Rapid fire shooting on a 300D

[FlyingPete]

Does any one have any experience with rapid fire shooting on the 300D?

I am looking at one of these at the moment, and the only thing that really concerns me is the frame buffer limit of only 4 shots.

Two things, how quickly does the camera recover if loaded with a fast enough card (I have heard the 30x is the max the 300D will take advantage of), and secondly is it practicle to shoot manually (i.e. keeping 'taping' the shutter button) with out using rapid fire for slower shooting for longer durations (1fps?).

In reality a slower longer rapid fire is of more value to me than the faster shorter one.

Thanks heaps!

(I would get a 20D with its 40 odd frame buffer, but the $$$ just won't go that far!)

[aam1234]

and secondly is it practicle to shoot manually (i.e. keeping 'taping' the shutter button) with out using rapid fire for slower shooting for longer durations (1fps?).


Yes! tried that once and I got 7 pics. Got only 7 because I stopped shooting not that the buffer was filled. I'm almost certain that you can do a lot more than 7 that way (1fps).

[tofuboy]

The thing I always find myself doing is keeping the shutter button pressed half way after taking a picture to wait for the next shot... doing that means the buffer doesn't clear :( I guessing that's one of the better upgrades the 20D has is that the buffer will still clear as you have the shutter pressed halfway to recompose a shot. None of the stuff I do justifies buying a 20D... I think I can wait for it's replacement...

[timmyquest]

I'm not knocking anyone nor any peice of equipment. Nor am i trying to brag about my equpiment list (boy do i hate when people do that). However, after owning a camera that shoots 2.5fps and now owning one nearly four times that speed...the 300D isnt quiet rapid fire.

And the four shot buffer is VERY limiting in that aspect. I didnt think it would be, but it's just so nice to be able to have 17 (25 jpegs) shots worth of a tackle, or a car, or a bird or whatever.

Dont let this be a desiding factor in your purchase though. In the end, if your a good photographer you wont need to have a CF card full of sequences. It's simply a perk.

[aam1234]

Dont let this be a desiding factor in your purchase though. In the end, if your a good photographer you wont need to have a CF card full of sequences. It's simply a perk.


Totally agree. Never understood the fuss over fps. How many times people needed/used that speed.

[timmyquest]

Dont let this be a desiding factor in your purchase though. In the end, if your a good photographer you wont need to have a CF card full of sequences. It's simply a perk.


Totally agree. Never understood the fuss over fps. How many times people needed/used that speed.


Be careful... i dont think i can ever go back to a slower shooting camera for sports as far as a primary camera. Ever.

[defordphoto]

Don't let this be a desiding (sic) factor in your purchase though. In the end, if your a good photographer you wont need to have a CF card full of sequences. It's simply a perk.

That is an extremely naive statement. FPS is a tool. When used wisely will result in money pictures. Did any of you see the photos of the cameras at the Olympics? The finish line at the horse races?

Absolute multitudes of cameras, almost ALL on wireless trips, and they will all be at maximum FPS to get The Shot.

In the massively packed press areas, there would be no less than a million dollars of equipment in the attempt to get The Shot. One shot is all that makes it.

So, if you have an 8.5fps camera, and do not take advantage of that fact, that makes you a better photographer? No.

If you're a pro, and in the money, you will do whatever it takes to get The Shot. Whether it be 1000x cards, 300fps, 1/5000 flash synch, hopping rocks at Pebble Beach, California, or dodging race cars at Indy.

[timmyquest]

Don't let this be a desiding (sic) factor in your purchase though. In the end, if your a good photographer you wont need to have a CF card full of sequences. It's simply a perk.

That is an extremely naive statement. FPS is a tool. When used wisely will result in money pictures. Did any of you see the photos of the cameras at the Olympics? The finish line at the horse races?

Absolute multitudes of cameras, almost ALL on wireless trips, and they will all be at maximum FPS to get The Shot.

In the massively packed press areas, there would be no less than a million dollars of equipment in the attempt to get The Shot. One shot is all that makes it.

So, if you have an 8.5fps camera, and do not take advantage of that fact, that makes you a better photographer? No.

If you're a pro, and in the money, you will do whatever it takes to get The Shot. Whether it be 1000x cards, 300fps, 1/5000 flash synch, hopping rocks at Pebble Beach, California, or dodging race cars at Indy.

I agree, as would everyone i'd hope. But you must look at it from the correct prospective. I dont think FlyingPete is a pro-sports shooter.

[FlyingPete]

Dont let this be a desiding factor in your purchase though. In the end, if your a good photographer you wont need to have a CF card full of sequences. It's simply a perk.


Totally agree. Never understood the fuss over fps. How many times people needed/used that speed.

Most of what I shoot (concerts etc), you can see something interesting is about to happen, and you don't quite know when, so a large buffer is very handy, that said, 2.5fps is over kill for my requirements. A camera that could do 10 fps, for 40 shots would not be as useful as one that could do 1 fps for 10 shots.

A small frame buffer would stop me from taking good shots but it might reduce my hit ration in action sequences.

[Reminisce]

I have a 300D and my first real photo shoot after I got my camera, was of candid shots during a couple weeks of teacher workshops. I had to get people animated, doing stuff, interacting, everything.
I found myself burst shooting a lot, however, mostly manually, and this way, I was getting up to 9-10 shots before I needed to stop, I only hit my buffer cap a handful of times and by then I was ready for the next shot.

4 frames max is very low for a DSLR (hell, most prosumer P&S cameras have a higher shot buffer than the 300D), but it wont make or break the quality of the cam. Now, hands down, all the other Canon DSLRs do this a ton better, or any other enthusiast DSLR camera, but its up to you to decide how important that is. Its more of a piece of mind than a requirement unless you do wildlife or sports primarily.

Thats my 2 lenses worth

[MrKickalot]

I loved my hacked DRebel until I started shooting sports. 2.5 fps is fine, but the 4 shot buffer and lack of AI servo (I know it can work, but not like true AI) has me looking VERY hard at a 20D. No one has mentioned... you can get used 10D's for around the same price as a new DRebel...

[Tomsk]

O my 300D, in various full auto modes, no flash using a Transcend 45x 1GB card, I can get about 1 shot every 1.5-2secs by tapping or holding the shutter down.

In RAW modes it's slower.

You might want to consider a 10D (pre-owned or maybe even new) instead.

[FlyingPete]

Well it turns out I could have gone a 20d afterall, unfortunatly could. Last night I won a prize at an indutry event, however I was not there to collect (way to busy to real work), so I missed out. It was a Sony Cybershot F828, would have sold it!

[defordphoto]

Don't let this be a desiding (sic) factor in your purchase though. In the end, if your a good photographer you wont need to have a CF card full of sequences. It's simply a perk.

That is an extremely naive statement. FPS is a tool. When used wisely will result in money pictures. Did any of you see the photos of the cameras at the Olympics? The finish line at the horse races?

Absolute multitudes of cameras, almost ALL on wireless trips, and they will all be at maximum FPS to get The Shot.

In the massively packed press areas, there would be no less than a million dollars of equipment in the attempt to get The Shot. One shot is all that makes it.

So, if you have an 8.5fps camera, and do not take advantage of that fact, that makes you a better photographer? No.

If you're a pro, and in the money, you will do whatever it takes to get The Shot. Whether it be 1000x cards, 300fps, 1/5000 flash synch, hopping rocks at Pebble Beach, California, or dodging race cars at Indy.

I agree, as would everyone i'd hope. But you must look at it from the correct prospective. I dont think FlyingPete is a pro-sports shooter.

That is not what I was referring to. Again, we must learn to work within our tool's limitations. You did fine with your Drebel, Timmy, but now with the 1D, you have much more latitude and speed.

Some shots you will absolutely miss if you have the Drebel. It's a fact of life. You learn to give up the shots you can't get and maximize the ones you can get. If it takes a blast of 20-30 shots to get the winner, what does it matter?

And yes, the better shooter will get the better shots no matter what size the buffer. You still have to be smart when shooting and learn to anticipate your subject no matter the size of the buffer.

[defordphoto]

Well it turns out I could have gone a 20d afterall, unfortunatly could. Last night I won a prize at an indutry event, however I was not there to collect (way to busy to real work), so I missed out. It was a Sony Cybershot F828, would have sold it!

Bummer! Someday you'll be able to upgrade. You'll learn a lot though by using a less capable camera and (as I said above) maximize the shots you can get. As you get better and better, you will be able to get more and more shots that you could not before. It takes practice and patience. Keep at it.

I shot for 25 years with a fully manual, non motordrive Olympus OM-1. Talk about missing shots! ;)

[FlyingPete]

I shot for 25 years with a fully manual, non motordrive Olympus OM-1. Talk about missing shots! ;)

I must not forget that, my first SLR was also an OM-1 with the standard 50mm lens for quite some time, some of my best shots were taken on that camera!

I must admit I never used a motorwinder for rapid fire on a film SLR (my EOS50, then 30 had a resonable rapid fire), I just couldn't get over the film cost of holding that shutter button down!

[Persian-Rice]

FPS is a vital for specific photographers. If go into the streets and shoot on a regular basis, you will realize that the fps plays a huge role. Same with sports.

I shot with a Nikon F5 for a year and half and now that I shoot with 10d's and an Elan, I realize how much I miss the higher FPS. I miss it so much that I am going to trade the Elan for a eos 3 with power booster.

Some of these comments are very naive. Its like saying airbags are useless because you have never been in an accident.........

[FlyingPete]

Some of these comments are very naive. Its like saying airbags are useless because you have never been in an accident.........

A relivant spin on that could be airbags are useless unless you drive fast!

[defordphoto]

Some of these comments are very naive. Its like saying airbags are useless because you have never been in an accident.........

A relivant spin on that could be airbags are useless unless you drive fast!

Most traffic deaths happen at 30mph or less, so you can toss that theory out the proverbial window... ;)

But anyway, the moral is: If you have the tools, use them to the maximum. Isn't that why you bought it?

[tofuboy]

Some of these comments are very naive. Its like saying airbags are useless because you have never been in an accident.........

A relivant spin on that could be airbags are useless unless you drive fast!

Most traffic deaths happen at 30mph or less, so you can toss that theory out the proverbial window... ;)

But anyway, the moral is: If you have the tools, use them to the maximum. Isn't that why you bought it?

I wish I could legally drive at 100+ mph :D I think the moral is: if you have the tools to use, you won't be up the proverbial creek without a paddle. We don't buy house/fire insurance because we plan on burning our houses down... it's just there if we need it. Same goes for the FPS, you probably don't plan on using it to it's maximum all the time, but it's there to use when you need it. Some shooters don't need a high FPS and large buffer, but it would always be nice if it was there so if you do need it, you can use it.

[FlyingPete]

Bottom line, if I had 5fps for 20 frames I would probaly use it from time to time. As it stands I am not a sports photographer (I have a fast moving 11 month old though!), I can't go the $$$ of a 20d, so it will have to be a 300d or nothing for now.

I just don't want to be wishing I had waited for a replacement for the 300d which is bound to have a larger buffer in keeping with the current DLSR trends, or tried to stretch my budget and sleep on the sofa for a year (hmmm 300d, or 20d + sofa). I do make some $$$ from my work from time to time from my G3, that is how I can go the 300d.

I might have to see what I can pull off, and see how comfortable that sofa is to sleep on!

[Persian-Rice]

Bottom line, if I had 5fps for 20 frames I would probaly use it from time to time. As it stands I am not a sports photographer (I have a fast moving 11 month old though!), I can't go the $$$ of a 20d, so it will have to be a 300d or nothing for now.

I just don't want to be wishing I had waited for a replacement for the 300d which is bound to have a larger buffer in keeping with the current DLSR trends, or tried to stretch my budget and sleep on the sofa for a year (hmmm 300d, or 20d + sofa). I do make some $$$ from my work from time to time from my G3, that is how I can go the 300d.

I might have to see what I can pull off, and see how comfortable that sofa is to sleep on!

Hey if you are in that price range, 10D's on FM or going for 600-700, so get them while they are cheap, because the 20D craze will slow down.

[FlyingPete]

Hey if you are in that price range, 10D's on FM or going for 600-700, so get them while they are cheap, because the 20D craze will slow down.

Yeah, did some looking around on the web, found some sharp pricinf, the exchange rate is very good for me to buy from the US at the moment, only problem everysite I try doesn't ship camera's internationally! If you know of any, let me know!

[aam1234]

I wish I could legally drive at 100+ mph I think the moral is: if you have the tools to use, you won't be up the proverbial creek without a paddle. We don't buy house/fire insurance because we plan on burning our houses down... it's just there if we need it. Same goes for the FPS, you probably don't plan on using it to it's maximum all the time, but it's there to use when you need it. Some shooters don't need a high FPS and large buffer, but it would always be nice if it was there so if you do need it, you can use it.


I think tofuboy put it very well.

[timmyquest]

I'll never disagree with ya

Some shots you will absolutely miss if you have the Drebel. It's a fact of life. You learn to give up the shots you can't get and maximize the ones you can get. If it takes a blast of 20-30 shots to get the winner, what does it matter?

[Jon, The Elder]

One of my primary reasons for purchasing the 20D was to get the increase in FPS and larger buffer.

I shoot horse shows and horse training sessions.

The critical shot may happen in the 2nd,3rd,4th exposure. There are several "unknowns" in a given situation. What is the position of the head,ears,feet, (all four) and the riders posture. Thats just a few of the "key" factors. Everything works well when the gait is walking, everything shanges when the animal trots,or canters.

big buffer - fast FPS, makes a big difference

I also shoot car races and similar factors come in to play - it makes the difference between a nice $50. shot or an "uh-oh".

[PhotosGuy]

RFMSports: And yes, the better shooter will get the better shots no matter what size the buffer. You still have to be smart when shooting and learn to anticipate your subject no matter the size of the buffer.

I agree 100%.
Take a look at these, shot with the 300D...
http://img72.photobucket.com/albums/v218/PhotosGuy/Air%20Show%202004/?start=20
(Especially notice the next to the last shot that came out exactly as I "Saw" it. OTOH, I missed the last shot even tho I had several tries at it.)

...and the two links at the top of this 'entrance' page (July 04 & Sunday July 04)
http://photobucket.com/albums/v218/PhotosGuy/WHRRI/

If you're not being paid to get EVERY great shot that happens in front of you, & you learn to "anticipate your subject no matter the size of the buffer.", then you can get MOST of them just by learning your subject & visualizing the results that you want BEFORE you trip the shutter.
"the better shooter will get the better shots no matter what size the buffer." 'cause he has taken the time to master his equipment & SEE the shot in his mind before it happens.

[timmyquest]

& SEE the shot in his mind before it happens.


It's kind of hard to see a fumble or a blocked kick before it happens though ;-)

[defordphoto]

& SEE the shot in his mind before it happens.


It's kind of hard to see a fumble or a blocked kick before it happens though ;-)

But, if you're (ahem) on the ball, so to speak, your camera will be pointed in the right direction when it happens.

[timmyquest]

& SEE the shot in his mind before it happens.


It's kind of hard to see a fumble or a blocked kick before it happens though ;-)

But, if you're (ahem) on the ball, so to speak, your camera will be pointed in the right direction when it happens.


You aparently missed my point.

[Jon, The Elder]

I just LOVE IT when nobody gives an inch !! HeeHee

[defordphoto]

& SEE the shot in his mind before it happens.


It's kind of hard to see a fumble or a blocked kick before it happens though ;-)

But, if you're (ahem) on the ball, so to speak, your camera will be pointed in the right direction when it happens.

You aparently missed my point.

Nope. Not at all. The long version is: When you become accustomed to shooting a particular sport, you can then anticipate possible action from past experience. This is what I have been saying the entire time. So yes, you can anticipate a possible fumble or blocked punt or pass or tackle just from experience. And yes, I saw your ;-) there too. ;)

[timmyquest]

The bottom line is this, in my opinion at least.

A good photographer will have keepers, there is no doubt about that.

A good photographer with a camera like a 1D will just have a vast amount more then when he uses a 300D type camera.

[Persian-Rice]

The bottom line is this, in my opinion at least.

A good photographer will have keepers, there is no doubt about that.

A good photographer with a camera like a 1D will just have a vast amount more then when he uses a 300D type camera.

Yep, the accuracy and speed on the 1 series (original or mkII) produce a higher percentage of "keeper" images then with a 20, 10 or 300 D camera..........

[Tomsk]

The bottom line is this, in my opinion at least.

A good photographer will have keepers, there is no doubt about that.

A good photographer with a camera like a 1D will just have a vast amount more then when he uses a 300D type camera.

Yep, the accuracy and speed on the 1 series (original or mkII) produce a higher percentage of "keeper" images then with a 20, 10 or 300 D camera..........

I wouldn't say a higher percentage of keepers. I would say a better quality of keepers. :D

[timmyquest]

I wouldn't say a higher percentage of keepers. I would say a better quality of keepers. :D

???

Explain that one to me please...

[defordphoto]

The bottom line is this, in my opinion at least.

A good photographer will have keepers, there is no doubt about that.

A good photographer with a camera like a 1D will just have a vast amount more then when he uses a 300D type camera.

Yep, the accuracy and speed on the 1 series (original or mkII) produce a higher percentage of "keeper" images then with a 20, 10 or 300 D camera..........

I wouldn't say a higher percentage of keepers. I would say a better quality of keepers. :D

It's both. Both higher quality and percentage.

[Persian-Rice]

The bottom line is this, in my opinion at least.

A good photographer will have keepers, there is no doubt about that.

A good photographer with a camera like a 1D will just have a vast amount more then when he uses a 300D type camera.

Yep, the accuracy and speed on the 1 series (original or mkII) produce a higher percentage of "keeper" images then with a 20, 10 or 300 D camera..........

I wouldn't say a higher percentage of keepers. I would say a better quality of keepers. :D

It's both. Both higher quality and percentage.

there you go, no need to argue.