Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Which DSLR?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
July 24, 2005 10:05:47 PM

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

Do any of the newer digital SLR cameras have an in-built microphone? I
find such a feature very useful to describe the image I have just
captured. Last time I looked it was only the extremely expensive DSLR
cameras that had this feature

Thank you.

More about : dslr

July 25, 2005 9:55:51 AM

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

<larryb@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:1122253547.640784.157760@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Do any of the newer digital SLR cameras have an in-built microphone? I
> find such a feature very useful to describe the image I have just
> captured. Last time I looked it was only the extremely expensive DSLR
> cameras that had this feature
>
> Thank you.

Sorry I can't answer your question but can you tell me what advantage has
DSLR got over simply Digital please?
Blair
Anonymous
July 25, 2005 9:55:52 AM

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

Blair wrote:
> <larryb@mailinator.com> wrote in message
> news:1122253547.640784.157760@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
>>Do any of the newer digital SLR cameras have an in-built microphone? I
>>find such a feature very useful to describe the image I have just
>>captured. Last time I looked it was only the extremely expensive DSLR
>>cameras that had this feature
>>
>>Thank you.
>
>
> Sorry I can't answer your question but can you tell me what advantage has
> DSLR got over simply Digital please?
> Blair


I think I know what he means. No, no low end dSLRs come with voice
annotation functions. Does Nikon D2X have it?
Related resources
Anonymous
July 25, 2005 12:31:08 PM

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

On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 05:55:51 +0100, "Blair" <darrach@coille.com>
wrote:

>
><larryb@mailinator.com> wrote in message
>news:1122253547.640784.157760@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> Do any of the newer digital SLR cameras have an in-built microphone? I
>> find such a feature very useful to describe the image I have just
>> captured. Last time I looked it was only the extremely expensive DSLR
>> cameras that had this feature
>>
>> Thank you.
>
>Sorry I can't answer your question but can you tell me what advantage has
>DSLR got over simply Digital please?
>Blair
>

What's the difference between an Escort and a Lincoln?
If you don't know, or can't figure it out, get the Escort. You won't
miss anything.

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
Anonymous
July 25, 2005 1:20:33 PM

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

"Blair" <darrach@coille.com> wrote in message
news:D c1rcf$a2j$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> <larryb@mailinator.com> wrote in message
> news:1122253547.640784.157760@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > Do any of the newer digital SLR cameras have an in-built microphone? I
> > find such a feature very useful to describe the image I have just
> > captured. Last time I looked it was only the extremely expensive DSLR
> > cameras that had this feature
> >
> > Thank you.
>
> Sorry I can't answer your question but can you tell me what advantage has
> DSLR got over simply Digital please?
> Blair
>
>
Having fought with the functions on a Canon A80 to take close up pictures of
plants and machinery, I gave up and bought a DSLR. Immediately no problems.
The A80 can be set for close ups but getting consistent results was hopeless
and the exposure system wasn't up to my requirements and could be set but
what a hassle. I expect this is typical of other P & S digitals.

Rob
Anonymous
July 25, 2005 2:24:53 PM

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

On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 05:55:51 +0100, "Blair" <darrach@coille.com> wrote:

>> Do any of the newer digital SLR cameras have an in-built microphone? I
>> find such a feature very useful to describe the image I have just
>> captured. Last time I looked it was only the extremely expensive DSLR
>> cameras that had this feature
>>
>> Thank you.
>
>Sorry I can't answer your question but can you tell me what advantage has
>DSLR got over simply Digital please?

Changeable lenses for a start.
July 25, 2005 3:44:34 PM

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

<larryb@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:1122253547.640784.157760@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Do any of the newer digital SLR cameras have an in-built microphone? I
> find such a feature very useful to describe the image I have just
> captured. Last time I looked it was only the extremely expensive DSLR
> cameras that had this feature
>
> Thank you.
>
My Olympus 400mju P&S has this function and it is cheap compared to a DSLR
so I'd say without knowing surely they have it
July 25, 2005 3:44:35 PM

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

"Peter" <Lopy@dj.com.au.> wrote in
news:Cg4Fe.62368$oJ.30756@news-server.bigpond.net.au:

>
> <larryb@mailinator.com> wrote in message
> news:1122253547.640784.157760@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> Do any of the newer digital SLR cameras have an in-built
>> microphone? I find such a feature very useful to describe the
>> image I have just captured. Last time I looked it was only the
>> extremely expensive DSLR cameras that had this feature
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
> My Olympus 400mju P&S has this function and it is cheap compared
> to a DSLR so I'd say without knowing surely they have it
>
>
>

My Olympus C-7070 has this feature.
Anonymous
July 25, 2005 3:44:36 PM

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

On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 09:42:58 -0500, Hans <Hans@ask.com> wrote:

>"Peter" <Lopy@dj.com.au.> wrote in
>news:Cg4Fe.62368$oJ.30756@news-server.bigpond.net.au:
>
>>
>> <larryb@mailinator.com> wrote in message
>> news:1122253547.640784.157760@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>>> Do any of the newer digital SLR cameras have an in-built
>>> microphone? I find such a feature very useful to describe the
>>> image I have just captured. Last time I looked it was only the
>>> extremely expensive DSLR cameras that had this feature
>>>
>>> Thank you.
>>>
>> My Olympus 400mju P&S has this function and it is cheap compared
>> to a DSLR so I'd say without knowing surely they have it
>>
>>
>>
>
>My Olympus C-7070 has this feature.

Read the OP.
He wants to know if any *DSLRs* have the feature.

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
July 25, 2005 4:02:42 PM

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

Why do you need this feature? I've got a pen, phone, laptop, ipod and
small digital camera that all take voice memos. I don't know if I ever
have my dSLR on me when I don't have one of the others...
Anonymous
July 25, 2005 6:35:08 PM

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

l e o wrote:
> Blair wrote:
>
>> <larryb@mailinator.com> wrote in message
>> news:1122253547.640784.157760@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> Do any of the newer digital SLR cameras have an in-built microphone? I
>>> find such a feature very useful to describe the image I have just
>>> captured. Last time I looked it was only the extremely expensive DSLR
>>> cameras that had this feature
>>>
>>> Thank you.
>>
>>
>>
>> Sorry I can't answer your question but can you tell me what advantage has
>> DSLR got over simply Digital please?
>> Blair
>
>
>
> I think I know what he means. No, no low end dSLRs come with voice
> annotation functions. Does Nikon D2X have it?


Confirmed, Nikon D2X does have voice memo, 60sec. That's the cheapest
dSLR with that feature that I know of. $5000!!
Anonymous
July 25, 2005 9:31:46 PM

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

In article <cb1ae11tk5sk40q00shm053fr1lkf24ikr@4ax.com>,
Bill Funk <BigBill@there.com> wrote:
>
> What's the difference between an Escort and a Lincoln?
> If you don't know, or can't figure it out, get the Escort. You won't
> miss anything.

One gets 7 miles to the gallon, one gets 18-25. Maybe we should
all opt for the escort or start car pooling.

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918
Anonymous
July 25, 2005 9:31:47 PM

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

Gregory Blank wrote:
> In article <cb1ae11tk5sk40q00shm053fr1lkf24ikr@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <BigBill@there.com> wrote:
>
>>What's the difference between an Escort and a Lincoln?
>>If you don't know, or can't figure it out, get the Escort. You won't
>>miss anything.
>
>
> One gets 7 miles to the gallon, one gets 18-25. Maybe we should
> all opt for the escort or start car pooling.
>
My Lincoln get way better then 7 mpg. plus it pulls a trailer.
Paul
Anonymous
July 26, 2005 12:36:58 AM

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

larryb@mailinator.com writes:

> Do any of the newer digital SLR cameras have an in-built microphone? I
> find such a feature very useful to describe the image I have just
> captured. Last time I looked it was only the extremely expensive DSLR
> cameras that had this feature

If there are such things as voice recorders with a timestamp, you could make a
recording, and then correlate the recording with the time field from the EXIF
information in the JPG/TIFF/RAW/etc. image.

Another thought is writing such information down on a piece of paper and then
photographing that (or just keep a log book like people used to do in the film
days, possibly using a PDA instead of a paper log).

--
Michael Meissner
email: mrmnews@the-meissners.org
http://www.the-meissners.org
Anonymous
July 26, 2005 1:49:40 AM

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

<larryb@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:1122253547.640784.157760@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Do any of the newer digital SLR cameras have an in-built microphone? I
> find such a feature very useful to describe the image I have just
> captured. Last time I looked it was only the extremely expensive DSLR
> cameras that had this feature
>
> Thank you.

My old Canon 1D has it, but I've never used it more than "check, check
check, does this really work"?
Anonymous
July 26, 2005 4:58:48 AM

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

On 25 Jul 2005 20:36:58 -0400, Michael Meissner wrote:

> If there are such things as voice recorders with a timestamp, you could make a
> recording, and then correlate the recording with the time field from the EXIF
> information in the JPG/TIFF/RAW/etc. image.

Yes, they've had timestamps for several years. Another option for
a little more money and size would be to take along a sub-mini P&S
that has voice annotation, and set it for 640x480 pixel resolution
(or whatever is the smallest). The time field correlation would
work the same way, but the image would also work as a fast, sharp
thumbnail. It might be worth the picture's reputed "thousand words"
if you're browsing voice annotations years later. And it gives you
a tiny emergency backup camera to boot.
July 26, 2005 9:29:35 AM

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

DSLR cameras have a mirror in front of the sensor.
As a result they can't record motion pictures.
So there's no real reason for a microphone.

Colln
Anonymous
July 26, 2005 12:04:33 PM

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

On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 16:09:12 -0400, Paul Schilter wrote:

> Gregory Blank wrote:
>> In article <cb1ae11tk5sk40q00shm053fr1lkf24ikr@4ax.com>,
>> Bill Funk <BigBill@there.com> wrote:
>>
>>>What's the difference between an Escort and a Lincoln?
>>>If you don't know, or can't figure it out, get the Escort. You won't
>>>miss anything.
>>
>>
>> One gets 7 miles to the gallon, one gets 18-25. Maybe we should
>> all opt for the escort or start car pooling.
>>
> My Lincoln get way better then 7 mpg. plus it pulls a trailer.
> Paul
An escort in the UK would do quite a few more miles per gallon, but our
gallons are bigger.

--
neil
delete delete to reply
Anonymous
July 26, 2005 12:05:37 PM

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

On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 14:35:08 +0000, l e o wrote:

> l e o wrote:
>> Blair wrote:
>>
>>> <larryb@mailinator.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1122253547.640784.157760@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>> Do any of the newer digital SLR cameras have an in-built microphone? I
>>>> find such a feature very useful to describe the image I have just
>>>> captured. Last time I looked it was only the extremely expensive DSLR
>>>> cameras that had this feature
>>>>
>>>> Thank you.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sorry I can't answer your question but can you tell me what advantage has
>>> DSLR got over simply Digital please?
>>> Blair
>>
>>
>>
>> I think I know what he means. No, no low end dSLRs come with voice
>> annotation functions. Does Nikon D2X have it?
>
>
> Confirmed, Nikon D2X does have voice memo, 60sec. That's the cheapest
> dSLR with that feature that I know of. $5000!!
I still use a notebook and pencil, very rarely breaks down.
--
neil
delete delete to reply
Anonymous
July 26, 2005 1:01:47 PM

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

grendel@gmail.com <grendel@gmail.com> wrote:

>Why do you need this feature? I've got a pen, phone, laptop, ipod and
>small digital camera that all take voice memos. I don't know if I ever
>have my dSLR on me when I don't have one of the others...

On our Olympus p&s, the sound recording is great for ambient
recording, not just memos. When you do a digital "slideshow"
along with the sounds, it's actually quite a powerful effect.

--
Ken Tough
Anonymous
July 26, 2005 3:56:51 PM

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

On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 14:35:08 GMT, l e o wrote:

> Confirmed, Nikon D2X does have voice memo, 60sec. That's the cheapest
> dSLR with that feature that I know of. $5000!!

Doesn't the cheaper D2H also have this?

-SL
Anonymous
July 26, 2005 4:18:06 PM

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

On 25 Jul 2005 12:02:42 -0700, "grendel@gmail.com" <grendel@gmail.com> wrote:

>Why do you need this feature? I've got a pen, phone, laptop, ipod and
>small digital camera that all take voice memos. I don't know if I ever
>have my dSLR on me when I don't have one of the others...

I, too would love voice recording on a lower end DSLR. I'd rather be snapping pictures than fumbling for a
notepad and pencil and then losing said notebook later on.
Anonymous
July 26, 2005 7:05:35 PM

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

Cheesehead <dplotusnotes@yahoo.com> wrote:

>DSLR cameras have a mirror in front of the sensor.
>As a result they can't record motion pictures.
>So there's no real reason for a microphone.

Actually there's many reasons for sound with still pictures.
Aside from recording photo info (like people's names), having
ambient sound for digital slide shows is very effective.

--
Ken Tough
Anonymous
July 30, 2005 12:56:24 AM

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

Ken Tough wrote:
> Cheesehead <dplotusnotes@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>DSLR cameras have a mirror in front of the sensor.
>>As a result they can't record motion pictures.
>>So there's no real reason for a microphone.
>
>
> Actually there's many reasons for sound with still pictures.
> Aside from recording photo info (like people's names), having
> ambient sound for digital slide shows is very effective.
>
My 1D Mark II has a microphone. You take a picture, then hold
down the microphone button and record up to 30 seconds of sound.
It creates a file with the same name as the image but .wav extension.
30 seconds takes up about 240 kbytes, so small in comparison to the
image. I use the microphone to describe conditions of a photo,
or ambient sounds. I have great 30 second clips of bird sounds
to go with some images from Bosque del Apache. The problem
I have is that I can't get consistent html code that works in
all browsers. The following page works well for me in internet
explorer (which I only use to test a page) but does not work
for me in mozilla.

Here is my test page:
http://clarkvision.com/features/bosque+sound

Here is the sound file (240 kbytes):
http://clarkvision.com/features/bosque+sound/JZ3F1413.W...

I was going to make an animated image and have multiple bird
photos fade in and out to add to the effect.

If someone knows html sound coding and could look at my page I would
appreciate it if you could show me a better way.

Roger
Anonymous
July 30, 2005 10:42:14 AM

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

Roger,
Your "test" page worked fine for me with Mozilla Firefox.
Paul

Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
> Ken Tough wrote:
>
>> Cheesehead <dplotusnotes@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> DSLR cameras have a mirror in front of the sensor.
>>> As a result they can't record motion pictures.
>>> So there's no real reason for a microphone.
>>
>>
>>
>> Actually there's many reasons for sound with still pictures.
>> Aside from recording photo info (like people's names), having
>> ambient sound for digital slide shows is very effective.
>>
> My 1D Mark II has a microphone. You take a picture, then hold
> down the microphone button and record up to 30 seconds of sound.
> It creates a file with the same name as the image but .wav extension.
> 30 seconds takes up about 240 kbytes, so small in comparison to the
> image. I use the microphone to describe conditions of a photo,
> or ambient sounds. I have great 30 second clips of bird sounds
> to go with some images from Bosque del Apache. The problem
> I have is that I can't get consistent html code that works in
> all browsers. The following page works well for me in internet
> explorer (which I only use to test a page) but does not work
> for me in mozilla.
>
> Here is my test page:
> http://clarkvision.com/features/bosque+sound
>
> Here is the sound file (240 kbytes):
> http://clarkvision.com/features/bosque+sound/JZ3F1413.W...
>
> I was going to make an animated image and have multiple bird
> photos fade in and out to add to the effect.
>
> If someone knows html sound coding and could look at my page I would
> appreciate it if you could show me a better way.
>
> Roger
Anonymous
July 30, 2005 11:49:25 PM

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

Paul Schilter wrote:

> Roger,
> Your "test" page worked fine for me with Mozilla Firefox.
> Paul
Worked with Konqueror as well.
--
Neil
!