Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Why are DSLRs faster?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
February 26, 2005 1:22:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

X-No-Archive: yes

One of the reasons I bought my D70 nwas because of the lack of "shutter
lag" and the very rapid response after turning the beast on.

I've been enjoying those features and many others.

A recent comparitive review of 8 MP cameras in the New York Times
Circuits page included one DSLR, and the article described it as having
a faster response time than the non-interchangeable lens SLR-style
cameras.

Is there something intrinsic to the basic design of DSLR cameras that
enable their more responsive behavior, or is just that these features
were given priority by the designers?

More about : dslrs faster

Anonymous
February 26, 2005 3:32:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ron Hunter wrote:
> Charlie wrote:
> > X-No-Archive: yes
> >
> > One of the reasons I bought my D70 nwas because of the lack
> > of "shutter lag" and the very rapid response after turning
> > the beast on.
> >
> > I've been enjoying those features and many others.
> >
> > A recent comparitive review of 8 MP cameras in the New York
> > Times Circuits page included one DSLR, and the article
> > described it as having a faster response time than the
> > non-interchangeable lens SLR-style cameras.
> >
> > Is there something intrinsic to the basic design of DSLR
> > cameras that enable their more responsive behavior, or is
> > just that these features were given priority by the
> > designers?
> >
>
> Basically, because they cost more, the manufacturer can afford
> to install a faster processor, and more ram along with a larger
> sensor. Then there is also more room for additional
> specialized chips which can do some of the work done by the CPU
> in other, cheaper and smaller, cameras.

I suspect that's all true. But I wonder if the larger sensor
also helps?

Maybe with a larger sensor that gathers more light per pixel,
the focusing times and exposure calculation times can be reduced.
Maybe also the post processing time needed to reduce noise can be
less because there's less inherent noise. Maybe sharpening can
also be a bit faster because the distinctions between adjacent
pixels are clearer.

That's all just speculation though. I have no idea if any of it
is true.

Alan
Anonymous
February 26, 2005 4:03:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Charlie wrote:
> X-No-Archive: yes
>
> One of the reasons I bought my D70 nwas because of the lack of "shutter
> lag" and the very rapid response after turning the beast on.
>
> I've been enjoying those features and many others.
>
> A recent comparitive review of 8 MP cameras in the New York Times
> Circuits page included one DSLR, and the article described it as having
> a faster response time than the non-interchangeable lens SLR-style
> cameras.
>
> Is there something intrinsic to the basic design of DSLR cameras that
> enable their more responsive behavior, or is just that these features
> were given priority by the designers?
>

Basically, because they cost more, the manufacturer can afford to
install a faster processor, and more ram along with a larger sensor.
Then there is also more room for additional specialized chips which can
do some of the work done by the CPU in other, cheaper and smaller, cameras.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Related resources
February 26, 2005 6:27:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Even a DSLR in idiot mode will be slow because it has to take care of
everything, a nice P+S with manual controls can be fast too. Nothing
electronic was as fast as my old film SLR, once I set everything to what I
wanted (f stop, speed, focus) all i had to do was push the button, no lag no
boot up, instant picture taking.

Jean

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> a écrit dans le message de
news:kP3Ud.11335$T94.10500@fe04.lga...
> Charlie wrote:
> > X-No-Archive: yes
> >
> > One of the reasons I bought my D70 nwas because of the lack of "shutter
> > lag" and the very rapid response after turning the beast on.
> >
> > I've been enjoying those features and many others.
> >
> > A recent comparitive review of 8 MP cameras in the New York Times
> > Circuits page included one DSLR, and the article described it as having
> > a faster response time than the non-interchangeable lens SLR-style
> > cameras.
> >
> > Is there something intrinsic to the basic design of DSLR cameras that
> > enable their more responsive behavior, or is just that these features
> > were given priority by the designers?
> >
>
> Basically, because they cost more, the manufacturer can afford to
> install a faster processor, and more ram along with a larger sensor.
> Then there is also more room for additional specialized chips which can
> do some of the work done by the CPU in other, cheaper and smaller,
cameras.
>
>
> --
> Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
February 26, 2005 6:27:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

jean wrote:
> Even a DSLR in idiot mode will be slow because it has to take care of
> everything, a nice P+S with manual controls can be fast too. Nothing
> electronic was as fast as my old film SLR, once I set everything to what I
> wanted (f stop, speed, focus) all i had to do was push the button, no lag no
> boot up, instant picture taking.
>
> Jean
>

Yes, but how long did it take you to set all that stuff up. I would bet
that my $400 P&S can do all that better, and faster, than you can do it
manually. Once I have pushed the button half-way down (the functional
equivalent of your presetting above), there is no perceptible delay on
it either. This wasn't the case with my older digital, however.
Much progress has been made in this respect, both with DSLR and P&S
cameras sold today.



--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
February 26, 2005 8:53:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Alan Meyer" <ameyer2@yahoo.com> writes:

> Ron Hunter wrote:
>> Charlie wrote:
>> > X-No-Archive: yes
>> >
>> > One of the reasons I bought my D70 nwas because of the lack
>> > of "shutter lag" and the very rapid response after turning
>> > the beast on.
>> >
>> > I've been enjoying those features and many others.
>> >
>> > A recent comparitive review of 8 MP cameras in the New York
>> > Times Circuits page included one DSLR, and the article
>> > described it as having a faster response time than the
>> > non-interchangeable lens SLR-style cameras.
>> >
>> > Is there something intrinsic to the basic design of DSLR
>> > cameras that enable their more responsive behavior, or is
>> > just that these features were given priority by the
>> > designers?
>> >
>>
>> Basically, because they cost more, the manufacturer can afford
>> to install a faster processor, and more ram along with a larger
>> sensor. Then there is also more room for additional
>> specialized chips which can do some of the work done by the CPU
>> in other, cheaper and smaller, cameras.
>
> I suspect that's all true. But I wonder if the larger sensor
> also helps?
>
> Maybe with a larger sensor that gathers more light per pixel,
> the focusing times and exposure calculation times can be reduced.

Nope. The sensor isn't use for focus or exposure on a DSLR. There's
a mirror and a shutter in the way.

In fact, that's why they're so fast.

On a P&S that uses the CCD for everything, it has to close the
shutter and clear the CCD before it can begin the exposure.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Anonymous
February 26, 2005 8:54:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> writes:

> jean wrote:
>> Even a DSLR in idiot mode will be slow because it has to take care of
>> everything, a nice P+S with manual controls can be fast too. Nothing
>> electronic was as fast as my old film SLR, once I set everything to what I
>> wanted (f stop, speed, focus) all i had to do was push the button, no lag no
>> boot up, instant picture taking.
>> Jean
>>
>
> Yes, but how long did it take you to set all that stuff up. I would
> bet that my $400 P&S can do all that better, and faster, than you can
> do it manually.

What were you thinking of betting? In general, I find automatic
exposures to be quite unsatisfactory.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Anonymous
February 26, 2005 9:27:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

No: many P&S cameras have fast response now.
Yes.
Anonymous
February 26, 2005 9:28:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <1109442143.951121.32060@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
shopsis@gmail.com says...
> A recent comparitive review of 8 MP cameras in the New York Times
> Circuits page included one DSLR, and the article described it as having
> a faster response time than the non-interchangeable lens SLR-style
> cameras.
>
> Is there something intrinsic to the basic design of DSLR cameras that
> enable their more responsive behavior, or is just that these features
> were given priority by the designers?

Well, film SLRs have always had better AF and a shutter response. This
is because the market demanded it. When DSLRs came along, the same
response was expected, so that's why you have it.

In all fairness, a lot of the film point and shoots are really slow to
focus/respond. So it's more a matter of market segment than anything
else.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
Anonymous
February 26, 2005 10:15:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Charlie wrote:
> X-No-Archive: yes
>
> One of the reasons I bought my D70 nwas because of the lack of "shutter
> lag" and the very rapid response after turning the beast on.
>
> I've been enjoying those features and many others.
>
> A recent comparitive review of 8 MP cameras in the New York Times
> Circuits page included one DSLR, and the article described it as having
> a faster response time than the non-interchangeable lens SLR-style
> cameras.
>
> Is there something intrinsic to the basic design of DSLR cameras that
> enable their more responsive behavior, or is just that these features
> were given priority by the designers?


You get what you pay for.
Anonymous
February 26, 2005 10:15:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 19:15:45 GMT, Matt Ion <soundy@moltenimage.com>
wrote:

>Charlie wrote:
>> X-No-Archive: yes
>>
>> One of the reasons I bought my D70 nwas because of the lack of "shutter
>> lag" and the very rapid response after turning the beast on.
>>
>> I've been enjoying those features and many others.
>>
>> A recent comparitive review of 8 MP cameras in the New York Times
>> Circuits page included one DSLR, and the article described it as having
>> a faster response time than the non-interchangeable lens SLR-style
>> cameras.
>>
>> Is there something intrinsic to the basic design of DSLR cameras that
>> enable their more responsive behavior, or is just that these features
>> were given priority by the designers?
>
>
>You get what you pay for.

PLONK
February 26, 2005 10:38:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Alan Meyer wrote:

>Maybe with a larger sensor that gathers more light per pixel,
>the focusing times and exposure calculation times can be reduced.

Actually, the CCD/CMOS sensor has nothing to do with focusing or
automatic exposure in a DSLR camera.

The sensors for those functions are reflected by the mirror up to the
pentaprism chamber where those sensors reside. The main light capturing
sensor is not exposed to light until the mirror moves up and the shutter
curtains open.

In a small digicam, the process is somewhat different and the main
sensor is often used for many of the functions. That's why P&S cameras
often have movie modes while DSLR cameras don't, since the sensor can be
exposed directly.
Anonymous
February 26, 2005 11:05:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> writes:
>
>
>>jean wrote:
>>
>>>Even a DSLR in idiot mode will be slow because it has to take care of
>>>everything, a nice P+S with manual controls can be fast too. Nothing
>>>electronic was as fast as my old film SLR, once I set everything to what I
>>>wanted (f stop, speed, focus) all i had to do was push the button, no lag no
>>>boot up, instant picture taking.
>>>Jean
>>>
>>
>>Yes, but how long did it take you to set all that stuff up. I would
>>bet that my $400 P&S can do all that better, and faster, than you can
>>do it manually.
>
>
> What were you thinking of betting? In general, I find automatic
> exposures to be quite unsatisfactory.

I find them to be quite good, IF the camera is properly designed, and
set. I find light meters, and calculations for exposure, then setting
them, and then focusing, only to find the opportunity for a picture is
long since past to be quite unsatisfactory.

If you have the time to do all that, fine, but that isn't the type of
photography I do. Try doing that on a cruise up a fiord on a partly
cloudy day. See how many pictures you manage to get.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
February 27, 2005 2:37:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> a écrit dans le message de
news:o o5Ud.10680$AC1.5569@fe02.lga...
> jean wrote:
> > Even a DSLR in idiot mode will be slow because it has to take care of
> > everything, a nice P+S with manual controls can be fast too. Nothing
> > electronic was as fast as my old film SLR, once I set everything to what
I
> > wanted (f stop, speed, focus) all i had to do was push the button, no
lag no
> > boot up, instant picture taking.
> >
> > Jean
> >
>
> Yes, but how long did it take you to set all that stuff up. I would bet
> that my $400 P&S can do all that better, and faster, than you can do it
> manually. Once I have pushed the button half-way down (the functional
> equivalent of your presetting above), there is no perceptible delay on
> it either. This wasn't the case with my older digital, however.
> Much progress has been made in this respect, both with DSLR and P&S
> cameras sold today.
>

My sister had a 35mm Nikon SLR (I don't know the model) and on idiot mode it
would miss pics about 50% of the time while it was hunting for the right
conditions, not to mention the batteries which were always run down. While
the Nikon was fumbling, I could set my FTb many times over.

You are right, it does take time, but once it's done, click and the shutter
releases. Don't get me wrong, I love my digital cameras, I work around the
idiosyncracies (sp??) but sometimes you have to RTFM to get it to do what
you want, hey, that's part of the game ;-)

Jean
Anonymous
February 27, 2005 11:55:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Charlie" <shopsis@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1109442143.951121.32060@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> X-No-Archive: yes
>
> Is there something intrinsic to the basic design of DSLR cameras that
> enable their more responsive behavior, or is just that these features
> were given priority by the designers?
Yes, their intrinsic design makes them go faster - conventional P&S digicams
use the main sensor as their AF sensor. The circuitry analyses the image to
determine if it is sharp (in focus) or blurry (out of focus). It then
readjusts the lens to get focus. Because there is no way of determining if
the object is blurry because it is closer than the focus point or further
away, they have to try adjusting focus in both directions until they get it
right. There is no way of telling if the image is perfectly clear - instead
what it has to do is keep adjusting the lens until it starts becoming blurry
again (overshot the focus point), then pull it back to the point where it
was at it's clearest. This system is quite slow. Because this main sensor is
a video sensor rather than a dedicated still image sensor, when the user
presses the shutter button, the sensor needs to be cleared and charged ready
to take the photo. Modern cameras can do this much faster than the cameras
of only a couple of years ago. After the photo has been taken, most compact
digi's only have one processor to take care of all the functions of the
camera, so while it is processing the image, converting it to JPG, and
saving it on the card, it can't simultaneously be analysing focus and
exposure for the next image, so you can't do anything until the camera
finishes processing the photo you just took.
A DSLR like a film SLR has a separate AF sensor that uses phase detection
techniques to determine focus. This system not only tells the camera how
accurate it is focused, but tells the camera how far and in which direction
it is out of focus. The camera can then start moving the focus motor, and
knows exactly which direction it needs to turn. While the lens is doing
this, the AF sensor continues to monitor how accurate the focus is, and can
slow down the lens motor as it is nearing focus point, so that it stops
right on focus. Because there is no trial-and-error involved, this system is
very fast. Because the main sensor is dedicated to taking the still image
(it's not also trying to do live preview and focussing), the camera can have
it already pre-charged, so that as soon as the shutter button is pressed it
can start recording. Once you have taken the photo, most DSLR's have
multiple processing streams, that allows them to simultaneously convert to
JPG, save the image to the card, and be analysing the data from the AF &
exposure sensors to be ready for the next photo.
If digi compacts used some of the techniques that film compacts use, then
they would be faster. For example most film compacts use infrared or
ultrasonic autofocus systems. While not as fast and accurate as the
phase-detection system used by SLR's, these systems are faster than using
the imaging sensor. Film compacts usually also use light sensors on the body
to judge exposure, whereas most digi's use the imaging sensor for that as
well. If a digi compact was made using an IR or ultrasonic focus system,
and with a separate light sensor on the body, and if the user wasn't using
live preview (or EVF), then then it would be possible for the sensor to be
precharged so that the camera is ready to take the photo as soon as you
press the button. Doing this would of course add to the cost, and since it
is a very price sensitive market, that is usually only compared on
megapixels and zoom, manufacturers would be reluctant to add a feature like
this to the camera, unless it is a premium model.
Actually, my 5 year old Kodak DC3400 has these very features, and when used
with the viewfinder off it is much quicker than the more modern CX7430. The
DC3400 is only a 2MP, 2x zoom camera, and when I bought it cost more than 5
times the price of the current 4MP, 3x Zoom CX7430.
>
Anonymous
February 27, 2005 11:55:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Justin Thyme wrote:
>

Thank you, at least there is one out of seven who have knowledge in addition
to typing skills.

--
Frode P. Bergsager
Anonymous
February 27, 2005 11:55:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Justin Thyme wrote:
> "Charlie" <shopsis@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1109442143.951121.32060@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>>X-No-Archive: yes
>>
>>Is there something intrinsic to the basic design of DSLR cameras that
>>enable their more responsive behavior, or is just that these features
>>were given priority by the designers?
>
> Yes, their intrinsic design makes them go faster - conventional P&S digicams
> use the main sensor as their AF sensor. The circuitry analyses the image to
> determine if it is sharp (in focus) or blurry (out of focus). It then
> readjusts the lens to get focus. Because there is no way of determining if
> the object is blurry because it is closer than the focus point or further
> away, they have to try adjusting focus in both directions until they get it
> right. There is no way of telling if the image is perfectly clear - instead
> what it has to do is keep adjusting the lens until it starts becoming blurry
> again (overshot the focus point), then pull it back to the point where it
> was at it's clearest. This system is quite slow. Because this main sensor is
> a video sensor rather than a dedicated still image sensor, when the user
> presses the shutter button, the sensor needs to be cleared and charged ready
> to take the photo. Modern cameras can do this much faster than the cameras
> of only a couple of years ago. After the photo has been taken, most compact
> digi's only have one processor to take care of all the functions of the
> camera, so while it is processing the image, converting it to JPG, and
> saving it on the card, it can't simultaneously be analysing focus and
> exposure for the next image, so you can't do anything until the camera
> finishes processing the photo you just took.
> A DSLR like a film SLR has a separate AF sensor that uses phase detection
> techniques to determine focus. This system not only tells the camera how
> accurate it is focused, but tells the camera how far and in which direction
> it is out of focus. The camera can then start moving the focus motor, and
> knows exactly which direction it needs to turn. While the lens is doing
> this, the AF sensor continues to monitor how accurate the focus is, and can
> slow down the lens motor as it is nearing focus point, so that it stops
> right on focus. Because there is no trial-and-error involved, this system is
> very fast. Because the main sensor is dedicated to taking the still image
> (it's not also trying to do live preview and focussing), the camera can have
> it already pre-charged, so that as soon as the shutter button is pressed it
> can start recording. Once you have taken the photo, most DSLR's have
> multiple processing streams, that allows them to simultaneously convert to
> JPG, save the image to the card, and be analysing the data from the AF &
> exposure sensors to be ready for the next photo.
> If digi compacts used some of the techniques that film compacts use, then
> they would be faster. For example most film compacts use infrared or
> ultrasonic autofocus systems. While not as fast and accurate as the
> phase-detection system used by SLR's, these systems are faster than using
> the imaging sensor. Film compacts usually also use light sensors on the body
> to judge exposure, whereas most digi's use the imaging sensor for that as
> well. If a digi compact was made using an IR or ultrasonic focus system,
> and with a separate light sensor on the body, and if the user wasn't using
> live preview (or EVF), then then it would be possible for the sensor to be
> precharged so that the camera is ready to take the photo as soon as you
> press the button. Doing this would of course add to the cost, and since it
> is a very price sensitive market, that is usually only compared on
> megapixels and zoom, manufacturers would be reluctant to add a feature like
> this to the camera, unless it is a premium model.
> Actually, my 5 year old Kodak DC3400 has these very features, and when used
> with the viewfinder off it is much quicker than the more modern CX7430. The
> DC3400 is only a 2MP, 2x zoom camera, and when I bought it cost more than 5
> times the price of the current 4MP, 3x Zoom CX7430.
>
>
>
I believe some cameras do operate that way, but mine seems to have a
different type of focus system as it has an autofocus sensor on the
front of the camera, just like most moderately inexpensive film cameras.
It also has several focus modes. I find that it focuses MUCH faster
than my older camera.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
February 27, 2005 1:36:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:o o5Ud.10680$AC1.5569@fe02.lga...
> jean wrote:
>> Even a DSLR in idiot mode will be slow because it has to take care of
>> everything, a nice P+S with manual controls can be fast too. Nothing
>> electronic was as fast as my old film SLR, once I set everything to what
>> I
>> wanted (f stop, speed, focus) all i had to do was push the button, no lag
>> no
>> boot up, instant picture taking.
>>
>> Jean
>>
>
> Yes, but how long did it take you to set all that stuff up. I would bet
> that my $400 P&S can do all that better, and faster, than you can do it
> manually. Once I have pushed the button half-way down (the functional
> equivalent of your presetting above), there is no perceptible delay on it
> either.
One of my film SLR's is quite an old fully manual body. I admit that it is
slower to set up a shot than even the slowest of todays digicams. However
for many circumstances I don't find this limiting. For example if I'm taking
photos of my kids playing, or of a sporting event, the lighting doesn't
change within the space of several minutes, so I can set my exposure once
and then I don't have to worry about it. Most of my lenses can be focussed
by hand just as quick as most AF systems. I can then worry about pressing
the shutter button at the best time, without fear of having to wait for the
AF system to kick in, or for the sensor to precharge etc. Even when I'm
using an AF body, if I'm doing any form of time critical shooting, I will
usually turn AF off, because fast as it is, I can't afford to miss a shot
because I happen to be pointing at a low contrast area that causes the AF to
hunt. Even though this camera is manual wind, everything sits so comfortable
that I can quite comfortably shoot at around 2 frames/second - for an entire
36 exposure film if I wish. None of the digi compacts are capable of coming
even close to that frame-rate for that number of exposures. Even most DSLR's
can't maintain those sorts of framerates for that length of time. Admittedly
it is very rare that I shoot more than a few frames at a time.
So yes, my fully manual SLR is slower to set up a shot than a compact digi,
but not significantly so. I found the compact digi would miss the shot a lot
more often than the SLR would.
>This wasn't the case with my older digital, however.
> Much progress has been made in this respect, both with DSLR and P&S
> cameras sold today.
>
>
>
> --
> Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
February 27, 2005 1:36:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Justin Thyme wrote:
> "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:o o5Ud.10680$AC1.5569@fe02.lga...
>
>>jean wrote:
>>
>>>Even a DSLR in idiot mode will be slow because it has to take care of
>>>everything, a nice P+S with manual controls can be fast too. Nothing
>>>electronic was as fast as my old film SLR, once I set everything to what
>>>I
>>>wanted (f stop, speed, focus) all i had to do was push the button, no lag
>>>no
>>>boot up, instant picture taking.
>>>
>>>Jean
>>>
>>
>>Yes, but how long did it take you to set all that stuff up. I would bet
>>that my $400 P&S can do all that better, and faster, than you can do it
>>manually. Once I have pushed the button half-way down (the functional
>>equivalent of your presetting above), there is no perceptible delay on it
>>either.
>
> One of my film SLR's is quite an old fully manual body. I admit that it is
> slower to set up a shot than even the slowest of todays digicams. However
> for many circumstances I don't find this limiting. For example if I'm taking
> photos of my kids playing, or of a sporting event, the lighting doesn't
> change within the space of several minutes, so I can set my exposure once
> and then I don't have to worry about it. Most of my lenses can be focussed
> by hand just as quick as most AF systems. I can then worry about pressing
> the shutter button at the best time, without fear of having to wait for the
> AF system to kick in, or for the sensor to precharge etc. Even when I'm
> using an AF body, if I'm doing any form of time critical shooting, I will
> usually turn AF off, because fast as it is, I can't afford to miss a shot
> because I happen to be pointing at a low contrast area that causes the AF to
> hunt. Even though this camera is manual wind, everything sits so comfortable
> that I can quite comfortably shoot at around 2 frames/second - for an entire
> 36 exposure film if I wish. None of the digi compacts are capable of coming
> even close to that frame-rate for that number of exposures. Even most DSLR's
> can't maintain those sorts of framerates for that length of time. Admittedly
> it is very rare that I shoot more than a few frames at a time.
> So yes, my fully manual SLR is slower to set up a shot than a compact digi,
> but not significantly so. I found the compact digi would miss the shot a lot
> more often than the SLR would.
>
>>This wasn't the case with my older digital, however.
>>Much progress has been made in this respect, both with DSLR and P&S
>>cameras sold today.
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
>
>
>
If you want to shoot that many shots in rapid succession, I suggest you
buy a good movie camera. My P&S will shoot 6 shots in only about 3
seconds. That will do for me. BTW, if you shoot a whole roll in under
20 seconds often, your film costs must be akin to the national debt (US)!


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
February 27, 2005 1:36:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 20:08:58 -0600, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
wrote:

snipped
>>
>If you want to shoot that many shots in rapid succession, I suggest you
> buy a good movie camera. My P&S will shoot 6 shots in only about 3
>seconds. That will do for me. BTW, if you shoot a whole roll in under
>20 seconds often, your film costs must be akin to the national debt (US)!

A movie camera won't have the shutter speed and lenses. I suggest you
learn what a serious older motordrive 35mm with bulk film would do.

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics...


******************************************************

"History is a vast early warning system"

Norman Cousins
Anonymous
February 27, 2005 1:36:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 20:08:58 -0600, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
wrote:

>> One of my film SLR's is quite an old fully manual body. I admit that it is
>> slower to set up a shot than even the slowest of todays digicams. However
>> for many circumstances I don't find this limiting. For example if I'm taking
>> photos of my kids playing, or of a sporting event, the lighting doesn't
>> change within the space of several minutes, so I can set my exposure once
>> and then I don't have to worry about it. Most of my lenses can be focussed
>> by hand just as quick as most AF systems. I can then worry about pressing
>> the shutter button at the best time, without fear of having to wait for the
>> AF system to kick in, or for the sensor to precharge etc. Even when I'm
>> using an AF body, if I'm doing any form of time critical shooting, I will
>> usually turn AF off, because fast as it is, I can't afford to miss a shot
>> because I happen to be pointing at a low contrast area that causes the AF to
>> hunt. Even though this camera is manual wind, everything sits so comfortable
>> that I can quite comfortably shoot at around 2 frames/second - for an entire
>> 36 exposure film if I wish. None of the digi compacts are capable of coming
>> even close to that frame-rate for that number of exposures. Even most DSLR's
>> can't maintain those sorts of framerates for that length of time. Admittedly
>> it is very rare that I shoot more than a few frames at a time.
>> So yes, my fully manual SLR is slower to set up a shot than a compact digi,
>> but not significantly so. I found the compact digi would miss the shot a lot
>> more often than the SLR would.

My last two digitals (a C3030Z and the curent DR) can both be set to
manual mode.
Can't yours?

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
Anonymous
February 27, 2005 1:36:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

John A. Stovall wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 20:08:58 -0600, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
> wrote:
>
> snipped
>
>>If you want to shoot that many shots in rapid succession, I suggest you
>> buy a good movie camera. My P&S will shoot 6 shots in only about 3
>>seconds. That will do for me. BTW, if you shoot a whole roll in under
>>20 seconds often, your film costs must be akin to the national debt (US)!
>
>
> A movie camera won't have the shutter speed and lenses. I suggest you
> learn what a serious older motordrive 35mm with bulk film would do.
>
> http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics...
>
>
> ******************************************************
>
> "History is a vast early warning system"
>
> Norman Cousins
It would use up a LOT of film in a very short time, making it a very
expensive item. I suppose a person doing certain types of photography
would need such a camera. Not me.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
February 27, 2005 1:36:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 00:28:23 -0600, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
wrote:

>John A. Stovall wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 20:08:58 -0600, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> snipped
>>
>>>If you want to shoot that many shots in rapid succession, I suggest you
>>> buy a good movie camera. My P&S will shoot 6 shots in only about 3
>>>seconds. That will do for me. BTW, if you shoot a whole roll in under
>>>20 seconds often, your film costs must be akin to the national debt (US)!
>>
>>
>> A movie camera won't have the shutter speed and lenses. I suggest you
>> learn what a serious older motordrive 35mm with bulk film would do.
>>
>> http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics...
>>
>>
>> ******************************************************
>>
>> "History is a vast early warning system"
>>
>> Norman Cousins
>It would use up a LOT of film in a very short time, making it a very
>expensive item. I suppose a person doing certain types of photography
>would need such a camera. Not me.

But you should resume then to know what others need to do their job.


******************************************************

"History is a vast early warning system"

Norman Cousins
Anonymous
February 27, 2005 1:36:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 09:56:06 GMT, John A. Stovall
<johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote:

>On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 00:28:23 -0600, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
>wrote:
>
>>John A. Stovall wrote:
>>> On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 20:08:58 -0600, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> snipped
>>>
>>>>If you want to shoot that many shots in rapid succession, I suggest you
>>>> buy a good movie camera. My P&S will shoot 6 shots in only about 3
>>>>seconds. That will do for me. BTW, if you shoot a whole roll in under
>>>>20 seconds often, your film costs must be akin to the national debt (US)!
>>>
>>>
>>> A movie camera won't have the shutter speed and lenses. I suggest you
>>> learn what a serious older motordrive 35mm with bulk film would do.
>>>
>>> http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics...
>>>
>>>
>>> ******************************************************
>>>
>>> "History is a vast early warning system"
>>>
>>> Norman Cousins
>>It would use up a LOT of film in a very short time, making it a very
>>expensive item. I suppose a person doing certain types of photography
>>would need such a camera. Not me.
>
>But you should resume then to know what others need to do their job.

Damn spell checker.

Change "resume" to "not presume"


*************************************************************

"Our lives shall not be sweated from birth until life closes.
Hearts starve as well as bodies.
Bread and roses! Bread and roses!"

"Bread and Roses"
James Oppenheim (1912)
Anonymous
February 27, 2005 2:44:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Justin Thyme wrote:
[]
> If digi compacts used some of the techniques that film compacts use,
> then they would be faster. For example most film compacts use
> infrared or ultrasonic autofocus systems.

You can get that in the Nikon Coolpix 8400 - a dual-mode auto-focus
system.

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
February 27, 2005 2:46:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

John A. Stovall wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 09:56:06 GMT, John A. Stovall
> <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>>On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 00:28:23 -0600, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>John A. Stovall wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 20:08:58 -0600, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>snipped
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>If you want to shoot that many shots in rapid succession, I suggest you
>>>>>buy a good movie camera. My P&S will shoot 6 shots in only about 3
>>>>>seconds. That will do for me. BTW, if you shoot a whole roll in under
>>>>>20 seconds often, your film costs must be akin to the national debt (US)!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>A movie camera won't have the shutter speed and lenses. I suggest you
>>>>learn what a serious older motordrive 35mm with bulk film would do.
>>>>
>>>>http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>******************************************************
>>>>
>>>>"History is a vast early warning system"
>>>>
>>>> Norman Cousins
>>>
>>>It would use up a LOT of film in a very short time, making it a very
>>>expensive item. I suppose a person doing certain types of photography
>>>would need such a camera. Not me.
>>
>>But you should resume then to know what others need to do their job.
>
>
> Damn spell checker.
>
> Change "resume" to "not presume"
>
>
How do you figure that from my statements? I said I didn't need such a
camera.



--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
February 27, 2005 2:49:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
[]
> What were you thinking of betting? In general, I find automatic
> exposures to be quite unsatisfactory.

They've been satisfactory on the cameras I've used (mainly Nikon Coolpix).
I do sometimes recognise that the exposure may be incorrect (strongly
backlit objects) and then I tend to take two exposures - one at the what
the camera thinks is correct and one where I point the camera at a
similarly lit subject to get the exposure. Often the camera image
(darker) ends up being the better image!

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
February 27, 2005 3:24:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Frode P. Bergsager" <fpbs@c2i.net> wrote in
news:zt7Ud.2371$4c.285687@juliett.dax.net:

> Thank you, at least there is one out of seven who have knowledge in
> addition to typing skills.

Yepp.

It really bugs me when lots of people are so kind to reply to a
question without knowing a bit about the answer. It is not
the price tag or demanding users that is the reason for DSLRs
being faster; it is the design.

Non DSLR cameras has almost always retractable zoom lenses.
They must go out before you can take pictures - that takes time.
E.g. my Minlota/Konica X50 starts fast as lightning, although it
is a cheap camera - it has an internal lens - nothing to move.

Non DSLR cameras focus on the sensor. That is hard stuff that
takes a long time. DSLR cannot do that - so they use a specialised
focus sensor. Much - much faster and more accurate.

DSLRs are also bigger - with more PoWeR in their batteries.
Therefore it can move the lens faster, further improving speeds
for everything that - ehem - moves the lens - eg zooming
and focussing.


/Roland
Anonymous
February 27, 2005 6:38:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> writes:

> David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>> Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> writes:
>>
>>>jean wrote:
>>>
>>>>Even a DSLR in idiot mode will be slow because it has to take care of
>>>>everything, a nice P+S with manual controls can be fast too. Nothing
>>>>electronic was as fast as my old film SLR, once I set everything to what I
>>>>wanted (f stop, speed, focus) all i had to do was push the button, no lag no
>>>>boot up, instant picture taking.
>>>>Jean
>>>>
>>>
>>>Yes, but how long did it take you to set all that stuff up. I would
>>>bet that my $400 P&S can do all that better, and faster, than you can
>>>do it manually.
>> What were you thinking of betting? In general, I find automatic
>> exposures to be quite unsatisfactory.
>
> I find them to be quite good, IF the camera is properly designed, and
> set. I find light meters, and calculations for exposure, then setting
> them, and then focusing, only to find the opportunity for a picture is
> long since past to be quite unsatisfactory.
>
> If you have the time to do all that, fine, but that isn't the type of
> photography I do. Try doing that on a cruise up a fiord on a partly
> cloudy day. See how many pictures you manage to get.

In rooms full of people moving around and talking, it works much
better than auto does. Well, I don't meter each shot, of course; I
meter areas of the room and set the exposure as I move among them, so
I'm always ready to focus and shoot.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Anonymous
February 28, 2005 12:56:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> writes:

> David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> > What were you thinking of betting? In general, I find automatic
> > exposures to be quite unsatisfactory.
>
> I find them to be quite good, IF the camera is properly designed, and
> set. I find light meters, and calculations for exposure, then setting
> them, and then focusing, only to find the opportunity for a picture is
> long since past to be quite unsatisfactory.
>
> If you have the time to do all that, fine, but that isn't the type of
> photography I do. Try doing that on a cruise up a fiord on a partly
> cloudy day. See how many pictures you manage to get.

What camera do you use for such days? The point+shoot film and digital
cameras I've used tend to get confused about exposure in such
situations. I would much rather have a light meter in the viewfinder
like with my Pentax K-1000.

My newer Canon Powershot s410 draws rectangles on the LCD showing what
it's using to choose the exposure level, but that requires holding the
camera away from my face, and I find it hard to keep steady that way.

--

http://ourdoings.com/ Let your digital photos organize themselves.
Sign up today for a 7-day free trial.
Anonymous
February 28, 2005 3:19:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

bwoag <apquilts@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> No: many P&S cameras have fast response now.
> Yes.

Which ones? Prove it.

Even the Ricoh models with excellent power-on and half-press response
slow down after the initial two frames. IIRC, 7 seconds are required
between the second and third etc. frames.
Anonymous
February 28, 2005 7:14:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Bill Tuthill" <can@spam.co> wrote in message news:42237cd9@news.meer.net...
> bwoag <apquilts@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >
> > No: many P&S cameras have fast response now.
> > Yes.
>
> Which ones? Prove it.
>
> Even the Ricoh models with excellent power-on and half-press response
> slow down after the initial two frames. IIRC, 7 seconds are required
> between the second and third etc. frames.
>
That slowdown after the initial two frames is due to buffer size, not
response time for metering and AF. All digital cameras slow way down once
the buffer is full and you have to wait for the photos to be written to a
card.

Ron
!