# Fps rates 12/20



## sanj (Feb 14, 2020)

Could anyone educate me why R will shoot 20 fps when using the LCD and only 12 while shooting from viewfinder? It is a mirrorless camera, so I am confused. 

I can understand this with 1dx3 as the mirror will stay locked when shooting with LCD.

But how does this relate to a mirrorless? Thank you.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Feb 14, 2020)

On the R5 it is 12 FPS with a mechanical shutter and 20FPS with a electronic shutter. Basically it is down to if the shutter closes between frames or not. The 1DX Mark III can do 16 FPS view finder mechanical and 20 FPS mechanical when the mirror is locked up, this is likely due to not being able to move the mirror out the way fast enough and it'll have a electronic shutter too.

The pros and cons of mechanical vs electronic shutters are not something I have first hand experience with, though I believe there are some downsides in some situations with the electronic shutter. 

In terms of shooting speed, the 1DX Mark III will outperform the R5. Whether or not this effects the subjects you shoot is another story. I am going to try both a R5 and 1DX III for wildlife and see which I like better.


----------



## sanj (Feb 14, 2020)

Codebunny said:


> On the R5 it is 12 FPS with a mechanical shutter and 20FPS with a electronic shutter. Basically it is down to if the shutter closes between frames or not. The 1DX Mark III can do 16 FPS view finder mechanical and 20 FPS mechanical when the mirror is locked up, this is likely due to not being able to move the mirror out the way fast enough and it'll have a electronic shutter too.
> 
> The pros and cons of mechanical vs electronic shutters are not something I have first hand experience with, though I believe there are some downsides in some situations with the electronic shutter.
> 
> In terms of shooting speed, the 1DX Mark III will outperform the R5. Whether or not this effects the subjects you shoot is another story. I am going to try both a R5 and 1DX III for wildlife and see which I like better.


Thx. So the difference is that in R the shutter will not close? Am still not very clear. Will keep exploring till I get it. Thank you again.


----------



## Viggo (Feb 14, 2020)

sanj said:


> Thx. So the difference is that in R the shutter will not close? Am still not very clear. Will keep exploring till I get it. Thank you again.


R5 at 20 fps there is no shutter it’s just the sensor being read out. So there is nothing mechanical that need to block/unblock the sensor. At 12 FPS there’s a mechanical physical shutter moving in front of the sensor.


----------



## mikekeck (Feb 14, 2020)

Does anyone know if there are disadvantages to using the electronic shutter? Codebunny mentioned there might be some, and I assume there are--otherwise, why bother with the mechanical shutter?


----------



## padam (Feb 14, 2020)

mikekeck said:


> Does anyone know if there are disadvantages to using the electronic shutter?


First and foremost, there are rolling shutter artifacts, horizontal motion may be blurred out.
Or, if the camera is not held still the whole image becomes skewed (so always better to use burst mode as some images will not get skewed if the camera is still at that short interval).
Secondly, there is horizontal banding caused by LED flickering, it may be more or less prominent depending on the lights and the chosen shutter speed. It can completely destroy an image, best to be tested in advance.

Also the image quality is reduced over the mechanical shutter, less bit depth, possibly reduced dynamic range and more noise, the sensor is running in a different state, when the electronic shutter is being used.

So if it is not necessary, the 12fps on the EOS R5 will be much better in most cases.
While the 20fps is another option if the circumstances are good for it, or silent operation is necessary.
If there is no horizontal banding or rolling shutter, and the images are not heavily edited, one will not be able to tell the image quality difference.

The Sony A9 series uses a stacked BSI-CMOS sensor with a very fast readout designed around this electronic shutter mode, which minimises these issues, makes the AF work faster and also introduces blackout-free viewfinder experience (but the dynamic range is always reduced a little bit, so it has other trade-offs).


----------



## sanj (Feb 15, 2020)

padam said:


> First and foremost, there are rolling shutter artifacts, horizontal motion may be blurred out.
> Or, if the camera is not held still the whole image becomes skewed (so always better to use burst mode as some images will not get skewed if the camera is still at that short interval).
> Secondly, there is horizontal banding caused by LED flickering, it may be more or less prominent depending on the lights and the chosen shutter speed. It can completely destroy an image, best to be tested in advance.
> 
> ...


I am talking still photography sir. So rolling shutter?? "IQ reduced over mechanical shutter" I do not understand that. How can that be?


----------



## jd7 (Feb 15, 2020)

Codebunny said:


> On the R5 it is 12 FPS with a mechanical shutter and 20FPS with a electronic shutter. Basically it is down to if the shutter closes between frames or not. The 1DX Mark III can do 16 FPS view finder mechanical and 20 FPS mechanical when the mirror is locked up, this is likely due to not being able to move the mirror out the way fast enough and it'll have a electronic shutter too.


I assume you are correct in saying that having to move the mirror is the reason the1Dx II has a lower maximum FPS when using the OVF compared with live view. However, it's not clear to me that is actually an answer to Sanj's question.

On a DSLR, if you're using an OVF you have a mirror which has to move up and down, so it's not hard to imagine the maximum FPS being limited by how quickly the mirror can be moved. When you switch to live view, the mirror is locked up out of the way, so the mirror can no longer be the rate limiting factor. In that situation, it's not hard to imagine the rate limiting factor being how fast the mechanical shutter can move if you are using it, or how quickly the sensor can be read out if you're using electronic shutter.

On a 1Dx III, the maximum FPS jumps from 16 FPS with the OVF (ie mirror in play) to 20 FPS in live view. However, do we know whether that maximum FPS in live view depends on whether you using mechanical or electronic shutter, or is the maximum FPS the same either way? I think you are saying that even in live view, the maximum FPS would be 16 if using the mechanical shutter, and it only goes up to 20 if you use electronic shutter, yes?

In any event, on an R5, there is never any mirror to worry about, so moving a mirror is never the rate limiting factor. So, if the R5 has lower maximum FPS when using the mechanical shutter, it would seem to mean that moving the mechanical shutter must be the rate limiting factor when using the mechanical shutter, regardless of whether you use EVF or rear LCD. Similarly, if using the electronic shutter and the electronic shutter imposes a limit of 20 FPS, the electronic shutter is the rate limited factor, again regardless of whether you use EVF or rear LCD.

However, Sanj's question is why the R5 can shoot faster if you use the rear LCD rather than the EVF. I haven't checked the R5 specs, but if that is true, Sanj's question seems like a good one. Why should changing between rear LCD and EVF change maximum FPS? Perhaps there is something about the EVF screen which means it cannot update as quickly as the rear LCD?

Any chance Sanj has misunderstood the R5 specs, and the R5 shoots 12 FPS with mechanical shutter and 20 FPS with electronic shutter, but it doesn't matter whether you are using the EVF or rear LCD?

EDIT: I just had a look at Canon's development announce for the R5. It says 12 FPS using mechanical shutter and 20 FPS using "silent shutter". So, it seems to me the maximum FPS depends on whether you use mechanical shutter or electronic shutter. I assume that means you get those speeds regardless of whether you use the EVF or rear LCD though. (Any reason to doubt that?)


----------



## padam (Feb 15, 2020)

sanj said:


> I am talking still photography sir. So rolling shutter?? "IQ reduced over mechanical shutter" I do not understand that. How can that be?


Imagine you have an EOS R and you are capturing a 3:2 video frame from the whole sensor and output it as a raw image (Which is way more taxing on the camera than Canon's 1.7x 4k 16:9 crop, as that one collects way less data in a more compressed format). That's how the electronic shutter works more or less.
Also with the R5 the camera needs to compress the 40+ MP raw files shot at 20fps, otherwise it fills up the buffer in no time.
It may even be a slight crop as well in 20fps mode, we don't know that.
But we know the 90D and M6 Mark II do have a silent raw burst mode, which crops in on the sensor slightly (but they only have the Digic 8 processor, not the Digic X, and 8k in the EOS R5 suggests the new sensor is quicker as well)
Luckily the compressed CR3 raw files show basically imperceptible degradation.








Quick look: Canon's new compressed Raw format


Inside Canon's new EOS M50 lies a new Raw format dubbed CR3, and with it, an option to record compact C-Raw files that are 30-40% smaller than their losslessly compressed CR2 equivalents. But what – if any – impact does that have on image quality for everyday shooting? Let's find out.




www.dpreview.com




But the bit depth will probably need to be reduced from 14-bit as well, so there is more noise in the shadows if you push them like crazy (which is unlikely in practise).

Everyone complaining about the 1DX III can understand now that with just 20MP, there is much less compromises for high-speed shooting, it can probably do 20fps 14-bit uncompressed, so no different compared to single shooting and the degradation with the electronic shutter is much less as well.

If you want to see graphs about how using the rolling shutter or the quickest burst modes can affect image quality with mirrorless cameras, check out Jim Kasson's blog, he measured a lot of cameras, but no Canon cameras unfortunately.

Photographylife has another excellent article on the topic.

I've written everything down as clearly as possible. Basically, you switch your camera to silent burst mode, and you test the image quality (find the shutter speed where the banding is least prominent with the LED lights), and decide accordingly, whether to use it or not. Simple as that.
For instance, if you want to shoot street while walking, you will get a ton of rolling shutter in electronic shutter mode, while you are taking pictures, you need to keep the camera as still as possible, you move (meanwhile the buffer clears), and you hold the camera completely still again for a few moments, while the camera captures images silently, there may still be some artifacts, but way less when the camera is in motion.


----------



## Pape (Feb 15, 2020)

Sounds like sport cameras will be still long 20mpixel ones ,untill readout speed developed lot better to make electronic shutter work flawlessly .
I isnt noise performance what holds them down to 20


----------



## padam (Feb 15, 2020)

Pape said:


> Sounds like sport cameras will be still long 20mpixel ones ,untill readout speed developed lot better to make electronic shutter work flawlessly .
> I isnt noise performance what holds them down to 20


If the EOS R5 is tracking AF at 12fps, that makes it a very good camera for shooting sports compared to a 5D IV, which is also used for this purpose.
The M6 Mark II tracks at 14fps already, so it is probably not a misleading specification with focus locked in 12fps mode.

It is certainly possible do design a mirrorless camera with big, higher-voltage battery like the 1DX and with a very quick mechanical shutter (without the mirror flapping up and down, it is easier to do), so the electronic shutter is not a necessity, but the sensor-based AF system also needs to keep up.


----------



## Viggo (Feb 15, 2020)

jd7 said:


> I assume you are correct in saying that having to move the mirror is the reason the1Dx II has a lower maximum FPS when using the OVF compared with live view. However, it's not clear to me that is actually an answer to Sanj's question.
> 
> On a DSLR, if you're using an OVF you have a mirror which has to move up and down, so it's not hard to imagine the maximum FPS being limited by how quickly the mirror can be moved. When you switch to live view, the mirror is locked up out of the way, so the mirror can no longer be the rate limiting factor. In that situation, it's not hard to imagine the rate limiting factor being how fast the mechanical shutter can move if you are using it, or how quickly the sensor can be read out if you're using electronic shutter.
> 
> ...


The 1dx3 does 20 fps with BOTH mechanical and electronic shutter when the mirror is flipped up. That’s double of what the A9ii does and 4 times faster than the a9.


----------



## Joules (Feb 15, 2020)

To give another way to look at it:

There are two separate components that need to move to capture an image with the OVF. There's a mirror and a shutter. The mirror blocks the image from hitting the sensor when it is down and redirects it to the OVF. The shutter opens and closes to start and stop light from hitting the image sensor.

To get a practical feel for how that works I *highly* recommend the video from this YouTube video, showing a 7D in action at super slow motion:






He also has a demo on rolling shutter and explains the difference in this video. The channel as a whole is a great mixture of entertainment, stunning imagery and education.

The mirror has to do a more complicated motion, and it is also used to bring light to the PDAF sensors (not DPAF), so it can't remain up indefinitely if you want servo AF. Therefore the motion of the mirror limits the number of FPS in EVF mode.

In LiveView or in a mirrorless body, the mirror is permanently up or isn't needed, as there's no OVF and the AF sensors are integrated in the image sensor. But a shutter is still necessary if you want an image like you're used to from DSLR. So the speed at which that can travel becomes the limit. On mirrorless, there's no difference between EVF and Liveview. But on the R5 this limit is 12 FPS. 

If your mechical shutter does not deliver sufficient speed, there's also the option of compromising on quality a little and just reading the image electronically, without motion. That's also has a upper limit, which is the 20 FPS on the R5.


----------



## Ian_of_glos (Feb 15, 2020)

mikekeck said:


> Does anyone know if there are disadvantages to using the electronic shutter? Codebunny mentioned there might be some, and I assume there are--otherwise, why bother with the mechanical shutter?


The problem is that it takes a significant amount of time to read the data from the sensor into the buffer and if you are shooting fast action or sport there is time for the animal, sports player or whatever to move before the image has been captured fully. Also, if you are shooting under artificial light you might see banding in the final image because the lights can be brighter or darker whilst the image is being captured. Using a shutter effectively freezes the image allowing time to for it to be read and written to the buffer without these problems.
Personally I will be very surprised if the EOS R5 quoted burst speed of 12 fps will be available in AI servo mode. With the EOS R the maximum quoted burst speed is 8 fps but it is only available in One Shot AF mode. The maximum burst speed in AI Servo is only 5fps. Continuous shooting is usually used for sports and action so you want the camera to refocus between every frame and so continuous shooting is usually combined with AI Servo. Continuous shooting with One Shot AF is of little use.


----------



## Joules (Feb 15, 2020)

Ian_of_glos said:


> Personally I will be very surprised if the EOS R5 quoted burst speed of 12 fps will be available in AI servo mode. With the EOS R the maximum quoted burst speed is 8 fps but it is only available in One Shot AF mode. The maximum burst speed in AI Servo is only 5fps.


The EOS is a poor comparison for AF speed. It uses the old hardware from the 5D IV.

The newer generation of sensors found in the 1DX III, M6 II and 90D show much greater speeds. The M6 II does AF servo at 14 FPS 32 MP and 30 FPS 18 MP. Granted, that is slightly less throughput than 12 FPS 44 MP but I can't imagine that the M6 II presents the pinnacle of what Canon can pull off. Its just about 1K and even has the older processor.


----------



## Pape (Feb 15, 2020)

padam said:


> If the EOS R5 is tracking AF at 12fps, that makes it a very good camera for shooting sports compared to a 5D IV, which is also used for this purpose.
> The M6 Mark II tracks at 14fps already, so it is probably not a misleading specification with focus locked in 12fps mode.
> 
> It is certainly possible do design a mirrorless camera with big, higher-voltage battery like the 1DX and with a very quick mechanical shutter (without the mirror flapping up and down, it is easier to do), so the electronic shutter is not a necessity, but the sensor-based AF system also needs to keep up.


sony RX100 vii does 90fps with 1 inch sensor , hard to see 90fps never happening with mechanic shutter. Future must be electronic eventually


----------



## padam (Feb 15, 2020)

Pape said:


> sony RX100 vii does 90fps with 1 inch sensor , hard to see 90fps never happening with mechanic shutter. Future must be electronic eventually


Eventually, that's the main thing. If you see the RX100VII sensor measurements, you will see that it trades speed for image quality, it is a backwards step in that that sense.
20fps is really more than what most people need, so I'd rather still have the option of mechanical shutter and keeping maximum image quality as well.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Feb 15, 2020)

Just to add a little more to this. There is 12fps and 12fps. The camera needs to AF between each shot for a true 12fps and even then you'll also need a fast shutter speed. Realistically you'll be getting 9-10 FPS on the R5 when you put all the other factors into place, assuming 1/2000 shutter. 

The 1DX Mark III has 16 FPS and 1000 image buffer. The R5 could easily have its buffer limited to 20 shots, or limited even further if they put on a daft little SD card slot(Though the door on the side is much bigger than the R and suggests CFE).


----------



## Pape (Feb 15, 2020)

padam said:


> Eventually, that's the main thing. If you see the RX100VII sensor measurements, you will see that it trades speed for image quality, it is a backwards step in that that sense.
> 20fps is really more than what most people need, so I'd rather still have the option of mechanical shutter and keeping maximum image quality as well.


Yeah that sensor is tiny .10-20fps sure is enough for action photographing ,but for computing photographing 100fps sounds good. For pixel shift ,focus stack ,hdr stack . Or rahter fast break between shots.


----------



## Viggo (Feb 15, 2020)

Codebunny said:


> Just to add a little more to this. There is 12fps and 12fps. The camera needs to AF between each shot for a true 12fps and even then you'll also need a fast shutter speed. Realistically you'll be getting 9-10 FPS on the R5 when you put all the other factors into place, assuming 1/2000 shutter.
> 
> The 1DX Mark III has 16 FPS and 1000 image buffer. The R5 could easily have its buffer limited to 20 shots, or limited even further if they put on a daft little SD card slot(Though the door on the side is much bigger than the R and suggests CFE).


The maximum number of fps is “always” Including AF/AE, it’s not just a theoretic number needing locked AF if it’s not specified. I have no doubt the 1dx3 does 16 fps with full AF/AE, the shutter speed fast enough is a given.

that doesn’t mean there isn’t some limitations to the R5 though. And there aresettings that can slow down that max fps like tracking priority, but it’s 100% possible to track and shoot at the max 16 fps, or 20 in LV.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 15, 2020)

Viggo said:


> The maximum number of fps is “always” Including AF/AE, it’s not just a theoretic number needing locked AF if it’s not specified. I have no doubt the 1dx3 does 16 fps with full AF/AE, the shutter speed fast enough is a given.



Those numbers are always caveated on aperture used, it takes more time to stop down than shoot wide open so frame rate drops, and also focus priority, if you set the camera to prioritize focus priority it will not give you the fps advertised, if you use the fps advertised (assuming you are also using a wide open aperture) then you will not get as many critically sharp images.


----------



## Viggo (Feb 15, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> Those numbers are always caveated on aperture used, it takes more time to stop down than shoot wide open so frame rate drops, and also focus priority, if you set the camera to prioritize focus priority it will not give you the fps advertised, if you use the fps advertised (assuming you are also using a wide open aperture) then you will not get as many critically sharp images.


Indeed, and is also why I wrote that settings like tracking priority will slow it down. Not always the case with less focused shot with release priority though. With the R it makes no difference and I’ve been exclusively using release priority.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 15, 2020)

Viggo said:


> Indeed, and is also why I wrote that settings like tracking priority will slow it down. Not always the case with less focused shot with release priority though. With the R it makes no difference and I’ve been exclusively using release priority.


Focus priority aside, aperture used will impact maximum fps.


----------



## Viggo (Feb 15, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> Focus priority aside, aperture used will impact maximum fps.


Are there any other apertures than f1.2? Jk, I had no issues getting 14 fps with the 1dx and 200 f2 either.


----------



## sanj (Feb 16, 2020)

I am still confused. :-(


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 16, 2020)

mikekeck said:


> Does anyone know if there are disadvantages to using the electronic shutter? Codebunny mentioned there might be some, and I assume there are--otherwise, why bother with the mechanical shutter?


Ha, I was shooting a 1DX MkII tonight alongside another guy with an EOS R, we both shot in 'silent' mode and he was very happy because he was truly silent, it was a symphony orchestra so being silent enabled easier shot timing. Well he was really happy until he started looking at some of his shots, he was getting terrible banding due to light flicker, it looked like the shots had been taken through blinds! Mine were all perfect, even when I shot in Live View, so yes electronic shutters throw up their own issues.


----------



## Joules (Feb 16, 2020)

sanj said:


> I am still confused. :-(


About what precisely? If you clarify what is giving you a hard time, maybe it can be explained in a better way. 

Did you watch the video I linked? I personally find that really helpful, since it has the images to demonstrate instead of the pure text we can offer here.


----------



## Bennymiata (Feb 16, 2020)

In electronic shutter mode (aka silent shooting), the pixels aren't all read together but rather are read from left to right and top to bottom.
While this " read" is not instantaneous, it is pretty fast, but when taking photos of moving subjects (or the camera moves) the position of the moving subject will not be the same when the first pixel is read until the last pixel will be read, making the image look skewed.
This is also called jello.
Hope that answers your question as to why electronic shutters are not generally as good as mechanical shutters.

However, global shutters are starting to arrive, and they read each pixel at the same time eliminating jello.
It'll still be a few years before we see global shutters featuring in our cameras though, but they will come eventually.


----------



## Pape (Feb 16, 2020)

Bennymiata said:


> In electronic shutter mode (aka silent shooting), the pixels aren't all read together but rather are read from left to right and top to bottom.
> While this " read" is not instantaneous, it is pretty fast, but when taking photos of moving subjects (or the camera moves) the position of the moving subject will not be the same when the first pixel is read until the last pixel will be read, making the image look skewed.
> This is also called jello.
> Hope that answers your question as to why electronic shutters are not generally as good as mechanical shutters.
> ...


global shutter or 100x faster read out speed sensor or something completely different


----------



## SteveC (Feb 16, 2020)

Bennymiata said:


> Hope that answers your question as to why electronic shutters are not generally as good as mechanical shutters.



I thought I just saw a video a couple of days ago showing very high exposure speeds basically have the top shutter blade moving down just behind the lower one...in other words the mechanical shutter has a "scan" going on too. (the video may even have been linked to from this thread, I don't know.)

The only way to solve it, truly, is with a simultaneous read of all pixels.


----------



## Joules (Feb 16, 2020)

SteveC said:


> I thought I just saw a video a couple of days ago showing very high exposure speeds basically have the top shutter blade moving down just behind the lower one...in other words the mechanical shutter has a "scan" going on too. (the video may even have been linked to from this thread, I don't know.)
> 
> The only way to solve it, truly, is with a simultaneous read of all pixels.


Yes, I linked the video here. Mechanical shutters are also rolling shutters. But they move faster than the electronic read out, so the artefact is much less pronounced.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 17, 2020)

As a follow on to my earlier comment. Here is one of the shots from the R showing banding using the electronic shutter, this only happened in some shots under some lighting, not all of them. That's me shooting through a back stage doorway. EXIF below.


----------



## Ian_of_glos (Feb 17, 2020)

Joules said:


> The EOS is a poor comparison for AF speed. It uses the old hardware from the 5D IV.
> 
> The newer generation of sensors found in the 1DX III, M6 II and 90D show much greater speeds. The M6 II does AF servo at 14 FPS 32 MP and 30 FPS 18 MP. Granted, that is slightly less throughput than 12 FPS 44 MP but I can't imagine that the M6 II presents the pinnacle of what Canon can pull off. Its just about 1K and even has the older processor.


The point I was trying to make was that sometimes the quoted, headline speed is not really of much use. I cannot see much point in using a fast burst rate if you are not also using AI Servo to ensure that each shot is properly focussed. The EOS R was simply an example of a camera where this is the case.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 17, 2020)

Ian_of_glos said:


> The point I was trying to make was that sometimes the quoted, headline speed is not really of much use. I cannot see much point in using a fast burst rate if you are not also using AI Servo to ensure that each shot is properly focussed. The EOS R was simply an example of a camera where this is the case.



A valid point but one that fails to take into account luck. Those who have played hockey know that you still shoot even when you can't see the net. A very fast burst, pre-focused sometimes gives a spectacular keeper. I've proven this theory but along with that approach comes a lot of tedious culling. It all depends whether one is willing to accept the negatives for a small positive. IMHO. BTW high resolution video can be used similarly.

Jack


----------



## Ian_of_glos (Feb 18, 2020)

Jack Douglas said:


> A valid point but one that fails to take into account luck. Those who have played hockey know that you still shoot even when you can't see the net. A very fast burst, pre-focused sometimes gives a spectacular keeper. I've proven this theory but along with that approach comes a lot of tedious culling. It all depends whether one is willing to accept the negatives for a small positive. IMHO. BTW high resolution video can be used similarly.
> 
> Jack


Thank you. Hockey is not a sport that I have ever photographed but it is interesting that there are examples of sports where it is not necessary to refocus before each shot. The sport I shoot most often is rugby union and the players are constantly moving around in all directions so I would be lost without AI servo.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 18, 2020)

Ian_of_glos said:


> Thank you. Hockey is not a sport that I have ever photographed but it is interesting that there are examples of sports where it is not necessary to refocus before each shot. The sport I shoot most often is rugby union and the players are constantly moving around in all directions so I would be lost without AI servo.


 I used hockey as the example of getting a goal (shooting is required or you can't score) not shooting with the camera, so I had a good chuckle. I don't shoot sports so far, almost always it's little birdies, but not golf. Maybe someone shooting hockey does pre-focus on the net.

Jack


----------



## AlanF (Feb 18, 2020)

Jack Douglas said:


> I used hockey as the example of getting a goal (shooting is required or you can't score) not shooting with the camera, so I had a good chuckle. I don't shoot sports so far, almost always it's little birdies, but not golf. Maybe someone shooting hockey does pre-focus on the net.
> 
> Jack


From now on, you will be known as Slap Shot Jack, the Paul Newman of CR.


----------

