The A9iii and 120fps....

[Uncle Kevriano]

Afternoon. I just made comment on a post elsewhere, where the poster was bemoaning the fact that getting the exact focus point right was harder on the A9iii then the A1, even when shooting at 120fps. His subject was a static bird.
I got laughed at for saying that anything above 20fps was complete overkill for wildlife, especially a static bird (unless you like culling 119 photos for every second of shooting). The only application I can conceivably think of for those insane frame rates is in sports photography, where you might want that exact moment of a ball being hit for example.
Who thinks I'm wrong then? I think people consider that it's the be all and end all to blast away in the hope that they nail a few shots, there is no skill in that, and the guy clearly isn't getting the results he wants anyway!

 

[Tim Mayo]

The one thing that stops me shooting more motocross at my local track is the culling afterwards. I only shoot at 10 fps with my A1 and even with being careful I can still end up with 1500 odd shots in a couple of hours. I'd lose the will to live shooting at 120fps! The only time I recall finding 30 fps useful was when shooting a kingfisher diving at paid hide so I could grab the exact frame it hit the surface of the water. There will be times that much higher frame rates are useful but certainly not for static birds. I often shooting in single shot mode if I don't care about catching them in flight.

 

[Unframed Dave]

My default is 30fps. I dread the necessary culling. I try and operate my camera like a kalshnikov, i.e. bursts of 3. Doesn't always work, but I try.

Anyway, 120 for me is too much and I wouldn't ever use it.