17,000 Shutter Count in 2 Months Bad?

I realize that most people do not shoot sports, but shooting thousands upon thousands of photos per event is pretty common when the goal is individual print sales by fans, family, and the athletes. 10k shots in 14 hours is extremely easy to do. I have shot 5k at an 8 hour event and that was not difficult to do at all. My 7d's batteries (I have two in the grip) can last for thousands and thousands of shots each. I'm not sure why somebody said they could only shoot 800 each?? Also, when shooting for print sales, often times a smaller sized jpeg is used to save space on cards, and for faster transfer rates to websites. I really don't understand everybody's disbelieving attitude here... And I really don't know any other way of relaying that 10k in 14 hours is common for a print sales sports photographer.

Shutters can fail, but they can also be replaced. Fire away!

mwsilver wrote in post #14842712
OK. I'm usually very accepting, but that's plain weird. I hope you're kidding.That's 714 snaps an hour for 14 straight hours or 12 shots a minute, or one every 5 seconds for 14 hours! That's almost a physical impossibility. The per hour rate would be even greater if you spent time talking to anyone, eating food or went to the bathroom At that point why not just take video.

I actually was unable to go to the restroom all day. I also eat power bars that were in my pocket. I was shooting small jpeg and was shooting on high speed burst. This is not how I would want to shoot, but the company that i was working for wanted it this way. I don't see what is so impossible about it. And I know that it was well over 10k because I had the problem of files having the same name since the numbering rolled over.

This was for a company that sell sports photos of kids. It was a marching band competition. They instructed us to get several shots of each kid. There are 100's of them on the field at once. Believe me, it was exhausting. I will never do it again, however, I can't understand what is so hard to believe.
And believe me, small jpeg takes up hardly any room on a 32gb card.

sempaidavid wrote in post #14845142
I actually was unable to go to the restroom all day. I also eat power bars that were in my pocket. I was shooting small jpeg and was shooting on high speed burst. This is not how I would want to shoot, but the company that i was working for wanted it this way. I don't see what is so impossible about it. And I know that it was well over 10k because I had the problem of files having the same name since the numbering rolled over.

That's certainly possible. It just seems less believable when you break it down to 12 clicks a minute.

12 clicks per minute could be done in LESS than 2 seconds... 7fps in two seconds, and then take a 58 second break... Or maybe he took 200 in one minute and then took a 15+ minute break... Sounds pretty reasonable then, doesn't it?

I bought a used 7D with 6k back in april now it has about 60K It just came back from canon after ERR30...they re-worked a connection in the main board...and replaced a cracked lcd...goood as new...

I've never quantified my success as a photographer by the number of images I can stuff into a certain period. Anybody can go out and hold the shutter button down. I quantify my success by the number of keepers that I have at the end of the day. Do I have to work too hard to recover some of the shots in software.

My first digital DSLR was a 10D and I did shoot substantially more than I would have with film but I tended to take my time and understand what I was doing and why. I just don't see the sheer number of shutter actuations by itself being a number that is terribly meaningful.

ssim wrote in post #14851164
I've never quantified my success as a photographer by the number of images I can stuff into a certain period.

Nobody is saying that...the OP was asking if it is bad to have some many actuations in a period of time.
In you case I doubt you fire 10FPS to shoot landscape...

ssim wrote in post #14851164
I've never quantified my success as a photographer by the number of images I can stuff into a certain period. Anybody can go out and hold the shutter button down. I quantify my success by the number of keepers that I have at the end of the day. Do I have to work too hard to recover some of the shots in software.

My first digital DSLR was a 10D and I did shoot substantially more than I would have with film but I tended to take my time and understand what I was doing and why. I just don't see the sheer number of shutter actuations by itself being a number that is terribly meaningful.

Good on ya, but as silvex said above, those comments have no relevance to this thread.

And -- shooting fast moving sports, you shoot a LOT of frames.

kf095 wrote in post #14842701
If you using every click to learn something new it is OK.
If you using it as machine gun it is not OK.

If you are learning while you are shooting, keep on shooting. It is your time and money. If you were using MF w/ film, you probably would not use that much film. If you did, that is a lot of your money. Enjoy and keep learning.

ssim wrote in post #14851164
I've never quantified my success as a photographer by the number of images I can stuff into a certain period. Anybody can go out and hold the shutter button down. I quantify my success by the number of keepers that I have at the end of the day. Do I have to work too hard to recover some of the shots in software.

Please don't be a low-shutter-actuation-snob. Sports photographers usually take more photos than landscape and city scape photographers, or any other type of photography genre. There is no need to insult us. I will have to wholeheartedly disagree with your statement "Anybody can go out and hold the shutter button down." That is just downright narrow minded and rude.