That slapping mirror
Alfred Molon
luxury of using cameras without slapping mirrors (my last camera was a
Sony R1).
Well, this slapping mirror is really an earthquake. When you press the
shutter, it makes the entire camera vibrate.
I'm still awaiting delivery of a 70-300mm lens, but I'm wondering if
this slapping mirror will compromise sharpness at long focal lengths.
What is the solution here? Using MLU for every shot can't be an option.
--
Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
Mr. Strat
Molon <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Well, this slapping mirror is really an earthquake. When you press the
> shutter, it makes the entire camera vibrate.
> I'm still awaiting delivery of a 70-300mm lens, but I'm wondering if
> this slapping mirror will compromise sharpness at long focal lengths.
> What is the solution here? Using MLU for every shot can't be an option.
Without knowing the specific camera, it's hard to comment. But all of
the DSLRs I've heard are much quieter than their 35mm predecessors, and
definitely more quiet than a medium format.
Pete D
"Alfred Molon" <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.22db46618...@news.supernews.com...
> Took the plunge and just bought my first DLSR. Could so far afford the
> luxury of using cameras without slapping mirrors (my last camera was a
> Sony R1).
>
> Well, this slapping mirror is really an earthquake. When you press the
> shutter, it makes the entire camera vibrate.
> I'm still awaiting delivery of a 70-300mm lens, but I'm wondering if
> this slapping mirror will compromise sharpness at long focal lengths.
> What is the solution here? Using MLU for every shot can't be an option.
Mmmm, obviously you have never used a film SLR, the modern D-SLRs are much
quieter. You don't get anything for nothing mate, get over it.
us...@domain.invalid
> In message news:MPG.22db46618...@news.supernews.com, Alfred Molon
>
>> Took the plunge and just bought my first DLSR. Could so far afford the
>> luxury of using cameras without slapping mirrors (my last camera was a
>> Sony R1).
>>
>> Well, this slapping mirror is really an earthquake. When you press the
>> shutter, it makes the entire camera vibrate.
>> I'm still awaiting delivery of a 70-300mm lens, but I'm wondering if
>> this slapping mirror will compromise sharpness at long focal lengths.
>> What is the solution here? Using MLU for every shot can't be an option.
The solution is to not worry about mirror slap. Worry about camera
motion due to your own hands moving the camera when you press the button.
The mirror simply does not cause problems. Apparently the designers
know how to design cameras, at least Canon and Nikon do.
Doug McDonald
Alan Browne
>
> Mmmm, obviously you have never used a film SLR, the modern D-SLRs are much
> quieter. You don't get anything for nothing mate, get over it.
The Elan 7 was well noted for very quiet mirror slap.
My Maxxum 9 woke up dead people on occasion.
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Alfred Molon
01.iinet.net.au>, Pete D says...
>
> Mmmm, obviously you have never used a film SLR, the modern D-SLRs are much
> quieter.
Perhaps because the mirror in an APS-C DLSR is smaller.
Alfred Molon
> The solution is to not worry about mirror slap. Worry about camera
> motion due to your own hands moving the camera when you press the button.
> The mirror simply does not cause problems. Apparently the designers
> know how to design cameras, at least Canon and Nikon do.
Well, I don't know. I heard that if the exposure is long and you use a
tripod, the slapping mirror will affect shots at long focal lengths
(unless you use MLU - a feature Sony astutely took out of the A350).
I think I'll just wait until the 70-300 lens arrives and will then make
some tests.
J.H. Holliday
> luxury of using cameras without slapping mirrors (my last camera was a
> Sony R1).
>
> Well, this slapping mirror is really an earthquake. When you press the
> shutter, it makes the entire camera vibrate.
> I'm still awaiting delivery of a 70-300mm lens, but I'm wondering if
> this slapping mirror will compromise sharpness at long focal lengths.
> What is the solution here? Using MLU for every shot can't be an option.
> --
>
> Alfred Molon
> ------------------------------
>
Ya know, people asked the same question about the Nikon F when they brought
it our in the 1950's....
Mark Thomas
> Took the plunge and just bought my first DLSR. Could so far afford the
> luxury of using cameras without slapping mirrors (my last camera was a
> Sony R1).
>
> Well, this slapping mirror is really an earthquake. When you press the
> shutter, it makes the entire camera vibrate.
> I'm still awaiting delivery of a 70-300mm lens, but I'm wondering if
> this slapping mirror will compromise sharpness at long focal lengths.
> What is the solution here? Using MLU for every shot can't be an option.
The simple answer is that mirror slap can only be a problem in a
restricted range of shutter speeds, and it varies from camera to camera,
but iirc, it was almost always in the range from ~ 1/8-1/30. Google the
topic - I'm too lazy!
The effect is very mild in most cameras and can probably be ignored - at
those speeds you should probably be on a tripod anyway esp. if shooting
long..
I have had a couple of (old) cameras that seemed to have a bit of a
problem - and I remember being grateful my old Zenit was so heavy that
it damped the huge kerthunk. But nowadays...
John McWilliams
> In article <g4rct7$ofb$1...@news.acm.uiuc.edu>, says...
>
>> The solution is to not worry about mirror slap. Worry about camera
>> motion due to your own hands moving the camera when you press the button.
>> The mirror simply does not cause problems. Apparently the designers
>> know how to design cameras, at least Canon and Nikon do.
>
> Well, I don't know. I heard that if the exposure is long and you use a
> tripod, the slapping mirror will affect shots at long focal lengths
> (unless you use MLU - a feature Sony astutely took out of the A350).
> I think I'll just wait until the 70-300 lens arrives and will then make
> some tests.
Excellent idea. A handful of folks have posted here about the necessity
for mirror lock up for almost anything over 1/60th. I think it's way
overrated in many situations.
--
john mcwilliams
Jürgen Exner
>Took the plunge and just bought my first DLSR. Could so far afford the
>luxury of using cameras without slapping mirrors (my last camera was a
>Sony R1).
>
>Well, this slapping mirror is really an earthquake. When you press the
>shutter, it makes the entire camera vibrate.
>I'm still awaiting delivery of a 70-300mm lens, but I'm wondering if
>this slapping mirror will compromise sharpness at long focal lengths.
>What is the solution here? Using MLU for every shot can't be an option.
By far the best option for _YOU_ is to go back to a P&S or maybe a
bridge camera. You keep on complaining about everything that
characterizes an SLR, so obviously an SLR is not the right camera for
you.
jue
Matt Ion
I was just thinking, it hasn't been a major issue for the half-century
or so that SLRs have been around, so why should it be now?
Mr. Strat
<soun...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I was just thinking, it hasn't been a major issue for the half-century
> or so that SLRs have been around, so why should it be now?
Because these noobs are a bunch of pussies, used to holding their P&S
at arm's length. It freaks them out when they get their hands on a
*real* camera and there are moving parts inside.
Pete D
"Alan Browne" <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:1pKdnTzSCfoJpuzV...@giganews.com...
> Pete D wrote:
>
>>
>> Mmmm, obviously you have never used a film SLR, the modern D-SLRs are
>> much quieter. You don't get anything for nothing mate, get over it.
>
> The Elan 7 was well noted for very quiet mirror slap.
>
> My Maxxum 9 woke up dead people on occasion.
My KM is pretty clunky but the trees don't mind too much. ;-)
Pete D
> In article <48713251$0$7211$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-
> 01.iinet.net.au>, Pete D says...
>>
>> Mmmm, obviously you have never used a film SLR, the modern D-SLRs are
>> much
>> quieter.
>
> Perhaps because the mirror in an APS-C DLSR is smaller.
> --
My DS is quite clunky compared to my K10D but still not bad compared to film
KM.
David J Taylor
> In article <g4rct7$ofb$1...@news.acm.uiuc.edu>, says...
>
>> The solution is to not worry about mirror slap. Worry about camera
>> motion due to your own hands moving the camera when you press the
>> button. The mirror simply does not cause problems. Apparently the
>> designers
>> know how to design cameras, at least Canon and Nikon do.
>
> Well, I don't know. I heard that if the exposure is long and you use a
> tripod, the slapping mirror will affect shots at long focal lengths
> (unless you use MLU - a feature Sony astutely took out of the A350).
> I think I'll just wait until the 70-300 lens arrives and will then
> make some tests.
Far more important is that the 70-300mm lens has good image stabilisation.
I have found that on my own DSLR mirror-slap simply is not an issue for my
photography (mostly outdoors). Remember that you can use ISO 800 and
probably ISO 1600 with little loss of quality.
Enjoy your new freedom!
David
Alfred Molon
says...
> By far the best option for _YOU_ is to go back to a P&S or maybe a
> bridge camera. You keep on complaining about everything that
> characterizes an SLR, so obviously an SLR is not the right camera for
> you.
Sure, I do complain a lot about DLSRs. Years ago I complained about the
lack of life preview on DSLRs. Lots of heated discussions in this forum
(do a Google Groups search), people saying we don't want it, that real
photographers don't use it, even Dave Martindale explaining in very
scientific terms how life preview would terribly compromise noise
performance in DLSRs.
Now look what happened. Almost all new DLSR models have live preview,
the Nikon D3 which goes up to ISO 25600 has it.
I predict that the swinging mirror sooner or later will disappear from
the design of high end cameras. These cameras will use fast and high
resolution EVFs, interchangeable lenses and will have fast AF. Also,
Bayer sensors will be replaced by full colour sensors. It's just a
matter of time.
In any case, my 70-300 lens will arrive this week and I'll how the
performance with this DLSR I have here is.
Alfred Molon
Taylor says...
> Far more important is that the 70-300mm lens has good image stabilisation.
> I have found that on my own DSLR mirror-slap simply is not an issue for my
> photography (mostly outdoors). Remember that you can use ISO 800 and
> probably ISO 1600 with little loss of quality.
Well, the Sony A350 has in-camera IS. Not aware of any compatible lens
with IS.
As for ISO 800 and 1600 I was indeed surprised by the image quality
yesterday. The A350 with its 14MP on an APS-C sensor is not one of the
top performers in this category, but the output at ISO1600 is very
interesting. Lots of detail and fine grain if you process the RAW image.
In any case, going up to ISO 800 or 1600 to solve the mirror slap seems
to be a bad thing. On the one hand you improve the noise performance,
thank you very much, but at the same time you degrade it by being forced
to use high ISO.
I'll make some tests with the 70-300 lens and see what options there
are.
David J Taylor
[]
> Well, the Sony A350 has in-camera IS. Not aware of any compatible lens
> with IS.
>
> As for ISO 800 and 1600 I was indeed surprised by the image quality
> yesterday. The A350 with its 14MP on an APS-C sensor is not one of the
> top performers in this category, but the output at ISO1600 is very
> interesting. Lots of detail and fine grain if you process the RAW
> image. In any case, going up to ISO 800 or 1600 to solve the mirror
> slap seems to be a bad thing. On the one hand you improve the noise
> performance, thank you very much, but at the same time you degrade it
> by being forced to use high ISO.
>
> I'll make some tests with the 70-300 lens and see what options there
> are.
Alfred,
Unfortunately, in-camera IS is a poor compromise if you are buying both
camera and lenses from scratch, as you completely lose the stabilisation
effect in the optical viewfinder which you would get from in-lens IS.
This alone would rule out such a camera for me.
But you should enjoy the good ISO 800 performance. I think mirror slap
will be a non-issue in normal use.
Cheers,
David
Alfred Molon
Taylor says...
> Unfortunately, in-camera IS is a poor compromise if you are buying both
> camera and lenses from scratch, as you completely lose the stabilisation
> effect in the optical viewfinder which you would get from in-lens IS.
Well, the camera is more stable if I can hold it at about 20-30cm from
the body, with the bent arms acting as shock absorbers.
The other day I got a sharp 0.4s exposure at 67mm equiv. focal length
with the in-camera IS on. I set the camera to continuos mode and took a
burst of 6-7 shots. The sharpest of these looks very good and is quite
impressive considering that it is a 14MP image.
David J Taylor
[]
> Well, the camera is more stable if I can hold it at about 20-30cm from
> the body, with the bent arms acting as shock absorbers.
>
> The other day I got a sharp 0.4s exposure at 67mm equiv. focal length
> with the in-camera IS on. I set the camera to continuos mode and took
> a burst of 6-7 shots. The sharpest of these looks very good and is
> quite impressive considering that it is a 14MP image.
With long lenses, like the 70-300mm, I much prefer to have the camera
against my face, with the slightly bent left arm and hand supporting the
barrel of the lens. Only if there is no alternative (like with my compact
Panasonic TZ3) would I hold the camera away from my face. But I guess you
do whatever gives best results for you.
Cheers,
David
ASAAR
> As for ISO 800 and 1600 I was indeed surprised by the image quality
> yesterday. The A350 with its 14MP on an APS-C sensor is not one of the
> top performers in this category, but the output at ISO1600 is very
> interesting. Lots of detail and fine grain if you process the RAW image.
> In any case, going up to ISO 800 or 1600 to solve the mirror slap seems
> to be a bad thing. On the one hand you improve the noise performance,
> thank you very much, but at the same time you degrade it by being forced
> to use high ISO.
I used Nikon's 700-300mm lens (VR off) at 300mm for distant shots
across a lake several days ago with the sky slightly overcast.
Examining the images at 200% showed no trace of blurring due to
camera movement. If there was any, it was obscured by the
pixelization limit of the 12mp sensor. But then I didn't have the
camera set to the shutter speeds most likely to cause mirror slap
problems. Shots taken in the morning (9:20am) showed settings of
ISO 200, f/8, 1/160 (static shots), and these settings were changed
to ISO 400, f/6.3 and 1/640 or 1/1250 several hours later for
pictures of water skiing teams.
Handheld shots at a closer distance (about 2 feet) and fl at 85mm
also didn't show evidence of blurring due to mirror slap. Shots at
1/15 and 1/30 with VR on and no flash showed sharpness comparable to
shooting at 1/60 when the flash was used. With no flash and VR off,
blurring was noticeable, but much less than I've ever gotten from my
P&S cameras under similar conditions. This is probably due to the
DSLR's much greater weight. If mirror slap contributed to the
blurring, it was probably less than the amount produced by camera
movement. Unless your Sony A350 has a miserably designed mirror
mechanism, mirror slap movement probably won't be an issue except
for shots taken over a very small range of slow shutter speeds that
also need to be printed at very large paper sizes, or for shots
taken by the most demanding pixel peepers.
Don Stauffer in Minnesota
At long focal lengths you should be using a tripod anyway, even with a
rangefinder. Any decent tripod will elimiinate the motion due to
mirror bounce. Some mfgs do a better job of cushioning the shock than
others, but it is not a real performance concern. What is more of a
problem is when you are trying to be discrete- say in a wedding- and
everyone can hear every shot :-(
Alfred Molon
25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>, Don Stauffer in Minnesota says...
> What is more of a
> problem is when you are trying to be discrete- say in a wedding- and
> everyone can hear every shot :-(
Indeed. The Sony A350 wakes up the dead.
--
Alfred Molon
------------------------------
michael adams
> Well, the camera is more stable if I can hold it at about 20-30cm from
> the body, with the bent arms acting as shock absorbers.
Absorbing which sort of shocks exactly ?
What is their source ?
michael adams
...
John McWilliams
> "Alfred Molon" <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.22dc39f8...@news.supernews.com...
>
>> Well, the camera is more stable if I can hold it at about 20-30cm from
>> the body, with the bent arms acting as shock absorbers.
>
>
> Absorbing which sort of shocks exactly ?
>
> What is their source ?
>
Some folks feel that the return of the mirror creates tremors in the
camera body that can be noticed in the results.
--
john mcwilliams
michael adams
"John McWilliams" <jp...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:p9ednSDGGuu_Ge_V...@comcast.com...
Sorry, I thought the OP was referring to general stability in that
particular instance. The relative advantages of various approaches to
inmage stabilization - body as against lenses, and adopting the best possible
stance, etc.
michael adams
>
> --
> john mcwilliams
Alfred Molon
> Sorry, I thought the OP was referring to general stability in that
> particular instance. The relative advantages of various approaches to
> inmage stabilization - body as against lenses, and adopting the best possible
> stance, etc.
the movement of the body, while if it is held at a distance the bowed
arms work as shock absorbers.
To illustrate the point, try walking with a glass of water. If the glass
is on your head it will shake a lot, while if you walk with the glass in
your hand and bowed elbows it is much easier to hold the water in the
glass still.
Perhaps an a bit unscientific explanation, but this is how I get sharp
handheld shots. I wouldn't keep the camera pressed against my face
unless perhaps my head was leaning against a wall.
Alan Browne
> Alfred Molon wrote:
>> Took the plunge and just bought my first DLSR. Could so far afford the
>> luxury of using cameras without slapping mirrors (my last camera was a
>> Sony R1).
>> Well, this slapping mirror is really an earthquake. When you press the
>> shutter, it makes the entire camera vibrate. I'm still awaiting
>> delivery of a 70-300mm lens, but I'm wondering if this slapping mirror
>> will compromise sharpness at long focal lengths. What is the solution
>> here? Using MLU for every shot can't be an option.
>
> The simple answer is that mirror slap can only be a problem in a
> restricted range of shutter speeds, and it varies from camera to camera,
> but iirc, it was almost always in the range from ~ 1/8-1/30. Google the
> topic - I'm too lazy!
I'd say about 1/8 (maybe even 1/4) to about 1/125. It really varies
from camera model to model as the many elements (mirror system mass,
slap velocity, cushion, body characteristics, even the lens mounted at
the time) are part of the response. (this might even be an area where
plastic bodies are better than metal...)
michael adams
> In article <6dfhb8F...@mid.individual.net>, michael adams says...
>
> > Sorry, I thought the OP was referring to general stability in that
> > particular instance. The relative advantages of various approaches to
> > inmage stabilization - body as against lenses, and adopting the best possible
> > stance, etc.
>
> Human body shake. When the camera is held against the face it follows
> the movement of the body, while if it is held at a distance the bowed
> arms work as shock absorbers.
Surely the point is that when the camera is forcibly pressed against the face
stability results from the meeting of two opposing forces. A force coming
up from the feet which are firmly planted on the ground coming up through the
neck, most usually directed forward, being opposed by the force of the hands
and arms pressing back against this.
This seems to work well enough in practice, in my experience anyway.
In the same way that many people who suffer from a trembling of the hands
may find the symptoms far less marked if they grasp both their hands tightly
together. And thus create an opposition to the trembling motion.
Which is also the most effective way to fire a pistol, I believe.
Two handed.
> To illustrate the point, try walking with a glass of water. If the glass
> is on your head it will shake a lot, while if you walk with the glass in
> your hand and bowed elbows it is much easier to hold the water in the
> glass still.
Having the glass of water balancing on your head brings in extraneous factors
such as the centre of gravity and possible nervousness at the consequences of
spilling the water. Pressing the glass tight to your chest with one or both both
hands would seem to offer a better solution IMO.
michael adams
...
John McWilliams
> In article <6dfhb8F...@mid.individual.net>, michael adams says...
>
>> Sorry, I thought the OP was referring to general stability in that
>> particular instance. The relative advantages of various approaches to
>> inmage stabilization - body as against lenses, and adopting the best possible
>> stance, etc.
>
> Human body shake. When the camera is held against the face it follows
> the movement of the body, while if it is held at a distance the bowed
> arms work as shock absorbers.
Gosh, I was wholly taken in by the Subject line, then.
--
.smft
Alan Browne
> (unless you use MLU - a feature Sony astutely took out of the A350).
The 2 second timer is the MLU.
You might enjoy the manual as well which is included in the purchase.
Alan Browne
> In article <6dfhb8F...@mid.individual.net>, michael adams says...
>
>> Sorry, I thought the OP was referring to general stability in that
>> particular instance. The relative advantages of various approaches to
>> inmage stabilization - body as against lenses, and adopting the best possible
>> stance, etc.
>
> Human body shake. When the camera is held against the face it follows
> the movement of the body, while if it is held at a distance the bowed
> arms work as shock absorbers.
That just introduces soft motion, esp. if you have a serious lens
mounted (any f/2.8 zoom for example or a tele).
There is a well known technique used by most amateur/pro photographers
to assure stability.
-Left hand cradles lens from underneath (adjusts focus, zoom and [not
all cameras] aperture and other lens functions). Most of the weight
falls on this hand.
-Right hand holds the grip. On a DSLR most functions (including
aperture on some/many cameras).
-elbows tucked in against the ribcage fairly tight
-stable stance (feet at about shoulder width).
-Important: don't 'stab' the shutter release. Depress it gently.
ASAAR
> Human body shake. When the camera is held against the face it follows
> the movement of the body, while if it is held at a distance the bowed
> arms work as shock absorbers.
Perhaps useful if standing on a platform vibrating within an
advantageous range of frequencies. Otherwise, the photographer's
skeleton should pretty well eliminate vertical movement when the
camera is held to the face. When held at a distance, vertical
oscillating motion is perpetual, with the muscles applying vertical
(up and down) forces to keep the camera from moving too far from the
desired position. You should be able to see how stably you can hold
a camera both ways by using a simple motion magnifier. Get a small
portable radio of approximately the same size as your camera and
extend its antenna. Hold it as you would the camera, with the
antenna pointed towards an imaginary subject, but with the tip very
close to some immovable object, such as the top of a chair, or a
mark on a wall, etc.
Doing this, I can see that extending a camera away from my body
with arms positioned as you describe doesn't work as well for me.
But I also saw that the difference between the two methods isn't
substantial, so your method may work well for you and well enough
for others that use similar bracing and don't excessively extend
their arms. But that technique still looks kind of dorky. :)
> To illustrate the point, try walking with a glass of water. If the glass
> is on your head it will shake a lot, while if you walk with the glass in
> your hand and bowed elbows it is much easier to hold the water in the
> glass still.
Oh, please. Try taking pictures while you're walking. Of course
the head moves up and down while walking. It's explained by simple
geometry. But that motion doesn't exist while *not* walking, so the
"shock absorbers" have no shocks to absorb. And the constant
muscular correction produced by extended arms *will* create motion.
This is a particularly bad theory that proves nothing but may seem
plausible to those that don't know any better.
> Perhaps an a bit unscientific explanation, but this is how I get sharp
> handheld shots. I wouldn't keep the camera pressed against my face
> unless perhaps my head was leaning against a wall.
Quite unscientific, but it's not to say that you can't use your
'extended arms' method to get sharp shots. Walls can be quite
effective when used as 'found' tripods. But you can do better than
using your face as a quick release plate. :)
Mark Thomas
> Alfred Molon wrote:
>
>> (unless you use MLU - a feature Sony astutely took out of the A350).
>
> The 2 second timer is the MLU.
>
A very good point that is oft forgotten - if you are not shooting
'action', then your self-timer is your best friend, as most cams have a
short-delay mode... I use mine all the time.
Blinky the Shark
> Alfred Molon wrote:
>> In article <6dfhb8F...@mid.individual.net>, michael adams says...
>>
>>> Sorry, I thought the OP was referring to general stability in that
>>> particular instance. The relative advantages of various approaches to
>>> inmage stabilization - body as against lenses, and adopting the best
>>> possible stance, etc.
>>
>> Human body shake. When the camera is held against the face it follows
>> the movement of the body, while if it is held at a distance the bowed
>> arms work as shock absorbers.
>
> That just introduces soft motion, esp. if you have a serious lens
> mounted (any f/2.8 zoom for example or a tele).
>
> There is a well known technique used by most amateur/pro photographers
> to assure stability.
>
> -Left hand cradles lens from underneath (adjusts focus, zoom and [not
> all cameras] aperture and other lens functions). Most of the weight
> falls on this hand.
>
> -Right hand holds the grip. On a DSLR most functions (including
> aperture on some/many cameras).
>
> -elbows tucked in against the ribcage fairly tight
>
> -stable stance (feet at about shoulder width).
>
> -Important: don't 'stab' the shutter release. Depress it gently.
Not surprisingly, if you use "forestock" being held by the left hand
underneath and "trigger" for "shutter release", and you've described
another other kind of stable shooting position - or at least as stable as
a standing, unbraced position can be.
--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Need a new news feed? http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html
Alfred Molon
> Quite unscientific, but it's not to say that you can't use your
> 'extended arms' method to get sharp shots.
Not extended arms, bowed arms.
Alfred Molon
to leave it there (it's just software), but Sony wants you to buy the
more expensive A700. This is called marketing.
ASAAR
>> Quite unscientific, but it's not to say that you can't use your
>> 'extended arms' method to get sharp shots.
>
> Not extended arms, bowed arms.
Semi-extended perhaps. I did read your earlier description that
mentioned "bent arms". "Bowed arms" sounds about as silly as I
think it looks, and makes one wonder if the photographer is about to
get plucked. If you still insist that the "bowed arms" would be
useful as "shock absorbers", you have an extremely poor
understanding of photography and physics. I assume that you don't,
but weren't gracious enough to retract your bogus theory. Unless,
that is, you are in the habit of taking pictures while walking,
where the bent arms may occasionally help to take pictures that are
slightly better than abominable. But if that's the case, you'd be
much better off using an external IS system - roller skates. :)
Chris Malcolm
> Alfred Molon wrote:
>> (unless you use MLU - a feature Sony astutely took out of the A350).
> The 2 second timer is the MLU.
> You might enjoy the manual as well which is included in the purchase.
You may be confusing the A350 manual with another. Some DSLRs do
indeed incorporate a pre-shot mirror raise in their short timer, a
kind of MLU, but the Sony A350 does not, nor does its manual claim
that it does.
On a film SLR I found mirror slap was degrading my 300mm heavy duty
tripod shots by available light in dim church interiors with exposures
roughly in the large fraction of a second range. The fuzzing was
visible in A5 size prints, nothing specially large was required. The
mirror clatter could quite clearly be felt to vibrate the camera on the
tripod for a good fraction of a second.
Whether this will be a problem with my A350, which has a smaller
lighter mechanism, and who knows what differences in the geometry of
forces and centre of gravity remains to be seen, as does whether and
how much the in-camera image stabilisation can tame it. I'll test it
and report back when a suitable test opportunity turns up.
--
Chris Malcolm c...@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
Chris Malcolm
>>> Took the plunge and just bought my first DLSR. Could so far afford the
>>> luxury of using cameras without slapping mirrors (my last camera was a
>>> Sony R1).
>>>
>>> Well, this slapping mirror is really an earthquake. When you press the
>>> shutter, it makes the entire camera vibrate.
>>> I'm still awaiting delivery of a 70-300mm lens, but I'm wondering if
>>> this slapping mirror will compromise sharpness at long focal lengths.
>>> What is the solution here? Using MLU for every shot can't be an option.
>>>
>>> Alfred Molon
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>
>> Ya know, people asked the same question about the Nikon F when they brought
>> it our in the 1950's....
> I was just thinking, it hasn't been a major issue for the half-century
> or so that SLRs have been around, so why should it be now?
It's always been a major issue for those photographers who took the
kind of photographs which were affected by it, which most
photographers didn't. So MLU tended only to appear in the more
expensive professional models.
Chris Malcolm
> Alfred Molon wrote:
>> Took the plunge and just bought my first DLSR. Could so far afford the
>> luxury of using cameras without slapping mirrors (my last camera was a
>> Sony R1).
>>
>> Well, this slapping mirror is really an earthquake. When you press the
>> shutter, it makes the entire camera vibrate.
>> I'm still awaiting delivery of a 70-300mm lens, but I'm wondering if
>> this slapping mirror will compromise sharpness at long focal lengths.
>> What is the solution here? Using MLU for every shot can't be an option.
> The simple answer is that mirror slap can only be a problem in a
> restricted range of shutter speeds, and it varies from camera to camera,
> but iirc, it was almost always in the range from ~ 1/8-1/30. Google the
> topic - I'm too lazy!
> The effect is very mild in most cameras and can probably be ignored - at
> those speeds you should probably be on a tripod anyway esp. if shooting
> long..
The effect occurs on even the sturdiest tripod. Put your longest lens
on your camera, bolt your camera to your sturdiest tripod, tie a laser
pointer to the lens, and watch what happens to the red dot when you
tap the camera with a pencil :-)
Jürgen Exner
>Human body shake. When the camera is held against the face it follows
>the movement of the body, while if it is held at a distance the bowed
>arms work as shock absorbers.
>
>To illustrate the point, try walking with a glass of water. If the glass
>is on your head it will shake a lot, while if you walk with the glass in
>your hand and bowed elbows it is much easier to hold the water in the
>glass still.
May I suggest to stand still instead of walking while taking photos?
jue
Hans Kruse
"Chris Malcolm" <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:6dh0apF...@mid.individual.net...
>
> It's always been a major issue for those photographers who took the
> kind of photographs which were affected by it, which most
> photographers didn't. So MLU tended only to appear in the more
> expensive professional models.
Many cheaper models have MLU also. The Canon Rebel models have had it since
the 350D.
--
Med venlig hilsen/Kind regards,
Hans Kruse www.hanskruse.com, http://hans-kruse.blogspot.com/
Hans Kruse
>
> At long focal lengths you should be using a tripod anyway, even with a
> rangefinder. Any decent tripod will elimiinate the motion due to
> mirror bounce. Some mfgs do a better job of cushioning the shock than
> others, but it is not a real performance concern.
Not true. This review
http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/infos/TheSharpestImage/TheSharpestImage-info.html
shows very clearly that even the most sturdy tripod will not dampen the
vibrations from the shutter, if you demand critically sharp pictures.
I have found the same on my Canon 1Ds mk3. With lower resolution and APS-C
with smaller mirrors the problem is slightly less but still there.
Alfred Molon
is incorrect, "bent" is probably the right term.
And no, I do not walk taking pictures and also never claimed that.
By the way, you are starting being insulting.
Alfred Molon
says...
>
> Many cheaper models have MLU also. The Canon Rebel models have had it since
> the 350D.
In fact it costs nothing to implement MLU, since any DSLR is capable of
lifting the mirror. It's a marketing decision to leave out this feature.
Steve
>Don Stauffer in Minnesota wrote:
>>
>> At long focal lengths you should be using a tripod anyway, even with a
>> rangefinder. Any decent tripod will elimiinate the motion due to
>> mirror bounce. Some mfgs do a better job of cushioning the shock than
>> others, but it is not a real performance concern.
>
>Not true. This review
>http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/infos/TheSharpestImage/TheSharpestImage-info.html
>shows very clearly that even the most sturdy tripod will not dampen the
>vibrations from the shutter, if you demand critically sharp pictures.
>I have found the same on my Canon 1Ds mk3. With lower resolution and APS-C
>with smaller mirrors the problem is slightly less but still there.
Vibrations from the shutter or mirror? I'm not sure there's much you
can do about the shutter.
Steve
Hans Kruse
> In article <48735d2f$0$90276$1472...@news.sunsite.dk>, Hans Kruse
> says...
>>
>> Many cheaper models have MLU also. The Canon Rebel models have had
>> it since the 350D.
>
> In fact it costs nothing to implement MLU, since any DSLR is capable
> of lifting the mirror. It's a marketing decision to leave out this
> feature.
Correct and now with live view most cameras have this built-in anyway. Most
of the time I combine live view and MLU in this way.
Hans Kruse
>
> Vibrations from the shutter or mirror? I'm not sure there's much you
> can do about the shutter.
The mirror is the only cause of vibrations that matters.
Steve
>Steve wrote:
>>
>> Vibrations from the shutter or mirror? I'm not sure there's much you
>> can do about the shutter.
>
>The mirror is the only cause of vibrations that matters.
I would think the shutter matters also, at least a little. Especially
for a big focal plane shutter. But since there's not much you can do
about it...
Steve
Jürgen Exner
>Vibrations from the shutter or mirror? I'm not sure there's much you
>can do about the shutter.
Oh yes, you can. Replace those pesky, obsolete, mechanical shutters with
modern, fancy, electronic shutters. This has been done in P&S for a long
time and it is surprising that dSLR are so far behind in development.
At least that's what some people are thinking,I guess. Unless of course
they are just plain trolling.
jue
Hans Kruse
"Steve" <st...@example.com> wrote in message
news:6ir674drvs63b5ggj...@4ax.com...
>
> I would think the shutter matters also, at least a little. Especially
> for a big focal plane shutter. But since there's not much you can do
> about it...
My observation with my own camera (Canon 1Ds mk3) is that image detail and
sharpnes for shutter speeds to require a tripod for ultimate quality will be
visibly affected by lack of tripod stability and mirror slapping. Given that
these two sources are controlled I find very detailed and high quality in
the resulting images when using first class glass. On a tripod I often use
only live view and zoomed into 10x so that it is possible to visibly control
that er no vibrations and then take the picture with a cable release. I
can't speak for all cameras, but for mine there is no issue with the
shutter. If there was ther would be a different visible resolution and
sharpness at lower shutter speeds than at very high shutter speeds and there
is no difference as long as the light is not very low.
ASAAR
> It should be obvious that I'm not a native English speaker. If "bowed"
> is incorrect, "bent" is probably the right term.
English may not be your native language, but you speak/write it
very well. Well enough to get in a semantic snit when I accurately
used the word "extended". Holding the camera as you do, whether
it's called bowed or bent, certainly extends the camera further from
the body than if the traditional method (eye to viewfinder) is used.
That extension, whether great or small is what many find
problematical with that method of taking pictures.
> And no, I do not walk taking pictures and also never claimed that.
True. But you attempted to use "walking" to try to demonstrate
that your arms could aid stability by acting as "shock absorbers".
You may have also noticed by now that others assumed that you were
describing the advantage of being better able to shoot pictures
while walking. In fact, your method is in no way comparable to
using shock absorbers. It's simply using your muscles to correct
for movement caused by those same muscles when the displacement
becomes large enough to notice.
When walking, one's head and torso move up and down, and that
*might* allow shock absorbing arms to slightly decrease one
component of motion. As I stated, however, people don't normally
walk while taking pictures, so there wouldn't be any gross vertical
movement for your shock absorbing arms to reduce. I guess that you
either chose to ignore my remark about roller skates making a better
external IS mechanism or the hyperbole went over your head, possibly
because English isn't your native language.
> By the way, you are starting being insulting.
In a way it's probably well earned. I thought that I presented a
clear explanation of why your "shock absorber" theory didn't hold
water (was "bogus") and expected that you would either try to show
why it was a valid theory or acknowledge that you had been mistaken.
Two replies later, and you haven't said word one about that bogus
theory, choosing to only say in one reply "Not extended arms, bowed
arms." and say "I do not walk taking pictures and also never claimed
that." and complain about being insulted in the other.
Since your record shows you to be reasonably intelligent, I find
your choice of avoiding a real issue by addressing an insignificant,
irrelevant detail instead to be a good deal more insulting. And as
you and everyone else that read my reply must have seen, I didn't
insult you by disparaging the way you hold your cameras (as others
have done), but admitted that using a test that I devised, found
that your method worked better than I assumed, and might even work
quite well for you and others. That you also chose to not
acknowledge that simply adds pettiness to insult. If I make a silly
claim in a reply, I expect some to hurl far more insulting barbs in
my direction. I hope that I'll reply dealing with the real issues
and not the insults. Unless, that is, they are purely gratuitous
insults, accompanied by nothing else of value. YMMV.
Alan Browne
> In article <g4ua63$dk8$1...@registered.motzarella.org>, Mark Thomas says...
>> Alan Browne wrote:
>>> Alfred Molon wrote:
>>>
>>>> (unless you use MLU - a feature Sony astutely took out of the A350).
>>> The 2 second timer is the MLU.
>>>
>> A very good point that is oft forgotten - if you are not shooting
>> 'action', then your self-timer is your best friend, as most cams have a
>> short-delay mode... I use mine all the time.
>
> Sony removed the MLU feature from the A350. It would have cost nothing
> to leave it there
You are wrong. Please See p. 98 ( of the Enlgish manual at any rate).
Alan Browne
> Alan Browne <alan....@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>> Alfred Molon wrote:
>
>>> (unless you use MLU - a feature Sony astutely took out of the A350).
>
>> The 2 second timer is the MLU.
>
>> You might enjoy the manual as well which is included in the purchase.
>
> You may be confusing the A350 manual with another. Some DSLRs do
> indeed incorporate a pre-shot mirror raise in their short timer, a
> kind of MLU, but the Sony A350 does not, nor does its manual claim
> that it does.
P.98 of the A350 (English) manual:
"...and the 2-second self-timer is convenient to reduce the camera shake."
Admittedly this is poorly written and less than explicit. But that is
the function.
Cheers,
Alan.
Alan Browne
> Mark Thomas <markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com> wrote:
>> Alfred Molon wrote:
>>> Took the plunge and just bought my first DLSR. Could so far afford the
>>> luxury of using cameras without slapping mirrors (my last camera was a
>>> Sony R1).
>>>
>>> Well, this slapping mirror is really an earthquake. When you press the
>>> shutter, it makes the entire camera vibrate.
>>> I'm still awaiting delivery of a 70-300mm lens, but I'm wondering if
>>> this slapping mirror will compromise sharpness at long focal lengths.
>>> What is the solution here? Using MLU for every shot can't be an option.
>
>> The simple answer is that mirror slap can only be a problem in a
>> restricted range of shutter speeds, and it varies from camera to camera,
>> but iirc, it was almost always in the range from ~ 1/8-1/30. Google the
>> topic - I'm too lazy!
>
>> The effect is very mild in most cameras and can probably be ignored - at
>> those speeds you should probably be on a tripod anyway esp. if shooting
>> long..
>
> The effect occurs on even the sturdiest tripod. Put your longest lens
> on your camera, bolt your camera to your sturdiest tripod, tie a laser
> pointer to the lens, and watch what happens to the red dot when you
> tap the camera with a pencil :-)
That's a property of most all rigid bodies. I did neglect to include
the tripod in my reply as well.
nospam
Molon <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Many cheaper models have MLU also. The Canon Rebel models have had it since
> > the 350D.
>
> In fact it costs nothing to implement MLU, since any DSLR is capable of
> lifting the mirror. It's a marketing decision to leave out this feature.
that's a large part of it, but it's not 100% marketing. if the mirror
can stay up, the shutter has to be fully light-tight. on a camera that
does not have true mirror lockup, they can cut costs with a shutter
that 'leaks' a little.
nospam
<jurg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Steve <st...@example.com> wrote:
> >Vibrations from the shutter or mirror? I'm not sure there's much you
> >can do about the shutter.
>
> Oh yes, you can. Replace those pesky, obsolete, mechanical shutters with
> modern, fancy, electronic shutters. This has been done in P&S for a long
> time and it is surprising that dSLR are so far behind in development.
which affects shutter lag time and sensor blooming. there's always
tradeoffs...
Jürgen Exner
OMG, how large to I have to write those <SARCASM> tags?
jue
Chris Malcolm
> Chris Malcolm wrote:
>> Alan Browne <alan....@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>>> Alfred Molon wrote:
>>
>>>> (unless you use MLU - a feature Sony astutely took out of the A350).
>>
>>> The 2 second timer is the MLU.
>>
>>> You might enjoy the manual as well which is included in the purchase.
>>
>> You may be confusing the A350 manual with another. Some DSLRs do
>> indeed incorporate a pre-shot mirror raise in their short timer, a
>> kind of MLU, but the Sony A350 does not, nor does its manual claim
>> that it does.
> P.98 of the A350 (English) manual:
> "...and the 2-second self-timer is convenient to reduce the camera shake."
> Admittedly this is poorly written and less than explicit. But that is
> the function.
Of course it reduces camera shake. But you claimed that it also did a
mirror lock up. Some DSLR's do in fact do just that with their short
timer, but the A350 doesn't, as is easily verified by trying it out.
Chris Malcolm
> Alfred Molon wrote:
>> In article <g4ua63$dk8$1...@registered.motzarella.org>, Mark Thomas says...
>>> Alan Browne wrote:
>>>> Alfred Molon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> (unless you use MLU - a feature Sony astutely took out of the A350).
>>>> The 2 second timer is the MLU.
>>>>
>>> A very good point that is oft forgotten - if you are not shooting
>>> 'action', then your self-timer is your best friend, as most cams have a
>>> short-delay mode... I use mine all the time.
>>
>> Sony removed the MLU feature from the A350. It would have cost nothing
>> to leave it there
> You are wrong. Please See p. 98 ( of the Enlgish manual at any rate).
You are wrong. Page 98 of the English manual makes no claim about MLU,
and trying the 2 sec delay on the camera verifies that it does not
involve MLU.
Alan Browne
> Alan Browne <alan....@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>> Alfred Molon wrote:
>>> In article <g4ua63$dk8$1...@registered.motzarella.org>, Mark Thomas says...
>>>> Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>> Alfred Molon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> (unless you use MLU - a feature Sony astutely took out of the A350).
>>>>> The 2 second timer is the MLU.
>>>>>
>>>> A very good point that is oft forgotten - if you are not shooting
>>>> 'action', then your self-timer is your best friend, as most cams have a
>>>> short-delay mode... I use mine all the time.
>>>
>>> Sony removed the MLU feature from the A350. It would have cost nothing
>>> to leave it there
>
>> You are wrong. Please See p. 98 ( of the Enlgish manual at any rate).
>
> You are wrong. Page 98 of the English manual makes no claim about MLU,
> and trying the 2 sec delay on the camera verifies that it does not
> involve MLU.
>
Download English the manual from Sony.
See p. 98.
If this does not work as an MLU, then indeed Sony have screwed this up.
It may even be a firmware error.
ASAAR
> Download English the manual from Sony.
I would needed it I if.
:)
Chris Malcolm
> Chris Malcolm wrote:
>> Alan Browne <alan....@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>>> Alfred Molon wrote:
>>>> In article <g4ua63$dk8$1...@registered.motzarella.org>, Mark Thomas says...
>>>>> Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>>> Alfred Molon wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (unless you use MLU - a feature Sony astutely took out of the A350).
>>>>>> The 2 second timer is the MLU.
>>>>>>
>>>>> A very good point that is oft forgotten - if you are not shooting
>>>>> 'action', then your self-timer is your best friend, as most cams have a
>>>>> short-delay mode... I use mine all the time.
>>>>
>>>> Sony removed the MLU feature from the A350. It would have cost nothing
>>>> to leave it there
>>
>>> You are wrong. Please See p. 98 ( of the Enlgish manual at any rate).
>>
>> You are wrong. Page 98 of the English manual makes no claim about MLU,
>> and trying the 2 sec delay on the camera verifies that it does not
>> involve MLU.
> Download English the manual from Sony.
I don't need to. A copy came in the box with my Sony Alpha 350.
> See p. 98.
> If this does not work as an MLU, then indeed Sony have screwed this up.
It makes no claim to do mirror lock up. It simply says it stops camera
shake, which of course it does, because it stops you pushing the
button to fire the camera. That's a well known feature of timer
shutter delay which has been well known and exploited for almost as
long as cameras have existed, and applies to all cameras, not just
SLRs.
> It may even be a firmware error.
Since the manual makes no claim to doing more than simply to delay the
normal shutter release your hypothesis requires that they not only
forget to make the firmware do the job, but they also forgot to
describe what it was supposed to do in the manual. Since a number of
other camera makers omitted the short-timer-MLU from both their
firmware and their manuals on purpose, the simpler hypothesis is that
Sony did the same.
Chris Malcolm
> On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 17:30:11 GMT in rec.photo.digital, J?rgen Exner
> <jurg...@hotmail.com> wrote,
>>nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>In article <7cr6745upbe2r41fm...@4ax.com>, J?rgen Exner
>>><jurg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Steve <st...@example.com> wrote:
>>>> >Vibrations from the shutter or mirror? I'm not sure there's much you
>>>> >can do about the shutter.
>>>>
>>>> Oh yes, you can. Replace those pesky, obsolete, mechanical shutters with
>>>> modern, fancy, electronic shutters. This has been done in P&S for a long
>>>> time and it is surprising that dSLR are so far behind in development.
>>>
>>>which affects shutter lag time and sensor blooming. there's always
>>>tradeoffs...
>>
>>OMG, how large to I have to write those <SARCASM> tags?
> There is no sarcasm on Usenet. It was tried; it didn't work.
It didn't work in the US :-)
John McWilliams
> David Harmon <sou...@netcom.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 17:30:11 GMT in rec.photo.digital, J?rgen Exner
>> <jurg...@hotmail.com> wrote,
>>> nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>> In article <7cr6745upbe2r41fm...@4ax.com>, J?rgen Exner
>>>> <jurg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Steve <st...@example.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Vibrations from the shutter or mirror? I'm not sure there's much you
>>>>>> can do about the shutter.
>>>>> Oh yes, you can. Replace those pesky, obsolete, mechanical shutters with
>>>>> modern, fancy, electronic shutters. This has been done in P&S for a long
>>>>> time and it is surprising that dSLR are so far behind in development.
>>>> which affects shutter lag time and sensor blooming. there's always
>>>> tradeoffs...
>>> OMG, how large to I have to write those <SARCASM> tags?
>
>> There is no sarcasm on Usenet. It was tried; it didn't work.
>
> It didn't work in the US :-)
>
Cute, Chris. You've shown yourself to be a xenophobe, smilies
notwithstanding.
--
lsmft
Alan Browne
<sigh> what I get for inserting a qualifier after I type the line...
Alan Browne
Perhaps, but in all Minolta's I have seen with a 2 s. delay it has been
for the MLU function. Seeing the 2 sec. mode on dpr and the mention of
camera movement reduction in the manual suggested to me that it was
still there.
>
>> It may even be a firmware error.
>
> Since the manual makes no claim to doing more than simply to delay the
> normal shutter release your hypothesis requires that they not only
> forget to make the firmware do the job, but they also forgot to
> describe what it was supposed to do in the manual. Since a number of
> other camera makers omitted the short-timer-MLU from both their
> firmware and their manuals on purpose, the simpler hypothesis is that
> Sony did the same.
It's likely as you say. Which is a huge disappointment.
What is the point of not including MLU on a 14 Mpix camera and including
a 2 sec. timer that doesn't really contribute anything other than relief
from a finger stab?
Ah well, the A350 seems to be an orphan in any case. Too many pixels on
too small a surface.
They had better impress with the 24 Mpix beast, otherwise I will, at a
large loss, start selling off some rather great lenses and go to Canon
or Nikon. (more likely Canon).
Already they've removed the built in flash from the new camera. (Which
is great to control off camera flashes in the studio). Now I'll have to
buy another flash as a controller (as my 5400HS won't work properly for
this, so despite having the 5600HS, I'll have to add another high end
flash).
Sony seem hell bent for leather to alienate their Minolta base.
David Harmon
<jurg...@hotmail.com> wrote,
There is no sarcasm on Usenet. It was tried; it didn't work.
Chris Malcolm
That's a peculiarly parochial definition of xenophobe you're using :-)
John McWilliams
> John McWilliams <jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Chris Malcolm wrote:
>>> David Harmon <sou...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 17:30:11 GMT in rec.photo.digital, J?rgen Exner
>>>> <jurg...@hotmail.com> wrote,
>>>>> nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> In article <7cr6745upbe2r41fm...@4ax.com>, J?rgen Exner
>>>>>> <jurg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Steve <st...@example.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Vibrations from the shutter or mirror? I'm not sure there's much you
>>>>>>>> can do about the shutter.
>>>>>>> Oh yes, you can. Replace those pesky, obsolete, mechanical shutters with
>>>>>>> modern, fancy, electronic shutters. This has been done in P&S for a long
>>>>>>> time and it is surprising that dSLR are so far behind in development.
>>>>>> which affects shutter lag time and sensor blooming. there's always
>>>>>> tradeoffs...
>>>>> OMG, how large to I have to write those <SARCASM> tags?
>>>> There is no sarcasm on Usenet. It was tried; it didn't work.
>>> It didn't work in the US :-)
>
>> Cute, Chris. You've shown yourself to be a xenophobe, smilies
>> notwithstanding.
>
> That's a peculiarly parochial definition of xenophobe you're using :-)
Parochial is as parochial does, n'est-ce pas?
--
lsmft
Chris Malcolm
And a similarly parochial definition of parochial.
John Turco
>
> It should be obvious that I'm not a native English speaker. If "bowed"
> is incorrect, "bent" is probably the right term.
>
>
Hello, Alfred:
In reality, you have an excellent command of English. I've noticed
very few instances, in which your syntax has hinted that you're not
a native speaker of the language.
Cordially,
John Turco <jt...@concentric.net>
Paul Furman
I had not noticed :-)