[QUOTE]\n So tell us again how 1/200 is\n\nBy firing a flash at it that has a 1/1000th of a second\nexposure duration, dickhead?[/QUOTE]\n\nWe have learned at least two things so far in this thread.\nYou are mathematically challenged and you can't keep up.\n\nLet me try to school your dumb ass once more.\nEric Miller explains it much better on his website:\n[URL]http://www.dyesscreek.com/miscellaneous_pages/howto_1.html[/URL]\n\nEric writes:\n"Let me explain the math. The wings on a ruby throated hummingbird\nbeat at approximately 50-60 beats per second. With a wingspan that\nvaries between birds from 3-4 inches or so, that means that the\nwingtips travel from front to back about 6-8 inches, more or less.\nThis means that the wings travel between 300 and 500 inches per\nsecond. So a 1/1000 second shutter speed will catch a wing movement of\nabout 1/2 inch or so, i.e., a complete blur. Of course, the 1/2 inch\ndistance is not always true because the wings don't actually move at a\nconstant speed. Instead, they move through one beat, stop (or slow\ndown greatly) and then move in the opposite direction, but you get the\nidea. In order to see detail in the wings you would need a faster\nshutter speed than you will find on most any good SLR. Catching the\nwing near either end of a beat will help a lot too."\n\nHope that helps.\n[QUOTE]\n > Better yet, provide us ANY examples of that happening without the use of high-speed flash.\n\nof WHAT happening, dickhead?[/QUOTE]\n\nDamn, try to keep up. EXAMPLES OF FREEZING A HUMMERS WINGS WITHOUT\nUSING HIGH-SPEED FLASH, dickhead.\nBy "high-speed flash" I am of course talking about a flash duration\nmuch shorter than the usual 1/1000 second.