This is interesting.

I wonder how many own enough cameras to acheive these results.

Quite good.

http://www.dailymail.c​o.uk …id=452312&in_pa​ge_id=1770

Ah, the Mk III!

BTW, it's not owning enough cameras, it's owning a camera with a high burst rate!

It's not about number of cameras, but about one camera with high frame rate. This is one I took a while ago on European (or was it World? ) championships in gymnastics. And it's not even all that hard to do.

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

The article says he used 4 cameras to do this. Why, as others have said one works just fine?

In2Photos wrote in post #3145220
The article says he used 4 cameras to do this. Why, as others have said one works just fine?

He was using Nikons.

I suspect the key to his deciding on 4 rather than 1 isn't so much the cameras' limitations as it is that "Each camera was also equipped with its own strobe lighting unit, to enhance the high speed effect"; using 4 separate strobe systems means less delay due to the strobes recharging. If it's bright enough that you don't need strobes to get a fast, action-stopping speed then you don't need 4.

But I could do all this with a compact digital!

I'd put it into 800x600 video mode, shoot a video at 30 fps then extract the single images and recombine them in photoshop. Piece of pie!

rhys wrote in post #3145349
But I could do all this with a compact digital!

I'd put it into 800x600 video mode, shoot a video at 30 fps then extract the single images and recombine them in photoshop. Piece of pie!

If you can get the shutter speed (not the frame rate) to around 1/1000 sec. or faster and get the resolution up around 6 MP or better. He's going for print quality, not TV. If you want it using frame grabs from a video stream, I'd suggest you crank it up to 60 fps anyhow.

Jon wrote in post #3145369
If you can get the shutter speed (not the frame rate) to around 1/1000 sec. or faster and get the resolution up around 6 MP or better. He's going for print quality, not TV. If you want it using frame grabs from a video stream, I'd suggest you crank it up to 60 fps anyhow.

something tells me that there was some sarcasm that just didn't get picked up there.

Just a tad.

Jon (great name, btw!) is absolutely right - it's the fact that he had 4 separate strobe systems so he was able to recycle fast enough to keep up with the action. Even assuming those were all shot outside in direct sunlight (providing enough light to keep shutter speed over 1/1000) they would look just like you'd imagine - shot in direct sunlight.

The tennis shot in particular (and the others to some degree) are beautifully and dynamically lit - that could never have been done just firing away at 8 or 10 FPS. Also, for anybody who's shot indoor gymnastics - you've got to be at F2.8 and ISO1600 or higher to get anywhere near 1/1000 - watch that noise!

I agree re the 4 strobe sytems, but you can hook those 4 strobe systems up to one camera as well..
Using multiple strobe systems that cycle through the batts and strobes as you shoot to keep you shooting is pretty much SOP for things like basketball,. no?

deadpass wrote in post #3149105
something tells me that there was some sarcasm that just didn't get picked up there.

Precision is Jon's strength, he's precise...