Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Canon 350/XT vs Rebel 2000 (film) shutter lag

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 6:29:25 PM

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

I'm considering making the switch from a Rebel 2000 to the new digital XT.
One of the things that's kept me shooting film for so long is that my 2
digital cameras have shutter lags that seem like an eternity (Canon s500 and
Sony F717). By comparison the Rebel 2000 shutter is instantaneous. I never
miss a shot with this film SLR. The Sony can take over 3 seconds if not
pre-focused and is over 1 second even when pre-focused.

I've scoured the web for data on shutter lag for the Rebel 2000, but can't
find any. I don't even know if shutter lag is a digital only problem.

If I can find an equipment rental service here in Tampa, I'll just rent an
XT and try it out, but till then...

Any help would be greatly appreciated. thx.

--
Mark Lauter

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 6:29:26 PM

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

"Mark Lauter" <available_upon_request@just_ask_in_a_post.com> writes:
> I'm considering making the switch from a Rebel 2000 to the new digital XT.
> One of the things that's kept me shooting film for so long is that my 2
> digital cameras have shutter lags that seem like an eternity (Canon s500 and
> Sony F717). By comparison the Rebel 2000 shutter is instantaneous. I never
> miss a shot with this film SLR. The Sony can take over 3 seconds if not
> pre-focused and is over 1 second even when pre-focused.
>
> I've scoured the web for data on shutter lag for the Rebel 2000, but can't
> find any. I don't even know if shutter lag is a digital only
> problem.

I agree with you on the lag issue--it's annoying and used to be a a
compelling reason to stick with film before the advent of affordable
digital SLR's. dSLR's however are world faster. As such, I believe
you're currently comparing apples and oranges I believe (aren't these
non SLR digitals?).

That said, my Digital Rebel 300D has shutter lag that's
indistinguishable from my film Elan.

One would expect the 350XT to be even faster.

In short, I think the 350XT will make you plenty happy in the shutter
lag department.

Best Regards,
--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 6:29:26 PM

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

Mark Lauter wrote:


> I've scoured the web for data on shutter lag for the Rebel 2000, but can't
> find any. I don't even know if shutter lag is a digital only problem.

Offhand I would guess the Rebel 2000 as on the order of 50 - 70 ms
shutter lag. No idea for the Drebel or DrebelXT.

>
> If I can find an equipment rental service here in Tampa, I'll just rent an
> XT and try it out, but till then...
>
> Any help would be greatly appreciated. thx.

I was dismayed to discover (see prior posts) that the Maxxum 7D shutter
lag is much longer than I like. Compared to my Maxxum 9 (50-60msec),
the 7D is about 120 msec pre-focused, which when added to human lag
comes out to a little over 200ms. This makes sports shooting in
particular very tricky to get those 'ball-on-bat' type shots.

Do the 'turntable test' as described in those earlier posts and you can
compute the total human+machine lag.

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 7:08:28 PM

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

> That said, my Digital Rebel 300D has shutter lag that's
> indistinguishable from my film Elan.

Good to know. Thanks.

> In short, I think the 350XT will make you plenty happy in the shutter
> lag department.

I will probably take the plunge next month. I'm debating whether or not to
sell all my film stuff - B&W enlarger, film development kit, etc. Maybe get
out from under it all before it's too late? But I enjoy working in the dark
room if I'm in the right mood. So I haven't decided yet.

--
Mark Lauter

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 8:10:20 PM

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

> > I've scoured the web for data on shutter lag for the Rebel 2000, but
can't
> > find any. I don't even know if shutter lag is a digital only problem.
>
> Offhand I would guess the Rebel 2000 as on the order of 50 - 70 ms
> shutter lag. No idea for the Drebel or DrebelXT.

For the XT I've found data suggesting 60 to 100 ms. Sorry, have lost the
links or would post. :/ 

> > If I can find an equipment rental service here in Tampa, I'll just rent
an
> > XT and try it out, but till then...
> >
> > Any help would be greatly appreciated. thx.
>
> I was dismayed to discover (see prior posts) that the Maxxum 7D shutter
> lag is much longer than I like. Compared to my Maxxum 9 (50-60msec),
> the 7D is about 120 msec pre-focused, which when added to human lag
> comes out to a little over 200ms. This makes sports shooting in
> particular very tricky to get those 'ball-on-bat' type shots.

Reminds me of the conversation "Why I love Digital" in alt.photography (was
cross posted there i think).

Yeah, I miss more shots with the darn 717 than I capture. :( 

> Do the 'turntable test' as described in those earlier posts and you can
> compute the total human+machine lag.

I'll have to look for these posts. Thanks. :) 

Cheers!

--
Mark Lauter

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 8:15:56 PM

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

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 14:29:25 GMT, Mark Lauter
<available_upon_request@just_ask_in_a_post.com> wrote:
> I'm considering making the switch from a Rebel 2000 to the new digital XT.
> One of the things that's kept me shooting film for so long is that my 2
> digital cameras have shutter lags that seem like an eternity (Canon s500 and
> Sony F717).

Hi, Mark.

Shutter lag -- mostly due to slow autofocus -- drove me nuts with
all-in-one digital cameras. Since I switched to a DSLR, I haven't
found it to be a problem.

Regards,

--
Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
--Josh Micah Marshall
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 8:54:42 PM

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

As a rule, shutter lag is similar on DSLR's as on Film SLR's... The newer
the shorter too...

Al...


"Mark Lauter" <available_upon_request@just_ask_in_a_post.com> wrote in
message news:9Rv6e.38536$Pc.38389@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
> I'm considering making the switch from a Rebel 2000 to the new digital XT.
> One of the things that's kept me shooting film for so long is that my 2
> digital cameras have shutter lags that seem like an eternity (Canon s500
> and
> Sony F717). By comparison the Rebel 2000 shutter is instantaneous. I
> never
> miss a shot with this film SLR. The Sony can take over 3 seconds if not
> pre-focused and is over 1 second even when pre-focused.
>
> I've scoured the web for data on shutter lag for the Rebel 2000, but can't
> find any. I don't even know if shutter lag is a digital only problem.
>
> If I can find an equipment rental service here in Tampa, I'll just rent an
> XT and try it out, but till then...
>
> Any help would be greatly appreciated. thx.
>
> --
> Mark Lauter
>
> Photos, Ideas & Opinions
> http://www.marklauter.com
>
>
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 8:54:43 PM

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

> As a rule, shutter lag is similar on DSLR's as on Film SLR's... The newer
> the shorter too...

Thx :) 

--
Mark Lauter

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 8:54:43 PM

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

Alan Adrian wrote:

> As a rule, shutter lag is similar on DSLR's as on Film SLR's... The newer
> the shorter too...

Regrettably do not concur. Earlier posts on maxxum 7D refer.

Please don't top post.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 9:10:35 PM

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

> Hi, Mark.

Hi Ben! :) 

> Shutter lag -- mostly due to slow autofocus -- drove me nuts with
> all-in-one digital cameras. Since I switched to a DSLR, I haven't
> found it to be a problem.

The Sony 717 has pretty slow autofocus, but even pre-focused or in manual
focus the lag is so long that even a slow moving subject (pedestrian for
example) can move out of the frame before the thing finally clicks. Ugh.

My girlfriend doens't mind it, so she will probably get this when I finally
make to move to digital SLR. High end film processing and professional
grade film is just getting too expensive to maintain - it's like having a
cigarette habbit.

--
Mark Lauter

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 10:44:05 PM

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

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 17:10:35 GMT, Mark Lauter
<available_upon_request@just_ask_in_a_post.com> wrote:
>
> The Sony 717 has pretty slow autofocus, but even pre-focused or in manual
> focus the lag is so long that even a slow moving subject (pedestrian for
> example) can move out of the frame before the thing finally clicks. Ugh.

Huh. I had better luck with my Olympus 8080. If I could pre-focus,
I could usually get the shot. Another problem, though, was that
autofocus would fail to lock in low light. And manual focusing on
an EVF is no fun.

> My girlfriend doens't mind it, so she will probably get this when I finally
> make to move to digital SLR.

I wish I could get my girlfriend interested in the 8080. She's just
got too many other things going on to think about photography right
now.

> High end film processing and professional
> grade film is just getting too expensive to maintain - it's like having a
> cigarette habbit.

More money for lenses, or better yet, for travel. :-)

--
Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
--Josh Micah Marshall
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 11:07:05 PM

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

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 17:10:35 GMT, Mark Lauter
<available_upon_request@just_ask_in_a_post.com> wrote:
>
> The Sony 717 has pretty slow autofocus, but even pre-focused or in manual
> focus the lag is so long that even a slow moving subject (pedestrian for
> example) can move out of the frame before the thing finally clicks. Ugh.

Huh. I had better luck with my Olympus 8080. If I could pre-focus,
I could usually get the shot. Another problem, though, was that
autofocus would fail to lock in low light. And manual focusing on
an EVF is no fun.

> My girlfriend doens't mind it, so she will probably get this when I finally
> make to move to digital SLR.

I wish I could get my girlfriend interested in the 8080. She's just
got too many other things going on to think about photography right
now.

> High end film processing and professional
> grade film is just getting too expensive to maintain - it's like having a
> cigarette habbit.

More money for lenses, or better yet, for travel. :-)

--
Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
--Josh Micah Marshall
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 11:11:27 PM

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

> > High end film processing and professional
> > grade film is just getting too expensive to maintain - it's like having
a
> > cigarette habbit.
>
> More money for lenses, or better yet, for travel. :-)

Hmm.. you might have just talked me into selling my entire film kit and
caboodle.

--
Mark Lauter

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 4:05:08 AM

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

Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in
news:D 3e6r7$m5m$1@inews.gazeta.pl:

> I was dismayed to discover (see prior posts) that the Maxxum 7D
> shutter lag is much longer than I like. Compared to my Maxxum 9
> (50-60msec), the 7D is about 120 msec pre-focused, which when added to
> human lag comes out to a little over 200ms. This makes sports
> shooting in particular very tricky to get those 'ball-on-bat' type
> shots.

Yet another reason not to get the 7D. I've yet to see any compelling
reason to buy a DSLR that doesn't say Nikon or Canon on the front.

--
Albert Nurick | Nurick + Associates - Web Design
albert@nurick.com | eCommerce - Content Management
www.nurick.com | Web Applications - Hosting
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 4:05:09 AM

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

Albert Nurick wrote:

> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in
> news:D 3e6r7$m5m$1@inews.gazeta.pl:
>
>
>>I was dismayed to discover (see prior posts) that the Maxxum 7D
>>shutter lag is much longer than I like. Compared to my Maxxum 9
>>(50-60msec), the 7D is about 120 msec pre-focused, which when added to
>>human lag comes out to a little over 200ms. This makes sports
>>shooting in particular very tricky to get those 'ball-on-bat' type
>>shots.
>
>
> Yet another reason not to get the 7D. I've yet to see any compelling
> reason to buy a DSLR that doesn't say Nikon or Canon on the front.

Nikon? Give me a break. Company lost the pedals in 1985 or so. If I
had Nikon glass I'd mount it to a Fujifilm S2 / S3, not the weak knee'd D70.

Canon, I'll give top honors for DSLR.

The Maxxum 7D in most respects is as good as any of the others, and in
several respects leaves most in the dust. This includes antishake in
body, the large monitor and all photographic controls on switches,
knobs, levers, etc. (eg: not in menus).

Given my collection of pro Minolta glass (3 lenses of which outperform
their Nikon or Canon counterparts in sharpness), I really did not have
much choice unless I wanted to start from scratch after selling my
lenses at a rather large loss.

So take your smug attitude and blow off.

Cheers,
Alan.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 4:07:33 AM

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

"Mark Lauter" <available_upon_request@just_ask_in_a_post.com> wrote in
news:Mjx6e.32972$vd.28752@tornado.tampabay.rr.com:

> Yeah, I miss more shots with the darn 717 than I capture. :( 

That's why I upgraded to the 828 from the 707. The only things I don't
like about it are the slow refresh to the second shot (the first is pretty
much instantaneous with prefocus) and the high-ISO grain. I may break down
and buy a Canon DSLR after all, but I hate to lose the MPEG video mode, the
ability to frame an image on the screen, and the ability to eyeball manual
exposure before the capture.

--
Albert Nurick | Nurick + Associates - Web Design
albert@nurick.com | eCommerce - Content Management
www.nurick.com | Web Applications - Hosting
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 4:07:34 AM

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

Albert Nurick wrote:

> "Mark Lauter" <available_upon_request@just_ask_in_a_post.com> wrote in
> news:Mjx6e.32972$vd.28752@tornado.tampabay.rr.com:
>
>
>>Yeah, I miss more shots with the darn 717 than I capture. :( 
>
>
> That's why I upgraded to the 828 from the 707. The only things I don't
> like about it are the slow refresh to the second shot (the first is pretty
> much instantaneous with prefocus) and the high-ISO grain. I may break down
> and buy a Canon DSLR after all, but I hate to lose the MPEG video mode, the
> ability to frame an image on the screen, and the ability to eyeball manual
> exposure before the capture.

Not having "the ability to eyeball manual exposure" should be the least
of your concerns. Get yourself a 20D and kit lens and set it to the
green square. You'll be happy.



--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 4:56:42 AM

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

> but I hate to lose the MPEG video mode

Buy a video camera - use the right tool for the job ;) 

> and the high-ISO grain

All the sample images I've seen had unacceptable amounts of noise even at
ISO 64.

> ability to frame an image on the screen, and the ability to eyeball manual
> exposure before the capture.

My experience is that I can't really eyeball the manual exposure because the
LCD automatically brightens in low light and the results are always MUCH
darker than appearances. I have much better luck shooting with my Rebel
2000 because I trust my instincts - use the force Luke. :) 


--
Mark Lauter

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 5:31:00 AM

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

Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in
news:D 3f5v0$7g6$1@inews.gazeta.pl:

> Albert Nurick wrote:
>
>> Yet another reason not to get the 7D. I've yet to see any compelling
>> reason to buy a DSLR that doesn't say Nikon or Canon on the front.
>
> Nikon? Give me a break. Company lost the pedals in 1985 or so. If I
> had Nikon glass I'd mount it to a Fujifilm S2 / S3, not the weak
> knee'd D70.

Perhaps a $2500 DSLR isn't the market alternative to a $1000 camera?

> Canon, I'll give top honors for DSLR.

Agreed. That's where I'm going to spend my money, but the D70 impresses
me in terms of image quality at the price. Had the 350D not have come
out, I may be looking hard at the D70.

> The Maxxum 7D in most respects is as good as any of the others, and in
> several respects leaves most in the dust. This includes antishake in
> body, the large monitor and all photographic controls on switches,
> knobs, levers, etc. (eg: not in menus).

Compared to the 20D, the interesting features of the Minolta are the
built-in antishake and the big LCD. Other than that, it's a D60
competitor in a 20D world.

(What's not so great is 6MP vs 8MP, 1/4000 max shutter speed vs 1/8000,
2.7 FPS vs 5.0 fps, and 2.6 seconds power up vs. 0.3 seconds.)

> Given my collection of pro Minolta glass (3 lenses of which outperform
> their Nikon or Canon counterparts in sharpness), I really did not have
> much choice unless I wanted to start from scratch after selling my
> lenses at a rather large loss.

Agreed, but at some point, it's a tradeoff that might be time to make.

> So take your smug attitude and blow off.

Always nice to end with a personal attack. Have a nice day.

--
Albert Nurick | Nurick + Associates - Web Design
albert@nurick.com | eCommerce - Content Management
www.nurick.com | Web Applications - Hosting
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 5:34:33 AM

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

Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in
news:D 3f63m$7g6$2@inews.gazeta.pl:

> Albert Nurick wrote:
>>
>> That's why I upgraded to the 828 from the 707. The only things I
>> don't like about it are the slow refresh to the second shot (the
>> first is pretty much instantaneous with prefocus) and the high-ISO
>> grain. I may break down and buy a Canon DSLR after all, but I hate
>> to lose the MPEG video mode, the ability to frame an image on the
>> screen, and the ability to eyeball manual exposure before the
>> capture.
>
> Not having "the ability to eyeball manual exposure" should be the
> least of your concerns.

Thanks for your concern, but you're a wee bit misguided. I find it very
helpful to be able to eyeball the important parts of a contrasty scene to
make sure that they each have enough dynamic range. Until I get a built-
in spot meter that calculates based on several spot readings, I'll stick
with this technique.

> Get yourself a 20D and kit lens and set it to
> the green square. You'll be happy.

Why? I don't use the full auto setting on my 828.

--
Albert Nurick | Nurick + Associates - Web Design
albert@nurick.com | eCommerce - Content Management
www.nurick.com | Web Applications - Hosting
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 5:36:21 AM

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

"Mark Lauter" <available_upon_request@just_ask_in_a_post.com> wrote in
news:e1F6e.36438$vd.9941@tornado.tampabay.rr.com:

>> but I hate to lose the MPEG video mode
>
> Buy a video camera - use the right tool for the job ;) 

I had one, and I didn't care to carry two cameras. Also, the videos end
up on the computer (typically for web sites) so the 828 does a fine job.

>> and the high-ISO grain
>
> All the sample images I've seen had unacceptable amounts of noise even
> at ISO 64.

I find low ISO noise to be acceptable, but YMMV on issues like this.

>> ability to frame an image on the screen, and the ability to eyeball
>> manual exposure before the capture.
>
> My experience is that I can't really eyeball the manual exposure
> because the LCD automatically brightens in low light and the results
> are always MUCH darker than appearances. I have much better luck
> shooting with my Rebel 2000 because I trust my instincts - use the
> force Luke. :) 

LOL. You could be right.

--
Albert Nurick | Nurick + Associates - Web Design
albert@nurick.com | eCommerce - Content Management
www.nurick.com | Web Applications - Hosting
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 6:12:22 AM

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

> Thanks for your concern, but you're a wee bit misguided. I find it very
> helpful to be able to eyeball the important parts of a contrasty scene to
> make sure that they each have enough dynamic range. Until I get a built-
> in spot meter that calculates based on several spot readings, I'll stick
> with this technique.

Buy a light meter ;) 

Alan wrote, but I only saw it ghosted...
> > Get yourself a 20D and kit lens and set it to
> > the green square. You'll be happy.

Ahhh! What happened to creative visualization and control over how you want
to express a scene?

--
Mark Lauter

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 6:15:55 AM

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

> > Buy a video camera - use the right tool for the job ;) 
>
> I had one, and I didn't care to carry two cameras. Also, the videos end
> up on the computer (typically for web sites) so the 828 does a fine job.

Porn? <g>

Actually, I also got tired of carrying both cameras and finally decided that
since I'm not currently involved in any silly movie projects to leave the
video at home.

> > use the force Luke. :) 
>
> LOL. You could be right.

<yoda mode>
Right am I. <g>
</yoda mode>

--
Mark Lauter

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 6:21:27 AM

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

> > Canon, I'll give top honors for DSLR.
>
> Agreed. That's where I'm going to spend my money, but the D70 impresses
> me in terms of image quality at the price. Had the 350D not have come
> out, I may be looking hard at the D70.

LOL! Same here... but if you wait a couple years the 400 mega pixel 560D
with 10mm-600mm zoom kit lens featuring the finest optics in history will be
available for about the same price. <g>

> (What's not so great is 6MP vs 8MP, 1/4000 max shutter speed vs 1/8000,
> 2.7 FPS vs 5.0 fps, and 2.6 seconds power up vs. 0.3 seconds.)

Interestingly, I just saw proof that mega pixels matter less than sensor
size and good glass. Well, the good glass part was probably obvious. And I
probably don't have glass that's fast enough to take advantage of 1/8000. :( 

--
Mark Lauter

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 6:36:31 AM

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

Albert Nurick wrote:
> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in
> news:D 3f5v0$7g6$1@inews.gazeta.pl:
> > The Maxxum 7D in most respects is as good as any of the others, and
in
> > several respects leaves most in the dust. This includes antishake
in
> > body, the large monitor and all photographic controls on switches,
> > knobs, levers, etc. (eg: not in menus).
>
> Compared to the 20D, the interesting features of the Minolta are the
> built-in antishake and the big LCD. Other than that, it's a D60
> competitor in a 20D world.

Well, the independence of menus is a bonus for many old-style
photographers. And at least some say that the viewfinder is the
brightest of the pack, too.

But I do agree that the pricing, which forces a comparison with the
20D, does it a disservice. Compared to the 350D or the D70 it doesn't
seem to be a bad camera at all.

> (What's not so great is 6MP vs 8MP,

That's pretty marginal.

> 1/4000 max shutter speed vs 1/8000,

Can be critical if you're into very narrow DOF in strong light. If you
aren't, how many times would you use 1/8000 for anything?

> 2.7 FPS vs 5.0 fps, and 2.6 seconds power up vs. 0.3 seconds.)

That's more general weaknesses, agreed. (2,6 seconds power up was OK
two years ago. Now, with the D70, 20D and 350D around, it isn't.) And
the slightly longer shutter lag that Alan has reported isn't actually
great either.

Jan Böhme
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 7:35:36 AM

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

"Mark Lauter" <available_upon_request@just_ask_in_a_post.com> wrote in
news:vbG6e.38941$Pc.33030@tornado.tampabay.rr.com:

>> > Buy a video camera - use the right tool for the job ;) 
>>
>> I had one, and I didn't care to carry two cameras. Also, the videos
>> end up on the computer (typically for web sites) so the 828 does a
>> fine job.
>
> Porn? <g>

Riiiight. Everyone wants to pay $20/mo to browse HotWebGeek.com for the
latest action shots. LOL.

> Actually, I also got tired of carrying both cameras and finally
> decided that since I'm not currently involved in any silly movie
> projects to leave the video at home.

Invariably, if I don't have a camera handy, I'll come across a once-in-a-
lifetime shot. Same thing with video.

>> > use the force Luke. :) 
>>
>> LOL. You could be right.
>
> <yoda mode>
> Right am I. <g>
> </yoda mode>

Meesa thinks you are. <g,d&r>

--
Albert Nurick | Nurick + Associates - Web Design
albert@nurick.com | eCommerce - Content Management
www.nurick.com | Web Applications - Hosting
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 7:47:17 AM

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

"Mark Lauter" <available_upon_request@just_ask_in_a_post.com> wrote in
news:HgG6e.36951$vd.11365@tornado.tampabay.rr.com:

>> > Canon, I'll give top honors for DSLR.
>>
>> Agreed. That's where I'm going to spend my money, but the D70
>> impresses me in terms of image quality at the price. Had the 350D
>> not have come out, I may be looking hard at the D70.
>
> LOL! Same here... but if you wait a couple years the 400 mega pixel
> 560D with 10mm-600mm zoom kit lens featuring the finest optics in
> history will be available for about the same price. <g>

I'm a big believer in "good enough" and the 350D is that for me. OTOH, I
like the feel of the 20D more (especially the rear panel selector wheel)
so I'm trying to justify the extra $400 or so, and hoping the 30D appears
in the interim.

For what I do (90% will end up on the web) my 828 is more than adequate.
However, I like the DSLRs fast shot-to-shot time and the possibility of
using 3-4 speedlights slaved together for some interesting location
lighting, something I can't do easily with the 828.

>> (What's not so great is 6MP vs 8MP, 1/4000 max shutter speed vs
>> 1/8000, 2.7 FPS vs 5.0 fps, and 2.6 seconds power up vs. 0.3
>> seconds.)
>
> Interestingly, I just saw proof that mega pixels matter less than
> sensor size and good glass.

The entire system matters, and I like the look of the images that come
out of a 20D or 350D. And the extra megapixels don't hurt.

--
Albert Nurick | Nurick + Associates - Web Design
albert@nurick.com | eCommerce - Content Management
www.nurick.com | Web Applications - Hosting
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 8:06:04 AM

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

> I'm a big believer in "good enough" and the 350D is that for me.

I think in this case it is pretty darn good - at least from the reviews I've
read. Only see some issues related to E-TTL flash, which doesn't concern me
since I tape the flash down - have NEVER had a reason to use flash, but I
shoot a lot of film. ISO 1600 pushed to 6400 pretty much alleviates the
need to ruin every shot with obnoxious flattening shadows from a flash.
flash - blech!

> OTOH, I
> like the feel of the 20D more (especially the rear panel selector wheel)
> so I'm trying to justify the extra $400 or so, and hoping the 30D appears
> in the interim.

I guess this is the question - 20d or 350/xt.. I'm attracted to the 2nd gen
cmos sensor in the 350d and the $400 saved could mean new, higher quality
glass, or a bigger memory card. I shoot mostly in manual, so all the auto
gadgets don't attract me.

> For what I do (90% will end up on the web) my 828 is more than adequate.
> However, I like the DSLRs fast shot-to-shot time and the possibility of
> using 3-4 speedlights slaved together for some interesting location
> lighting, something I can't do easily with the 828.

For the web the 717 isn't bad, but can be pretty noisy over ISO 200.
However, I'd like to sell prints and I believe the dSLR is going to give me
an advantage here - i hope :) 

> The entire system matters, and I like the look of the images that come
> out of a 20D or 350D. And the extra megapixels don't hurt.

I have always said that the best "zoom" is the detail which comes with extra
mega pixels - especially if you're going to crop the images. And yeah, the
20D and 350D produce what I think are very good quality images, especially
with good glass attached.

--
Mark Lauter

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 1:23:52 PM

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

Albert Nurick wrote:

>
> Perhaps a $2500 DSLR isn't the market alternative to a $1000 camera?

Check your prices, your're off by a Texas mile.
>
>
>>Canon, I'll give top honors for DSLR.
>
>
> Agreed. That's where I'm going to spend my money, but the D70 impresses
> me in terms of image quality at the price. Had the 350D not have come
> out, I may be looking hard at the D70.
>
>
>>The Maxxum 7D in most respects is as good as any of the others, and in
>>several respects leaves most in the dust. This includes antishake in
>>body, the large monitor and all photographic controls on switches,
>>knobs, levers, etc. (eg: not in menus).
>
>
> Compared to the 20D, the interesting features of the Minolta are the
> built-in antishake and the big LCD. Other than that, it's a D60
> competitor in a 20D world.

That's what I said, Bub, plus the controls which are photographer
oriented, not geek oriented.
>
> (What's not so great is 6MP vs 8MP, 1/4000 max shutter speed vs 1/8000,
> 2.7 FPS vs 5.0 fps, and 2.6 seconds power up vs. 0.3 seconds.)

I hope you realize that none of those parameters is very meaningful to a
photographer? I have a Maxxum 9 that shoots 1/12,000 .. only been there
for a few frames. I hardly ever see 1/2000 or faster even with my
fastest glass. Powerup of the Max 7D is clsoer to 2 seconds in my
experience, but who cares, I'm either making photos or I'm not. 5 fps?
Again, not something that most photographers use very often.


>>So take your smug attitude and blow off.
>
>
> Always nice to end with a personal attack. Have a nice day.

One of the tenants of this NG is no 'brand wars'. Your post was just
that.

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 1:32:37 PM

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

Albert Nurick wrote:

>
> Thanks for your concern, but you're a wee bit misguided. I find it very
> helpful to be able to eyeball the important parts of a contrasty scene to
> make sure that they each have enough dynamic range. Until I get a built-
> in spot meter that calculates based on several spot readings, I'll stick
> with this technique.

The Max 7D has a spot meter. (Not the 20D? more cost cutting I
suppose). So meter the highlights at +1.5 to +1.7 and it's done.

Regarding your high contrast scenes: In a DSLR you can just take a test
shot or two and then look at the image and the histogram. Most DSLR's
have under-exp and over-exp indicators in the image. For a given scene,
set manually and leave alone. Consistent results.

If you do have some minor blown out areas, or underexposed areas and
you're shooting RAW, you can make adjustments in the computer to
effectively adjust exposure in post processing.

>
>
>>Get yourself a 20D and kit lens and set it to
>>the green square. You'll be happy.
>
>
> Why? I don't use the full auto setting on my 828.

Pointed insult. But you knew that.

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 2:06:28 PM

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

Alan Browne wrote:
> Jan Böhme wrote:
>
> > That's more general weaknesses, agreed. (2,6 seconds power up was
OK
> > two years ago. Now, with the D70, 20D and 350D around, it isn't.)
And
> > the slightly longer shutter lag that Alan has reported isn't
actually
> > great either.
>
> I completely fail to grasp why power up time is so overwhelmingly
> important. But then I'm into it for the photography.

If you're out om a dedicated shooting session, of course it is entirely
immaterial. If you have a camera close at hand, but hadn't intended to
use it right now, and something photographable suddenly appears - a
cute facial expression, a bird landing on the garden table, or whatever
- it is more of an issue. Maybe this is as arcane as wanting to shoot
in full daylight at f1.4. But it is a situation that occurs reasonably
often to me.

> (It's less than 2 seconds, BTW).

That actually makes a difference to the 2.6 secs given by Albert. Half
a second equals zero, and even one second isn't all that much to bother
about, but over a second, it is all pure waiting time.

Which can be very precious, in certain situations.

Jan Böhme
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 2:27:44 PM

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

Jan Böhme wrote:

> That's more general weaknesses, agreed. (2,6 seconds power up was OK
> two years ago. Now, with the D70, 20D and 350D around, it isn't.) And
> the slightly longer shutter lag that Alan has reported isn't actually
> great either.

I completely fail to grasp why power up time is so overwhelmingly
important. But then I'm into it for the photography. (It's less than 2
seconds, BTW).


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 6:04:02 PM

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

Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
> Albert Nurick wrote:

>>>So take your smug attitude and blow off.
>>
>> Always nice to end with a personal attack. Have a nice day.

> One of the tenants of this NG is no 'brand wars'. Your post was
> just that.

In a way that, of course, "Nikon? Give me a break. Company lost the
pedals in 1985 or so" wasn't.

Andrew.
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 6:04:03 PM

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

andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid wrote:

> In a way that, of course, "Nikon? Give me a break. Company lost the
> pedals in 1985 or so" wasn't.

(All's fair in rebuttal. Of course the statement is true, too).
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 6:04:56 PM

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

Jan Böhme wrote:

>
> That actually makes a difference to the 2.6 secs given by Albert. Half
> a second equals zero, and even one second isn't all that much to bother
> about, but over a second, it is all pure waiting time.
>
> Which can be very precious, in certain situations.

Such "certain situations" has never occured to me in 12 years, I doubt
it will start now.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 7:37:31 PM

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

Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
> andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid wrote:

>> In a way that, of course, "Nikon? Give me a break. Company lost the
>> pedals in 1985 or so" wasn't.

> (All's fair in rebuttal.

But by rebutting in this way, you lose any right you might have had to
keep other people in line. Without being a hypocrite, that is.

> Of course the statement is true, too).

Three years _before_ the F4. Of course you're right, Alan -- not
totally insane at all.

Andrew.
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 7:37:32 PM

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

andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid wrote:

> But by rebutting in this way, you lose any right you might have had to
> keep other people in line. Without being a hypocrite, that is.

I have a right to be less pure than the driven snow.

> Three years _before_ the F4. Of course you're right, Alan -- not
> totally insane at all.

The shooting line at sports events says it all.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 10:44:08 PM

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

> > That actually makes a difference to the 2.6 secs given by Albert. Half
> > a second equals zero, and even one second isn't all that much to bother
> > about, but over a second, it is all pure waiting time.
> >
> > Which can be very precious, in certain situations.
>
> Such "certain situations" has never occured to me in 12 years, I doubt
> it will start now.

heh heh.. Any chance for shots that I might get because of fast power up on
the Sony 717 will be lost because of the 20 minute shutter lag anyway. <g>

--
Mark Lauter

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 3:47:41 AM

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

"Jan Böhme" <jan.bohme@sh.se> wrote in news:1113298591.732862.187230
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

> Albert Nurick wrote:
>> Compared to the 20D, the interesting features of the Minolta are the
>> built-in antishake and the big LCD. Other than that, it's a D60
>> competitor in a 20D world.
>
> Well, the independence of menus is a bonus for many old-style
> photographers. And at least some say that the viewfinder is the
> brightest of the pack, too.

> But I do agree that the pricing, which forces a comparison with the
> 20D, does it a disservice. Compared to the 350D or the D70 it doesn't
> seem to be a bad camera at all.

Agreed. A $1000 Minolta with fast startup time would be a winner. What
they've created is primarily of interest to those folks who haven't yet
dumped their Minolta lenses.

--
Albert Nurick | Nurick + Associates - Web Design
albert@nurick.com | eCommerce - Content Management
www.nurick.com | Web Applications - Hosting
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 3:49:39 AM

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

Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in news:D 3glsv$6hu$3
@inews.gazeta.pl:

> I completely fail to grasp why power up time is so overwhelmingly
> important. But then I'm into it for the photography. (It's less than 2
> seconds, BTW).

If you miss candid shots while waiting for the camera, it matters.

--
Albert Nurick | Nurick + Associates - Web Design
albert@nurick.com | eCommerce - Content Management
www.nurick.com | Web Applications - Hosting
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 3:56:47 AM

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

Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in
news:D 3gi58$htr$1@inews.gazeta.pl:

> Albert Nurick wrote:
>> Perhaps a $2500 DSLR isn't the market alternative to a $1000 camera?
>
> Check your prices, your're off by a Texas mile.

I was comparing common prices from reputable US-based sources; you can
certainly find either for less.

>> Compared to the 20D, the interesting features of the Minolta are the
>> built-in antishake and the big LCD. Other than that, it's a D60
>> competitor in a 20D world.
>
> That's what I said, Bub, plus the controls which are photographer
> oriented, not geek oriented.

These days, what's the difference? Photoshop skills vs. Darkroom skills?

>> (What's not so great is 6MP vs 8MP, 1/4000 max shutter speed vs
>> 1/8000, 2.7 FPS vs 5.0 fps, and 2.6 seconds power up vs. 0.3
>> seconds.)
>
> I hope you realize that none of those parameters is very meaningful to
> a photographer?

I'm a photographer, and they matter to me. More pixels are a good thing;
you can a bit more. Being able to open up your lens an extra stop in
bright sunlight can be important in sunny outdoor settings to control
DOF, and if you do any sports or action photography, responsiveness is
very important.

(If they're not important to the types of shots you take, then these
factors aren't limitations for you.)

>>>So take your smug attitude and blow off.
>>
>> Always nice to end with a personal attack. Have a nice day.
>
> One of the tenants of this NG is no 'brand wars'.

I was trying to compare a particular *camera* with others; it was hardly
a blanket dismissal of any brand. You, on the other hand...

> Your post was just that.

<chuckle> Considering your Nikon comments, pot, kettle, etc.

--
Albert Nurick | Nurick + Associates - Web Design
albert@nurick.com | eCommerce - Content Management
www.nurick.com | Web Applications - Hosting
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 3:57:42 AM

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

Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in news:D 3gqhp$t6e$1
@inews.gazeta.pl:

> andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid wrote:
>
>> But by rebutting in this way, you lose any right you might have had to
>> keep other people in line. Without being a hypocrite, that is.
>
> I have a right to be less pure than the driven snow.
>
>> Three years _before_ the F4. Of course you're right, Alan -- not
>> totally insane at all.
>
> The shooting line at sports events says it all.

Filled with photographers, none of whom have need for 5fps, right? ;-)

--
Albert Nurick | Nurick + Associates - Web Design
albert@nurick.com | eCommerce - Content Management
www.nurick.com | Web Applications - Hosting
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 4:00:16 AM

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

Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in
news:D 3gill$kl6$1@inews.gazeta.pl:

> Regarding your high contrast scenes: In a DSLR you can just take a
> test shot or two and then look at the image and the histogram. Most
> DSLR's have under-exp and over-exp indicators in the image. For a
> given scene, set manually and leave alone. Consistent results.

That's ultimately what I do, but I can be quicker and not take the test
shots with the live preview. In a dynamic situation, a few seconds can
matter.

> If you do have some minor blown out areas, or underexposed areas and
> you're shooting RAW, you can make adjustments in the computer to
> effectively adjust exposure in post processing.

Unfortunately, on my 828, RAW is very slow. I only use it for studio
work for critical product shots.

>>>Get yourself a 20D and kit lens and set it to
>>>the green square. You'll be happy.
>>
>> Why? I don't use the full auto setting on my 828.
>
> Pointed insult. But you knew that.

So I gathered, but I chose to treat you like a gentleman.

--
Albert Nurick | Nurick + Associates - Web Design
albert@nurick.com | eCommerce - Content Management
www.nurick.com | Web Applications - Hosting
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 9:35:15 AM

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

> > The shooting line at sports events says it all.

> Filled with photographers, none of whom have need for 5fps, right? ;-)

That one has been covered a lot in alt.photography recently. Bottom line,
better to anticipate than to hold the shutter down and pray. ;) 

--
Mark Lauter

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 2:33:57 PM

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

Albert Nurick wrote:

> Agreed. A $1000 Minolta with fast startup time would be a winner. What
> they've created is primarily of interest to those folks who haven't yet
> dumped their Minolta lenses.

You're speaking from pure ignorance of how the Max 7D is designed. It
is a photographers camera, not yet another 6 or 8 Mpix wonder. The only
two cameras that are comparable are the 20D, 10D and D70 (Possibly the
*istD).

At that, things that require a dive into the menus on the D70 and 20D
are a switch or lever on the 7D. It's made to work, not waste time in
menus.

For example on the D70 and 20D setting exp comp requires a menu item.

On the 7D, just set it using the dedicated dial. Same for FEC. Use the
dedicated dial.

"Dumped" lenses? Considering that 3 of my 6 pro lenses are better or
equal than/to their Canon or Nikon counterparts, why the hell would I
dump them?

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 2:34:36 PM

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

Albert Nurick wrote:

> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in news:D 3glsv$6hu$3
> @inews.gazeta.pl:
>
>
>>I completely fail to grasp why power up time is so overwhelmingly
>>important. But then I'm into it for the photography. (It's less than 2
>>seconds, BTW).
>
>
> If you miss candid shots while waiting for the camera, it matters.

See my other replies in this respect. I'm hardly worried.



--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 2:46:52 PM

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

Albert Nurick wrote:

> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in
> news:D 3gi58$htr$1@inews.gazeta.pl:
>
>
>> Albert Nurick wrote:
>>
>>> Perhaps a $2500 DSLR isn't the market alternative to a $1000
>>> camera?
>>
>> Check your prices, your're off by a Texas mile.
>
>
> I was comparing common prices from reputable US-based sources; you
> can certainly find either for less.
>
>
>>> Compared to the 20D, the interesting features of the Minolta are
>>> the built-in antishake and the big LCD. Other than that, it's a
>>> D60 competitor in a 20D world.
>>
>> That's what I said, Bub, plus the controls which are photographer
>> oriented, not geek oriented.
>
>
> These days, what's the difference? Photoshop skills vs. Darkroom
> skills?

Neither. Photographic skills come way ahead of either.

>
>
>>> (What's not so great is 6MP vs 8MP, 1/4000 max shutter speed vs
>>> 1/8000, 2.7 FPS vs 5.0 fps, and 2.6 seconds power up vs. 0.3
>>> seconds.)
>>
>> I hope you realize that none of those parameters is very meaningful
>> to a photographer?
>
>
> I'm a photographer, and they matter to me. More pixels are a good
> thing; you can a bit more. Being able to open up your lens an extra
> stop in bright sunlight can be important in sunny outdoor settings to
> control DOF, and if you do any sports or action photography,
> responsiveness is very important.
>
> (If they're not important to the types of shots you take, then these
> factors aren't limitations for you.)

Of course they are. But shooting at f/2.8 at ISO 100 requires 1/3200 in
bright sunny conditions. So 1/4000 is enough. 1/8000 would be very
rare. I carry a 2 stop ND with me at all times in any case.

If you do sports, your finger is on the shutter, depressed. You are
(regardless of camera lag time) forced to shoot slightly ahead of
anticipated action. IOW, startup time is meaningless. Good sports
photography is not done with machine guns.

The reason film cameras (such as my Maxxum 9) have shutter speeds of
1/12,000 is that people might be caught with faster film in bright
situtations. Digital obviates the need for high shutter speeds in most
cases. Don't forget that 20 years ago, 1/2000 was considered very fast.
Of course ISO 25 film was still a favourite then, and not many people
had fast zooms as they do today.

You can state the "Canon or Nikon" or nothing all you want, but the fact
is that Pentax and Minolta have great products. It is to everyone's
advantage that there is competition.

Cheers,
Alan.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 2:50:08 PM

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

Albert Nurick wrote:

> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in news:D 3gqhp$t6e$1
> @inews.gazeta.pl:
>
>
>>andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid wrote:

>>>Three years _before_ the F4. Of course you're right, Alan -- not
>>>totally insane at all.
>>
>>The shooting line at sports events says it all.
>
>
> Filled with photographers, none of whom have need for 5fps, right? ;-)

The point is that Nikon have lost a large professional segment.

Good sports photogs don't machine gun as it doesn't allow precise
control of the instant of action. Try to get a "ball on bat" shot at 5
fps (or even 10 fps) is a lot less certain than skilled anticipation of
the shot.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 2:51:47 PM

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

Albert Nurick wrote:



>
> So I gathered, but I chose to treat you like a gentleman.

It takes one to do so, so obviously it flew over my head.



--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 7:05:53 PM

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

Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

> For example on the D70 and 20D setting exp comp requires a menu item.

Not on the D70 it doesn't, no. That'd be a bit of a show-stopper.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
!