Re: A dSLR's fastest shutter-speed is really no faster than its flash-sync speed.
Ray Fischer
>Considering that a dSLR is using a mechanical shutter, just like the old ones in
>film SLRs, the true fastest shutter-speed is really no faster than its highest
>flash-sync speed -- when the imaging chip is completely exposed without either
>shutter-curtain covering any portion of it.
If you're going to redefine the definition of "shutter speed" to mean
whatever you want then you prove anything you want. But you won't
impress anybody.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Mike Russell
news:677u83du7dhbp08l6...@4ax.com...
> Considering that a dSLR is using a mechanical shutter, just like the old
> ones in
> film SLRs, the true fastest shutter-speed is really no faster than its
> highest
> flash-sync speed -- when the imaging chip is completely exposed without
> either
> shutter-curtain covering any portion of it.
>
> shutter-curtains
> closer together, making a very very narrow slit pass in front of the
> imaging
> chip. But that just means that *anything* that's moving in that image will
> be
> distorted. Just like in the SLR days. The beating of a bird's wing will be
> unnaturally curved. A circular tire passing by will be elongated and oval.
> A
> baseball pitcher's arm will be slightly bent in the wrong places. A diver
> falling into a pool of water will be unnaturally shorter or longer than
> they
> should be. (Or unnaturally distorted diagonally if the shutter curtains in
> your
> dSLR move horizontally.) The very same problems that we faced in SLR days.
Points for an original viewpoint, but ... so? Focal plane shutter
distortion is nothing new. People are used to it, and accept it as an
indication of speed. Furthermore, digital techniques can be used to
minimize the distortion, or transfer it to the less important background, if
desired.
--
Mike Russell - www.curvemeister.com
Pete D
John Bean
<Do...@is.a.moron.com> wrote:
>Sorry to burst your bubble but your P&S does not have a shutter.
>
It *might* have Pete, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt
on that one.
It's unlikely though ;-)
--
John Bean
Pete D
"John Bean" <wate...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:adpu835qo9gnu89vq...@4ax.com...
Maybe! Not many do!
Philip Homburg
SelfImporantName <anyw...@anyplace.net> wrote:
>Considering that a dSLR is using a mechanical shutter, just like the old ones in
>film SLRs, the true fastest shutter-speed is really no faster than its highest
>flash-sync speed -- when the imaging chip is completely exposed without either
>shutter-curtain covering any portion of it.
>
>in a dSLR. Just like there was no getting around this limitation in last
>century's SLRs. It's built into the very design of it.
A dSLR can have an electronic shutter in addition to the mechanical one.
Nikon's older CCD based cameras provide flash synchronization upto the
highest shutter speed (1/16000).
--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
David J. Littleboy
Actually, many of the better P&S cameras have shutters. The Sony sensors
require a mechanical shutter to avoid really nasty smear problems.
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
John Bean
But to split hairs even finer David, they usually (always?)
just use the aperture mecanism for the purpose so they still
don't have a dedicated shutter in the same sense a SLR has.
--
John Bean
Scott Schuckert
did it not occur to you it might be common knowledge?
Prepare to be astounded by the evening news - "So-called hybrid cars
have batteries BUT STILL REQUIRE GASOLINE!"
Allen
<snip self-important ramblings>
What a perfect choice for a posting name! But did you have to use so
many lines justifying it? Couldn't you just have posted the obvious fact
that you are a self-importnat jerk?
Allen
dave
<anyw...@anyplace.net> wrote:
>Considering that a dSLR is using a mechanical shutter, just like the old ones in
>film SLRs, the true fastest shutter-speed is really no faster than its highest
>flash-sync speed -- when the imaging chip is completely exposed without either
>shutter-curtain covering any portion of it.
>There's just no getting around this mechanical and image-distorting limitation
>in a dSLR. Just like there was no getting around this limitation in last
>century's SLRs. It's built into the very design of it.
>
>Pity.
>
>They should always mention this in any reviews on dSLRs, so all those
>"intelligent" pros will also realize they are paying to get last-century's
>faults and limitations.
>
>It's so nice having an advanced P&S camera that will sync the flash up to
>1/2500th of a second. Proving that that's its true shutter-speed. Zero image
>distortions caused by a mechanically slow shutter-curtain.
>
.............total nonsense deleted............................
>
>(If I had just bought a dslr today and thought about this, I'd be *really*
>pissed about my purchase right now. I wonder why all those other dSLR owners
>never mention this to newbies when it's so painfully obvious.)
Focal plane shutter travel has not been a factor for more than fifty
years and you would know that if you only even used, let alone owned,
one. If you can stop the action there will be no visible distortion.
Shooting a monitor or TV screen at speeds faster than their refresh
rate will cause distortion regardless of shutter type.
Gordon Freeman
> On Sat, 7 Jul 2007 21:37:31 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
> <dav...@gol.com> wrote:
>>Actually, many of the better P&S cameras have shutters. The Sony sensors
>>require a mechanical shutter to avoid really nasty smear problems.
>
> But to split hairs even finer David, they usually (always?)
> just use the aperture mecanism for the purpose so they still
> don't have a dedicated shutter in the same sense a SLR has.
But that's no different to many 35mm point and shoots, at the end of the
day it's still a shutter - it opens and closes - even if it also acts as
the iris.
David J. Littleboy
"John Bean" <wate...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "David J. Littleboy" <dav...@gol.com> wrote:
>>"John Bean" <wate...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 7 Jul 2007 18:34:05 +1000, "Pete D"
>>> <Do...@is.a.moron.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Sorry to burst your bubble but your P&S does not have a shutter.
>>>
>>> It *might* have Pete, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt
>>> on that one. It's unlikely though ;-)
>>
>>Actually, many of the better P&S cameras have shutters. The Sony sensors
>>require a mechanical shutter to avoid really nasty smear problems.
>
> But to split hairs even finer David, they usually (always?)
> just use the aperture mecanism for the purpose
I think you are splitting hairs beyond what even I would. Leaf shutters live
in the lens at the same point as the aperture, but in film cameras, were
always a mechanically separate structure. I doubt that that design would
change. (I have taken apart leaf shutter film cameras, but I've never
disassembled a P&S dcam.)
> so they still
> don't have a dedicated shutter in the same sense a SLR has.
Again, a leaf shutter has always been seen as very much the same sort of
thing as a FP shutter.
(Four (Agfa folder, Rollei TLR, Fuji GS645S, Mamiya 7) out of five (vs.
Mamiya 645) of the film cameras here have leaf shutters, so I'm rather
familiar with the beasts...)
John Bean
<G...@valve.invalid> wrote:
Yes and no, Cheap film cameras did this purely to save cost,
better cameras usually have a "proper" shutter. But even
high-end digital P&S cameras use this method if they are
forced to do so, normally they use no shutter of any sort. I
can't think of any that have a "proper" shutter.
SLRs - film or digital - invariably use a mechanical
shutter.
Anyway it's all a bit moot to the OPs attempted criticism of
focal plane shutters in SLRs ;-)
--
John Bean
John Bean
<dav...@gol.com> wrote:
>
>"John Bean" <wate...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "David J. Littleboy" <dav...@gol.com> wrote:
>>>"John Bean" <wate...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 7 Jul 2007 18:34:05 +1000, "Pete D"
>>>> <Do...@is.a.moron.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Sorry to burst your bubble but your P&S does not have a shutter.
>>>>
>>>> It *might* have Pete, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt
>>>> on that one. It's unlikely though ;-)
>>>
>>>Actually, many of the better P&S cameras have shutters. The Sony sensors
>>>require a mechanical shutter to avoid really nasty smear problems.
>>
>> But to split hairs even finer David, they usually (always?)
>> just use the aperture mecanism for the purpose
>
>I think you are splitting hairs beyond what even I would. Leaf shutters live
>in the lens at the same point as the aperture, but in film cameras, were
>always a mechanically separate structure.
Exactly - a seperate mechanism, seperate controls. Shutter
and iris are not the same thing. That was all I was saying
about the lack of *dedicated* shutter, they use the aperture
blades instead.
>> so they still
>> don't have a dedicated shutter in the same sense a SLR has.
>
>Again, a leaf shutter has always been seen as very much the same sort of
>thing as a FP shutter.
A leaf shutter isn't part of a set of aperture blades, it's
a seperate, self-contained mechanism. The digital P&S
doesn't have a leaf shutter; when I said it had no
*dedicated* shutter I meant it uses the aperture blades to
perform a similar (but not quite identical) function. No
leaf shutters that I'm familiar with could match the speed
range of most digicam shutters, and there's a good reason
for that.
>(Four (Agfa folder, Rollei TLR, Fuji GS645S, Mamiya 7) out of five (vs.
>Mamiya 645) of the film cameras here have leaf shutters, so I'm rather
>familiar with the beasts...)
So am I. But we weren't arguing about leaf shutters so no
need to claim bragging rights ;-)
--
John Bean
Tony Hwang
> Considering that a dSLR is using a mechanical shutter, just like the old ones in
> film SLRs, the true fastest shutter-speed is really no faster than its highest
> flash-sync speed -- when the imaging chip is completely exposed without either
> shutter-curtain covering any portion of it.
>
> closer together, making a very very narrow slit pass in front of the imaging
> chip. But that just means that *anything* that's moving in that image will be
> distorted. Just like in the SLR days. The beating of a bird's wing will be
> unnaturally curved. A circular tire passing by will be elongated and oval. A
> baseball pitcher's arm will be slightly bent in the wrong places. A diver
> falling into a pool of water will be unnaturally shorter or longer than they
> should be. (Or unnaturally distorted diagonally if the shutter curtains in your
> problem is no different than if you tried to take your own photo by holding your
> face over a flat-bed scanner and slowly rotating your face while it was being
> scanned. A slower example of how *any* dSLR will not give you a true image of
> anything moving faster than its shutter's flash-sync speed.
>
> There's just no getting around this mechanical and image-distorting limitation
> in a dSLR. Just like there was no getting around this limitation in last
> century's SLRs. It's built into the very design of it.
>
> Pity.
>
> They should always mention this in any reviews on dSLRs, so all those
> "intelligent" pros will also realize they are paying to get last-century's
> faults and limitations.
>
> It's so nice having an advanced P&S camera that will sync the flash up to
> 1/2500th of a second. Proving that that's its true shutter-speed. Zero image
> distortions caused by a mechanically slow shutter-curtain.
>
> degrees tilt to your monitor and trying to take a picture of the monitor
> display's scan-lines at shutter-speeds faster than its flash-sync speed. You'll
> find a badly bent lighted area in your resulting dSLR image, the higher the
> shutter-speed the more distorted it will become. Instead of a few well defined,
> perfectly even, parallel lines, that you will find when taking that same image
> with a P&S camera that doesn't depend on a mechanical curtain-style shutter. A
> P&S camera can stop/capture the activity of those scan lines or any fast moving
> object accurately, a dSLR shutter cannot, will not.
>
> (If I had just bought a dslr today and thought about this, I'd be *really*
> pissed about my purchase right now. I wonder why all those other dSLR owners
> never mention this to newbies when it's so painfully obvious.)
Humbuck!
Alan Browne
> Considering that a dSLR is using a mechanical shutter, just like the old ones in
> film SLRs, the true fastest shutter-speed is really no faster than its highest
> flash-sync speed -- when the imaging chip is completely exposed without either
> shutter-curtain covering any portion of it.
>
> Sure, you can crank up the shutter-speed by moving those two shutter-curtains
> closer together, making a very very narrow slit pass in front of the imaging
> chip. But that just means that *anything* that's moving in that image will be
> distorted. Just like in the SLR days. The beating of a bird's wing will be
> unnaturally curved. A circular tire passing by will be elongated and oval. A
> baseball pitcher's arm will be slightly bent in the wrong places. A diver
> falling into a pool of water will be unnaturally shorter or longer than they
> should be. (Or unnaturally distorted diagonally if the shutter curtains in your
> dSLR move horizontally.) The very same problems that we faced in SLR days. This
> problem is no different than if you tried to take your own photo by holding your
> face over a flat-bed scanner and slowly rotating your face while it was being
> scanned. A slower example of how *any* dSLR will not give you a true image of
> anything moving faster than its shutter's flash-sync speed.
The current world of DSLR's is, simply put, replacing the film with a
sensor. Surely this occured to you? The "SLR days" are not over.
For that matter, shutter flash-sync is only as precise as the flash
duration. If you shoot a large flash (say a Canon 580EX) at 1/64 power,
then you are in the realm of 10's of microseconds. But the same flash
shot full power (1/1) will last for over 1 millisecond (slower than 1/1000).
--
-- 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.
Rich
> Considering that a dSLR is using a mechanical shutter, just like the old ones in
> film SLRs, the true fastest shutter-speed is really no faster than its highest
> flash-sync speed -- when the imaging chip is completely exposed without either
> shutter-curtain covering any portion of it.
>
> Sure, you can crank up the shutter-speed by moving those two shutter-curtains
> closer together, making a very very narrow slit pass in front of the imaging
> chip. But that just means that *anything* that's moving in that image will be
> distorted. Just like in the SLR days. The beating of a bird's wing will be
> unnaturally curved. A circular tire passing by will be elongated and oval. A
> baseball pitcher's arm will be slightly bent in the wrong places. A diver
> falling into a pool of water will be unnaturally shorter or longer than they
> should be. (Or unnaturally distorted diagonally if the shutter curtains in your
> dSLR move horizontally.) The very same problems that we faced in SLR days. This
> problem is no different than if you tried to take your own photo by holding your
> face over a flat-bed scanner and slowly rotating your face while it was being
> scanned. A slower example of how *any* dSLR will not give you a true image of
> anything moving faster than its shutter's flash-sync speed.
>
> in a dSLR. Just like there was no getting around this limitation in last
> century's SLRs. It's built into the very design of it.
>
> Pity.
>
> They should always mention this in any reviews on dSLRs, so all those
> "intelligent" pros will also realize they are paying to get last-century's
> faults and limitations.
>
> It's so nice having an advanced P&S camera that will sync the flash up to
> 1/2500th of a second. Proving that that's its true shutter-speed. Zero image
> distortions caused by a mechanically slow shutter-curtain.
My Olympus C-8080 had a 1/4000 shutter speed with flash that can do
shots I can't duplicate with a DSLR.
Pete D
>>
>
> P&S
> camera is relying on a mechanical shutter. It is merely noted as
> "shutter-speed"
I guess the bottom line here is that no one actually gives a flying f**k so
whatever you say is pretty moot anyway.
Bored now.
Bye.
Pete D
"Rich" <rande...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1183851910.9...@c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
And they are posted where? Proof, show us the goodies Rich.
dj_nme
> On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 18:08:29 -0500, SelfImporantName <anyw...@anyplace.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> One further note:
>
> How many "photo finish" sports events are actually in gross-error due to the
> cameras using this type of shutter?
By "photo finish", one can only presume that you have meant something
along the lines of a horseracing photofinish camera, that uses a
slit-exposure system and relies on either movement of the film through
the camera or read-out speed of it's sensor and has no shutter as you
have described earlier.
> Imagine a baseball player's foot reaching the base before the catcher's mitt
> touches him. But the camera recorded the catcher's mitt touching him before he
> touched the plate. You'd have to analyze the camera that was used and what
> direction the focal-plane shutter was moving as well as the direction of motion
> of the players before you could make a true call on that play.
You do realise that no DSLR camera has a horizontaly traveling shutter?
All of them use a a metal blade verticaly traveling shutter (even the
Leica M8 has one, but it's a DRF camera) that won't distort horizontal
movement.
Unless the camera was used in portrait orientation, for the shutter to
move in the same direction as the action.
> Our recorded history is distorted and in doubt, all thanks to these shutters.
More accurately, you perception of reality seems skewed and distorted.
BTW: Very clever flamewar starting. You have won the "trollmeister"
award for this.
ASAAR
> Points for an original viewpoint, but ... so? Focal plane shutter
> distortion is nothing new. People are used to it, and accept it as an
> indication of speed. Furthermore, digital techniques can be used to
> minimize the distortion, or transfer it to the less important background, if
> desired.
Don't expect a rational reply. SelfImporantName is, after all,
just another of the sock puppets also pushing Photoline 32 and the
Russian CHDK hack for Canon P&S cameras. Bosom buddies include
Baumbadier, GoKiting. HokusPokus, nob...@noplace.org, RockyZ,
SayWhat, spamless, and X-Man. I don't know if there are any more,
but there probably will be soon. What a waste of organic matter
these infantile dweebs be. I wonder what it/they will be like when
they grow out of the larval stage.
Mike Russell
> doesn't
> support your point of view must all be the same person.
>
> Get your meds adjusted.
LOL. ASAAR is right. You'll answer an insult but ignore an attempt to
actually discuss your original point. My personal troll detector just
pinned. Bye now.
--
Mike Russell - www.curvemeister.com
EdBancroft
> On Sat, 7 Jul 2007 20:34:36 -0700, "Mike Russell"
> <RE-MO...@Curvemeister.comRE-MOVE> wrote:
>
>>LOL. ASAAR is right. You'll answer an insult but ignore an attempt
>>to
>>actually discuss your original point. My personal troll detector
>>just
>>pinned. Bye now.
>
> important
> that you require a direct reply? Okay, here's what I said about your
> comment in
> another post in this thread:
>
> "The viewer not realizing this just accepts that distorted view of
> reality as
> normal. In fact, one reply here even claimed how proud they were of
> accepting a
> distorted view of reality as normal."
>
> That's all your comment was worth for a reply.
>
Don't let the resident trolls pull you into their games S.I.M. it's
fun watching them squirm and scream when they've been proven wrong
again. Nice work. You're right, they're 100% wrong. Simple as that.
Mike Russell
news:468f9ada$0$24787$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
You're bathing the guy in attention. Better to ignore him, if possible.
Ray Fischer
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
>
> They're everywhere lately. When you prove to them the faults in their chosen
> camera, they can do nothing but kick and scream at the rest of the world for
> their own bad choices in life rather than admit their own stupidity and
> mistakes.
For all the "proved them wrong" people:
Ever heard of "high speed sync"? Apparently no one in this
thread has. Many DSLRs and especially external flashes
have this feature, even my old Canon 10D has it; so does the
Canon Rebel XT, and some older film bodies. Nikon F5 (film),
D200, and other bodies support it. Its been around
for years!
In high speed sync mode, the flash fires many times
during an exposure, even high high speed exposure faster
than 1/1000 second, thus averaging out the slit problem
of the focal plane shutter.
Here is an explanation:
http://www.rpphoto.com/howto/view.asp?articleID=1026
I've used it and it works.
You can use it at 1/8000 second!
Roger
Jürgen Exner
[whatever]
+-------------------+ .:\:\:/:/:.
| PLEASE DO NOT | :.:\:\:/:/:.:
| FEED THE TROLLS | :=.' - - '.=:
| | '=(\ 9 9 /)='
| Thank you, | ( (_) )
| Management | /`-vvv-'\
+-------------------+ / \
| | @@@ / /|,,,,,|\ \
| | @@@ /_// /^\ \\_\
@x@@x@ | | |/ WW( ( ) )WW
\||||/ | | \| __\,,\ /,,/__
\||/ | | | jgs (______Y______)
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\//\/\\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
==============================================================
Unclaimed Mysteries
> On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 18:08:29 -0500, SelfImporantName <anyw...@anyplace.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> How many "photo finish" sports events are actually in gross-error due to the
> cameras using this type of shutter?
>
> touches him. But the camera recorded the catcher's mitt touching him before he
> touched the plate. You'd have to analyze the camera that was used and what
> direction the focal-plane shutter was moving as well as the direction of motion
> of the players before you could make a true call on that play.
>
>
>
I like your style, kid. Now get to work on the Zapruder film.
--
It Came From Corry Lee Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net
Unclaimed Mysteries
They'll spin a big cocoon?
--
It Came From Corry Lee Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net
In a time of deception telling the truth is a revolutionary act. -
George Orwell
SMS
<snip>
> It's so nice having an advanced P&S camera that will sync the flash up to
> 1/2500th of a second. Proving that that's its true shutter-speed. Zero image
> distortions caused by a mechanically slow shutter-curtain.
Some D-SLR's have an electronic shutter as well, to solve this problem.
The Nikon D70s had one, while the D80 did not. One of the professional
Canon D-SLRs had one as well.
I think that it's no secret that there's no getting around this
limitation without an electronic shutter, but the other advantages of a
D-SLR are more important to many people. Explicitly mentioning this in
reviews might be nice, but it's probably unnecessary, since everyone
that understands the issue knows that the film SLRs had the same issue.
SMS
> The only shame is that unsuspecting people that come here for valid advice have
> to listen to all their misinformation, and endlessly wade through their tomes of
> BS opinions. That's the only thing that I take exception with.
You're giving too little credit to the intelligence of people that come
here for valid advice. Very few of them take anything that the people
you refer to seriously. Wading through all the BS becomes a non-issue
when you employ your newsreader's kill-files.
OTOH, your incorrect presumption is that D-SLR buyers don't understand
the flash-sync speed issue, or else they'd be flocking to P&S cameras
with electronic shutters. Most D-SLR users (at least the ones that were
once film SLR users) understand the flash-sync speed issue, and have
understood it since the days of film SLRs, but the issues with point and
shoots go way beyond the flash-sync speed.
It's interesting that the D70s could go to 1/8000 of a second, though
only with a non-Nikon flash, because if the camera recognized the Nikon
flash it would restrict access to the faster electronic shutter speeds.
Kadin2048
"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <user...@qwest.net>
wrote:
> http://www.rpphoto.com/howto/view.asp?articleID=1026
Neat link. Thanks, Roger. I use HSS all the time but had never been
exactly clear on how it did its thing. (Even more interesting to me are
the wireless HSS systems with TTL, like Minolta's; I still find it
amazing that it works as well as it does.)
Always nice to get some redeeming value out of a troll thread. :)
-Kadin.
Bill Funk
>It's so nice having an advanced P&S camera that will sync the flash up to
>1/2500th of a second. Proving that that's its true shutter-speed. Zero image
>distortions caused by a mechanically slow shutter-curtain.
>
>You can easily and simply prove it to yourself by holding your dSLR at 45
>degrees tilt to your monitor and trying to take a picture of the monitor
>display's scan-lines at shutter-speeds faster than its flash-sync speed. You'll
>find a badly bent lighted area in your resulting dSLR image, the higher the
>shutter-speed the more distorted it will become. Instead of a few well defined,
>perfectly even, parallel lines, that you will find when taking that same image
>with a P&S camera that doesn't depend on a mechanical curtain-style shutter. A
>P&S camera can stop/capture the activity of those scan lines or any fast moving
>object accurately, a dSLR shutter cannot, will not.
>
>(If I had just bought a dslr today and thought about this, I'd be *really*
>pissed about my purchase right now. I wonder why all those other dSLR owners
>never mention this to newbies when it's so painfully obvious.)
Most of us don't use ASA 25 film anymore.
--
THIS IS A SIG LINE; NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY!
Al Gore's son was pulled over by cops in Southern
California Tuesday going one hundred miles an hour
in his Prius. He had marijuana, Valium, Xanax and
Vicodin in the car. The Los Angeles Times headline
read, Prius Goes One Hundred Miles an Hour.
John Bean
<Big...@there.com> wrote:
>Most of us don't use ASA 25 film anymore.
Or even call it "ASA" :-)
--
John Bean
John Sheehy
> In high speed sync mode, the flash fires many times
> during an exposure, even high high speed exposure faster
> than 1/1000 second, thus averaging out the slit problem
> of the focal plane shutter.
It has its limitations, though. It slows down the flash recycle time,
because it is extremely inefficient and wastes light on the shutter
curtains.
You get a lot less flashes out of a set of batteries.
The GN gets extremely low at high shutter speeds.
It has no "action-stopping" ability beyond that provided by the shutter
speed; all it basically is, is a lamp to increase exposure and fill
shadows at the ambient shutter speed.
It's better than nothing, but is no substitute for real sync at higher
shutter speeds.
--
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <J...@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
John Turco
>
> You've spent a lot of time and thought exposing this shocking secret;
> did it not occur to you it might be common knowledge?
>
> Prepare to be astounded by the evening news - "So-called hybrid cars
> have batteries BUT STILL REQUIRE GASOLINE!"
Hello, Scott:
That's quite a revelation, indeed. (These "hybrid cars" don't use
Rayovac's new Hybrid batteries, do they? <g>)
Cordially,
John Turco <jt...@concentric.net>
bugbear
>
> It's so nice having an advanced P&S camera that will sync the flash up to
> 1/2500th of a second. Proving that that's its true shutter-speed. Zero image
> distortions caused by a mechanically slow shutter-curtain.
How do they do it?
BugBear
Allen
batteries would be for cars, followed by rebuttals, back and forth, back
and forth, back and forth..........ad infinitum.
Allen
ASAAR
>> That's quite a revelation, indeed. (These "hybrid cars" don't use
>> Rayovac's new Hybrid batteries, do they? <g>)
>
> Prepare yourself for a screed about how much better Lithium-Ion
> batteries would be for cars, followed by rebuttals, back and forth, back
> and forth, back and forth..........ad infinitum.
I would hope so, if one side repeatedly misrepresents the facts as
has been the case so far. I'm pretty confident though that for the
hybrid cars, alkalines won't be an option promoted by anyone, even
if F cells would be used instead of AA cells. :)
ASAAR
Maybe they don't? I've checked many manuals and have yet to find
a P&S that can synch with the flash at 1/2500 sec. Thus proving
that the "SelfImporantName" (note that he has since corrected this
misspelling of his name) sock puppet is speaking through the wrong
aperture. :) The few that have anything relevant to say are :
Sony DSC-H1, p. 29 : (can't go as high as 1/2500 sec.?)
> You can select a shutter speed from 1/1000 to 30 seconds
Olympus C-8080WZ, p. 64 : (when using the built-in flash)
> • The flash adjustment effect may not be sufficient
> if the shutter speed is faster than 1/300.
Olympus C-8080WZ, p. 67 : (when using an external flash)
> For the best results, we recommend that you set the
> shutter speed from 1/200 to 1/300 seconds.
Canon A530/A540, p. 45 : (range is 15 to 1/2000 seconds)
> • The fastest shutter speed for flash synchronization is 1/500
> second. The camera automatically resets the shutter speed
> to 1/500 second if a faster shutter speed is selected.
Canon A540, p. 46 : (for Av mode)
> In this mode, the shutter speed range with synchronized flash
> is 1/60 second to 1/500 second. The aperture value may
> therefore be changed to automatically match the
> synchronized flash speed even if its value was set previously.
Canon A610/A620, p. 42 : (range is 15 to 1/2500 seconds)
> • The fastest shutter speed for flash synchronization is 1/500
> second. The camera automatically resets the shutter speed
> to 1/500 second if a faster shutter speed is selected.
This also appears on page 41 of the A710IS's manual, although its
top shutter speed is 1/2000 seconds. The Canon P&S manuals that
I've checked all state in their Specifications pages :
> Shutter : Mechanical shutter + electronic shutter
Allen
You seem to have a scientific/technical background, which isn't obvious
in the posts on the opposite side. Incidentally, I remember my first
portable radio--an RCA monster that weighed close to 15 pounds; most of
the weight was from a giant zinc/carbon unit that supplied 22.5 volts
for plates and 3 volts for filaments. It was "portable" in the same
sense that the first Compaqs (the ones that looked like sewing machine
cases) were portable; wheels would have helped. It went to electronics
hell when the Bakelite handle broke of because of the weight.
Allen
ASAAR
> ASAAR, I would like to say that I'm on your side in the battery wars.
> You seem to have a scientific/technical background, which isn't obvious
> in the posts on the opposite side. Incidentally, I remember my first
> portable radio--an RCA monster that weighed close to 15 pounds; most of
> the weight was from a giant zinc/carbon unit that supplied 22.5 volts
> for plates and 3 volts for filaments. It was "portable" in the same
> sense that the first Compaqs (the ones that looked like sewing machine
> cases) were portable; wheels would have helped. It went to electronics
> hell when the Bakelite handle broke of because of the weight.
My parent's first portable was also an RCA radio, but it was
actually quite portable. It also had the low voltage filament
battery and another high voltage battery for the plates. I replaced
the filament battery a several times and the HV battery at least
once. I recall it having a higher voltage, maybe in the 60 to 90
volt range. The case was made from a white or ivory colored
plastic, with a horizontal, rotating AM antenna on the top of the
case, below a wide handle. I remember seeing many ads for it in
magazines demonstrating how tough the case was. Something about it
being able to survive being dropped from a helicopter. It was also
much smaller than your radio, probably weighing about two or three
pounds. I'd guess that your radio would be older, but I could be
wrong about that. To give you a rough idea of when it was sold, I
remember bringing it to school and using it to listen to the
"perfect game" pitched by Don Larsen in baseball's World Series.
This was when I was in the seventh grade, and my class's 'home room'
wasn't a regular room, but the school's gym. So the class got to
listen to the game sitting in our seats which were just the gym's
collapsible, wide, tiered wooden benches. Just like watching from
the seats in many minor league ball parks. :)
SMS
> Prepare yourself for a screed about how much better Lithium-Ion
> batteries would be for cars, followed by rebuttals, back and forth, back
> and forth, back and forth..........ad infinitum.
> Allen
Toyota was going to use Li-Ion in the third generation Prius, but now
they apparently have delayed this plan, and gone back to NiMH. Their
concept hybrid sports car, the FT-HS, uses Li-Ion.
"http://www.soultek.com/clean_energy/hybrid_cars/third_generation_toyota_prius_in_2008.htm"
Unless they've found a way to extend the time-limited life of Li-Ion
batteries beyond three years I think that the trade-off in terms of
weight and performance may be a bad one.
Toyota may do the same crap they do now with the current Prius in order
to extend battery life, they don't allow deep discharge. In the UK, the
Prius has a switch that can be flipped to go to deeper discharge and run
longer on battery-only.
Personally I like the plug-in hybrid conversions that some companies
offer for the Prius. Being able to drive even 30 miles on batteries-only
would be sufficient for a many driver's daily use. If Toyota offered
this, rather than an after-market company, the cost could be $1000 more
rather than $5000 more.
AustinMN
> It is merely noted as "shutter-speed"
> when mentioned in relation to P&S cameras. Some do have mechanical shutters,
> concentric with the light-path away from the focal-plane, and are not plagued by
> this horrendous
*keyboard*
I'd have given you the benefit of the doubt...horrendous my ass.
Minor problem if you are shooting a NASCAR race from the front row,
almost undetectable at any speed a human can achieve under their own
power.
Troll rating:
Creativity: 4.5 points (highest score I've ever given)
Validity: 1.2 points
Crossposted to cross-purpose newsgroups: 0.0 points
Follow-up arguments: 2.3 points
Total: 8.5 out of a possible 20 points. Lame, but better than your
average troll.
Austin
AustinMN
> On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 10:23:29 -0400, dave <dave6...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >Focal plane shutter travel has not been a factor for more than fifty
> >years and you would know that if you only even used, let alone owned,
> >one. If you can stop the action there will be no visible distortion.
>
> Now there's some convoluted reasoning if I ever read it. Not unlike this fun one
> from long ago:
>
> "As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Conrad
> H. Weisert, Union Carbide.
>
> Do you honestly think that the image you have captured is what is actually
> happening? You have much to learn. Your "stopped action" is not a depiction of
> what was actually happening. You only think it is because your eyes trust your
> camera's image, not reality nor reason. I suppose a curved wooden-bat in a photo
> of a swing at a base-ball means the wood was that flexible, according to your
> reasoning. But that is exactly what your photo will show under the right
> circumstances (your angle to the batter, speed of shutter, etc.) when using any
> dSLR.
Anybody have an image of a curved baseball bat made with any SLR or
DSLR camera manufactured in the last 20 years?
No?
End of story. You are a troll...please don't feed it.
Austin
SMS
> ASAAR wrote:
>> On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 08:55:30 -0500, Allen wrote:
>>
>>>> That's quite a revelation, indeed. (These "hybrid cars" don't use
>>>> Rayovac's new Hybrid batteries, do they? <g>)
>>> Prepare yourself for a screed about how much better Lithium-Ion
>>> batteries would be for cars, followed by rebuttals, back and forth,
>>> back and forth, back and forth..........ad infinitum.
>>
>> I would hope so, if one side repeatedly misrepresents the facts as
>> has been the case so far. I'm pretty confident though that for the
>> hybrid cars, alkalines won't be an option promoted by anyone, even
>> if F cells would be used instead of AA cells. :)
>>
> ASAAR, I would like to say that I'm on your side in the battery wars.
> You seem to have a scientific/technical background, which isn't obvious
> in the posts on the opposite side.
Oh my goodness!
In the past I kill-filed ASAAR, in the belief that some posts just don't
deserve to be read or responded to, especially when so much
misinformation is posted on a regular basis. But now you've got me
going! I went back to Google Groups and found one of his latest gems of
misinformation:
Energizer also makes a USB charger that's powered through the USB
port, and it probably charges much faster than the Ultralast, taking
only about 5 hours to charge 2,500mAh NiMH cells. But because it's
limited to the USB power supply, it can only charge one or two NiMH
cells at a time. Energizer's Product Datasheet also warns that :
"Multiple devices using the USB ports will greatly reduce charge
current to a slow charge. The AC adapter will always provide a
quick charge current."
What this means is that if the charger has to share the USB bus
with other devices so that it can't draw the full 500ma that it
wants to use, which is also the design spec. for the USB's 5v power
supply, it will drop to a slow charge rate, drawing only 100ma from
the USB port. Guess what happens to the charge time? It jumps from
5 hours to well over 20 hours to finish charging only two AA cells!
This demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of how USB power is
implemented. You get a guaranteed _minimum_ of 500mA _per port.
In reality there is always some margin well over 500mA before shutdown.
They have do do this just for surge currents. The shutdown of an
individual port usually occurs at between 800mA and 1250mA. The entire
USB power bus will shut down if the total current exceeds 2.0A total for
all four ports, but if lower current devices (such as mice or keyboards)
or powered devices (such as printers) are being used on some ports, the
other ports can draw more than 500mA of power with no ill effects.
By the way, here's the data sheet for the Energizer 2 cell USB charger
that was referred to:
"http://www.energizer.com/usbcharger/download/CHUSB_E_F_S.pdf". It does
indeed state that to charge two 2500mAH batteries it will take 5 hours.
However _no where_ does it state what was claimed regarding multiple
devices using the USB ports reducing the charge current. If Eveready
ever actually made such a ridiculous statement then they realized their
mistake and withdrew it, but I highly doubt that they ever wrote
anything like that, it's probaly just another fabrication by the poster
in question. The only reduced current would _ever_ happen is if the
charger was plugged into an unpowered USB 1.1 hub that was shared with
other devices; every port on a notebook or desktop PC can supply 500mA
minimum. USB 2.0 hubs are always powered and can supply 500mA per port.
If you wanted to charge four batteries, you could buy two of those
Energizer Duo chargers, and the charge time would not change at all
since each USB port would be supplying 500mA. Or a charger manufacturer
could do what some DVD±R/W drives do, and plug into two USB ports at the
same time in order to supply a guaranteed higher current (if you believe
the poster in question, this won't work because the USB ports share a
total of 500mA-- fortunately he has no idea what he's talking about, as
usual).
Let's analyze who a USB NiMH charger works, just to clear up any doubt:
The USB port provides a guaranteed 500mA at 5 volts. However the NiMH
charging voltage is about 1.8 volts (you can charge with as little as
1.4V but most newer chargers use 1.8V). The theoretical available
charging current would be 5V*500mA/1.8V=1389mA. However since the DC to
DC converter (they don't use a linear regulator) is only about 80-90%
efficient, and since the charger uses some current for the the
controller circuitry, LEDs, etc, there is about 1000mA available for
actual charging. This works out to 250mA per cell for four cells or
500mA per cell for two cells. To charge four 2500mAH cells from zero,
would take ten hours (250mA * 10 hours = 2500mAH). To charge two 2500mAH
cells from zero would take five hours (500mA * 5 hours = 2500mAH). The
latter matches what the Eveready Duo data sheet states.
I humbly suggest that you be more discerning in the future when looking
for someone with a scientific and technical background.
Scott Schuckert
<cau...@22.com> wrote:
> I would hope so, if one side repeatedly misrepresents the facts as
> has been the case so far. I'm pretty confident though that for the
> hybrid cars, alkalines won't be an option promoted by anyone, even
> if F cells would be used instead of AA cells. :)
I made a JOKE about batteries in hybrid cars, and it's become the topic
of the discussion!
Let's try this one. Over and over, I read here that people are
clamoring for AA powered digital cameras, as opposed to "expensive,
proprietary" battery packs. Seems to make little sense, except for
people who don't use their cameras much (my "accident camera" in the
car uses disposable AA's)
Should we not also seek out AA powered cars? Same arguments - generic
technology, cheaper, get them anywhere... and think how much fun the
hot-rodders could have cleaning 5,000 battery contacts!
Thomas T. Veldhouse
>
> Get your meds adjusted.
>
Ah .. you again, the guy going by "SockPuppet".
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from the
machinations of the wicked.
Thomas T. Veldhouse
> Don't let the resident trolls pull you into their games S.I.M. it's
> fun watching them squirm and scream when they've been proven wrong
> again. Nice work. You're right, they're 100% wrong. Simple as that.
>
SelfImportantName == EdBancroft?
Sock puppets? A little Free Agent for SelfImportantName and Outlook Express
for EdBancroft and you have a nifty sockpuppet conversation going here ;-)
SMS
> Let's try this one. Over and over, I read here that people are
> clamoring for AA powered digital cameras, as opposed to "expensive,
> proprietary" battery packs. Seems to make little sense, except for
> people who don't use their cameras much (my "accident camera" in the
> car uses disposable AA's)
Very few people are clamoring for AA powered cameras. As was pointed
out, the NiMH proponents repeatedly misrepresent the facts, and I don't
think anyone pays much attention to them.
> Should we not also seek out AA powered cars? Same arguments - generic
> technology, cheaper, get them anywhere... and think how much fun the
> hot-rodders could have cleaning 5,000 battery contacts!
Hey, the original Prius used 240 consumer sized NiMH D cells in series
to achieve 288 volts. You're not all that far off. I wonder if the same
people that make up these ridiculous stories about NiMH batteries in
cameras were upset when Toyota moved from D cells to proprietary NiMH
modules. True the D cells they used were not button top, but solder-tab,
so they would be harder to replace, but you can buy solder-tab NiMH
cells without too much difficulty.
Thomas T. Veldhouse
>
> Sorry to burst your bubble, but nowhere do I mention nor claim that the P&S
> camera is relying on a mechanical shutter. It is merely noted as "shutter-speed"
> when mentioned in relation to P&S cameras. Some do have mechanical shutters,
> concentric with the light-path away from the focal-plane, and are not plagued by
> shutters. Some only have electronic shutters. But in most every case there is
> some kind of mechanism to protect the sensor from exposure to bright lights when
> not in use.
>
Many photographers use the shutter curtain for effect in their photography and
it is a useful tool. With a flash, it can be used for interesting blurring
and ghosting effects and it can also be used to enhance the background
exposure in lower light. It just depends upon the curtain sync and your
ability to utilize it.
> dSLR = recording a distorted view of reality
>
Photography is NOT about recording reality [necessarily], it is about creating
art. For some people, like a photojournalist, that may not be true, but for
most, it is about art.
Without the mechanical shutter, you simply don't have this tool as an option
for artistic creativity.
I am sorry you feel so antogonistic about it.
SMS
> SelfImporantName <anyw...@anyplace.net> wrote:
>> Sorry to burst your bubble, but nowhere do I mention nor claim that the P&S
>> camera is relying on a mechanical shutter. It is merely noted as "shutter-speed"
>> when mentioned in relation to P&S cameras. Some do have mechanical shutters,
>> concentric with the light-path away from the focal-plane, and are not plagued by
>> this horrendous subject-distorting problem of curtain-style focal-plane
>> shutters. Some only have electronic shutters. But in most every case there is
>> some kind of mechanism to protect the sensor from exposure to bright lights when
>> not in use.
>>
>
> Many photographers use the shutter curtain for effect in their photography and
> it is a useful tool. With a flash, it can be used for interesting blurring
> and ghosting effects and it can also be used to enhance the background
> exposure in lower light. It just depends upon the curtain sync and your
> ability to utilize it.
>
>> dSLR = recording a distorted view of reality
>>
>
> Photography is NOT about recording reality [necessarily], it is about creating
> art. For some people, like a photojournalist, that may not be true, but for
> most, it is about art.
>
> Without the mechanical shutter, you simply don't have this tool as an option
> for artistic creativity.
I wonder why the D-SLR makers can't include both electronic and
mechanical shutters. Nikon did it on the D70s.
ASAAR
> This demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of how USB power is
> implemented. You get a guaranteed _minimum_ of 500mA _per port.
Wrong. That's just what the USB spec. assumes will be the
minimum. But there are USB ports that provide less. And you have
yet to back up your claim that most USB ports provide 1000mA. If
that was the case, there would be no need for USB devices, such as
Energizer's charger to drop down from drawing 500ma to only 100ma
when it has to share the USB with other devices. If every USB
socket is attached to a unique USB port, there would be no problem.
But that's not the case, and though you many not be able to tell by
looking at the connectors, they may be daisy-chained, sharing power
and bandwidth. Do you really think that a low powered USB mouse or
USB keyboard would need a dedicated USB port capable of providing at
least 500mA to only that one device?
> In reality there is always some margin well over 500mA before shutdown.
> They have do do this just for surge currents.
Chargers don't have small, temporary surges. They operate for
many hours, drawing current at a very uniform rate. If it was
otherwise, the faster charging Energizer USB charger wouldn't be
limited to being able to charge only two AA cells, and the Ultralast
charger that can charge up to 4 AA cells wouldn't charge so much
more slowly. Its charge rate, however, is still unknown. You only
speculated that it is slow, adding that the package provided few
details.
> By the way, here's the data sheet for the Energizer 2 cell USB charger
> that was referred to:
> "http://www.energizer.com/usbcharger/download/CHUSB_E_F_S.pdf".
> It does indeed state that to charge two 2500mAH batteries it will take 5 hours.
> However _no where_ does it state what was claimed regarding multiple
> devices using the USB ports reducing the charge current. If Eveready
> ever actually made such a ridiculous statement then they realized their
> mistake and withdrew it, but I highly doubt that they ever wrote
> anything like that, it's probaly just another fabrication by the poster
> in question. The only reduced current would _ever_ happen is if the
> charger was plugged into an unpowered USB 1.1 hub that was shared with
> other devices; every port on a notebook or desktop PC can supply 500mA
> minimum. USB 2.0 hubs are always powered and can supply 500mA per port.
No need to foam at the mouth, dog. What you called a data sheet
is NOT the data sheet for Energizer's charger. It's the Duo
Charger's manual, printed in English, French and Spanish. What I
stated was copied from the Product Datasheet (CHUSB.PDF), which I'll
paste below, again, since you didn't have the decency to quote it.
It was downloaded within the last 24 hours, so you can still
download it, and you have once more been proven to be a hot air
blowhard, since what I posted has *not* been withdrawn by Energizer,
nor was any part of it fabricated. Fabrication and wild speculation
remain your specialties, not mine.
You've also posted more of your bogus nonsense with the assumption
that the problem is in any way related to USB 1.1 ports or hubs.
Nowhere does Energizer have any caveats about using USB 1.1 vs USB
2.0, it only states that their charger can drop to a very slow
charge rate if other USB devices are used. Is Energizer fabricating
a non-existent possibility? Here's my quote, that you referred to :
> Energizer also makes a USB charger that's powered through the USB
> port, and it probably charges much faster than the Ultralast, taking
> only about 5 hours to charge 2,500mAh NiMH cells. But because it's
> limited to the USB power supply, it can only charge one or two NiMH
> cells at a time. Energizer's Product Datasheet also warns that :
>
>> Multiple devices using the USB ports will greatly reduce charge
>> current to a slow charge. The AC adapter will always provide a
>> quick charge current.
To provide greater context, here's the more complete quote, again,
copied from the Duo Charger (CHUSB) Product Datasheet :
> Product Detail:
> Designation: Duo Charger
> Color: Black and Green, Blue or Magenta
> Capabilities: 1 to 2 "AA" Note: when charging a single
> 1 to 2 "AAA" battery, use bay (1) only
> Charging Current: USB Quick Charge 1-2 "AA-AAA" 550mA
> USB Slow Charge 1-2 "AA-AAA" 125mA
> NOTE: Quick charge current depends on the power
> output of the computer USB. Multiple devices using
> the USB ports will greatly reduce charge current to a
> slow charge. The AC adapter will always provide a
> quick charge current.
>
> Trickle Charge: 20-60mA
>Shutoff Mechanism: Delta V, Max Voltage and Timer Control
> Delta V Detection 10mV per cell
> Max Voltage 1.65V per cell
> Max Timer Control Quick Charge "AA" 5.5 hours
> Quick Charge "AAA" 1.5 hours
> Slow Charge "AA" No Timer
> Slow Charge "AAA" 10 hours
> Charger Input: Quick Charge DC 5V 500mA
> Slow Charge DC 5V 100mA
> AC Adapter Input: 100-240V AC 50/60Hz 150mA
> AC Adapter Output: DC 5V, 500mA
> Weight (charger): 68 grams (2.4 oz.)
> Dimensions (mm): 33 x 101 x 40 (H x L x W)
> Safety Features: Delta V Charging Cut Off
> Max Voltage Shutoff
> Reverse Polarity Protection
> Primary Battery Detection
Your posts often contain some minor pieces of misinformation or
deception, but this post of yours went *way* beyond merely pathetic.
> I humbly suggest that you be more discerning in the future when
> looking for someone with a scientific and technical background.
You? Humble? <g>
(I couldn't honestly type "Don't make me laugh.")
ASAAR
>> I would hope so, if one side repeatedly misrepresents the facts as
>> has been the case so far. I'm pretty confident though that for the
>> hybrid cars, alkalines won't be an option promoted by anyone, even
>> if F cells would be used instead of AA cells. :)
>
> I made a JOKE about batteries in hybrid cars, and it's become the topic
> of the discussion!
If you don't see that I continued it in a humorous vein (and I
replied to Allen's post, which really didn't add any humor, not to
yours), you need to re-examine what I wrote. I could have added
much about using NiMH vs Li-Ion batteries, but recognized that it
wasn't really appropriate. But I see that in SMS's reply to your
message he's added his usual loony speculation, so I'll correct at
least part of it, as well as something that you wrote :
>> Let's try this one. Over and over, I read here that people are
>> clamoring for AA powered digital cameras, as opposed to "expensive,
>> proprietary" battery packs. Seems to make little sense, except for
>> people who don't use their cameras much (my "accident camera" in the
>> car uses disposable AA's)
>
> Very few people are clamoring for AA powered cameras. As was pointed
> out, the NiMH proponents repeatedly misrepresent the facts, and I don't
> think anyone pays much attention to them.
It doesn't make sense to want to use AA powered digital cameras?
That was true several years (by now "many" years?), when AA powered
cameras were often unable to take more than several dozen shots,
sometimes as few as 10. For at least three years it has been
possible to buy cameras that are able to take *many* shots using
regular alkaline AA or NiMH batteries. The first set of alkaline AA
batteries used in my 2004 Fuji S5100 was good for well over 600
shots, more than 100 taken using the flash at full power. Using
NiMH batteries it's now possible to take well over 1,000 shots per
charge. Many Canon cameras do even better, getting up to 1,600
shots per charge. This makes cameras using AA batteries much more
capable now than they were years ago, and it would be quite
inaccurate to say that they make little sense except for people that
don't use their cameras much, or if used only as an "accident"
camera. Several people have posted messages in the last year or two
praising their Canon A610/A620 type cameras. Several of them noted
that they'd taken up to several hundred pictures over periods
ranging from 3 to 6 months, all on the first set of batteries. It's
not exactly *heavy* use, but neither is it *light* use, and it is
typical of many how many photographers use their cameras.
If you're one of those that clamor for Li-Ion batteries, that's
fine too. But you should realize that when evaluating batteries to
find out which types are the most convenient or the cheapest to use,
no one type always wins out. Much more depends these days on how
the cameras are used than on which types of batteries are used, and
you might be surprised by which types of batteries win out, and
under which conditions. As even the most expensive battery types
these days are quite affordable, most people don't care, making
their sometimes unreasonable biases easier to remain intact. :)
>> Should we not also seek out AA powered cars? Same arguments - generic
>> technology, cheaper, get them anywhere... and think how much fun the
>> hot-rodders could have cleaning 5,000 battery contacts!
>
> Hey, the original Prius used 240 consumer sized NiMH D cells in series
> to achieve 288 volts. You're not all that far off. I wonder if the same
> people that make up these ridiculous stories about NiMH batteries in
> cameras were upset when Toyota moved from D cells to proprietary NiMH
> modules. True the D cells they used were not button top, but solder-tab,
> so they would be harder to replace, but you can buy solder-tab NiMH
> cells without too much difficulty.
This is one of the stupidest statements SMS has ever made. He
supposedly knows all about batteries, used not only in consumer
products, but in heavy duty industrial products as well. If he
wasn't trying to back up his usual bogus points, he would have
recalled that solder tab (and welded tab) cells are NOT used to make
replacement more difficult. They're used to make their use more
reliable. Button top cells have relatively high contact resistance,
and it increases over time, due to the effects of oxidations and
grime. When used at the especially high currents demanded by
electrical auto engines, they would waste more battery power and
produce more heat at the contact points and make for less reliable
operation. The addition of the contact springs alone, needed for
240 button top D cells would also waste space, requiring the use of
a larger battery compartment.
This is no different in NiCD, NiMH and Li-Ion battery packs that
use multiple cells for powering portable phones, cell phones, PDAs
and laptops. They don't use button top batteries and spring metal
contacts. They use cells that have been connected using soldered or
welded tabs because it makes the battery packs more reliable. Almost
all portable phones and cell phones use battery packs that can be
easily replaced in seconds without using tools. Portable phone
battery packs tend to be very inexpensive, but cell phone battery
packs are usually far more expensive, but still easy to replace.
I'm sure that the SMSpinmeister knows all of this, but when did
facts ever get between him and the bogus points he tries to use to
mislead the gullible?
nospam
<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> This demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of how USB power is
> implemented. You get a guaranteed _minimum_ of 500mA _per port.
bullshit.
from the official usb spec,
<http://www.usb.org/developers/docs/usb_20_040907.zip>
table 7-7 in section 7.3.2 (page 178) shows a *maximum* of 500ma per
port.
furthermore, a device is initially only guaranteed 100ma and must
request 500ma from the host.
kindly cease your disinformation campaign.
SMS
Read page 171 of the USB 2.0 spec, section 7.2.1 under "Classes of
Devices," that specifies when a low-power port is permitted.
You cannot have a low power port on a computer, except under one
condition specified in 7.2.1., a condition that is only ever taken
advantage of in extremely small systems such as PDAs and UPCs. You _can_
have a low power port on a bus-powered hub, and the available power per
port is 100mA.
Technically, it might be legal for a notebook manufacturer to detect
when on battery power, and then reduce the available current to that of
a low-power port, and only supply the higher current when on external
power, but this is never done in practice as it would add a great deal
of expense and complexity to the system, and lead to all sorts of
technical issues when switching from external to battery power on-the-fly.
You're reading table 7.7 incorrectly. Under "Supply Current" you're
guaranteed a minimum of 500mA out of the hub, and the device (function)
is supposed to draw a maximum of 500mA. In reality, the supply current
is always somewhat greater than the 500mA minimum, and while it isn't
really kosher to design a device that draws more than 500mA, many
devices will take advantage of the higher current if available. They get
around this apparent violation by supplying an external wall adapter to
use if the USB port current is insufficient.
Maybe Eveready was worried about someone plugging the Duo charger into a
Bus Powered hub, so they put in that warning about charge current.
Unfortunately they should have been more verbose as their wording
apparently led some non-technical people to believe that plugging in
multiple devices to their computer's USB ports will reduce the current
on each port, which is completely false. Instead, they should have
instructed users to only plug the device into a powered hub, or directly
into the computer's USB port. At least this would not have confused
people and led to all sorts of wild assumptions as to how USB power works.
ASAAR
Nonsense. Energizer said nothing about the possibility of
plugging the charger into a bus powered hub. They explicitly
described what could cause the charger to draw only 100mA. You've
now read the explanation from several sources, unless for some weird
reason you're now trusting my quotes to be valid instead of the
"fabrications" you earlier claimed them to be. The reason give by
Energizer was that other USB devices drawing current from the port
would be why the charger wouldn't draw the full 500mA. Once again
you've posted misleading, deceptive speculation, disguised to appear
as if it were fact. Is Energizer also mistaken, or is what they
have said also a fabrication? Just rhetorical questions, since we
know that you go to great lengths to avoid honest answers.
> Unfortunately they should have been more verbose as their wording
> apparently led some non-technical people to believe that plugging in
> multiple devices to their computer's USB ports will reduce the current
> on each port, which is completely false. Instead, they should have
> instructed users to only plug the device into a powered hub, or directly
> into the computer's USB port. At least this would not have confused
> people and led to all sorts of wild assumptions as to how USB power works.
Riiiight. If you actually believe this, you're in really bad shape.
nospam
<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> Read page 171 of the USB 2.0 spec, section 7.2.1 under "Classes of
> Devices," that specifies when a low-power port is permitted.
you mean this part?
7.2.1 Classes of Devices
The power source and sink requirements of different device classes
can be simplified with the introduction of the concept of a unit
load. A unit load is defined to be 100 mA. The number of unit loads
a device can draw is an absolute maximum, not an average over time.
A device may be either low-power at one unit load or high-power,
consuming up to five unit loads. All devices default to low-power.
The transition to high-power is under software control. It is the
responsibility of software to ensure adequate power is available
before allowing devices to consume high-power.
or this part?
7.2.1.4 High-power Bus-powered Functions
A function is defined as being high-power if, when fully powered, it
draws over one but no more than five unit loads from the USB cable.
A high-power function requires staged switching of power. It must
first come up in a reduced power state of less than one unit load.
...
High-power functions must be capable of operating in their low-power
(one unit load) mode with an input voltage as low as 4.40 V, so that
it may be detected and enumerated even when plugged into a bus-
powered hub. They must also be capable of operating at full power
(up to five unit loads) with a VBUS voltage of 4.75 V, measured at
the upstream plug end of the cable.
maybe this?
7.2.3 Power Control During Suspend/Resume
Suspend current is a function of unit load allocation. All USB
devices initially default to low-power. Low- power devices or
high-power devices operating at low-power are limited to 500 mA of
suspend current. If the device is configured for high-power and
enabled as a remote wakeup source, it may draw up to 2.5 mA during
suspend. When computing suspend current, the current from VBUS
through the bus pull-up and pull-down resistors must be included.
Configured bus-powered hubs may also consume a maximum of 2.5 mA,
with 500 mA allocated to each available external port and the
remainder available to the hub and its internal functions. If a hub
is not configured, it is operating as a low-power device and must
limit its suspend current to 500 mA. While in the Suspend state, a
device may briefly draw more than the average current. The amplitude
of the current spike cannot exceed the device power allocation 100 mA
(or 500 mA).
wikipedia has this to say:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB>
The USB specification provides a 5 V (volts) supply on a single wire
from which connected USB devices may draw power. The specification
provides for no more than 5.25 V and no less than 4.35 V between the
+ve and -ve bus power lines. Initially, a device is only allowed to
draw 100 mA. It may request more current from the upstream device in
units of 100 mA up to a maximum of 500 mA.
...
Some USB devices draw more power than is permitted by the
specification for a single port. This is a common requirement of
external hard and optical disc drives and other devices with motors
or lamps. Such devices can be used with an external power supply of
adequate rating; some external hubs may, in practice, supply
sufficient power. For portable devices where external power is not
available, but not more than 1 A is required at 5 V, devices may have
connectors to allow the use of two USB cables, doubling available
power but reducing the number of USB ports available to other devices.
> Under "Supply Current" you're
> guaranteed a minimum of 500mA out of the hub, and the device (function)
> is supposed to draw a maximum of 500mA. In reality, the supply current
> is always somewhat greater than the 500mA minimum, and while it isn't
> really kosher to design a device that draws more than 500mA, many
> devices will take advantage of the higher current if available. They get
> around this apparent violation by supplying an external wall adapter to
> use if the USB port current is insufficient.
very few devices take more than 500ma because it is not guaranteed. in
fact, i have heard of some devices failing to work, notably bus-powered
hard drive enclosures, as well as causing port blowouts. a device
requiring more than 500ma is out of spec. if this nimh charger needs a
powered hub to supply necessary power, then the advantage of it being
usb is totally lost.
SMS
> In article <4692bad5$0$27172$742e...@news.sonic.net>, SMS
> <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> Read page 171 of the USB 2.0 spec, section 7.2.1 under "Classes of
>> Devices," that specifies when a low-power port is permitted.
>
> you mean this part?
This part:
"Root port hubs: Are directly attached to the USB Host Controller. Hub
power is derived from the same source as the Host Controller. _Systems
that obtain operating power externally, either AC or DC, must supply at
least five unit loads to each port. Such ports are called high-power
ports._ Battery-powered systems may supply either one or five unit loads."
Every USB port on a desktop _MUST_ supply 500mA per port _minimum_.
Using all the USB ports has no effect on the 500mA per port that must be
supplied, though it can effect current _over_ 500mA because the power
protection circuit has two cutoff modes. It will cut off individual
ports at a certain level (typically 800-1000mA) but it will also cut off
_all_ the ports, if the combined current exceeds 2.0A.
What is true is that it would be _possible_ to design a laptop PC where
the maximum current per port varied based on whether the notebook was
plugged in or on batteries. You could legally reduce the USB current to
100mA per port when operating on battery power. In practice this is
_never_ done because a) it would increase the complexity and cost of the
laptop, and b) it would cause problems during operation, i.e. if an
external hard drive was in use during a power failure and suddenly
disconnected due to lack of power.
I think the Energizer was worried about someone plugging the NiMH
charger into a bus powered hub. This is the only way that additional
devices would affect the available current of other devices (at least in
terms of the 500mA minimum). Unfortunately, they didn't communicate this
very well to the technical writer.
> very few devices take more than 500ma because it is not guaranteed. in
> fact, i have heard of some devices failing to work, notably bus-powered
> hard drive enclosures, as well as causing port blowouts. a device
> requiring more than 500ma is out of spec.
Every hub inside a PC is a Root Port hub and supplies 500mA per port,
with no effect on the 500mA no matter how many of the ports are used.
Don't think of a hub as only an external hub. It's only an external, bus
powered hub that supplies only four units of power (one unit is used by
the hub itself, and four units are available for devices).
You're right that the devices that draw more than 500mA are out of spec.
But if they're only a few hundred mA over the limit they'll usually
work. I've never found an external notebook hard drive that wouldn't
work on a USB port without the adapter. I've had an external DVD/CD RW
drive that wouldn't work in some situations (writing) but would work
fine in some situations. If it causes a port blowout then the USB power
protection circuit is not working. Even a simply polyswitch will prevent
port blowout. What we did on the Compaq machine with the guaranteed
high-power USB port for Multibay (shown on the charger site) was to
dedicate an entire root hub to that one port.
> if this nimh charger needs a
> powered hub to supply necessary power, then the advantage of it being
> usb is totally lost.
The NiMH charger just requires a normal, 500mA USB port, as found on any
computer manufactured in the last ten years or so. This isn't rocket
science. Personally I'd like the option of a Y connector on these
chargers to increase the available current per cell, but 250mA is
sufficient for overnight charging.
dj_nme
> On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 12:28:52 +0100, bugbear wrote:
>
>
>>SelfImporantName wrote:
>>
>>>It's so nice having an advanced P&S camera that will sync the flash up to
>>>1/2500th of a second. Proving that that's its true shutter-speed. Zero image
>>>distortions caused by a mechanically slow shutter-curtain.
>>
>>How do they do it?
>
>
> Maybe they don't? I've checked many manuals and have yet to find
> a P&S that can synch with the flash at 1/2500 sec. Thus proving
> that the "SelfImporantName" (note that he has since corrected this
> misspelling of his name) sock puppet is speaking through the wrong
> aperture. :) The few that have anything relevant to say are :
Some P&S digicams actually do have a high flash-synch speed.
I had a Minolta Dimage 7Hi (it died at the time of the Sony 5mp sensor
recall), it's highest shutter speed was 1/4000th in Program mode and
1/2000th in Manual mode, it could flash-synch with it's pop-up flash at
these shutter speeds.
Because it had Minolta's proprietary flash shoe and no PC socket, I
never got a chance to try an external unit flash with it.
It had a mechanical iris shutter, so it didn't have separate shutter
curtains which cause a black stripe if a FP shutter is used above it's
flash-sych speed and because of the small diameter of the opening, it
could have a fairly high shutter speed.
I wouldn't call it an "ideal" camera, it had acceptable noise at ISO 100
and ISO 200 and if you're in dim lighting, a bit too noisey at ISO 400
and almost useless at ISO 800.
The 7Hi was also a OK with AF and the 4x zoom on MF did help in good
lighting; but in dim lighting it would hunt and the 4x zoom on MF just
made the red/green noise in the image easier to see.
I personaly can't see the point of "SelfImporantName"s rant, the
trade-off between ultra-high flash-synch with a pop-up flash (P&S
camera) versus low noise at high-ISO (DSLR & DRF camera) seems like a
"no-brainer" as far as I can tell, because it means that pictures can be
taken in low light without using the flash without getting an image
that's a mess of noisey pixels.
SMS
> I personaly can't see the point of "SelfImporantName"s rant, the
> trade-off between ultra-high flash-synch with a pop-up flash (P&S
> camera) versus low noise at high-ISO (DSLR & DRF camera) seems like a
> "no-brainer" as far as I can tell, because it means that pictures can be
> taken in low light without using the flash without getting an image
> that's a mess of noisey pixels.
It's more than just low noise at high ISO. One of the biggest advantages
of the D-SLR is the lack of shutter-lag.
It's easy to live with the slower flash synch, after all, it's always
been that way with SLRs, even film SLRs.
dj_nme
> I wonder why the D-SLR makers can't include both electronic and
> mechanical shutters. Nikon did it on the D70s.
High-speed flash synch (pulsed flash) totally side-steps the problem.
External flashguns that can send out a series of flash pulses to cover
the whole exposure at high shutter speed (higher than the native "flash
synch speed") has made the electronic shutter for DSLR cameras a thing
of the past.
If I remember correctly, there tended to be bit of image smearing if the
electronic shutter was used for high-speed falsh synch.
That's the only bit I can remember from the the D70s review on dpreview.com.
nospam
<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> You're right that the devices that draw more than 500mA are out of spec.
> But if they're only a few hundred mA over the limit they'll usually
> work.
maybe. no guarantees. might blow the port (i've seen it happen).
> I've never found an external notebook hard drive that wouldn't
> work on a USB port without the adapter.
i've seen numerous failures for the drive to spin up.
> I've had an external DVD/CD RW
> drive that wouldn't work in some situations (writing) but would work
> fine in some situations. If it causes a port blowout then the USB power
> protection circuit is not working.
if its out of spec, anything goes.
dj_nme
> dj_nme wrote:
>
>> I personaly can't see the point of "SelfImporantName"s rant, the
>> trade-off between ultra-high flash-synch with a pop-up flash (P&S
>> camera) versus low noise at high-ISO (DSLR & DRF camera) seems like a
>> "no-brainer" as far as I can tell, because it means that pictures can
>> be taken in low light without using the flash without getting an image
>> that's a mess of noisey pixels.
>
>
> It's more than just low noise at high ISO. One of the biggest advantages
> of the D-SLR is the lack of shutter-lag.
Also:
1)no lag in the "live view" on the LCD or EVF that a P&S digicam usually
has.
2)very fast AF in most lighting conditions, right down to dim lighting
in which manual focusing also isn't really possible (at least what I've
found with Pentax DSLR cameras, ist-DS and K10D).
3)the choice to be able to change lenses for a faster, longer or wider
one as the situation demands.
4)I'm sure there's more, but at 11:30pm I'm starting to run out of juice
and suggestions.
> It's easy to live with the slower flash synch, after all, it's always
> been that way with SLRs, even film SLRs.
Then HS/FP flashguns came around and suddenly it's possible to flash
synch all the way up to the top shutter speed with a DSLR while using
the correct accessory flashgun, if you can put up with the reduced GN
that comes with pulsed flash.
SMS
I wouldn't design something that depends on a USB port delivering more
than the guaranteed minimum of 500mA. The DVD/CD drives and hard drives
don't really depend on it, as they always come with either an external
power adapter, or a Y cable that lets them draw power-only from a second
USB port. However the notebook drives (at least the recent ones) seem to
always work fine from a single USB port, though I've only tried it on
Dell and Compaq notebooks/tablets, and ASUS motherboards.
The key point is that the root port hub inside the computer can deliver
a minimum of 500 mA, on each port, even with all ports being used.
It's a bizarre warning on the Energizer charger, which misleads people
that don't understand how USB works. They should have just stated, "Do
not plug this charger into a USB hub that does not have its own power
supply."
Energizer has deluded people (or perhaps only one person) into
statements like "If every USB socket is attached to a unique USB port,
there would be no problem." I don't know what he was thinking, maybe he
thinks USB is like the old 10BASE5 Ethernet or the Enhanced Parallel
Port (1284.3), rather than a multi-level star topology like USB, where
each USB socket _is_ attached to a unique USB port.
ASAAR
> Energizer has deluded people (or perhaps only one person) into
> statements like "If every USB socket is attached to a unique USB port,
> there would be no problem." I don't know what he was thinking
Of course you don't know. You're too absorbed in your delusions,
including the one where you stated that most USB ports are capable
of providing close to 1000mA.
David J Taylor
[]
> Also:
> 1)no lag in the "live view" on the LCD or EVF that a P&S digicam
> usually has.
> 2)very fast AF in most lighting conditions, right down to dim lighting
> in which manual focusing also isn't really possible (at least what
> I've found with Pentax DSLR cameras, ist-DS and K10D).
> 3)the choice to be able to change lenses for a faster, longer or wider
> one as the situation demands.
> 4)I'm sure there's more, but at 11:30pm I'm starting to run out of
> juice and suggestions.
1 - the EVF of a small-sensor camera can be brighter, although the DSLR
offers finer control of framing.
3 - can cause you to loose shots - better the full-range zoom on the ZLR
than having to change between lenses. Changing lenses also introduces
dust which causes problems for the DSLR. Lenses like the 18 - 200mm VR
zoom from Nikon are perhaps better as general walking-around lenses, but
they are expensive and somewhat heavier.
"You pays your money and takes your choice".
David
SMS
Yeah, you don't want to violate the spec, but in reality you often get
away with it, by design. If you look at how the computer manufacturers
design their USB port circuitry (which I've done extensively), they
build in a _lot_ of margin. You don't trip the protection circuit at
501mA. Look at some of the power control switch data sheets, and the
fault current is somewhere between 750mA and 1250mA.
If a port blows out, there's a real design problem, because at least the
reputable manufacturers have two layers of protection circuitry. You
have the protection circuit for each port, which as the data sheets
show, shut the port off at around 1A, plus you have the protection
circuitry for the power rail that feeds the USB ports, which shuts off
at about 2.0A.
What used to blow out were the PS/2 ports when people tried to tap too
much power off the +5V. These weren't resettable either, they were fuses
soldered onto the motherboard, and replacing it meant disassembling the
computer, removing the motherboard, and doing some fun soldering of
surface mount fuses.
John Sheehy
news:46902974$0$12828$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au:
> "Rich" <rande...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1183851910.9...@c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>> My Olympus C-8080 had a 1/4000 shutter speed with flash that can do
>> shots I can't duplicate with a DSLR.
> And they are posted where? Proof, show us the goodies Rich.
Well, how would you do bounce flash with a DSLR and HSS at ISO 100 and
1/4000?
--
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <J...@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
dj_nme
> dj_nme wrote:
> []
>
>>Also:
>>1)no lag in the "live view" on the LCD or EVF that a P&S digicam
>>usually has.
>>2)very fast AF in most lighting conditions, right down to dim lighting
>>in which manual focusing also isn't really possible (at least what
>>I've found with Pentax DSLR cameras, ist-DS and K10D).
>>3)the choice to be able to change lenses for a faster, longer or wider
>>one as the situation demands.
>>4)I'm sure there's more, but at 11:30pm I'm starting to run out of
>>juice and suggestions.
>
>
> 1 - the EVF of a small-sensor camera can be brighter, although the DSLR
> offers finer control of framing.
How many P&S cameras have you used in real low-light shooting?
I can easily frame and focus with my Pentax ist-DS or K10D, while I've
noticed that P&S users are staring/squinting at the black rectangle that
the LCD on their P&S has become.
> 3 - can cause you to loose shots - better the full-range zoom on the ZLR
> than having to change between lenses. Changing lenses also introduces
> dust which causes problems for the DSLR. Lenses like the 18 - 200mm VR
> zoom from Nikon are perhaps better as general walking-around lenses, but
> they are expensive and somewhat heavier.
The thing that you cannot do is to make the lens faster.
How many makers offer a 50mm f1:1.4 or 30mm f1:1.4 (35mm equivalent)
lens for a P&S at either the short or long end of their zoom range?
None yet, unless something as yet un-publicised is on the market.
The closest I've heard of is the the Pana Lumix FZ20, with f1:2.8 constant.
The best SLR lenses are at least 2 stops (for f1:1.4) or 2.5 stops (for
f1:1.2) brighter or with RF lenses, 3 stops (for f1:0.95) brighter at
their biggest aperture.
ASAAR
>>> My Olympus C-8080 had a 1/4000 shutter speed with flash that
>>> can do shots I can't duplicate with a DSLR.
>
>> And they are posted where? Proof, show us the goodies Rich.
>
> Well, how would you do bounce flash with a DSLR and HSS at ISO 100
> and 1/4000?
Is that something that the C-8080 is supposed to be able to do?
Olympus's FL-36 and FL-50 flashes have HSS modes (FP TTL Auto and FP
Manual), but as far as I can those modes work with Olympus's DSLRs
but aren't available when either flash is attached to the C-8080WZ.
On the other hand the C-8080's built-in flash is compatible with
high shutter speeds, but obviously won't do bounce flash without the
use of mirrors. :) This is probably what Rich was referring to.
dj_nme
> "Pete D" <Do...@is.a.moron.com> wrote in
> news:46902974$0$12828$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au:
>
>
>>"Rich" <rande...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:1183851910.9...@c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>>>My Olympus C-8080 had a 1/4000 shutter speed with flash that can do
>>>shots I can't duplicate with a DSLR.
>
>
>
>>And they are posted where? Proof, show us the goodies Rich.
>
>
> Well, how would you do bounce flash with a DSLR and HSS at ISO 100 and
> 1/4000?
Easy.
Set the ISO to 100, the shutter speed to 1/4000th and then point the
head of the flashgun at either the ceiling or a wall.
Then press the shutter button.
Simple.
nospam
<46942e7a$0$12806$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>, dj_nme
<dj_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> The thing that you cannot do is to make the lens faster.
> How many makers offer a 50mm f1:1.4 or 30mm f1:1.4 (35mm equivalent)
> lens for a P&S at either the short or long end of their zoom range?
> None yet, unless something as yet un-publicised is on the market.
> The closest I've heard of is the the Pana Lumix FZ20, with f1:2.8 constant.
> The best SLR lenses are at least 2 stops (for f1:1.4) or 2.5 stops (for
> f1:1.2) brighter or with RF lenses, 3 stops (for f1:0.95) brighter at
> their biggest aperture.
olympus had a f/1.8 lens with a 40-120mm equivalent:
<http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Olympus/oly_c2040z.asp>
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
And remember, that even with the same f/ratio, the larger pixel
sized camera gets more photons in the same exposure time.
E.g. if a small pixel camera, say 6 megapixels with 2-micron pixels
and an f/2 lens giving an X degree field of view, and a camera with
8-micron pixels (let's assume same quantum efficiency and
fill factors), again with 6-megapixels with an f/2 lens
giving the same X degree field of view, the 8-micron pixel camera
gathers 16 times more light in the same exposure for each pixel.
But what all this thread illustrates (besides troll behavior)
is that there is no perfect camera. Each type of camera has
advantages and disadvantages, and people need to choose the
best tool for their application and budget.
Roger
dj_nme
That is still almost a full stop slower than the standard 50mm f1:1.4
lens made by Pentax, Canon, Nikon and Sigma.
Also, it still can't be swapped out for a faster or wider lens if it is
required.
Pat
> "Pete D" <D...@is.a.moron.com> wrote innews:46902974$0$12828$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au:
>
> > "Rich" <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:1183851910.9...@c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> >> My Olympus C-8080 had a 1/4000 shutter speed with flash that can do
> >> shots I can't duplicate with a DSLR.
> > And they are posted where? Proof, show us the goodies Rich.
>
> Well, how would you do bounce flash with a DSLR and HSS at ISO 100 and
> 1/4000?
>
> --
>
> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
> John P Sheehy <J...@no.komm>
> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Am I missing something here? I haven't read this entire thread, but I
don't understand the question re bouncing a flash with a DSLR at ISO
100 at 1/4000th.
My Canon dSLR only goes to 1/2000th (it's a bit old) but it'll sync
the flash at that speed. Why is another question altogether, but
it'll do it.
The question of why use a dSLR is totally separate. If you don't
know, then you haven't been pushing your photography to the limit.
Granted, most people don't really need one, but if you are pushing the
edges of what you can do, you need one.
I can go over into the corner and throw the 300mm f/2 lens on my
dSLR. You just can't do that with a P&S. I can break a lens, take it
off, and keep shooting (done that). I can match the lens to whatever
I am photographing. I can switch lenses between cameras. I can get
multiple strobes sync'd through TTL metering. There are lots of
reasons. Most people don't use the camera to it's potential, but
other really need the dSLR.
When you are ready for one, you'll know.
dj_nme
An added point that if you're shooting away in less than ideal
conditions and your lens or camera get damaged, it can be swapped out
for another one.
Try doing that with your P&S, without sending it off to a repair centre.
nospam
<46944037$0$12802$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>, dj_nme
<dj_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
you said you hadn't seen one faster than an f/2.8. there's one.
olympus also made a few others with f/2 lenses.
John Turco
>
> SelfImporantName <anyw...@anyplace.net> wrote:
<edited, for brevity>
> > dSLR = recording a distorted view of reality
> >
>
> Photography is NOT about recording reality [necessarily], it is about creating
> art. For some people, like a photojournalist, that may not be true, but for
> most, it is about art.
>
> Without the mechanical shutter, you simply don't have this tool as an option
> for artistic creativity.
>
> I am sorry you feel so antogonistic about it.
Hello, Thomas:
Now, don't start that old "photography as art" debate, again! Nearly all
camera jockeys are mere snapshooters, who only want everyday pictures,
not expressions of profundity. <g>
Cordially,
John Turco <jt...@concentric.net>
ASAAR
>> I can go over into the corner and throw the 300mm f/2 lens on my
>> dSLR. You just can't do that with a P&S.
>
> I can grab a converter lens out of my pocket and put it . . .
Where the sun don't shine, sock puppet. How strange that when I
first noticed you almost two months ago, it was in a message where
you replied to someone else :
> It's time for you to change names and ISP's. You've proven
> in this thread that you are mentally unstable. WITH YOUR
> OWN WORDS AND REACTION.
You were actually writing about yourself.
Thanks for not changing things on your end, all the better to
recognize you and your fellow stablemates on the newly revised
**** CHDK / Photoline 32 / anti-DSLR Troll List ****
> Baumbadier, CharleiD, FrankLM, GoKiting. HokusPokus,
> nob...@noplace.org, RockyZ, SayWhat, SelfImporantName,
> SelfImportantName, spamless and X-Man.
ASAAR
**** Sock Puppet Alert **** (see list below)
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 23:30:55 +1000, dj_nme <dj_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Also:
>>1)no lag in the "live view" on the LCD or EVF that a P&S digicam usually
>>has.
>
> I always find it funny how often this is mentioned.
. . .
> See my previous post how that capability is not only available to dSLRs. And it
> can be done on a P&S camera without getting any dust or dirt on the sensor,
> ruining all your photos until it's too late to do anything about it.
>
>> 4)I'm sure there's more, but at 11:30pm I'm starting to run out of juice
>> and suggestions.
>
> Yes, I'm sure you'll find more (though easily disproved) ways to justify your
> uneducated purchases and buying habits. You all do.
dj_nme
>>1)no lag in the "live view" on the LCD or EVF that a P&S digicam usually
>>has.
>
>
> EVF or LCD is when the shutter speed changes the EVF/LCD refresh rate. The EVF
> mirroring the exact same shutter speed so you can see how changing it will
> effect your image. An excellent use for an EVF is taking photos of water-falls
> and rapids. As you decrease the shutter speed the EVF shows you exactly how much
> motion-blur the water will have on your final photo. Allowing you to compose
> your image while taking that effect into account.
I imgine that it seems to do this if you've just eaten mushrooms or
dropped acid.
What brand/model of P&S are claiming that can do this?
> You don't have to take the
> photo first, check it to see if it's right, then shoot again and again until you
> get it right. You get it right the first time with a P&S camera. If you set your
> shutter speed to 1 second, then the EVF refreshes once a second. If you set your
> shutter speed to 1/20th of a second, then the EVF refreshes every 1/20th of a
> second. If you consider taking a photo at 1/1000th of a second and the EVF being
> delayed by 1/1000th of a second as "lag", then you have some serious mental
> issues.
>
>
>>2)very fast AF in most lighting conditions, right down to dim lighting
>>in which manual focusing also isn't really possible (at least what I've
>>found with Pentax DSLR cameras, ist-DS and K10D).
>
>
> And yet I can focus in total darkness with one of my P&S cameras faster than you
> can with your dSLR in low-light conditions.
Rubbish.
Without a focus-assist light built into the camera or an accessory
flashgun that "sizzles" to provide AF assist or has a focus assist light
biult into it, this is simply hogwash.
Contrast detection focusing (P&S) is _ALWAYS_ slower and less accurate
than phase detection (DSLR) focusing.
Claiming otherwise makes you look like a an ignorant troll that has zero
experience with either P&S digicams or DSLR cameras.
> Again, just because it is a dSLR
> doesn't mean its focusing speed, or under what lighting conditions it can be
> used, is of any merit whatsoever. How many dSLR cameras have been recalled
> because their "advanced and better" focusing method always focused too near or
> too far on every subject? How come none of you ever mention all the defects and
> faults with your camera's focusing systems?
How often has your P&S simply hunted backwards and forwards without an
AF lock on anything?
In other than ideal daylight (or bright indoor lighting), you will have
your P&S hunting to lock onto anything.
>>3)the choice to be able to change lenses for a faster, longer or wider
>>one as the situation demands.
>
>
> See my previous post how that capability is not only available to dSLRs. And it
> can be done on a P&S camera without getting any dust or dirt on the sensor,
> ruining all your photos until it's too late to do anything about it.
You also have the misguided idea that because the lens can't be removed,
that dirt can't be sucked into the mechanism due to the lens being
zoomed in and out.
Wake up.
>>4)I'm sure there's more, but at 11:30pm I'm starting to run out of juice
>>and suggestions.
>
>
> Yes, I'm sure you'll find more (though easily disproved) ways to justify your
> uneducated purchases and buying habits. You all do.
When you wake up from your daydream and actualy use the cameras that
you're (making the obviously outrageous and exagerrated) claim of using
and knowing the strengths and weaknesses of, you will find out just how
amusing your claims really are.
dj_nme
My point still stands.
Just try and swap the lens on a P&S for a faster or wider lens.
The fact that there may be slightly faster or wider lenses on other P&S
digicams does not help you with the one you have at the moment.
If you damage the lens on a P&S, it puts the whole camera out of action.
With a DSLR camera, simply swapping the lens restores the camera to
usefulness.
Also conversly, if the DSLR camera body is damaged the lens can be
swapped to different body and shooting can continue.