On 5/25/05, Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Vis-a-vis, Frank, :), I'm referring to what tends to happen when shooting > wildlife or birds. You wait for what seems an endless time for the bird to > be in exactly the right spot, right orientation, etc. When everything lines > up, the bird keeps moving around, and you keep trying to shoot and catch it > in that second, split-second, where the pose and composition is what you > want. So, it's easy to fire off 5 or 6 shots in quick sucession. A number > of these will be bad shots because the subject moved so quickly. Buffer > fills, now wait for a minute or more (I seem to remember) and the subject is > still there ready for more shots, but the camera won't fire. Yay! buffer > empties, camera is ready, but bird has flown, and it's time to take a few > more swigs of coffee, and wait. > > A buffer that can handle 5 times the number of exposures is very useful. In > fact this is one area, where film cameras may indeed excel. The buffer is > large as the number of exposures left on the roll. >
Tom, First, I was just joking around. Your post appeared about 1/2 dozen times on the list (at least it did for me, and apparently Christian, too). That's what I was yanking your chain about, not the actual content of the post. Second, I really don't care about buffers and stuff like that, being that I don't own a dslr, with no immediate prospects or desires to have one. Again, just pulling your leg. Thank you for the informative post, however. <vbg> cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
