Burst mode...just how important...

I'm just curious, for you other sports photographers, how much do you rely on burst mode to capture your photos? I find that I rarely ever, virtually never, use burst mode with my photography. I've found that I achieve my best photos through careful observation and anticipation as opposed to burst shooting. So.....give me your opinions....burst mode for your best captures or careful anticipation with a single frame. There's no right or wrong....one method isn't necessarily better than the other....it's all personal preference

1/10th of a second can make a HUGE difference in what your photo looks like. I never take less than 3 frames of any given 'shot'. Just a quick darting or glance of the athlete's eyes can make or break the shot. Chances are that by taking just one frame you're not going to catch that.

jra wrote in post #14427622
I'm just curious, for you other sports photographers, how much do you rely on burst mode to capture your photos? I find that I rarely ever, virtually never, use burst mode with my photography. I've found that I achieve my best photos through careful observation and anticipation as opposed to burst shooting. So.....give me your opinions....burst mode for your best captures or careful anticipation with a single frame. There's no right or wrong....one method isn't necessarily better than the other....it's all personal preference

Continuous framing is standard sports technique. Go to an actual event wheree there are several photographers and you can clearly hear the sound of rapidly clicking shutters when there's an important play or action sequence taking place.

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

I have to admit, I fell like I am being looked down on when people say "i carefully compose my shots and wait for the perfect moment". We all do, but sometimes burst mode is a must.

I mainly shoot motorsport, and the amount of accidents, rollovers, wheel lifts etc that I capture would not be possible without a rapid fire of frames. You might think you can pre-empt a wheel lift, or a roll over, but at the end of the day, 10 frames is better than 1 to capture that perfect moment.

I love burst mode!

I don't use it in "hopes" of capturing the decisive moment, I use it because it's there, because it sounds so friggin' cool, and because, as angryman above just pointed out, 10 frames is better than 1 to capture the "perfect" moment.

Not only that, but if one waits to capture an "ideal" image by using single frame shooting only, they'll never know what they may have missed by NOT using burst mode. There are so many intricacies in an image, or in a "scene" that we do not notice when it's happening, that the camera would capture, but if we don't take an image of it, we'll never see it.

It could be something as simple as the grimace on an athlete's face as he/she is exuding all of their energy, or is getting hit, or knows that they've screwed up, whatever. It may the a reaction just AFTER the "peak action". Whatever.

My point is, while it is possible to get a great image shooting single frame only, if shooting in burst mode, that single great image could quite easily become SEVERAL great images.

Maybe in film days where you basically had to pay for each, and every frame, with digital, that isn't really a concern. Why limit your possibilities?

Again, I'm not talking about "sprayin' & prayin"...I don't think shooters from S.I., Getty, etc just "spray & pray", they know what they're doing, they press their shutters at the precise time, but I can almost guarantee you, that when it comes to photographing the action, their cameras are almost assuredly set to full burst mode. The higher/faster the better!

It's not so much about "rely on burst mode" then something else. Sometimes you get one chance and that's it. With this what I shoot most (alpine skiing World cup), you have one single chance and that's it. With downhill they come down the course once. With a bit of "luck" you get single gate, where you don't see them before, and you don't see them after. For example something like this:

I think everyone's hit on it, but I'll type away anyway. You can certainly anticipate the perfect moment for a photograph, and every sports photographer should be able to do that, but there are many more minute details that are either not so predictable, or happen so quickly we simply can't push the shutter button quickly enough. I don't know precisely when someone is going to blink, or get fouled mid-air, arms flailing, anger in his eyes. Obviously, shooting away in burst hoping to get lucky is a rather poor technique, but since my bursts are almost never more than 3-4 shots (or about half a second in my case), It's still absolutely essential to anticipate the action, or I'm still going to miss it.

Another reason for shooting a series in sports :

I would never get these shots with just 3fps, you are talking BURST mode and not Buffer I assume.

The 60D canon outshoots the Nikon D300s even though the Nikons FPS rate is higher, BUT the Nikon can only shoot for 4 seconds before slowing to about 1fps the 60D just goes on and on and on so Buffer is as importans at fps

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

I suppose different sports have different speeds and changing action, that can make them easier or harder to anticipate. For my dog shoots, I could not live without burst mode; there's no way I can even see some of the action to predict when to push the shutter. Some examples:

It's not just limited to Sports...

Shots like these don't happen without burst. It's not so much the quantity of the frames themselves so much as it is the smaller "slices" of time at a given moment. I "know" when they're going to cross and I know where as well. Burst allows me to get THE moment.

Those are really cool shots, Jay.
Dave

For me it is more in the wording... I never "rely" on burst mode. But every now and then I do "make use of" burst. It is just another tool. Use it or dont, There is no right or wrong.

Personally, I see absolutely nothing wrong with shooting short bursts of 2-4 frames to capture the actual image of peak action. If one is good enough to capture that action in a single shot, good on ya. I'm not. And I'm not afraid to hold the button down if it means getting shots like this:

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …erphotography/5​399111366/

Thanks Dave...

Mark1 wrote in post #14431829
For me it is more in the wording... I never "rely" on burst mode. But every now and then I do "make use of" burst. It is just another tool. Use it or dont, There is no right or wrong.

This is very much closer to the truth...

High FPS is just another arrow in the quiver.