Why No Bulb or Cable Release Socket?
jim evans
for using a cable release?
I have a DSLR-like digital camera (Panasonic FZ50). It has a focusing
ring and a zoom ring on the lens. In essentially all ways except the
pentaprism it has the functions of a DSLR, but it's absent these
useful features. I've owned 5 digital cameras, none had these
features.
Simple film cameras had them. Why do most digital cameras not have
them?
Cynicor
Five point-and-shoots, right? Because every DSLR I've had provides bulb
ability.
Charles
It may. It's called a remote
There is a picture at
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2007_reviews/panasonic_fz50_pg2.html
I don't have the user guide, so I can't be sure of all the functions.
Bruce
release
Bruce
Bruce
Bruce
"jim evans" <jimsTAKE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:cl05n45jbadik4si8...@4ax.com...
Dave Cohen
1. Cable or Bulb release has nothing to do with dslr. The term bulb is
because that's what they once were, you squeezed the bulb, compressed
the air inside and that opened the shutter on your nicely finished plate
camera.
2. Virtually all the film cameras I can remember had cable release
functionality.
3. As to why this is absent on today's cameras, I've no idea.
Dave Cohen
Jim
This question caused me to check all of the cameras that I now own...
Nikon S2 (1955) - bulb and time - mechanical cable
Nikon F2 (1974) - bulb and time - mechanical cable
Nikon F3 (1988) - bulb and time - mechanical cable
Nikon MD4 (motor drive for F3) - electrical cable
Nikon N90S (1996) - bulb - electrical cable
Nikon Coopix 800 - neither bulb nor time
Nikon D70 (2004) - bulb - remote control
Nikon D90 (2009) - bulb - electrical cable or remote control
And some that I no longer own:
Practika FX (1953) - bulb and time - mechanical cable
Canon FT-QL (1968) - bulb and time - mechanical cable
The dates are the year that I bought the camera.
So, mechanical cables left the scened somtime before 1996 which was way
before digital cameras were affordable (unless you call a modified F3 or F-1
with 1 MP and cost $20000 or more affordable).
By the way, the fine manual for the D90 says that you can leave the camera
at bulb for up to 35 minutes.
Jim
jim evans
<bruce...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>Look at Page 122 of your manual.
Yes, I understood you could buy a special accessory. Cable releases
are universal. I own 3 of different lengths and they worked on all my
film cameras.
However, I don't think even this camera-unique accessory will let you
do a bulb or time exposure.
jim evans
wrote:
So you figure camera manufacturers leave these features off in order
to cater to elitist snobbery?
Mark Thomas
electronic, it makes little sense to have what is a significantly sized
mechanism just to satisfy a fairly rare need. Most 'decent' cameras
have a 2 or ten second time delay that can be used, many have wireless
remotes, some even have wired remotes. Just for the record, the Fuji
S9XXX series had a real cable release socket (I know, I have one), but I
think they are pretty unique in that regard.
Regarding Bulb, many/most(?) sensors overheat and/or suffer from noise
problems with extremely long exposures, so if they do offer 'bulb' it is
often limited. The last couple of bridge cameras I had were limited to
8 and 15 minutes iirc.
While it made sense and was relatively easy to implement on film
cameras, digitals are a little trickier. But there is always image
stacking..
Matt Ion
My 1958-vintage Argus C-3 has provisions for a cable release, as did my
ill-fated Minolta X-700. My Canon Rebel G and Digital Rebel 300D both
use an electric remote (well, it's really just a pair of switches), and
my 40D uses a similar remote with a different connector.
The move to electrical vs. cable release, I suspect, can be traced back
to the advent of autofocus, rather than the introduction of digital...
these types of remotes typically have two switch positions, just like
the cameras: half-press to initiate AF, full-press to fire.
A couple other SLRs and SLR-type film cameras I've had over the years
had cable-release connections as well.
No film or digital P&S I've ever owned had a Bulb or cable function,
that I can recall.
> By the way, the fine manual for the D90 says that you can leave the camera
> at bulb for up to 35 minutes.
I left my Digital Rebel on bulb overnight once... I think it got to a
little under 3.5 hours before the battery gave out. Would have been
some amazing star trails if it weren't for the break of dawn... *sigh*
TrentTarkins
>jim evans wrote:
>> Why do most digital cameras have no Bulb ability? Why no provision
>> for using a cable release?
>>
>> I have a DSLR-like digital camera (Panasonic FZ50). It has a focusing
>> ring and a zoom ring on the lens. In essentially all ways except the
>> pentaprism it has the functions of a DSLR, but it's absent these
>> useful features. I've owned 5 digital cameras, none had these
>> features.
>>
>> Simple film cameras had them. Why do most digital cameras not have
>> them?
>
>1. Cable or Bulb release has nothing to do with dslr. The term bulb is
>because that's what they once were, you squeezed the bulb, compressed
>the air inside and that opened the shutter on your nicely finished plate
>camera.
Wholly incorrect.
"Bulb" refers to the "flashbulb" shutter speed. In the beginning days of
flash-photography with slow films and smaller available apertures the shutter
was manually triggered and held open until the flashbulb could also be fired
manually, independent of the camera's shutter. At one time there was no
connection between camera and flash-bulb. The flash-unit being hand-held or on a
bracket, apart from any mechanical-linkage or electrical connection to the
camera's shutter trigger. Some flashbulbs were even fired by a mechanical
firing-pin hitting a chemical detonator (like a cap-gun) rather than by voltage,
akin to the old flash-powder days. The camera could not trigger the flash at the
proper time without any physical or electrical connection to sync the two, so
the shutter had to be held open indefinitely until the photographer set off the
flash. After the flashBULB was fired by the photographer then the shutter was
manually closed again. The "bulb" setting name had nothing to do with a
compressed-air (pneumatic) cable-release.
Because this manual shutter mode was also valuable for more than just flash
photos (long exposures), it was kept on subsequent camera designs but retained
its origins of "Bulb" setting on the shutter-speed selection, as it was still
occasionally used for that original purpose with many earlier manually-triggered
flash units.
When electrical synchronization was included in focal-plane cameras then
flashbulbs had to be made into a "slow burn" variety to compensate for the slow
moving focal-plane shutter. An even amount of light had to be discharged during
the duration of shutter's passage from one side of the film's frame to the
other. You can still find these bulbs for sale as antiques or in specialty
photo-shops as "FP Bulbs" ("focal-plane flashbulbs"). Instead of a sharp and
short-lived peak of light intensity in normal flash-bulbs as used by all
leaf-shutter cameras, where the peak of the flash output would coincide with the
leaf-shutter being fully open and useable at all shutter speeds, these FP-bulbs
would rapidly climb in intensity then hold their light-output evenly for the
focal-plane shutter's film frame passage. Since light output was (relatively)
constant for the full 1/60 or 1/120 second that it took both fabric
shutter-curtains to traverse the film-plane, any shutter speed could now be used
with them. "X-Sync" became involved when Xenon flash units where developed (X
for Xenon), where a bright enough light could be discharged when the shutter was
fully open. But now you were limited to the slower shutter speeds due to the
xenon discharge being of such short duration, the time it took for a
high-voltage capacitor to discharge as a "spark". Only useful at shutter-speeds
where both shutter curtains leave the film-plane fully exposed. Unless you
invest in some of the newer xenon-flash varieties that pulse the flash output
for the full 1/250 second duration of the focal-plane shutter's passage,
harkening back to how "FP Flashbulbs" used to work. This method has its huge
drawbacks too (uneven illumination, loss of light from the flash at faster than
x-sync speeds, slow flash recovery rates, etc.). But that's another sad story.
Getting any kind of flash to work efficiently and properly synced with
focal-plane shutter cameras has always been a gimmicky rube-goldburg work-around
and always will be. Let your "Bulb" and "X-Sync" setting's origins on your
DSLR's always be a testament to this sad fact. You'll never get away from nor
get around these drawbacks and problems as long as you support the production of
focal-plane shutter cameras.
nospam
<tar...@watchingtheattentionwhores.org> wrote:
> >> Simple film cameras had them. Why do most digital cameras not have
> >> them?
> >
> >1. Cable or Bulb release has nothing to do with dslr. The term bulb is
> >because that's what they once were, you squeezed the bulb, compressed
> >the air inside and that opened the shutter on your nicely finished plate
> >camera.
>
> Wholly incorrect.
no, he is exactly correct. the term does refer to a bulb that was
squeezed to hold the shutter open while time exposure was one click to
open and another click to close. many old cameras have both b and t on
the shutter dial.
> "Bulb" refers to the "flashbulb" shutter speed.
wrong.
the rest of what you wrote is also wrong.
TrentTarkins
>In article <r7a5n4pden8lebts4...@4ax.com>, TrentTarkins
><tar...@watchingtheattentionwhores.org> wrote:
>
>> >> Simple film cameras had them. Why do most digital cameras not have
>> >> them?
>> >
>> >1. Cable or Bulb release has nothing to do with dslr. The term bulb is
>> >because that's what they once were, you squeezed the bulb, compressed
>> >the air inside and that opened the shutter on your nicely finished plate
>> >camera.
>>
>> Wholly incorrect.
>
>no, he is exactly correct. the term does refer to a bulb that was
>squeezed to hold the shutter open while time exposure was one click to
>open and another click to close. many old cameras have both b and t on
>the shutter dial.
>
You're a total troll and a moron. Squeezable "bulb" air-pressure type
cable-releases weren't used until very late in the game. They were only invented
later as a more gentle way of avoiding all camera-shake, apart from using an
actual sheathed cable, the original method. Pneumatic "bulb-type" cable releases
became popularized in the 60's due to the longer distances from which they could
trigger the camera and the more easily available modern plastics that could be
made into long air-hoses. This happened long after the "bulb" setting was on all
cameras from the early years of all camera designs and earlier flash-bulb
photography methods.
I'll bet you've never even seen a real flash-bulb in your miserable net-only
life. Do you know why it was common practice to hold a flash-bulb in your mouth
for the next shot? I bet not. I still recall the taste of flash-bulbs. (And that
wonderful smell after they exploded.)
Go educate yourself about real facts for once in your sad and useless
attention-deficit net-troll life.
>> "Bulb" refers to the "flashbulb" shutter speed.
>
>wrong.
>
>the rest of what you wrote is also wrong.
You're a freakin' internet-life-only moron without one clue about real
photography or real cameras or knowing any history at all about the subject. Let
alone ever having used any actual equipment related to the subject.
This is the sole problem with usenet. One useless troll supports another troll
so all the other trolls start to believe their own lies, deranged imaginings,
and wildly invented explanations without one fact supporting any of them.
Psychotic mob-rule becomes "fact" in their useless and ignorant virtual-lives.
Ray Fischer
> nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> TrentTarkins
>>> >> Simple film cameras had them. Why do most digital cameras not have
>>> >> them?
>>> >
>>> >1. Cable or Bulb release has nothing to do with dslr. The term bulb is
>>> >because that's what they once were, you squeezed the bulb, compressed
>>> >the air inside and that opened the shutter on your nicely finished plate
>>> >camera.
>>>
>>> Wholly incorrect.
>>
>>no, he is exactly correct. the term does refer to a bulb that was
>>squeezed to hold the shutter open while time exposure was one click to
>>open and another click to close. many old cameras have both b and t on
>>the shutter dial.
>
>You're a total troll and a moron.
He happens to be correct.
> Squeezable "bulb" air-pressure type
>cable-releases weren't used until very late in the game.
History
The term "bulb" is a reference to old-style pneumatically actuated
shutters; squeezing an air bulb would open the shutter and
releasing the bulb would close it. According to the Focal
Encyclopedia of Photography[1]:
"BULB EXPOSURE (B). Another term for a brief exposure-in which
the shutter remains open only so long as the shutter release is
held down. The word originated with the early pneumatic shutter
release."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cable_release
> They were only invented
>later as a more gentle way of avoiding all camera-shake,
You're sfull of shit. Cable/bulb shutter releases were in use with
the very first cameras.
>>> "Bulb" refers to the "flashbulb" shutter speed.
>>
>>wrong.
>>
>>the rest of what you wrote is also wrong.
>
>You're a freakin' internet-life-only moron without one clue about real
The "flashbulb" shutter speed is the x-sync speed, moron.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
TrentTarkins
And the Wiki's are NEVER wrong! :-) After all, if it's printed on the internet
it MUST be true, right? All Wiki pages are usually authored by nothing more than
net-living trolls and morons just like yourself, who also never get out into
daylight in their lives. All they know is their keyboards so they live on the
Wiki's, they live and breathe to try to sound like they know something by
authoring pages on the Wikis, their net-life face-book pages with their
imaginary "friends", and author conspiracy-theory sites, the very same as the
net-living trolls like you who only live on usenet.
I can't begin to tell you how many Wiki references I've read that were in total
error. And just like here, it's usually not worth my time to try to correct
their outlandish imaginings. Most Wiki pages are complete fabrications by
net-living idiots whose only skill in life is having learned how to type and can
invent "plausible" but WRONG explanations for subject with which they've never
had any real experience or real education. No wonder that nobody wants to know
them and that's all they have left to do in life.
Try some real-life experience for once in your sad and pathetic net-troll-only
life.
>> They were only invented
>>later as a more gentle way of avoiding all camera-shake,
>
>You're sfull of shit. Cable/bulb shutter releases were in use with
>the very first cameras.
>
>>>> "Bulb" refers to the "flashbulb" shutter speed.
>>>
>>>wrong.
>>>
>>>the rest of what you wrote is also wrong.
>>
>>You're a freakin' internet-life-only moron without one clue about real
>
>The "flashbulb" shutter speed is the x-sync speed, moron.
Wow, are you ever an idiot. But then that's to be expected for someone who only
lives on usenet and has never owned any cameras in their life.
X-Sync fires the flash at the moment when both shutter curtains are FULLY open.
FOR ELECTRONIC FLASH SYNC, NOT FLASHBULB FLASH. X-Sync CANNOT BE USED WITH
FLASHBULBS. A standard flashbulb's (not xenon flash) chemical reaction CANNOT
reach full intensity before the 2nd shutter-curtain starts to close if it is
first triggered when both curtains are fully open, and this causes uneven
exposure in every frame. For this very reason they cannot be used with
focal-plane shutters at X-Synced shutter-speeds. "FP-Flashbulbs" had to be used
and MUST be triggered to ignite BEFORE the 1st-curtain opened. This is the ONLY
way that the whole film-frame would be exposed when the flash from the FP-Bulb
reached full and sustained intensity during the whole duration of the
shutter-slit's full passage, no matter how narrow the slit due to shutter speed.
There IS AND WAS NO "flashbulb sync" setting on focal-plane shutter cameras for
flashbulbs that fired when synced by electric current switched by the camera's
shutter mechanism, as when used with the proper FP-BULBS, because ALL shutter
speeds worked properly with FP-Bulbs. Got it you fuckin' moron? The flashbulb
was triggered to go off BEFORE the 1st-curtain started to open with ALL shutter
speeds (X-Sync triggers a xenon flash to go off AFTER the 1st-curtain is fully
open.). If you didn't use the proper FP-Bulb for focal-plane shutter cameras
then your exposures of faster shutter speeds was not evenly lit across the
frame. The "BULB" shutter setting only refers to the archaic method of the past
when there WAS NO ELECTRICAL CONNECTION between flashbulb and camera, and both
camera and bulb, had to be manually triggered independently by the photographer.
Get at least one clue in your sad life you freakin' moron of a troll. Go read
and re-spew some more of your net-educated misinformation that was invented by
other idiotic and ignorant trolls just like yourself. How can you tell when
you've being lied to by other net-life trolls just like yourself?
You can't.
That's what makes all net-trolls like you so amazingly pathetic. All that trolls
like you do is waste the time of good people who know better than you, who have
to end up trying to educate you and disprove your net-spewed ignorance with
FACTS.
Just as I said: Psychotic net-troll mob-rule becomes "fact" in their teeny
virtual-life minds, no matter how far from the truth and reality. The trolls
replying to this thread don't even know how SLRs, shutter-settings, focal-plane
shutters, and flashbulbs work. They've now successfully removed all doubt about
it.
Go ahead, believe your fellow misinformation-spewing trolls' and Wiki "anonymous
author"'s ignorance and fabrications. I'm done wasting one more second of my
life on wastes of flesh like you. You're just not worth anyone's time. No wonder
you're so desperate to get attention this way, it's all you've got, and will
ever have in life. How sad you are.
Pete D
"Mark Thomas" <markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com> wrote in message
news:gku8sd$v83$1...@reader.motzarella.org...
I think also what the OP is not realising is that the FZ50 may look a like
an SLR camera but in fact is just a big point and shoot with a few extra
features, I guess cable/remote release is not one of them.
Ray Fischer
There's a picture of a bulb release from the 1890s, moron.
>>> They were only invented
>>>later as a more gentle way of avoiding all camera-shake,
>>
>>You're sfull of shit. Cable/bulb shutter releases were in use with
>>the very first cameras.
As the phto on the Wikipedia page shows quite clearly.
>>>>> "Bulb" refers to the "flashbulb" shutter speed.
>>>>
>>>>wrong.
>>>>
>>>>the rest of what you wrote is also wrong.
>>>
>>>You're a freakin' internet-life-only moron without one clue about real
>>
>>The "flashbulb" shutter speed is the x-sync speed, moron.
>
>Wow, are you ever an idiot.
Go away, asshole.
>X-Sync fires the flash at the moment when both shutter curtains are FULLY open.
AKA, the '"flashbulb" shutter speed'.
>FOR ELECTRONIC FLASH SYNC, NOT FLASHBULB FLASH.
LOL! Do you think that the shutter behaves differently depending on
whether it's a electronic flash or a flashbulb? And what has that to
do with the bulb setting on the camera? You think that fashbulbs are
SO SLOW that people need to keep the shutter open for a few minutes?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Matt Ion
While I agree with your assessment of the meaning of "B" - "bulb
release" in reference to the pneumatic trigger is how I learned it LONG
before teh intranets came along - I feel I should correct you on one point:
>> X-Sync fires the flash at the moment when both shutter curtains are FULLY open.
>
> AKA, the '"flashbulb" shutter speed'.
>
>> FOR ELECTRONIC FLASH SYNC, NOT FLASHBULB FLASH.
>
> LOL! Do you think that the shutter behaves differently depending on
> whether it's a electronic flash or a flashbulb?
It does, actually. Because old-style flashbulbs took a fraction of a
second to reach full brightness, shutter sync was delayed slightly from
flash activation... or more accurately, flash sync was set to precede
shutter opening by a few hundredths of a second.
I learned about this the hard way after I rigged an X-sync adapter to my
old Argus C-3 and wasted a whole role of film trying out my new flash,
ending up with some 26 almost-entirely-black shots. I opened up the
front of the camera to find a tab attached to the shutter mechanism,
that would contact and energize the flash terminals a good 10 degrees
before the shutter started opening... I managed to adjust the tab myself
to provide proper X-sync timing - contact at the instant of the shutter
opening fully.
A trip to the library and a little reading (and again, this was early
80s, well preceding Wikipedia) told me this was done because of the lag
time for flashbulbs. The example given showed a camera with selectable
sync - T for flashbulbs, and X for electronic flashes.
Said photography books were also unanimous in their explanation of the
"bulb" setting. So yes, you, Dave and 'nospam' are correct in the
meaning of "B"... but you're off slightly on bulb-vs-strobe flash (not
WRONG, per se, just off a little :))
Hope that helps :)
Prometheus
<jimsTAKE...@comcast.net> writes
>On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 02:26:25 -0000, "Bruce"
><bruce...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Look at Page 122 of your manual.
>
>Yes, I understood you could buy a special accessory. Cable releases
>are universal. I own 3 of different lengths and they worked on all my
>film cameras.
Now there you do have a potential problem, the connector might be
peculiar to the manufacturer making it incompatible with other models
(if you are unlucky even from the same manufacturer). The advantage of
being electrical is that it is much simpler to extend, and you can
easily connect trigger sensors, i.e. sound or beam-break, to capture
wild life. On the subject of compatibility, I had to purchase adapters
to use a cable release with both my TLR and sub-miniature cameras.
>However, I don't think even this camera-unique accessory will let you
>do a bulb or time exposure.
I do not know about your system, but mine (Canon RS60-E3) will; it has a
press button that can be slid to lock it, all I have to do is set the
shutter to "bulb" and plug it in. I had no trouble making an extension
cable using parts readily available from a local electrical components
shop. Some cameras, like my DSLR, also work with an IR remote control.
--
Ian G8ILZ
There are always two people in every picture: the photographer and the viewer.
~Ansel Adams
Prometheus
<us...@example.net> writes
I am not sure that many compact cameras (before the term P&S was used as
a pejorative) had a remote socket of any form. Do you remember frame
that could be clamped around a camera to permit attaching a mechanical
cable realise? As such I am not sure it is any more, or less, absent on
today's cameras than in the past.
Chris Malcolm
Not all of them.
> Why do most digital cameras not have
> them?
Not all of them lack the modern equivalent, which works better.
--
Chris Malcolm
Chris Malcolm
> By the way, the fine manual for the D90 says that you can leave the camera
> at bulb for up to 35 minutes.
Exactly!
Try keeping a pneumatic bulb squeezed for 35 mins. And once you've
developed the muscular strength to do that, try and find someone who
makes camera pneumatic releases which can hold air pressure for 36
mins :-)
There are still plenty of old cameras around in attics and junk shops
which have these features. And there are still some old guys shooting
with them.
I guess it's like the old philosophical debates about how many legs a
spider had. It's so much more fun to argue all day about it than to
find a spider and look :-)
--
Chris Malcolm
dj_nme
No, they make you buy a special remote so that you can add that
functionality for a small fee (IE: The purchase price of the remote.).
J. Clarke
> Jim <jj...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> By the way, the fine manual for the D90 says that you can leave the
>> camera at bulb for up to 35 minutes.
>
> Exactly!
>
> Try keeping a pneumatic bulb squeezed for 35 mins. And once you've
> developed the muscular strength to do that, try and find someone who
> makes camera pneumatic releases which can hold air pressure for 36
> mins :-)
You've never used a cable release, have you? On most of them there's
a screw that locks the release for long exposures.
And unlike digital cameras, the interface for the cable release was
pretty well standardized by the '50s if not before--there may have
been some that used a different thread for it but I never encountered
one.
I agree that the electrical release has many advantages, but I do wish
that the camera manufacturers would come up with a standard interface
for the thing.
Nonetheless a cable release should cost pretty much nothing to
add--it's just a screw thread on the shutter release that allows the
pin on the cable release to press down on the underlying mechanism.
I suspect that the real reason that the cable release was removed and
replaced with an electrical release is that nobody was willing to pay
45 bucks for a cable release with a "Nikon" or "Canon" sticker on it
when a perfectly adequate one could be obtained for 5 bucks as a
generic. But if the connector is proprietary then they can force
anyone needing a remote to pay 45 bucks for a switch and a wire that
if not for the proprietary connector could be cobbled up from Rat
Shack parts for that same 5 bucks.
This is one area where I'm of the opinion "three cheers for the
Chinese".
> There are still plenty of old cameras around in attics and junk
> shops
> which have these features. And there are still some old guys
> shooting
> with them.
>
> I guess it's like the old philosophical debates about how many legs
> a
> spider had. It's so much more fun to argue all day about it than to
> find a spider and look :-)
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Don Stauffer
And they make you buy a more expensive camera that allows use of the
electrical remote. We have several cheaper Nikon DSLRs that do not have
sockets for the Nikon remote cable. Still, they are fine cameras.
Jim
"J. Clarke" <jclarke...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:gkvle...@news3.newsguy.com...
with a camera that has the Time function? Press the shutter once to open
the shutter. Press it again to close the shutter.
The S2, the F2, and the F3 will stay open forever.
Jim
Jürgen Exner
[Sorry, original posting missing, therefore replying to yours]
>jim evans wrote:
>> Why do most digital cameras have no Bulb ability?
Probably because long-term exposure of digital sensors produces too much
noise anyway.
>>Why no provision for using a cable release?
Because for digital (=electronic) cameras they have been superseeded by
wireless and wired remote controls which for many cameras not only
trigger the shutter but allow basic camera control from the remote. And
doing that from a distance, where no outdated cable release could ever
dream about going.
>> Simple film cameras had them. Why do most digital cameras not have
>> them?
Because they are outdated. Why would manufacturers add an additional
microswitch and that threaded hole when an outlet for the remote control
adds much more features?
What _I_ don't understand is why manufacturers are using proprietary
connectors for the remote controls instead of the already existing
USB-connector with ideally a standardized protocol.
jue
Deep Reset
"Jim" <jj...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:MhJcl.5184$jZ1....@flpi144.ffdc.sbc.com...
Because the Time function on your DSLR won't stop-down the lens that's six
inches away on the front of your bellows?
Deep
sligoNo...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>jim evans wrote:
>> Why do most digital cameras have no Bulb ability? Why no provision
>> for using a cable release?
>>
>> I have a DSLR-like digital camera (Panasonic FZ50). It has a focusing
>> ring and a zoom ring on the lens. In essentially all ways except the
>> pentaprism it has the functions of a DSLR, but it's absent these
>> useful features. I've owned 5 digital cameras, none had these
>> features.
>>
>> Simple film cameras had them. Why do most digital cameras not have
>> them?
>
>Five point-and-shoots, right? Because every DSLR I've had provides bulb
>ability.
I have not played with very many of them, but all the real
DSLR's I have handled do have bulb and remote release (electrical
switch not mechanical). It only makes sense to use electrical
switches on these cameras.
sligoNo...@hotmail.com
<tar...@watchingtheattentionwhores.org> wrote:
>On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 21:42:58 -0500, Dave Cohen <us...@example.net> wrote:
>
...
>
>Wholly incorrect.
>
>"Bulb" refers to the "flashbulb" shutter speed.
I take it you have never used a air release?
tony cooper
The Nikon D40, which I count as a "real" dslr, has an accessory
electronic remote, but it only works from in front of the camera.
That, to me, is not a "real" remote.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
nospam
<tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> The Nikon D40, which I count as a "real" dslr, has an accessory
> electronic remote, but it only works from in front of the camera.
> That, to me, is not a "real" remote.
it uses an infrared remote and putting the photocell on the back would
be worse than on the front. the typical use is so people can be in
their own photos. in any event, it works fairly well from the sides
and can even work from the back if there's something in front that
reflects the infrared signal, such as a wall. worst case, just tape
something shiny in front of the sensor and it will work from other
angles.
The Bobert
TrentTarkins <tar...@watchingtheattentionwhores.org> wrote:
> "Bulb" refers to the "flashbulb" shutter speed. In the beginning days of
> flash-photography with slow films and smaller available apertures the shutter
> was manually triggered and held open until the flashbulb could also be fired
> manually, independent of the camera's shutter.
completely wrong
The correct answer was given by Dave Cohen
In article <gku4vt$vsq$1...@news.motzarella.org>, Dave Cohen <us...@example.net>
wrote:
> 1. Cable or Bulb release has nothing to do with dslr. The term bulb is
> because that's what they once were, you squeezed the bulb, compressed
> the air inside and that opened the shutter on your nicely finished plate
> camera.
The next step used a steel wire inside a flexible cable that you used to hold
the shutter open. Good for up to about 10 sec before your thumb got tired. IIRC.
Later refinements included a "lock" for very long exposures.
If you go to http://www.fiberq.com/cam/century/cent2.htm and look at the front
view of the red camera, you'll see the bulb attachment point pointing to 4
o'clock. The air pressure in the rubber bulb was transfered to a piston in the
shutter.
Very early cameras had no preset shutter speed. They were measured by squeezing
the bulb and counting 1 Mississippi, 2 Mississippi, 3 Mississippi, etc. to
expose your film.
--
Dogs have owners, cats have staff.
Bob in Central California
Chris Malcolm
> Chris Malcolm wrote:
>> Jim <jj...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>> By the way, the fine manual for the D90 says that you can leave the
>>> camera at bulb for up to 35 minutes.
>>
>> Exactly!
>>
>> Try keeping a pneumatic bulb squeezed for 35 mins. And once you've
>> developed the muscular strength to do that, try and find someone who
>> makes camera pneumatic releases which can hold air pressure for 36
>> mins :-)
> You've never used a cable release, have you?
What makes you say that? I've still got the cable releases and
pneumatic bulb releases I used to use, and at least two cameras that
they fit.
> On most of them there's
> a screw that locks the release for long exposures.
But you don't find that on pneumatic bulb releases for the very good
reason I mentioned.
> Nonetheless a cable release should cost pretty much nothing to
> add--it's just a screw thread on the shutter release that allows the
> pin on the cable release to press down on the underlying mechanism.
> I suspect that the real reason that the cable release was removed and
> replaced with an electrical release is that nobody was willing to pay
> 45 bucks for a cable release with a "Nikon" or "Canon" sticker on it
> when a perfectly adequate one could be obtained for 5 bucks as a
> generic. But if the connector is proprietary then they can force
> anyone needing a remote to pay 45 bucks for a switch and a wire that
> if not for the proprietary connector could be cobbled up from Rat
> Shack parts for that same 5 bucks.
But it hasn't worked for exacly the same reason it didn't work for
cable.
> This is one area where I'm of the opinion "three cheers for the
> Chinese".
Exactly. I can buy a remote cable release on a cable from the DSLR
manufacturer. There are two versions, a short cable and a long
cable. Or a I can buy a radio shutter release from Hong Kong which
works at up to 50 metres and has all the same functions at less cost
than the overpriced camera maker's long wire cable shutter release.
--
Chris Malcolm
Blinky the Shark
> On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 02:26:25 -0000, "Bruce" <bruce...@blueyonder.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>>Look at Page 122 of your manual.
>
> Yes, I understood you could buy a special accessory. Cable releases are
> universal. I own 3 of different lengths and they worked on all my film
> cameras.
>
> However, I don't think even this camera-unique accessory will let you do a
> bulb or time exposure.
B is native even on my entry-level DSLR Nikon D60. You are describing a
shortcoming of point-and-shoot cameras, not a shortcoming of digital
cameras.
--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups -
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Mark Thomas
> jim evans wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 02:26:25 -0000, "Bruce" <bruce...@blueyonder.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Look at Page 122 of your manual.
>> Yes, I understood you could buy a special accessory. Cable releases are
>> universal. I own 3 of different lengths and they worked on all my film
>> cameras.
>>
>> However, I don't think even this camera-unique accessory will let you do a
>> bulb or time exposure.
>
> B is native even on my entry-level DSLR Nikon D60. You are describing a
> shortcoming of point-and-shoot cameras, not a shortcoming of digital
> cameras.
>
>
Sort of....
To be fair, the higher end p&s cameras often allow longish (eg 8 or 15
minutes on my last two) time exposures in Manual mode.
And I trust you are aware that your Nikon will stop B-ing after 30
minutes too...! so it's only a one or two stop advantage in that respect.
I don't know about you, but the number of times I have used exposures
longer than 8 minutes can be counted ..er... in the same way that I
would count my star-trails images, ie 5-10 in thirty years.
Kilometres may vary, of course.
Chris H
<tar...@watchingtheattentionwhores.org> writes
>On 18 Jan 2009 06:48:50 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>>TrentTarkins <tar...@watchingtheattentionwhores.org> wrote:
>>> nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>> TrentTarkins
>>
>
>And the Wiki's are NEVER wrong! :-) After all, if it's printed on the internet
>it MUST be true, right?
Wiki is a highly unreliable source. I Have seen reports where companies
and political parties have wiki teams to enhance their own entries and
play down the oppositions entries.
For some religious and some political groups the spin editing has got
quite viscous.
The other problem is the editors of a page will block any ideas that
the do not like. I have had personal experience of this on a technical
page. Some one with an axe to grind started a page for a a particular
technical standard and blocked any editing by members of that technical
panel because he had a personal problem with some of them!
So al in all Wiki is generally unreliable. Printed encyclopaedias
because of the cost of printing go to far more trouble to get
authoritative authors and also have them peer reviewed. This tends to
carry over to their web versions.
In various surveys it has been discovered that if you edit a wiki page
with incorrect data (for what ever reasons) and no one spots it in about
72 hours it is there permanently (or as permanently as it gets on Wiki)
Also of course Wikis are written by "anyone" even if they do not have a
clue about the subjct. Where it is the blind leading the blind the page
becomes the "truth" and it gets VERY difficult to change.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
bugbear
> Blinky the Shark wrote:
>> jim evans wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 02:26:25 -0000, "Bruce"
>>> <bruce...@blueyonder.co.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Look at Page 122 of your manual.
>>> Yes, I understood you could buy a special accessory. Cable releases are
>>> universal. I own 3 of different lengths and they worked on all my film
>>> cameras.
>>>
>>> However, I don't think even this camera-unique accessory will let you
>>> do a
>>> bulb or time exposure.
>>
>> B is native even on my entry-level DSLR Nikon D60. You are describing a
>> shortcoming of point-and-shoot cameras, not a shortcoming of digital
>> cameras.
>>
>>
>
> Sort of....
>
> To be fair, the higher end p&s cameras often allow longish (eg 8 or 15
> minutes on my last two) time exposures in Manual mode.
Wow - Canon compacts have a max exposure of 15 seconds. Many digitals
don't like doing long exposure for noise reasons.
Of course, this doesn't matter. Simply program the camera
to take a sequence of maximum exposure frames (whatever max is),
and stack 'em.
Using this technique you can also retrospectively decide
how long your exposure should be, or even drop induividual
sub-exposures.
One shouldn't always look for a on-to-one mapping
from film camera features to digital camera features.
BugBear
Matt Ion
> Jim <jj...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> By the way, the fine manual for the D90 says that you can leave the camera
>> at bulb for up to 35 minutes.
>
> Exactly!
>
> Try keeping a pneumatic bulb squeezed for 35 mins. And once you've
> developed the muscular strength to do that, try and find someone who
> makes camera pneumatic releases which can hold air pressure for 36
> mins :-)
I always just used a cable release with a little lucking thumbscrew...
Matt Ion
> I agree that the electrical release has many advantages, but I do wish
> that the camera manufacturers would come up with a standard interface
> for the thing.
>
> Nonetheless a cable release should cost pretty much nothing to
> add--it's just a screw thread on the shutter release that allows the
> pin on the cable release to press down on the underlying mechanism.
>
> I suspect that the real reason that the cable release was removed and
> replaced with an electrical release is that nobody was willing to pay
> 45 bucks for a cable release with a "Nikon" or "Canon" sticker on it
> when a perfectly adequate one could be obtained for 5 bucks as a
> generic. But if the connector is proprietary then they can force
> anyone needing a remote to pay 45 bucks for a switch and a wire that
> if not for the proprietary connector could be cobbled up from Rat
> Shack parts for that same 5 bucks.
Everyone's overlooking the obvious here: electronic releases are needed
with the advent of autofocus and the standard half-press-to-focus,
full-press-to-shoot operation. It would be hard to get that "touch"
with a cable release, and would be damn near impossible with a bulb.
It's nothing to do with digital vs. film, and not entirely to do with
money (although it would be nice if everyone could standardize on their
connectors and electronic-release designs).
whisky-dave
"Matt Ion" <soun...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:gl269d$knn$1...@reader.motzarella.org...
> Everyone's overlooking the obvious here: electronic releases are needed
> with the advent of autofocus and the standard half-press-to-focus,
> full-press-to-shoot operation. It would be hard to get that "touch" with
> a cable release,
I'm sure I managed it years ago with my canon A1 & AE1.
> and would be damn near impossible with a bulb.
Probably, but B is all about manual operation, I doubt you'd want to refocus
during the exposure, or change aperture, or anything else.
> It's nothing to do with digital vs. film, and not entirely to do with
> money (although it would be nice if everyone could standardize on their
> connectors and electronic-release designs).
I often wondered how 'pair' the remote cable releases are on digital
cameras,
I'd have lots of fun triggering other peoples cameras from afar ;-)
Matt Ion
> "Matt Ion" <soun...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:gl269d$knn$1...@reader.motzarella.org...
>
>
>> Everyone's overlooking the obvious here: electronic releases are needed
>> with the advent of autofocus and the standard half-press-to-focus,
>> full-press-to-shoot operation. It would be hard to get that "touch" with
>> a cable release,
>
> I'm sure I managed it years ago with my canon A1 & AE1.
Okay, maybe not "needed" so much as "beneficial".
Ofnuts
> Why do most digital cameras have no Bulb ability? Why no provision
> for using a cable release?
>
> I have a DSLR-like digital camera (Panasonic FZ50). It has a focusing
> ring and a zoom ring on the lens. In essentially all ways except the
> pentaprism it has the functions of a DSLR, but it's absent these
> useful features. I've owned 5 digital cameras, none had these
> features.
>
> Simple film cameras had them. Why do most digital cameras not have
> them?
Maybe because Bulb is impractical on these cameras? The noise on the
sensor becomes a major problem at long exposure times. One way to fix
this is to take a "black" picture with the same exposure duration(*),
and substract it form the real one to remove the "hot pixels". This is
doable if the camera controls exposure time, but not if you have the
random exposure time you get with Bulb.
(*) if your FZ-50 is like my FZ8, this is why the long exposure times
(>=2seconds) are followed by an equal "wait..." time.
--
Bertrand
Ofnuts
> What _I_ don't understand is why manufacturers are using proprietary
> connectors for the remote controls instead of the already existing
> USB-connector with ideally a standardized protocol.
The connector used on the low-end Canon DSLRs (1000/350/400/450) and the
Pentax is fairly standard (2.5mmm stereo jack) and one can hack a wired
remote for not much (but you find a remote for not that much either on
many web sites).
--
Bertrand
Ofnuts
> What _I_ don't understand is why manufacturers are using proprietary
> connectors for the remote controls instead of the already existing
> USB-connector with ideally a standardized protocol.
PS: Because the USB implies a computer (or a rather expensive device) at
the other end.
--
Bertrand
nospam
<soun...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Everyone's overlooking the obvious here: electronic releases are needed
> with the advent of autofocus and the standard half-press-to-focus,
> full-press-to-shoot operation. It would be hard to get that "touch"
> with a cable release, and would be damn near impossible with a bulb.
it worked just fine with my old film camera that had a half-press to
engage the meter and a full press to take the photo.
> It's nothing to do with digital vs. film, and not entirely to do with
> money (although it would be nice if everyone could standardize on their
> connectors and electronic-release designs).
yes, it would be nice if it was standardized.
Robert Coe
: >> Why do most digital cameras have no Bulb ability? Why no provision
: >> for using a cable release?
: >>
: >> I have a DSLR-like digital camera (Panasonic FZ50). It has a focusing
: >> ring and a zoom ring on the lens. In essentially all ways except the
: >> pentaprism it has the functions of a DSLR, but it's absent these
: >> useful features. I've owned 5 digital cameras, none had these
: >> features.
: >>
: >> Simple film cameras had them. Why do most digital cameras not have
: >> them?
: >Five point-and-shoots, right? Because every DSLR I've had provides bulb
: >ability.
:
: So you figure camera manufacturers leave these features off in order
: to cater to elitist snobbery?
I'm pretty sure my old Canon G-5 P&S has bulb; it definitely has time
exposures to 15 seconds.
A cable release socket is a bit of a different issue. Almost any digital
requires its shutter button to respond differently to being pushed halfway
down, and that could be expensive to implement in a CR socket.
Bob
Grimly Curmudgeon
drugs began to take hold. I remember TrentTarkins
<tar...@watchingtheattentionwhores.org> saying something like:
> I still recall the taste of flash-bulbs. (And that
>wonderful smell after they exploded.)
Kinda hard on the gums, I would think.
Grimly Curmudgeon
drugs began to take hold. I remember TrentTarkins
<tar...@watchingtheattentionwhores.org> saying something like:
>You're a total troll and a moron. Squeezable "bulb" air-pressure type
>cable-releases weren't used until very late in the game.
Twat. 'Tis a pity you know fuck all.
http://www.camerapedia.org/wiki/Flash_sync
Grimly Curmudgeon
<jclarke...@cox.net> saying something like:
>And unlike digital cameras, the interface for the cable release was
>pretty well standardized by the '50s if not before--there may have
>been some that used a different thread for it but I never encountered
>one.
I have a pair of 30s folders that have the standard thread for a cable
release - one German, one British. Not sure about anything earlier, yet.
Peter Irwin
>
> I have a pair of 30s folders that have the standard thread for a cable
> release - one German, one British. Not sure about anything earlier, yet.
Compound and Koilos shutters used the usual cable release from around
1910. Subsequent shutters from Deckel and Gauthier did too. There were
a whole bunch of different ways to used to attach cable releases in
the early 20th century, but the only other connector which became
somewhat standard was the one for the Leica screwmount, early Nikon and
Yashica TLR cameras which attaches with a hollow cylinder about a
quarter inch in diameter and half an inch long threaded at the end.
I actually like the Leica/Nikon/Yashica type better. The Nikon FE camera
could take both types, but I think it was the last such camera.
Peter.
--
pir...@ktb.net
Grimly Curmudgeon
something like:
Thanks for the info. I'm slowly gathering a small collection of a couple
of folders from each decade of the first half of the 20thC. Nice to know
some of the earlier ones will be usable with a cable release too.