Hunting with a Pany

[jcuknz]

Nice one Kathy but neither you nor Manfred read my statement which said 'snap' shots are for the DSLR but if you can preset the camera the P&S and Bridge camera shoot as fast, some say faster by a split second, as the DSLR.
But the style of photography has changed and everybody wants the 'snap' shot. The myth continues when it is only partly true and it does depend on subject material, so a blanket condemation of the P&S/B is really very silly IMO..
So when I went out with my Nikon 5700 I looked for shots which contained action but were within the ability of the camera.
The basic rule "know and understand how your gear works"
Another myth related is the mantra is that action needs a fast shutter speed and certain folk here keep trotting this out. I went to a couple of rugby matches with the Nikon and got the shots i planned and went for and was even lucky to get a couple which were luck.
You know what the shot is going to look like and pre-setting the camera in A mode by half triggering while focus where you want and wait for the action .... no great skill involved, just common sense application.


1/214 in A mode 100mm AoV lens
I had worse results when using my DSLR [D60] trying to capture a jet boat ... perhaps it is easier with even a 2002 bridge design.

Here I saw the situation developing and took half trigger and the action was happoening as I got the focus confirmation light and I pressed the trigger.
Makes me think the very thing, limited DoF, which Manfred goes on about militates against this sort of thing as the action stayed within the DoF although I think I was working at 280mm AOV. [ no EXIF and no file number for me to check out the original file, early stuff before I was more careful than I am today ]

[Manfred M]

Makes me think the very thing, limited DoF, which Manfred goes on about militates against this sort of thing as the action stayed within the DoF ( ]

John - as I said before, let's agree to disagree about this.

The one piece of advice I always give people regarding upgrading their cameras is that the only reason to do this is when they are not getting the shots they want AND the reason for this is limitations of their existing gear. Obviously you are happy enough with your camera and the images you were getting from it, so no reason for you to change. I was no longer happy with what the P&S and Superzoom were giving me (far too many blown shots), so I got something that lets me get the shots I want.

[jcuknz]

It is nice of you to change the subject when you are proved wrong ... ignoring the human factor.
As for the condescending comments about what satisfies me one should remember that the 5700 at 5MP came out when the D100 was 6Mp so for its time it was a fine camera which in experienced hands could turn out good work. Getting the subject matter if not the pixel peepers level of technical excellence.
Indeed in those early digital years it did satisfy me with a flexabilty far beyond something like the D100 and in my market it cost not that much less. As I review my old files I have learnt to appreciate just how good Nikon was/is.
These days I use MFT as R&D didn't develop the bridge the way I wanted with a second best solution but what is available.
As for blown shots, I have many, but know that they come from my use and not the cameras fault. I also know from experience in using virtually every kind of film camera, from half-frame to half-plate, that all cameras have good and not so features and uses.
So I agree your advice is good so long as the person has the experience and honesty to know the true situation, but has nothing to do with the subject I thought we were discussing.

[Dave Humphries]

Thread Closed

This isn't going anywhere useful, so let's draw the line there and move on.

[Manfred M]

I'm very sorry that you won't let this one go, John, so let me once again suggest that you and I agree to disagree on this point. Let me also point out that as a moderator, I can respond to closed threads, whereas you cannot. Based on the way you have been responding to my postings, I feel quite justified in this approach. I have discussed this with the other site moderators and they are aware that I will be doing this.

It is nice of you to change the subject when you are proved wrong

You claim that I have been proven wrong. I suspect you feel that you have been able to demonstrate that you can get "action shots" out of a superzoom by posting these two images. I believe I had already suggested that one can get these types of shots out of this type of camera, but in my experience this was more due to luck than due to the photographer's skill and the superzoom camera's capabilities.

My previously stated criteria for this type of photography includes the ability to consistently and repeatedly do this. This implies an appropriate quality level, both technical and compositional.

As for the condescending comments about what satisfies me one

I'm sorry that you feel that I am condescending, if I come across that way to you, let me apologize, as that is definitely not my intent.

On the other hand, if your view is related to the fact that my comments regarding image quality and equipment capabilities do not agree with yours, I have nothing to apologize about. I agree, my views tend to be mainstream, but that suggests to me that I am on the right track with my analysis.