Shutter speed above 1/4000

[hamlet]

Say your camera can go up to 1/8000, what would you shoot with this that you couldn't with 1/4000?

Freezing bumblebee wings with only ambient light against a white wall in the mid-day sun, possibly?

The little fella looks like its disobeying the laws of gravity . Nice!

 

[astroNikon]

Say your camera can go up to 1/8000, what would you shoot with this that you couldn't with 1/4000?

Freezing bumblebee wings with only ambient light against a white wall in the mid-day sun, possibly?

didn't we just discuss animals butts in another thread ?
where the BLOCK button lol

 

[astroNikon]

In bright sunshine for kids sports I've used 1/8000 @ ISO 100 on my d7000
the other day on my d600 I had to go to 1/4000 and ISO 80 or 50 to get a normal exposure during a really bright stretch.

no way!!!!!! 1/8000 for soccer!!
what lens?

It was super bright out ... NIkon 80-200/2.8 @2.8

 

[gsgary]

As gsgary states more often than not 1/1000 is enough for most. But faster is required by some. The Canon 1d could do 1/16000th sec. Bullets need fast shutter speeds to freeze 😄

I've thought about panning very rapidly and spraying at 1/8000 a second to freeze a bullet. Not sure if that can work. :mrgreen:

I only spay bullets when i'm a bit constipated

 

[Derrel]

Nikon premiered the FM-2 with a print advertising campaign showing a pretty well-stopped bullet in motion. Turns out it was a rather low-powered .38 Special round moving at a veryyyyy slow 385 feet per second, which is almost a squib round...but hey...it WAS an actual bullet, and the then industry-leading top shutter speed of 1/4000 second was able to freeze it pretty well. But again...385 fps is a slooooow bullet...from a low-velocity handgun round. Even common, garden variety .22 Long Rifle bullets are moving at over double the 385 feet per second speed. The TYPICAL, average .22 LR muzzle velocity is about 1,050 feet per second... 22 Rimfire Ballistics Table

 

[astroNikon]

In bright sunshine for kids sports I've used 1/8000 @ ISO 100 on my d7000
the other day on my d600 I had to go to 1/4000 and ISO 80 or 50 to get a normal exposure during a really bright stretch.

no way!!!!!! 1/8000 for soccer!!
what lens?

It was super bright out ... NIkon 80-200/2.8 @2.8

I can't find the right pics, or even the right game. But this game my Shutter was going up to 5000 @ 2.8 ISO 100
https://www.flickr.com/photos/100677477@N08/10519336183/in/set-72157637016643053/

At the beginning of the game it looks like 800 was used ... then it was slowly creeping up faster and faster.

 

[robbins.photo]

As gsgary states more often than not 1/1000 is enough for most. But faster is required by some. The Canon 1d could do 1/16000th sec. Bullets need fast shutter speeds to freeze ��

I've thought about panning very rapidly and spraying at 1/8000 a second to freeze a bullet. Not sure if that can work. :mrgreen:

It wouldn't. Even a weapon with relatively low muzzle velocity - well first it would take an incredibly high rate of fire to even begin to have a decent chance of capturing it, and you'd be looking at the bullet travelling roughly about an inch and a half to two full inches in 1/8000 of a second. So all you'd end up with would be a blur even if you were lucky enough to capture it.

 

[astroNikon]

As gsgary states more often than not 1/1000 is enough for most. But faster is required by some. The Canon 1d could do 1/16000th sec. Bullets need fast shutter speeds to freeze ��

I've thought about panning very rapidly and spraying at 1/8000 a second to freeze a bullet. Not sure if that can work. :mrgreen:

It wouldn't. Even a weapon with relatively low muzzle velocity - well first it would take an incredibly high rate of fire to even begin to have a decent chance of capturing it, and you'd be looking at the bullet travelling roughly about an inch and a half to two full inches in 1/8000 of a second. So all you'd end up with would be a blur even if you were lucky enough to capture it.

Easy solution. Just shoot towards the camera lens. Then you'll have a better chance of capturing the photo shot .. or just the ballistic shot. :mrgreen:

 

[Derrel]

High-speed triggering devices for cameras have been around for decades. Any industrial photographer worth his salt has access to numerous types of triggers which can EASILY "catch" almost any moving subject at a specific place where the camera is pre-focused. There is no need for a high frame rate; the key is a triggering device that is configured properly, and then a camera that makes the exposure at the exact, right time, as determined to within milliseconds.

 

[bribrius]

Nikon premiered the FM-2 with a print advertising campaign showing a pretty well-stopped bullet in motion. Turns out it was a rather low-powered .38 Special round moving at a veryyyyy slow 385 feet per second, which is almost a squib round...but hey...it WAS an actual bullet, and the then industry-leading top shutter speed of 1/4000 second was able to freeze it pretty well. But again...385 fps is a slooooow bullet...from a low-velocity handgun round. Even common, garden variety .22 Long Rifle bullets are moving at over double the 385 feet per second speed. The TYPICAL, average .22 LR muzzle velocity is about 1,050 feet per second... 22 Rimfire Ballistics Table

one of my rifles is still 3000 ft per second at 300 yards and that isn't even on a handload. wonder what shutter speed that would take...

 

[Overread]

You don't take pictures of bullets at 1/8000sec.

You take them in bulb mode. Yes Bulb mode.

Because instead of using the shutter, you use flash with his significantly faster; put out a high powered burst of light right at the right moment (typically you'd use a sound or laser trip or spend AGEs trying to time it).

 

[robbins.photo]

I've thought about panning very rapidly and spraying at 1/8000 a second to freeze a bullet. Not sure if that can work. :mrgreen:

It wouldn't. Even a weapon with relatively low muzzle velocity - well first it would take an incredibly high rate of fire to even begin to have a decent chance of capturing it, and you'd be looking at the bullet travelling roughly about an inch and a half to two full inches in 1/8000 of a second. So all you'd end up with would be a blur even if you were lucky enough to capture it.

Easy solution. Just shoot towards the camera lens. Then you'll have a better chance of capturing the photo shot .. or just the ballistic shot. :mrgreen:

Well unfortunately that correspondence course I took on catching bullets with my teeth didn't really work out so well. Almost as bad as the correspondence course I took on table dancing. I mean seriously, you'd think they'd put something on page one about how a lot of tables have a weight limit. But Nooooo....

Lol

 

[bribrius]

You don't take pictures of bullets at 1/8000sec.

You take them in bulb mode. Yes Bulb mode.

Because instead of using the shutter, you use flash with his significantly faster; put out a high powered burst of light right at the right moment (typically you'd use a sound or laser trip or spend AGEs trying to time it).

well, you couldn't use sound because the round is faster than the speed of sound. By the time you hear it the round is already gone.

 

[robbins.photo]

High-speed triggering devices for cameras have been around for decades. Any industrial photographer worth his salt has access to numerous types of triggers which can EASILY "catch" almost any moving subject at a specific place where the camera is pre-focused. There is no need for a high frame rate; the key is a triggering device that is configured properly, and then a camera that makes the exposure at the exact, right time, as determined to within milliseconds.

Well the way I interpreted Hamlet's post is that he would be trying this without the benefit of purchasing a lot of extra, specialized equipment. But yup, it is doable - people have been taking pictures like that for years. I wouldn't call it easy though, and you really do need the right equipment to pull it off with any degree of success.

 

[robbins.photo]

You don't take pictures of bullets at 1/8000sec.

You take them in bulb mode. Yes Bulb mode.

Because instead of using the shutter, you use flash with his significantly faster; put out a high powered burst of light right at the right moment (typically you'd use a sound or laser trip or spend AGEs trying to time it).

well, you couldn't use sound because the round is faster than the speed of sound. By the time you hear it the round is already gone.

Well the original explosion will cause a sound wave to propogate out from the source at roughly 750 mph or 1100 feet per second. At that same instant the bullet inside the chamber will begin to accelerate down the barrel until it reaches it's maximum muzzle velocity as it exits the end of the barrel. So with the correct distances you should be able to pull it off, you just couldn't set the camera too far away from the end of the muzzle or you'd end up with a situation where the bullet would overtake and pass the sound wave and the trigger wouldn't activate until after the bullet had already passed. I'd have to do math to be absolutely certain, and since i'm not getting paid for it.. well, I'm not doing math.. lol.