyone else gets the shot (other than unethical behaviour) and I don't see why anyone cares how I got the shot (or how Tin-Man gets his shots) (excepting unethical behaviour).

I've been doing photography and participating in photography forums for ~14 years now. One term that has always been thrown around is "spray and pray". This is essentially what you are talking about in the OP. Whenever someone uses that term they are usually using it in a derogatory manner. Looking down on photographers that hold down the shutter button and/or use a higher FPS than they would do. I've tried to ask the same type of question I'm asking you above, "where do you draw the line"? And what makes your line the correct one? My opinion is there is no correct line and that goes back to me not caring how someone gets the shot. Everyone must decide for themselves and I will certainly not look down on someone nor insult them if I see them setting their camera to a higher FPS or holding down the shutter longer than I do as we stand side by side shooting the same scene.

There is no denying that the things these modern cameras can do have made many things easier and more people are able to get amazing shots of more challenging subjects than ever before. The fastest MILCs are now shooting 50FPS in RAW and I think 120FPS in some jpeg formats. My camera can "only" do 30FPS and I'd take one that can do 50FPS and shoot it at 50FPS for the appropriate subjects without question. As long as it shoots RAW, I'll crank the FPS as high as the camera lets me when I'm shooting subjects that are fast enough to warrant it (IMO).

For example, this shot below of the KF was taken at 30FPS, handholding a 400/2.8 lens while in my kayak being moved around by the current. When I'm in that situation and looking for a frame like this with beak just about to break the surface, I'm going to throw every MILC advantage I can at that situation. Sure I could eventually get the same shot with a camera at 5FPS, without full sensor AF coverage and without a stacked sensor BUT I've only got 10hrs or so to shoot a week and I'd rather maximize my chances.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[Feiertag]

I will be near Gros Morne for a few days.

Fantastic. Have fun.

 

[Feiertag]

First off, I know I didn't call you stupid because I know you don't shoot puffins in AF-S at 1FPS. So no need to take offence. Now if someone owned gear that could only shoot in AF-S at 1FPS then I would certainly not consider that stupid. In retrospect, I should have qualified that statement with "in modern times with modern equipment capable of AF-C and >1FPS"). Hopefully that clarifies what I meant.

Taking a step back, what I'd be curious to know from you is where you draw the line between luck and skill? You mentioned you have never shot more than 6 frames in a burst. Is that around where you see the cross over point between the two? I'm honestly curious and not trying to start an argument. As Mitesh put it so concisely I don't care how anyone else gets the shot (other than unethical behaviour) and I don't see why anyone cares how I got the shot (or how Tin-Man gets his shots) (excepting unethical behaviour).

I've been doing photography and participating in photography forums for ~14 years now. One term that has always been thrown around is "spray and pray". This is essentially what you are talking about in the OP. Whenever someone uses that term they are usually using it in a derogatory manner. Looking down on photographers that hold down the shutter button and/or use a higher FPS than they would do. I've tried to ask the same type of question I'm asking you above, "where do you draw the line"? And what makes your line the correct one? My opinion is there is no correct line and that goes back to me not caring how someone gets the shot. Everyone must decide for themselves and I will certainly not look down on someone nor insult them if I see them setting their camera to a higher FPS or holding down the shutter longer than I do as we stand side by side shooting the same scene.

There is no denying that the things these modern cameras can do have made many things easier and more people are able to get amazing shots of more challenging subjects than ever before. The fastest MILCs are now shooting 50FPS in RAW and I think 120FPS in some jpeg formats. My camera can "only" do 30FPS and I'd take one that can do 50FPS and shoot it at 50FPS for the appropriate subjects without question. As long as it shoots RAW, I'll crank the FPS as high as the camera lets me when I'm shooting subjects that are fast enough to warrant it (IMO).

For example, this shot below of the KF was taken at 30FPS, handholding a 400/2.8 lens while in my kayak being moved around by the current. When I'm in that situation and looking for a frame like this with beak just about to break the surface, I'm going to throw every MILC advantage I can at that situation. Sure I could eventually get the same shot with a camera at 5FPS, without full sensor AF coverage and without a stacked sensor BUT I've only got 10hrs or so to shoot a week and I'd rather maximize my chances.

View attachment 62564

I started this topic to generate some opinions. Not to insult anyone by name. You went out of your way to mention Tin-man Lee. For what reason I don't know. What did this accomplish? I kept his name out of it, on purpose.

I'm bored with this thread. It has run its course.