Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

The main drawback of a digital camera

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
July 26, 2005 4:32:34 PM

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

It uses the same sensor for every picture, whereas you get a brand new
'sensor' for every film exposure. If there's a spec of dust on a negative
it's ruined, but at least the next shot will be brand new. If a single
pixel on a digital sensor goes bad, the sensor is ruined--for keeps. If
there's a spec of dust on a digital sensor, it will be there for every
exposure, until you clean the sensor. That seems to me to be a significant
problem with a DSLR, or any digital camera with interchangeable lenses. The
sensor is open to its surroundings and has to be kept clean. A camera with
a fixed lens with wide zoom range will keep dust out of the camera.

Have I got this all wrong? Is it necessary to have a mechanical shutter on
a digital camera?

Cheers,

Norm Strong
Anonymous
July 26, 2005 8:20:56 PM

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

On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 12:32:34 -0700, <normanstrong@comcast.net>
wrote:

> It uses the same sensor for every picture, whereas you get a brand new
> 'sensor' for every film exposure. If there's a spec of dust on a negative
> it's ruined, but at least the next shot will be brand new.

If the pressure plate behind the film is scratched or has a piece
of grit stuck to it, the film that passes over it will be marred.
FWIW, the reason I bought my first digital camera was because I got
fed up with negative scratches created by film processors.

> If a single pixel on a digital sensor goes bad, the sensor is ruined--for keeps.

If and when those defects occur, they can be mapped out and
compensated for. If given typical images to examine on a computer
where a couple of pixel defects have been mapped out, it's extremely
unlikely that you'd be able to detect where the bad pixel was
located. Even less likely to be noticed in a print.


> If there's a spec of dust on a digital sensor, it will be there for every
> exposure, until you clean the sensor. That seems to me to be a significant
> problem with a DSLR, or any digital camera with interchangeable lenses. The
> sensor is open to its surroundings and has to be kept clean. A camera with
> a fixed lens with wide zoom range will keep dust out of the camera.
>
> Have I got this all wrong? Is it necessary to have a mechanical shutter on
> a digital camera?

Yes. Not all DSLRs are unable to clean the sensor of dust. And
for the other DSLRs it's not the problem you make it out to be.
You're making a mountain out of a mote. If you use a DSLR, have you
had severe dust problems that have proven difficult to resolve? And
why do you think that there aren't some digital cameras that do have
mechanical shutters? There was a recent thread here that discussed
the reason why several cameras (P&S though, I don't think they
referred to DSLRs) couldn't use very fast shutter speeds at large
apertures - because they didn't have enough time to fully open and
close. Maybe you're thinking of a shutter located just above the
sensor? Even if the shutters made a perfect air-tight seal when
closed (unlikely) dust could still get in, and with the shutter now
located on top of the sensor it would be far more difficult to clean
the dust from the sensor.
July 26, 2005 8:33:23 PM

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

In article <JtidneCDaLdPEnvfRVn-sw@comcast.com>, normanstrong@comcast.net
says...
> It uses the same sensor for every picture, whereas you get a brand new
> 'sensor' for every film exposure. If there's a spec of dust on a negative
> it's ruined, but at least the next shot will be brand new. If a single
> pixel on a digital sensor goes bad, the sensor is ruined--for keeps. If
> there's a spec of dust on a digital sensor, it will be there for every
> exposure, until you clean the sensor. That seems to me to be a significant
> problem with a DSLR, or any digital camera with interchangeable lenses. The
> sensor is open to its surroundings and has to be kept clean. A camera with
> a fixed lens with wide zoom range will keep dust out of the camera.
>
> Have I got this all wrong? Is it necessary to have a mechanical shutter on
> a digital camera?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Norm Strong
>
>

In theory it is a very bad thing, but in actual practice keeping the camera
sensor clean (or cleaning it when it gets dusty) is not a significant
problem.

I stayed away from using a DSLR for a long time because I feared th dust/dirt
problem. Then I started using one this year in April shooting all my
"event" photography with a Digital DSLR, and I have only had to clean it once
after 12 seperate 3 day events. I got it clean with a small ear syringe to
blow out the sensor area and a quick pass over the sensor with a special
brush like the ones you see for sale on the web for $50.

I used a nylon makeup brush which I cleaned to get the "sizing" out then
charged it up with static electricity by blowing on it with dry pressurized
air. One quick pass of the brush picked up all of the stray dust particles
from the sensor. Total cost of the brush was $3 (US) at the make-up counter
in the local drug store.. I have compared it to the $50 brushes that my son
bought for his DSLR Same brush!

Dust has turned out to be no more of a problem in a digital SLR than it was
for a film SLR, its just a different kind of problem. (with film the dust was
always getting into the view finder and messing up the view screen, it gets
there with digital also, but usually goes away when you blow out the sensor
cavity with the blower bulb when preparing to clean the sensor).
Related resources
Anonymous
July 26, 2005 9:57:18 PM

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

normanstrong@comcast.net wrote:
...
> Have I got this all wrong? Is it necessary to have a mechanical shutter
> on a digital camera?
...

I find the risk of a problem on a digital sensor minimal compared to the
risks of film-- heat/cold damage to film emulsion, danger of dust or finger
oil on negative film, risk of damage or loss of film when given to
photoshop for development, risk of dust or scratch to negatives, risk of
static electricity dust on print paper in darkroom. Social isolation and
darkness in darkroom, compared to digital darkroom on computer.
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 12:06:39 AM

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

On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 12:32:34 -0700, <normanstrong@comcast.net> wrote:

>It uses the same sensor for every picture, whereas you get a brand new
>'sensor' for every film exposure. If there's a spec of dust on a negative
>it's ruined, but at least the next shot will be brand new. If a single
>pixel on a digital sensor goes bad, the sensor is ruined--for keeps.

This is uncommon however.

More common in my experience was a lateral scratch across 25 of the 36
frames caused by some grit on the canister, the camera track or the
film processor.

>If there's a spec of dust on a digital sensor, it will be there for every
>exposure, until you clean the sensor.

And usually isn't noticeable unless you shoot a lot at f/22, which
many people don't. It's also a simple job of fixing the dust spot in
software for those shots you first notice it on before you do the
clean.

>That seems to me to be a significant
>problem with a DSLR, or any digital camera with interchangeable lenses.

It really isn't a big deal.

> The
>sensor is open to its surroundings and has to be kept clean. A camera with
>a fixed lens with wide zoom range will keep dust out of the camera.

So legend suggests, but there is no guarantee that the environment or
piece of mechanical debris or lubricant won't come free inside. And if
it does, you can't do anything about it.

>Have I got this all wrong? Is it necessary to have a mechanical shutter on
>a digital camera?

It's not a bad idea. On a DSLR, it keeps the sensor area from being
subjected to unwanted 'fading' from constant exposure. The bayer
filter should be protected in this way.

The best scenario is a mix of electronic + mechanical shutter (such as
the Nikon D70 uses). This allows fast electronic 'full-frame' shutter
up to 1/8000th sec and a flash sync that can theoretically be that
fast, because at speeds higher than 1/250th, the mechanical shutter
opens fully for 1/250th sec, but the electronic shutter trips inside
that time. Now the flash can fire sometime within the electronic
shutter duration with the mechanical shutter remaining fully open so
it doesn't interfere with the flash.

Without modification, the D70 supports 1/500th sec flash sync.

Non DSLRs, those that use EVF can't have a mechanical shutter.

--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 12:06:40 AM

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

On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 20:06:39 GMT, Owamanga wrote:

> Non DSLRs, those that use EVF can't have a mechanical shutter.

Sure they can. Most of them already have fairly long periods just
as you take the picture where the screen goes black or you're shown
the captured image. A mechanical shutter could close immediately
prior to the taking of the picture, then open for the time required
by the shutter speed and close again. After a split second it could
reopen again. That brief period of blackout would be shorter than
the blackout period that many or most EVF cameras already have.

The first closing and reopening may not even be necessary. But
designing and implementing this type of shutter probably wouldn't be
cost effective or provide enough additional advantages over the
shutters currently used to make it likely that a camera would be
designed this way.
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 12:22:59 AM

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

Owamanga wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 12:32:34 -0700, <normanstrong@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>It uses the same sensor for every picture, whereas you get a brand new
>>'sensor' for every film exposure. If there's a spec of dust on a
>>negative it's ruined, but at least the next shot will be brand new.
>>If a single pixel on a digital sensor goes bad, the sensor is
>>ruined--for keeps.
>
> This is uncommon however.
>
> More common in my experience was a lateral scratch across 25 of the 36
> frames caused by some grit on the canister, the camera track or the
> film processor.

Or the film did not catch and you don't notice it until exposure # 297
or the drunk photographer reloads the same film several times. :-)

>
>>If there's a spec of dust on a digital sensor, it will be there for
>>every exposure, until you clean the sensor.
>
> And usually isn't noticeable unless you shoot a lot at f/22, which
> many people don't. It's also a simple job of fixing the dust spot in
> software for those shots you first notice it on before you do the
> clean.
>
>>That seems to me to be a significant
>>problem with a DSLR, or any digital camera with interchangeable
>>lenses.
>
> It really isn't a big deal.
>
>> The
>>sensor is open to its surroundings and has to be kept clean. A
>>camera with a fixed lens with wide zoom range will keep dust out of
>>the camera.
>
> So legend suggests, but there is no guarantee that the environment or
> piece of mechanical debris or lubricant won't come free inside. And if
> it does, you can't do anything about it.
>
>>Have I got this all wrong? Is it necessary to have a mechanical
>>shutter on a digital camera?
>
> It's not a bad idea. On a DSLR, it keeps the sensor area from being
> subjected to unwanted 'fading' from constant exposure. The bayer
> filter should be protected in this way.
>
> The best scenario is a mix of electronic + mechanical shutter (such as
> the Nikon D70 uses). This allows fast electronic 'full-frame' shutter
> up to 1/8000th sec and a flash sync that can theoretically be that
> fast, because at speeds higher than 1/250th, the mechanical shutter
> opens fully for 1/250th sec, but the electronic shutter trips inside
> that time. Now the flash can fire sometime within the electronic
> shutter duration with the mechanical shutter remaining fully open so
> it doesn't interfere with the flash.
>
> Without modification, the D70 supports 1/500th sec flash sync.
>
> Non DSLRs, those that use EVF can't have a mechanical shutter.

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 12:47:17 AM

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

On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 17:57:18 -0500, Proteus wrote:

> I find the risk of a problem on a digital sensor minimal compared to the
> risks of film-- heat/cold damage to film emulsion, danger of dust or finger
> oil on negative film, risk of damage or loss of film when given to
> photoshop for development, risk of dust or scratch to negatives,

And another from my old film days - don't rewind the film too
quickly when the humidity is low or you risk additional unintended
exposure from static electricity.
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 12:56:01 AM

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

Alfred Molon wrote:
> In article <JtidneCDaLdPEnvfRVn-sw@comcast.com>,

> You are actually right for what concerns most DSLRs, except Olympus
> ones, which have a "supersonic wave filter" which shakes off the dust
> everytime you switch on the camera.
> You can also avoid the problem altogether by using a digital camera with
> no interchangeable lenses.

So what happens to all this dust over time that's just been re-settled
over and over and over?
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 1:09:26 AM

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

On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 16:35:43 -0400, ASAAR <caught@22.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 20:06:39 GMT, Owamanga wrote:
>
>> Non DSLRs, those that use EVF can't have a mechanical shutter.
>
> Sure they can. Most of them already have fairly long periods just
>as you take the picture where the screen goes black or you're shown
>the captured image. A mechanical shutter could close immediately
>prior to the taking of the picture, then open for the time required
>by the shutter speed and close again. After a split second it could
>reopen again. That brief period of blackout would be shorter than
>the blackout period that many or most EVF cameras already have.

Yes, but what the hell would be the point of that though? You'd loose
all of the protective advantage of a mechanical shutter (eg, it stays
open most of the time that you are framing the shot), and it buys you
nothing.

> The first closing and reopening may not even be necessary. But
>designing and implementing this type of shutter probably wouldn't be
>cost effective or provide enough additional advantages over the
>shutters currently used to make it likely that a camera would be
>designed this way.

Right. Such an implementation would be damn weird.

--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 1:09:27 AM

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

On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 21:09:26 GMT, Owamanga wrote:

>>> Non DSLRs, those that use EVF can't have a mechanical shutter.

> Yes, but what the hell would be the point of that though? You'd loose
> all of the protective advantage of a mechanical shutter (eg, it stays
> open most of the time that you are framing the shot), and it buys you
> nothing.

Wow, I guess your hot button triggers when you're corrected. Did
you overreact or did you overreact? Now that you've admitted that
it's possible for a camera with an EVF to have a mechanical shutter,
why don't you try figuring out possible uses for one, even if it
conflicts with your last "and it buys you nothing." I can think of
some uses. Can't you?


>> The first closing and reopening may not even be necessary. But
>> designing and implementing this type of shutter probably wouldn't be
>> cost effective or provide enough additional advantages over the
>> shutters currently used to make it likely that a camera would be
>> designed this way.

> Right. Such an implementation would be damn weird.

You're probably right. Anyone going by the name "Owamanga" must
be well versed in weird so I won't dispute that. The first SLRs
were thought by many photographers to be weird, and would never
replace rangefinders. I make no such lofty claim for cameras that
use both EVFs and mechanical shutters, but you put yourself in a box
when you fail to think outside of one.
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 2:39:55 AM

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

"ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote in message
news:bq6de1h27fdth3rbgvkppaqbe8hgdfs0gh@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 20:06:39 GMT, Owamanga wrote:
>
>> Non DSLRs, those that use EVF can't have a mechanical shutter.
>
> Sure they can. Most of them already have fairly long periods just
> as you take the picture where the screen goes black or you're shown
> the captured image.

...while the CPU compresses and stores the image.
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 2:39:56 AM

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

On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 22:39:55 GMT, Anna Daptor wrote:

>> Most of them already have fairly long periods just as you take the
>> picture where the screen goes black or you're shown the captured image.

> ..while the CPU compresses and stores the image.

Yes, and sometimes while it recharges the flash.
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 3:13:49 AM

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

<normanstrong@comcast.net> writes:

> It uses the same sensor for every picture, whereas you get a brand
> new 'sensor' for every film exposure. If there's a spec of dust on
> a negative it's ruined, but at least the next shot will be brand
> new. If a single pixel on a digital sensor goes bad, the sensor is
> ruined--for keeps. If there's a spec of dust on a digital sensor,
> it will be there for every exposure, until you clean the sensor.
> That seems to me to be a significant problem with a DSLR, or any
> digital camera with interchangeable lenses. The sensor is open to
> its surroundings and has to be kept clean. A camera with a fixed
> lens with wide zoom range will keep dust out of the camera.

> Have I got this all wrong? Is it necessary to have a mechanical
> shutter on a digital camera?

Yes, you've got this all wrong.

I've never in my life seen a negative without a speck of dust on it
(and I started darkroom printing in the 1960s). When I scan old
negatives I often spend half an hour touching out little tiny spots
embedded in the emulsion (my early darkrooms didn't have water
filters, which may have something to do with it).

In comparison, touching out one bad pixel (in fact, most cameras can
map them out in the camera) or a bit of dust on the sensor is
trivial.
--
David Dyer-Bennet
Recovering from server meltdown! Email and web service on www.dd-b.net
including all virtual domains (demesne.com, ellegon.com, dragaera.info,
mnstf.org, and many others) is rudimentary and intermittent.
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 3:28:53 AM

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

In article <JtidneCDaLdPEnvfRVn-sw@comcast.com>,
<normanstrong@comcast.net> wrote:
>If there's a spec of dust on a negative it's ruined,

You think so? You might want to avoid large format. ;-)
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 4:06:57 AM

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

On 26 Jul 2005 20:56:01 -0700, kombi45@yahoo.com wrote:

> So what happens to all this dust over time that's just been re-settled
> over and over and over?

Owners here have said that it settles on a sticky pad below the
sensor that needs to be replaced periodically, maybe once every
several years.
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 4:30:12 AM

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

In article <JtidneCDaLdPEnvfRVn-sw@comcast.com>,
normanstrong@comcast.net says...
> It uses the same sensor for every picture, whereas you get a brand new
> 'sensor' for every film exposure. If there's a spec of dust on a negative
> it's ruined, but at least the next shot will be brand new. If a single
> pixel on a digital sensor goes bad, the sensor is ruined--for keeps. If
> there's a spec of dust on a digital sensor, it will be there for every
> exposure, until you clean the sensor. That seems to me to be a significant
> problem with a DSLR, or any digital camera with interchangeable lenses. The
> sensor is open to its surroundings and has to be kept clean. A camera with
> a fixed lens with wide zoom range will keep dust out of the camera.

You are actually right for what concerns most DSLRs, except Olympus
ones, which have a "supersonic wave filter" which shakes off the dust
everytime you switch on the camera.
You can also avoid the problem altogether by using a digital camera with
no interchangeable lenses.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus E300 resource - http://myolympus.org/E300/
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 4:30:13 AM

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

In article <MPG.1d50d7e1385d0bd698ac7c@news.supernews.com>,
Alfred Molon <alfredREMOVE_molon@yahoo.com> wrote:

> That seems to me to be a significant
> > problem with a DSLR, or any digital camera with interchangeable lenses.

Did you have the same complaint with the Canon Pellix 35mm system?

--
To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.
July 27, 2005 4:33:16 AM

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

Proteus wrote:
> normanstrong@comcast.net wrote:
> ..
>
>>Have I got this all wrong? Is it necessary to have a mechanical shutter
>>on a digital camera?
>
> ..
>
> I find the risk of a problem on a digital sensor minimal compared to the
> risks of film-- heat/cold damage to film emulsion, danger of dust or finger
> oil on negative film, risk of damage or loss of film when given to
> photoshop for development, risk of dust or scratch to negatives, risk of
> static electricity dust on print paper in darkroom. Social isolation and
> darkness in darkroom, compared to digital darkroom on computer.

Don't know about you, but nobody likes to interact with me much when I'm
deep into Photoshop ;) .

Seriously, all good points, and I find the only film camera I still use
is my little Olympus XA for B&W street photography (try and be
inconspicuous with a D70 and a medium-wide lens - not!). Manual focus,
almost silent leaf shutter, fits in the palm of my hand - wish someone
made an equivalent digicam...


Lars
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 9:26:17 AM

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

ASAAR wrote:

> On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 17:57:18 -0500, Proteus wrote:
>
>> I find the risk of a problem on a digital sensor minimal compared
>> to the risks of film-- heat/cold damage to film emulsion, danger of
>> dust or finger oil on negative film, risk of damage or loss of film
>> when given to photoshop for development, risk of dust or scratch to
>> negatives,
>
> And another from my old film days - don't rewind the film too
> quickly when the humidity is low or you risk additional unintended
> exposure from static electricity.
If you had dust on the rollers you could also get tramlines. :-(
--
Neil
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 9:51:32 AM

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

Mark & Mary Ann Weiss wrote:
> If
> > there's a spec of dust on a digital sensor, it will be there for every
> > exposure, until you clean the sensor. That seems to me to be a
> significant
>
>
> Not so with the Olympus E300 dSLR! They have an ultrasonic transducer in
> there that blows the dust off the filter that covers the CCD.
> As for dead pixels, the E300 has a pixel remapping function that the mfger
> recommends you activate once a year to map out any pixels that have gone
> bad. I never have seen a dead pixel in a digital photo taken with my last
> P&S or my E300.
> Unfortunately for Canon, Nikon et al., they will have to come up with some
> other method of cleaning their sensors, or wait til the patent runs out on
> Olympus' SSWF dust removal system.

Or wait until the dust gets so heavy in the camera that the sensor
shits itself trying to blow it to yet another non-existent "clean"
locale...
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 10:13:18 AM

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

If
> there's a spec of dust on a digital sensor, it will be there for every
> exposure, until you clean the sensor. That seems to me to be a
significant


Not so with the Olympus E300 dSLR! They have an ultrasonic transducer in
there that blows the dust off the filter that covers the CCD.
As for dead pixels, the E300 has a pixel remapping function that the mfger
recommends you activate once a year to map out any pixels that have gone
bad. I never have seen a dead pixel in a digital photo taken with my last
P&S or my E300.
Unfortunately for Canon, Nikon et al., they will have to come up with some
other method of cleaning their sensors, or wait til the patent runs out on
Olympus' SSWF dust removal system.


--
Take care,

Mark & Mary Ann Weiss

VIDEO PRODUCTION • FILM SCANNING • DVD MASTERING • AUDIO RESTORATION
Hear my Kurzweil Creations at: http://www.dv-clips.com/theater.htm
Business sites at:
www.dv-clips.com
www.mwcomms.com
www.adventuresinanimemusic.com
-
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 10:19:16 AM

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

Frankly, i can think of only one reason to shoot film: when you're shooting
a nuclear war or other atomic explosion. Film cameras keep working. We used
'em back in spring of '55 when the government ran Operation CUE. Several of
the film cameras survived the blast and we got good footage. Had they been
digital, we'd have no footage at all, most likely.
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 12:37:23 PM

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

On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 06:19:16 GMT, "Mark & Mary Ann Weiss"
<mweissX294@earthlink.net> wrote:

>Frankly, i can think of only one reason to shoot film: when you're shooting
>a nuclear war or other atomic explosion. Film cameras keep working. We used
>'em back in spring of '55 when the government ran Operation CUE. Several of
>the film cameras survived the blast and we got good footage. Had they been
>digital, we'd have no footage at all, most likely.
>
Interesting point, but wrong, I believe.
The camera itself can be shielded from the EMP, heat & blast, but what
about the sensor?
A metal-coated lens? It's been done in many applications.

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 12:46:00 PM

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

On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 06:19:16 GMT, "Mark & Mary Ann Weiss"
<mweissX294@earthlink.net> wrote:

>Frankly, i can think of only one reason to shoot film: when you're shooting
>a nuclear war or other atomic explosion. Film cameras keep working. We used
>'em back in spring of '55 when the government ran Operation CUE. Several of
>the film cameras survived the blast and we got good footage. Had they been
>digital, we'd have no footage at all, most likely.
>

A digital would do just fine in that environment.

http://www.sandisk.com/pressrelease/20040823.htm

The camera doesn't even have to survive to get the images.


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

"I have been a witness, and these pictures are
my testimony. The events I have recorded should
not be forgotten and must not be repeated."

-James Nachtwey-
http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 1:25:49 PM

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

Mark & Mary Ann Weiss wrote:
> Frankly, i can think of only one reason to shoot film: when you're shooting
> a nuclear war or other atomic explosion. Film cameras keep working. We used
> 'em back in spring of '55 when the government ran Operation CUE. Several of
> the film cameras survived the blast and we got good footage. Had they been
> digital, we'd have no footage at all, most likely.
>
>
I have another- I can't afford a DSLR. My digi point&shoot is fine for
most things, but not macro work. The LCD screen does not have enough
resolution for macro work, and the focus buttons move the focus in too
quick a jump anyway.

For macro work I use my twenty year old film AE-1. It has a good
microprism for focusing, and the manual focus ring really lets me tweak
the focus.

Sure, a true DSLR would allow this, but until they come down to a price
I can afford- say within 50% of a film SLR price, I'll continue to shoot
both film and digital.
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 2:06:51 PM

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

normanstrong@comcast.net wrote:
> It uses the same sensor for every picture, whereas you get a brand new
> 'sensor' for every film exposure. If there's a spec of dust on a negative
> it's ruined, but at least the next shot will be brand new. If a single
> pixel on a digital sensor goes bad, the sensor is ruined--for keeps. If
> there's a spec of dust on a digital sensor, it will be there for every

Olympus has their ultrasonic sensor dust cleaner built right into
their's. That dust particle most likely won't be there soon after it
lands on the sensor.
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 3:08:53 PM

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

Mark & Mary Ann Weiss wrote:
> Frankly, i can think of only one reason to shoot film: when you're shooting
> a nuclear war or other atomic explosion.

What about the darkroom? Doesn't anyone love a darkroom?
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 3:53:10 PM

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

"ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote in message
news:bq6de1h27fdth3rbgvkppaqbe8hgdfs0gh@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 20:06:39 GMT, Owamanga wrote:
>
>> Non DSLRs, those that use EVF can't have a mechanical shutter.
>
> Sure they can. Most of them already have fairly long periods just
> as you take the picture where the screen goes black or you're shown
> the captured image. A mechanical shutter could close immediately
> prior to the taking of the picture, then open for the time required
> by the shutter speed and close again. After a split second it could
> reopen again. That brief period of blackout would be shorter than
> the blackout period that many or most EVF cameras already have.
>
> The first closing and reopening may not even be necessary. But
> designing and implementing this type of shutter probably wouldn't be
> cost effective or provide enough additional advantages over the
> shutters currently used to make it likely that a camera would be
> designed this way.

This entire subject is just plain fascinating to me--a guy that has never
used a digital camera. :-)
Let's forget about the dust issue for a bit and think about a couple of
other issues that occur to me:

l. Certainly one of the giant possible advantages of a digital camera is
the ability to see the final picture in an electronic view finder before
actually "taking" the picture. To do this, there would have to be some
means of adjusting the lens opening in order to control the depth of field.
It then should be possible to electronically adjust the image so that the
view finder will look just like the final shot, and to do this with no
mechanical shutter at all.

2. If you've elected to use a large lens opening (to reduce the depth of
field) is there some danger of damage to the sensor from continuous exposure
to bright light?

3. If you need flash to get enough light to make an exposure at smaller
aperture, my guess is that there would be no way of seeing the final results
before the actual exposure. But it should be possible to look at the
results immediately after the exposure. If a change is necessary, you can
make it right then and there.

Does any of my rambling make any sense at all?

Norm Strong
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 4:49:20 PM

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

On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 18:38:28 -0400, ASAAR <caught@22.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 21:09:26 GMT, Owamanga wrote:
>
>>>> Non DSLRs, those that use EVF can't have a mechanical shutter.
>>>
>>> Sure they can. Most of them already have fairly long periods just
>>>as you take the picture where the screen goes black or you're shown
>>>the captured image. A mechanical shutter could close immediately
>>>prior to the taking of the picture, then open for the time required
>>>by the shutter speed and close again. After a split second it could
>>>reopen again. That brief period of blackout would be shorter than
>>>the blackout period that many or most EVF cameras already have.
>>
>> Yes, but what the hell would be the point of that though? You'd loose
>> all of the protective advantage of a mechanical shutter (eg, it stays
>> open most of the time that you are framing the shot), and it buys you
>> nothing.
>
> Wow, I guess your hot button triggers when you're corrected. Did
>you overreact or did you overreact? Now that you've admitted that
>it's possible for a camera with an EVF to have a mechanical shutter,

Possible, but POINTLESS.

Take a look at the 300+ models available on the market, none of them
have this feature. Eg, they don't exist. Why? Because there is no
point.

>why don't you try figuring out possible uses for one, even if it
>conflicts with your last "and it buys you nothing." I can think of
>some uses. Can't you?

The only one use I can think of would be as a glorified automatic lens
cap, to protect the sensor during non-use *1*. Closing the shutter
(that needs to be open during EVF use) prior to shooting buys you
*nothing*.

So, enlighten me. Why close the mechanical shutter at that point?

And what are these other amazing reasons to have a mechanical shutter
that you've thought of?

*1* This is a bogus feature however. Purchasers of EVF cameras are not
concerned with quality compared to features. They have already traded
off a high quality sensor with a lower quality and much noisier
'live-capable' sensor. So any slight or perceived advantage to
protecting the sensor from long term light exposure for quality
reasons doesn't fit that model.

>I make no such lofty claim for cameras that
>use both EVFs and mechanical shutters, but you put yourself in a box
>when you fail to think outside of one.

Aren't we discussing stuff outside of the box right now?

--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 4:49:21 PM

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

On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 12:49:20 GMT, Owamanga wrote:

>> Wow, I guess your hot button triggers when you're corrected. Did
>>you overreact or did you overreact? Now that you've admitted that
>>it's possible for a camera with an EVF to have a mechanical shutter,
>
> Possible, but POINTLESS.

Still highly perturbed, eh? You seem to be taking this quite
personally.


> Take a look at the 300+ models available on the market, none of them
> have this feature. Eg, they don't exist. Why? Because there is no
> point.

That's a mighty silly reason to discount a new feature. There
are all kinds of other reasons why it doesn't yet exist. Using that
logic, you might have argued that airbags in automobiles would have
been pointless. Too expensive, and as Detroit argued, would cause
deaths if they were forced to provide them. When EVFs themselves
were first implemented they were almost universally derided. But as
they've improved (and they have a way to go to be really effective),
many people have not only seen that there was a point to using them,
but that they're occasionally preferred over optical viewfinders.


>> why don't you try figuring out possible uses for one, even if it
>> conflicts with your last "and it buys you nothing." I can think of
>> some uses. Can't you?
>
> The only one use I can think of would be as a glorified automatic lens
> cap, to protect the sensor during non-use *1*. Closing the shutter
> (that needs to be open during EVF use) prior to shooting buys you
> *nothing*.

I already stated that closing the shutter just prior to shooting
may not be useful - but it might be. Depends. Did you miss this:

>>>> The first closing and reopening may not even be necessary.


> So, enlighten me. Why close the mechanical shutter at that point?

Do you recall the recent discussion of P&S cameras that can't use
the highest shutter speeds at small apertures? If a standard high
speed mechanical shutter was added, it could close very quickly just
before the exposure begins, allowing the aperture to close to its
desired position. Then the shutter opens and closes very quickly,
giving the desired fast shutter speed (1/2000, 1/4000, etc.). So
during the entire time of exposure, the aperture would be constant.
No worry about a moving iris giving you in effect a varying aperture
during high speed exposures.


> And what are these other amazing reasons to have a mechanical shutter
> that you've thought of?

Is there really a need for the snotty sarcastic attitude? I'll
give you a hint and another chance to think of what the reason might
be. Once you add the fairly powerful motor (for its size) needed
to operate the shutter quickly, it could do double duty, positioning
some small objects in front of the sensor. Can you think of what
they are and why they might be useful?


> *1* This is a bogus feature however. Purchasers of EVF cameras are not
> concerned with quality compared to features. They have already traded
> off a high quality sensor with a lower quality and much noisier
> 'live-capable' sensor. So any slight or perceived advantage to
> protecting the sensor from long term light exposure for quality
> reasons doesn't fit that model.

It's not only arrogant but grossly inaccurate to say that
purchasers of EVF cameras are not concerned with quality compared
with features. The same argument could be made just as incorrectly
that DSLR owners are not concerned with quality compared to
features, otherwise they would have purchased a more expensive MF
camera with a digital back. And you've gone into some sort of
fantasy land by taking what I said about the shutter being used only
briefly at the time of exposure into it being used for some kind of
long term protection for quality reasons. Where did that come from
and what are you talking about???


>>I make no such lofty claim for cameras that
>>use both EVFs and mechanical shutters, but you put yourself in a box
>>when you fail to think outside of one.
>
> Aren't we discussing stuff outside of the box right now?

Yep. But what you mean "we"? There's a telling difference. If
I'm thinking outside the box, you're doing all you can to discount
it. The late Richard Feynman was well known for thinking outside
the box, and until he got the proofs to validate his theories, often
found them discounted. Think of the derision heaped upon him and
his theories by politicians, NASA administrators and the usual
gaggle of popular pundits until he demonstrated publicly how faulty
O-rings brought down the Challenger shortly after its launch nearly
two decades ago. His detractors and their nay-sayer colleagues may
have been discussing the same thing, but they were hardly thinking
outside the box. They were doing everything in their power to yank
him back into the box with its stifling but reassuring conformity.
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 5:18:23 PM

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

Owamanga wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 18:38:28 -0400, ASAAR <caught@22.com> wrote:
[]
>> Wow, I guess your hot button triggers when you're corrected. Did
>> you overreact or did you overreact? Now that you've admitted that
>> it's possible for a camera with an EVF to have a mechanical shutter,
>
> Possible, but POINTLESS.
>
> Take a look at the 300+ models available on the market, none of them
> have this feature. Eg, they don't exist. Why? Because there is no
> point.

Of the two digital cameras I have to hand (Nikon 8400 and Panasonic FZ5),
both have something which can clearly be seen opening and closing when the
cameras are switched on and off. It may be that this is the lens aperture
stop closing down fully, though, rather than a separate shutter.

David
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 6:41:40 PM

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

On 27 Jul 2005 11:08:53 -0700, Peconic wrote:

>> Frankly, i can think of only one reason to shoot film: when you're
>> shooting a nuclear war or other atomic explosion.
>
> What about the darkroom? Doesn't anyone love a darkroom?

During a nuclear war or other atomic explosion EVERYONE loves
darkrooms. Beats trying to find a car to kneel behind. <g>
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 6:57:48 PM

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

On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 13:18:23 GMT, "David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid>
wrote:

>Of the two digital cameras I have to hand (Nikon 8400 and Panasonic FZ5),
>both have something which can clearly be seen opening and closing when the
>cameras are switched on and off. It may be that this is the lens aperture
>stop closing down fully, though, rather than a separate shutter.

Yep, that would do the trick. Get the aperture blades to close fully.

--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 8:51:31 PM

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

On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 11:53:10 -0700, <normanstrong@comcast.net>
wrote:

> Does any of my rambling make any sense at all?

Yep.


> l. Certainly one of the giant possible advantages of a digital camera is
> the ability to see the final picture in an electronic view finder before
> actually "taking" the picture. To do this, there would have to be some
> means of adjusting the lens opening in order to control the depth of field.
> It then should be possible to electronically adjust the image so that the
> view finder will look just like the final shot, and to do this with no
> mechanical shutter at all.

The shutter and iris are two different mechanisms. But that's one
area where for non DSLR users an EVF could have an advantage over
optical viewfinders. It would give you the same ability to preview
the depth of field as long enjoyed by SLR users. Unfortunately with
a couple of drawbacks.

First, most EVFs lack high resolution, making it harder to see the
DOF differences. It doesn't have to be this way. The K/M A2 had an
EVF with up to 900% more pixels than the amount used in some other
cameras. 300% to 450% more than is used in the EVFs and LCDs of
most of the better cameras.


Second, as with SLRs, stopping down the lens reduces brightness,
and some EVFs need all the brightness they can get if used in
moderately dim locations. There's not much an SLR can do about
this, but EVFs could easily solve that problem by boosting the gain
by an amount necessary to compensate for the reduced aperture. My
Fuji has a decent EVF that doesn't have the long lag time I've seen
in some other cameras, but it's not nearly as bright as some others
I've recently seen. Fuji has what they term a "Super CCD". How
about replacing that with a *really* super sensor, such as that used
in a sensitive night vision scope! :) 


> 2. If you've elected to use a large lens opening (to reduce the depth of
> field) is there some danger of damage to the sensor from continuous exposure
> to bright light?

Sure. Some cameras have manufacturer warnings that damage to the
sensor can be caused by leaving the camera positioned on a tripod
such that a very bright light (like the sun) would have it's image
focused on the sensor. It's less likely to happen if you happen to
be looking through the viewfinder at the same time. :) 



> 3. If you need flash to get enough light to make an exposure at smaller
> aperture, my guess is that there would be no way of seeing the final results
> before the actual exposure. But it should be possible to look at the
> results immediately after the exposure. If a change is necessary, you can
> make it right then and there.

Yes, it's pretty easy, and some cameras make it easier by having a
setting that displays the image on either the EVF or the LCD for a
short time (a second or two) immediately after each shot is taken.
Lacking that, you might have to switch the camera from record mode
to playback mode which would waste several seconds and a bit of
battery power. Other cameras have a "Quick Review" button that
solves that problem.
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 9:22:17 PM

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

On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 12:11:50 -0400, ASAAR <caught@22.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 12:49:20 GMT, Owamanga wrote:
>
>>> Wow, I guess your hot button triggers when you're corrected. Did
>>>you overreact or did you overreact? Now that you've admitted that
>>>it's possible for a camera with an EVF to have a mechanical shutter,
>>
>> Possible, but POINTLESS.
>
> Still highly perturbed, eh? You seem to be taking this quite
>personally.

It's a mistake people often make when reading me.

>> So, enlighten me. Why close the mechanical shutter at that point?
>
> Do you recall the recent discussion of P&S cameras that can't use
>the highest shutter speeds at small apertures?

No, I missed it. What was the reason?

> If a standard high
>speed mechanical shutter was added, it could close very quickly just
>before the exposure begins, allowing the aperture to close to its
>desired position. Then the shutter opens and closes very quickly,
>giving the desired fast shutter speed (1/2000, 1/4000, etc.). So
>during the entire time of exposure, the aperture would be constant.

So, the aperture on a P&S *isn't* constant during the exposure right
now?

Wow, yet later you claim EVF users care about quality.

>No worry about a moving iris giving you in effect a varying aperture
>during high speed exposures.

Why does the iris move during high speed exposures, yet doesn't during
slow ones? It's an electronic shutter, so it's not like the high
speediness is creating wind or anything is it?

>> And what are these other amazing reasons to have a mechanical shutter
>> that you've thought of?
>
> Is there really a need for the snotty sarcastic attitude?

I enjoy it.

>I'll
>give you a hint and another chance to think of what the reason might
>be. Once you add the fairly powerful motor (for its size) needed
>to operate the shutter quickly, it could do double duty, positioning
>some small objects in front of the sensor. Can you think of what
>they are and why they might be useful?

No, because I'm not crazy. Please, spill the beans, mad inventors are
interesting.

But, first, let me guess: Polarizing filter, removal of IR block
filter, ND2, ND4, starburst, and some vignetting effect filters in
various shapes: Keyhole, Star, Circle, Binoculars.

But why stop there, a magical double duty motor could be a treble duty
motor too right? Then the camera could have little wheels so it
actually comes to you when you call it. Or even a quad-duty motor so
it can energize small retractable fans and float above your head to
take crowd shots. These fans would double as underwater propellers
making it easy for the camera to be remote-controlled in your local
lake for close up photos of fish.

That same motor could also be used to make the camera spin round on
it's tripod mount for taking automated panoramas.

Battery life might become a problem, but EVF users are used to that.

But the simple addition of a small offset counterweight could allow
this amazing motor to make the camera vibrate in your pocket whenever
the batteries are about to expire.

....am I outside the box yet?

> It's not only arrogant but grossly inaccurate to say that
>purchasers of EVF cameras are not concerned with quality compared
>with features. The same argument could be made just as incorrectly
>that DSLR owners are not concerned with quality compared to
>features, otherwise they would have purchased a more expensive MF
>camera with a digital back.

That same argument *is* true. DSLR owners aren't as concerned with
quality as Digital MF owners are, otherwise they'd buy a digital MF
wouldn't they?

This is certainly true in my case. A feature I want is for it to be
35mm style format/size, and not cost more than $3,000. MF doesn't fit
that bill, so the DSLR wins. Features over quality.

> And you've gone into some sort of
>fantasy land

Well, hello to your world.

>by taking what I said about the shutter being used only
>briefly at the time of exposure into it being used for some kind of
>long term protection for quality reasons. Where did that come from
>and what are you talking about???

Because that is the main argument for keeping the mechanical shutter
in the DSLR design.

>>>I make no such lofty claim for cameras that
>>>use both EVFs and mechanical shutters, but you put yourself in a box
>>>when you fail to think outside of one.
>>
>> Aren't we discussing stuff outside of the box right now?
>
> Yep. But what you mean "we"? There's a telling difference. If
>I'm thinking outside the box, you're doing all you can to discount
>it.

You live outside the box apparently.

>The late Richard Feynman was well known for thinking outside
>the box, and until he got the proofs to validate his theories, often
>found them discounted.

So you compare yourself to Richard Feynman do you? Who's being lofty
and arrogant now?

--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 9:22:18 PM

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

On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 17:22:17 GMT, Owamanga wrote:

>> Still highly perturbed, eh? You seem to be taking this quite
>> personally.
>
> It's a mistake people often make when reading me.

Well. ShouId I believe you? . . . Nope.


>> Do you recall the recent discussion of P&S cameras that can't use
>>the highest shutter speeds at small apertures?
>
> No, I missed it. What was the reason?

See below.


>> If a standard high
>>speed mechanical shutter was added, it could close very quickly just
>>before the exposure begins, allowing the aperture to close to its
>>desired position. Then the shutter opens and closes very quickly,
>>giving the desired fast shutter speed (1/2000, 1/4000, etc.). So
>>during the entire time of exposure, the aperture would be constant.
>
> So, the aperture on a P&S *isn't* constant during the exposure right
> now?
>
> Wow, yet later you claim EVF users care about quality.

All cameras have limitations of some sort, including DSLRs. And
it's silly and perhaps clueless in the extreme to criticize EVF
users for not caring about quality. This requires them to know some
esoteric details about how cameras work that you apparently don't
know. I guess this makes you more clueless than EVF users that
don't care about camera quality. :) 



>>No worry about a moving iris giving you in effect a varying aperture
>>during high speed exposures.
>
> Why does the iris move during high speed exposures, yet doesn't during
> slow ones? It's an electronic shutter, so it's not like the high
> speediness is creating wind or anything is it?

Talk about clueless. It takes time to close and open. Very
little time. So normally this amount of time is so much smaller
than the amount of time that the shutter is open that it's
insignificant and can be ignored. But when the shutter speed is
1/2000th of a second or less, the amount of time it is moving is too
large to ignore. So the camera manufacturers don't ignore it. The
disallow these combinations of shutter speed and aperture. All in
the name of preserving image quality, wouldn't you say?


>>> And what are these other amazing reasons to have a mechanical shutter
>>> that you've thought of?
>>
>> Is there really a need for the snotty sarcastic attitude?
>
> I enjoy it.

That's been obvious for a long time. Let's hope it's not one of
your more endearing qualities.


>>I'll
>>give you a hint and another chance to think of what the reason might
>>be. Once you add the fairly powerful motor (for its size) needed
>>to operate the shutter quickly, it could do double duty, positioning
>>some small objects in front of the sensor. Can you think of what
>>they are and why they might be useful?
>
> No, because I'm not crazy. Please, spill the beans, mad inventors are
> interesting.
>
> But, first, let me guess: Polarizing filter, removal of IR block
> filter, ND2, ND4, starburst, and some vignetting effect filters in
> various shapes: Keyhole, Star, Circle, Binoculars.
>
> But why stop there, a magical double duty motor could be a treble duty
> motor too right? Then the camera could have little wheels so it
> actually comes to you when you call it. Or even a quad-duty motor so
> it can energize small retractable fans and float above your head to
> take crowd shots. These fans would double as underwater propellers
> making it easy for the camera to be remote-controlled in your local
> lake for close up photos of fish.
>
> That same motor could also be used to make the camera spin round on
> it's tripod mount for taking automated panoramas.
>
> Battery life might become a problem, but EVF users are used to that.
>
> But the simple addition of a small offset counterweight could allow
> this amazing motor to make the camera vibrate in your pocket whenever
> the batteries are about to expire.
>
> ...am I outside the box yet?

Not really. Perhaps in a warped sense, but not a very useful one.


> > It's not only arrogant but grossly inaccurate to say that
> >purchasers of EVF cameras are not concerned with quality compared
> >with features. The same argument could be made just as incorrectly
> >that DSLR owners are not concerned with quality compared to
> >features, otherwise they would have purchased a more expensive MF
> >camera with a digital back.
>
> That same argument *is* true. DSLR owners aren't as concerned with
> quality as Digital MF owners are, otherwise they'd buy a digital MF
> wouldn't they?
>
> This is certainly true in my case. A feature I want is for it to be
> 35mm style format/size, and not cost more than $3,000. MF doesn't fit
> that bill, so the DSLR wins. Features over quality.

And yet if MF owners ridiculed DSLR owners for preferring features
over quality the way you heap scorn on EVF users, they'd rightly be
told what jerks they are, in less diplomatic terms.


>> And you've gone into some sort of
>>fantasy land
>
> Well, hello to your world.

Amazingly sophisticated rejoinder. For a five year old.


>> by taking what I said about the shutter being used only
>> briefly at the time of exposure into it being used for some kind of
>> long term protection for quality reasons. Where did that come from
>> and what are you talking about???
>
> Because that is the main argument for keeping the mechanical shutter
> in the DSLR design.

But nobody suggested that a shutter in a P&S with EVF be used in
exactly the same manner as they'd be used in a DSLR.


>>> Aren't we discussing stuff outside of the box right now?
>>
>> Yep. But what you mean "we"? There's a telling difference. If
>>I'm thinking outside the box, you're doing all you can to discount
>>it.
>
> You live outside the box apparently.

Another silly insult.


> >The late Richard Feynman was well known for thinking outside
> >the box, and until he got the proofs to validate his theories, often
> >found them discounted.
>
> So you compare yourself to Richard Feynman do you? Who's being lofty
> and arrogant now?

I had a feeling you'd stoop that low if you couldn't rebut my
arguments. I used his example not to elevate myself to his status
but to show who you're emulating. But his critics at least did so
for reasons of self protection, not because they enjoyed doing so.
You seem to do it for kicks. Excuse me. Cross out "seem to".
You've already admitted that you enjoy this little game of yours,
which gives you ample opportunity to display the "snotty attitude"
that you enjoy so much.
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 10:29:35 PM

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

On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 14:10:03 -0400, ASAAR <caught@22.com> wrote:

>> Why does the iris move during high speed exposures, yet doesn't during
>> slow ones? It's an electronic shutter, so it's not like the high
>> speediness is creating wind or anything is it?
>
> Talk about clueless. It takes time to close and open.

As it does on EVERY camera.

> Very
>little time. So normally this amount of time is so much smaller
>than the amount of time that the shutter is open that it's
>insignificant and can be ignored. But when the shutter speed is
>1/2000th of a second or less, the amount of time it is moving is too
>large to ignore. So the camera manufacturers don't ignore it. The
>disallow these combinations of shutter speed and aperture. All in
>the name of preserving image quality, wouldn't you say?

No, this sounds like bullshit, Dr Feynman, or you completely
misunderstood the problem.

The aperture can be set to a certain state. The camera can wait until
it's at the state. The camera then opens the shutter, closes it and
releases the aperture back to wide open. This is how cameras work.

An electric shutter or mechanical shutter or both makes NO difference
to this problem you think exists. So why you feel the need to
introduce a magic motor into this scenario I still don't know.

Take an SLR for example, it has to wait much longer - it needs to move
a mirror out of the way of the lens before it can fire the shutter,
yet it manages to do it. And don't claim this is because they have
physical shutters, because that has *nothing* to do with it. It has
everything to do with timing.

Can you give me the thread ID (or even subject) where this supposed
problem was discussed so I can read it myself, then I'll come back
here and explain it to you.

--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 10:29:36 PM

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

On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 18:29:35 GMT, Owamanga wrote:

> No, this sounds like bullshit, Dr Feynman, or you completely
> misunderstood the problem.

. . .

> Can you give me the thread ID (or even subject) where this supposed
> problem was discussed so I can read it myself, then I'll come back
> here and explain it to you.

Even more snotty replies. Find it yourself or rely on the
kindness of strangers.
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 11:15:04 PM

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

In article <m8ffe1pvbi3kjpmebna053aslubg62kkv4@4ax.com>,
Owamanga <owamanga-not-this-bit@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>So, the aperture on a P&S *isn't* constant during the exposure right
>now?
>
>Wow, yet later you claim EVF users care about quality.

What's described is not fundementally different from a leaf shutter, used
frequently in medium and large format lenses.
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 11:24:15 PM

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

On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 14:38:55 -0400, ASAAR <caught@22.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 18:29:35 GMT, Owamanga wrote:
>
>> No, this sounds like bullshit, Dr Feynman, or you completely
>> misunderstood the problem.
>
> . . .
>
>> Can you give me the thread ID (or even subject) where this supposed
>> problem was discussed so I can read it myself, then I'll come back
>> here and explain it to you.
>
> Even more snotty replies. Find it yourself or rely on the
>kindness of strangers.

I thought so, you were just making it up.

Troll on...

--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 11:47:14 PM

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

On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 11:53:10 -0700, <normanstrong@comcast.net> wrote:

>
>"ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote in message
>news:bq6de1h27fdth3rbgvkppaqbe8hgdfs0gh@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 20:06:39 GMT, Owamanga wrote:
>>
>>> Non DSLRs, those that use EVF can't have a mechanical shutter.
>>
>> Sure they can. Most of them already have fairly long periods just
>> as you take the picture where the screen goes black or you're shown
>> the captured image. A mechanical shutter could close immediately
>> prior to the taking of the picture, then open for the time required
>> by the shutter speed and close again. After a split second it could
>> reopen again. That brief period of blackout would be shorter than
>> the blackout period that many or most EVF cameras already have.
>>
>> The first closing and reopening may not even be necessary. But
>> designing and implementing this type of shutter probably wouldn't be
>> cost effective or provide enough additional advantages over the
>> shutters currently used to make it likely that a camera would be
>> designed this way.
>
>This entire subject is just plain fascinating to me--a guy that has never
>used a digital camera. :-)

Well, this certainly isn't a good place to start. ASAARle is a
fruitcake.

>Let's forget about the dust issue for a bit and think about a couple of
>other issues that occur to me:
>
>l. Certainly one of the giant possible advantages of a digital camera is
>the ability to see the final picture in an electronic view finder before
>actually "taking" the picture. To do this, there would have to be some
>means of adjusting the lens opening in order to control the depth of field.
>It then should be possible to electronically adjust the image so that the
>view finder will look just like the final shot, and to do this with no
>mechanical shutter at all.

I own both an EVF (A Canon G5) and a DSLR (Nikon D70), the DLSR I use
more frequently. The G5 requires a half-button press before you see
the DOF preview version of the shot on the EVF. I'll bet some cheaper
cameras don't even give you this view. EG, what you usually see in the
EVF is the wide open version, *not* what you'll be shooting.

The EVF has a couple advantages over the DSLR - one is not having to
hold the camera up to your face so everybody knows you are going to
take a photo. Candids from the EVF can be shot from your lap, above
your head - out the car window at 70mph - wherever you want.

But quality is a big issue. The DSLRs wins hands down.

>2. If you've elected to use a large lens opening (to reduce the depth of
>field) is there some danger of damage to the sensor from continuous exposure
>to bright light?

I think this is how many EVFs work. They are not concerned about
sensor damage - that's not to say it isn't happening. I doubt it's
noticeable though.

>3. If you need flash to get enough light to make an exposure at smaller
>aperture, my guess is that there would be no way of seeing the final results
>before the actual exposure.

True.

>But it should be possible to look at the
>results immediately after the exposure. If a change is necessary, you can
>make it right then and there.

That's true on DSLRs and EVF (P&S) style cameras.

>Does any of my rambling make any sense at all?

More than ASAARle's did.

--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
Anonymous
July 28, 2005 12:13:44 AM

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

Joseph Meehan wrote:

> Or the film did not catch and you don't notice it until exposure # 297

Done that, been there.

> or the drunk photographer reloads the same film several times. :-)

I'm not so think as you drunk I am!
July 28, 2005 1:01:53 AM

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

I bought an "upper end" digital camera,
and there are several deficiencys;

1. No screw-thread on the lens.
Can't attach filters, closeups, polarizers, etc.

2. No provision for "bulb"
Even on a tripod, you've gotta press the damn button.

3. The uncertainty of the battery life.

4. 'Til now, all digcams look like a compact from a womans purse.
No ones come up with a tough knock-around plastic shell.

6. Tho the shutter's electronic, and there's a USB connection,
no provision for triggering via USB.

7. No means of connecting an external flash.

( this is starting to sound like a KODAK Brownie ! )
<rj>
Anonymous
July 28, 2005 1:26:29 AM

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

kombi45@yahoo.com wrote:
:
: Or wait until the dust gets so heavy in the camera that the sensor
: shits itself trying to blow it to yet another non-existent "clean"
: locale...

It just vibrates and the dust falls due to gravity onto a sticky thingamabob.

Not too damned tricky.

-Charles

--
Charles Robinson
Minneapolis, MN
charlesr@visi.com
http://charles.robinsontwins.org
Anonymous
July 28, 2005 1:34:40 AM

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

<normanstrong@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:JtidneCDaLdPEnvfRVn-sw@comcast.com...
> It uses the same sensor for every picture, whereas you get a brand new
> 'sensor' for every film exposure. If there's a spec of dust on a negative
> it's ruined, but at least the next shot will be brand new. If a single
> pixel on a digital sensor goes bad, the sensor is ruined--for keeps. If
> there's a spec of dust on a digital sensor, it will be there for every
> exposure, until you clean the sensor. That seems to me to be a
> significant problem with a DSLR, or any digital camera with
> interchangeable lenses. The sensor is open to its surroundings and has to
> be kept clean. A camera with a fixed lens with wide zoom range will keep
> dust out of the camera.
>
> Have I got this all wrong? Is it necessary to have a mechanical shutter
> on a digital camera?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Norm Strong
>
Never had the dust issue on the DRebel yet. Dust/scratches on film and is
worse. Getting enlargements made with film has been a hit/miss with dust
spots showing (yes my lab could do better). With scanning film or straight
digital, at least I have the option to clone out the specks.
John
Anonymous
July 28, 2005 10:53:27 AM

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

>
> 1. No screw-thread on the lens.
> Can't attach filters, closeups, polarizers, etc.

Olympus E300 has this..

> 2. No provision for "bulb"
> Even on a tripod, you've gotta press the damn button.

Olympus E300 has this..


> 3. The uncertainty of the battery life.

Olympus E300 runs 600-700 flash shots on a charge.


> 4. 'Til now, all digcams look like a compact from a womans purse.
> No ones come up with a tough knock-around plastic shell.

Olympus E300 has polycarbonate body. A member on the Olympus forum on
DPReview.com dropped his out of his pickup truck onto the pavement and it
suffered minor scuff marks but continues to work like it never was dropped.


> 6. Tho the shutter's electronic, and there's a USB connection,
> no provision for triggering via USB.

Olympus E300 can be triggered from USB with computer running Olympus Studio
software.


> 7. No means of connecting an external flash.

Olympus E300 has the FL-series flash units (and for best results, use the
Maha PowerX 2500mAh AA cells).


--
Take care,

Mark & Mary Ann Weiss

VIDEO PRODUCTION . FILM SCANNING . DVD MASTERING . AUDIO RESTORATION
Hear my Kurzweil Creations at: http://www.dv-clips.com/theater.htm
Business sites at:
www.dv-clips.com
www.mwcomms.com
www.adventuresinanimemusic.com
-
July 28, 2005 11:29:12 AM

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

In article <5mlge190a6jco2p30hm70jjiqjf80igqej@4ax.com>, baranick@localnet.com wrote:
>I bought an "upper end" digital camera,
>and there are several deficiencys;
>
>1. No screw-thread on the lens.
> Can't attach filters, closeups, polarizers, etc.
>

Many do have them


>2. No provision for "bulb"
> Even on a tripod, you've gotta press the damn button.

We are in The 21st century, you use a remote controll.

>
>3. The uncertainty of the battery life.
>
>4. 'Til now, all digcams look like a compact from a womans purse.
> No ones come up with a tough knock-around plastic shell.

Plastic? yuck!!!

>
>6. Tho the shutter's electronic, and there's a USB connection,
> no provision for triggering via USB.
>
>7. No means of connecting an external flash.

Many have hot shoes

>
>( this is starting to sound like a KODAK Brownie ! )
><rj>
Anonymous
July 28, 2005 1:11:36 PM

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

Bill Funk wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 06:19:16 GMT, "Mark & Mary Ann Weiss"
> <mweissX294@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Frankly, i can think of only one reason to shoot film: when you're shooting
>>a nuclear war or other atomic explosion. Film cameras keep working. We used
>>'em back in spring of '55 when the government ran Operation CUE. Several of
>>the film cameras survived the blast and we got good footage. Had they been
>>digital, we'd have no footage at all, most likely.
>>
>
> Interesting point, but wrong, I believe.
> The camera itself can be shielded from the EMP, heat & blast, but what
> about the sensor?
> A metal-coated lens? It's been done in many applications.
>
But if there is any X-ray or gamma from the blast, many of those metal
lens coatings get fried :-( One must use low AN coatings. Also,
depending on the exact EM properties of the EMP the shielding may need
to be thicker than the optical requirements will allow. Some coatings
may work, but again depends completely on the EMP characteristics.
July 28, 2005 3:42:01 PM

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

"<RJ>" <baranick@localnet.com> wrote in
news:5mlge190a6jco2p30hm70jjiqjf80igqej@4ax.com:

> I bought an "upper end" digital camera,
> and there are several deficiencys;
>
> 1. No screw-thread on the lens.
> Can't attach filters, closeups, polarizers, etc.

My digital has a screw-thread on the lens and can attach those things.

> 2. No provision for "bulb"
> Even on a tripod, you've gotta press the damn button.

Mine has bulb and there are 2 different optional remotes available.

> 3. The uncertainty of the battery life.

Mine will run all day without the batteries running out, even on the day
that I took 2580 shots.

> 4. 'Til now, all digcams look like a compact from a womans purse.
> No ones come up with a tough knock-around plastic shell.

Mine is sturdy with a solid Magnesium Alloy body.

> 6. Tho the shutter's electronic, and there's a USB connection,
> no provision for triggering via USB.

My shutter is mechanical and I can trigger it with one of the available
remotes.

> 7. No means of connecting an external flash.

Mine has a hot shoe.

The real question is:
Why did you buy the camera you bought when there are cameras available that
meet your needs better? Could you really not find a different "upper end"
digital camera that had a hot shoe for an external flash?




--
Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz (last updated 25-June-05)
"There are 10 types of people, those that
understand binary and those that don't"
!