ruby.monkey
Veteran
When the world runs out of AA-size batteries, then I'll worry. Nowadays they're easier to get hold of than film.
K
Kin Lau
Guest
The stupid mistake was to use an untested/unfamiliar piece of equipment for a money job.
Timing the motor sequence is just like learning the shutter delay and travel required to get it right.
Change the travel on the shutter button (like adding a soft release) on any of the other cameras, and they would have missed the shot too.
It was a stupid photographer mistake.. your friend should have known better.
Neat story. I recently shot a little league game, I was between digitals (body-less at the time) so I dug out my old Nikon F2 -- motorless of course -- I prefer to call it 'single shot mode'. 
After a few shots, I was able to time the ball on the way from the pitcher and got one shot with the ball right on the bat. Of course, this wasn't major league pitching at 100mph.
You are right, 5, 6 or 8 fps sounds blazing fast, but it's not really. 8 frames in one second shot at 1/1000 means that 992/1000 of that second is not photographed.
After a few shots, I was able to time the ball on the way from the pitcher and got one shot with the ball right on the bat. Of course, this wasn't major league pitching at 100mph.
You are right, 5, 6 or 8 fps sounds blazing fast, but it's not really. 8 frames in one second shot at 1/1000 means that 992/1000 of that second is not photographed.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Doh! ... well just shoot it all at 1/8 ... god doesn't anyone around here have any imagination?
Hey, why not use a single shot at 1/1 and get everything?
Fred Burton
Well-known
I also don't get the thing about people buying then dumping digital cameras because they just couldn't keep their finger off the shutter button. Pros shot lots of film when that's all they had. It would have been stupid not to do so. Especially back when slides were the thing for magazine reproduction, most pros bracketed like hell. If your mortgage is on the line, you don't leave things to chance.
I shoot digital just like I do film. Nothing changed when I started shooting digital. I think this "film is cheap, so shoot lots of it" semi-myth is somewhat to blame. Film is cheap if you are a pro getting paid to burn it, but it is very expensive if you are an amateur who has to pay for every press of the shutter. So amateur rarely really work a subject adaquately. Digital, in fact, levels the playing field between the pros and the amateur, and enables the amateur to shoot more like the pros without extra expense.
Just like in a gunfight, if you are paying the bills with a camera, there are no second place winners.
I shoot digital just like I do film. Nothing changed when I started shooting digital. I think this "film is cheap, so shoot lots of it" semi-myth is somewhat to blame. Film is cheap if you are a pro getting paid to burn it, but it is very expensive if you are an amateur who has to pay for every press of the shutter. So amateur rarely really work a subject adaquately. Digital, in fact, levels the playing field between the pros and the amateur, and enables the amateur to shoot more like the pros without extra expense.
Just like in a gunfight, if you are paying the bills with a camera, there are no second place winners.
Thardy
Veteran
Who gets 300 shots on a set of batteries? My P&S gets nowhere near that many.
kuzano
Veteran
Not exactly .... "Chimping" is the practice of looking at every image right after you shoot it. The term comes from giving 1000 chimpanzees 1000 Point and Shoot digital cameras. Without fail, every one of the 1000 chimpanzees, upon learning how to use the cameras on A or P, consistently looked at every picture after pressing the shutter. So, looking at every picture upon capture puts you in the company of the 1000 "Chimp" test subjects.
Interestingly, if you place human subjects who use digital cameras in the same room with the 1000 similarly equipped chimpanzees, it soon becomes impossible to tell the humans from the chimps. The telltale is that the chimps are usually the ones that are dressed and groomed better. The chimps also know the proper use of eating utensils.
That's "chimping".
There is also the practice of purchasing each new iteration of digital camera that comes to market in the hope that it will improve one's photography.
Those people are called "chumps".
Last edited:
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Whatever happened to that Casio wondercam that was released recently that could shoot sixty frames per second at 6 megapixels? I've read nothing about it for quite a while!
bmattock
Veteran
Time to step up, then.
I try to only buy cameras that take AA batteries or their equivalent. Most of them will allow me to use AA NiMH rechargeables that have a high rating, and even better, some let me use CR-V3 LiOn rechargeables instead, which a set of two (same as 4 AA batteries) in my Pentax *ist DS nets me around 600 shots.
Suggest trying Thomas Distributing for the new hotness in stored energy.
http://www.thomas-distributing.com/index.htm
bmattock
Veteran
I presume you mean the two cameras they have:
EXILIM Pro EX-F1
EXILIM EX-FH20
Both are out now. The first is faster, the second (newer) has more megapixels.
http://video.nytimes.com/video/2008...h/1194817119384/casios-high-speed-camera.html
http://popsci.typepad.com/popsci/2007/10/hands-on-with-c.html
http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews_casio_exilim_pro_ex_fh20.php
I suspect they are the vangard of what is to follow. At the moment, neither camera holds much interest for me, mostly because of the high price for a small sensor - but I will follow this new experiment in digital photography with some interest - if it attracts a following, it may be copied by other manufacturers, and may become something more along the lines of what I'd think was useful for me.
It may well be useful for some applications. I can imagine sports coaches and instructors loving it for disassembling swings, throws, etc - without breaking the bank of high-end equipment and with better resolution than digicam movies.
yanidel
Well-known
I already struggled to go through the around 60 shots I took today with the M8 and select the keepers (90 minutes). Imagine 60 x 60 = 3600 shots to go through ....
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
I have shot about 400 shots on two trips with CR-V3's, and they are still running strong. Now, my first digicam would suck the life out of a set of 4 AA batteries in 35 to 40 shots, so it held no advantage over film.
bmattock
Veteran
Imagine if one of them was a shot like the Zapruder film's subject. I'll bet your perspective would change.
Horses for courses, sir.
yanidel
Well-known
If this is the end goal, I prefer to go buy myself a lottery ticket, the odds are surely much better. I prefer hours in the street and to miss that shot than hours in front of the computer.
Rayt
Nonplayer Character
How is this different from people who complaint about battery dependent cameras when threads about mechanical shutters, i.e., M6 v M7; R6 v R7, come up? People just have to get used to carrying spare batteries. I have been out in the field with dead cameras due to my own fault.
bmattock
Veteran
Sour grapes, says I.
K
Kin Lau
Guest
My Fuji F10 gets about 700 on a single charge. There's no optical VF either, so the rear LCD is on all the time.
I used only a single battery on a 1month trip across Canada and conditions ranged from 0C to 40C.
My EOS 1Dm2 does about 2000 shots on a single charge. The 20D sits in the trunk in this sub-zero temp and is fine with a single battery for weeks.
mh2000
Well-known
I thought that the term "chimping" came in the early days of digital (while it still seemed magic) and newbies would look at the image after each shot and go, "ooh, ooh, ooh..." like a monkey.
mh2000
Well-known
I already said that *I* wasn't complaining... technology is great, I have DSLR... and a scanner for my A/D conversions.
Yeah, if the battery dies on my laptop, I'm stuck. So I guess paper is better.
Technology sucks, doesn't it? Everything about it is terrible. Maybe you'd better log off and write us a letter instead.