Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Canon Lens for DSLR

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
May 1, 2005 5:29:15 PM

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

Hi All.

I am still debating over the Canon 20D or the Rebel XT. With either of
these cameras, I plan to use the few lens that I am already using on the
Elan II-e that I have. They are:

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II AF
Canon EF 35 - 80 mm 1:4 - 5.6 Ultrasonic AF
Quantary 70-300mm f4 - 5.6 with Macro AF

I am not a professional photographer, as my lens collection shows (although
I do also have some cool lens (FD style) for my old AE-1 Program :)  ). Even
those these lens have proved fine for me on the film camera, are they junk
on the digital side? I realize that I will receive a "kit" lens with either
camera I choose. I understand these lens will now become different mm, like
the 50mm will become something like a 60mm etc..

As a side note:
Reason why I wish I could afford the 20D over the XT:
Faster shutter speed (1/8000 versus 1/4000)
Slightly larger body feels more comfortable/natural in my hands (about 1/2
inch all around, heavier).
Battery has more shot capability before recharge is needed

Thanks in advance for any feedback and comments.

More about : canon lens dslr

Anonymous
May 1, 2005 5:29:16 PM

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

"DelphiCoder" <delphicoder@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:LQ4de.6248$eC.1785@trnddc07...
> Hi All.
>
> I am still debating over the Canon 20D or the Rebel XT. With either of
> these cameras, I plan to use the few lens that I am already using on the
> Elan II-e that I have. They are:
>
> Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II AF
> Canon EF 35 - 80 mm 1:4 - 5.6 Ultrasonic AF
> Quantary 70-300mm f4 - 5.6 with Macro AF
>
> I am not a professional photographer, as my lens collection shows
> (although
> I do also have some cool lens (FD style) for my old AE-1 Program :)  ).
> Even
> those these lens have proved fine for me on the film camera, are they junk
> on the digital side? I realize that I will receive a "kit" lens with
> either
> camera I choose. I understand these lens will now become different mm,
> like
> the 50mm will become something like a 60mm etc..
>
> As a side note:
> Reason why I wish I could afford the 20D over the XT:
> Faster shutter speed (1/8000 versus 1/4000)
> Slightly larger body feels more comfortable/natural in my hands (about 1/2
> inch all around, heavier).
> Battery has more shot capability before recharge is needed
>
> Thanks in advance for any feedback and comments.
>
>
First off, you can buy the cameras "body only," you don't have to buy them
with a lens in a kit. With the Rebel XT, that kit lens is the 18-55
f4.5-5.6, a lightweight, cheaply built lens with better than expected image
quality, considering the $100 premium over the body only. With the 20D, you
have a choice. For $100 more than the body only, you get that same 18-55
lens. For $500 more, you get the 17-85 f4.5-5.6 IS USM, an excellent lens
with image stabilization and "true" ring USM.
Second, the focal length of the old lenses doesn't change, but the
equivalent field of view does. For instance, your 50mm f1.8 on the 20D
gives the same field of view as an 85mm lens would on your Elan IIE. So,
the new 17-85 IS on the 20D acts like the old 28-135 IS did on a film
camera.
As far as lens quality goes, your 50mm f1.8 will be fine, I'm not so sure
about the 35-80, it's not a lens I'm familiar with. I'll say this, we found
my wife's 28-105 to be rather inadequate on the 20D vs. the 10D and her Elan
II, and it had a better reputation than the 35-80. (We bought her a 28-135
IS, like the one I've been using since the days of the A2) If you found the
quality of the Quantaray ok, it will suffer on the digital body. And it may
not even work, Quantaray and Sigma lenses have a reputation for not working
on Canon cameras designed after the lens was produced. From what I've
heard, Retz/Quantaray won't rechip a lens so it will work, either.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
May 1, 2005 5:29:16 PM

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

A comment on your side note:
The faster shutter speed would require faster lenes that tend to be
more expensive. The battery pack for the XT (cheaper than the
differential in price with the 20D) would solve the small body and
battery inadequecy problems.
Related resources
Anonymous
May 1, 2005 5:56:45 PM

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

Thanks for the info on the Quantary. I will take the lens with me the next
time I go to look at both models. The last place I looked, I asked about the
Quantary. They no longer carry it in that store, but offer Tamron (sp?) now.
I am assuming, and not trying to start a brand war here, that Sigma, Tamron,
and Quantary are all pretty much the same?

I am thinking of taking the three lens that I have and try them out in the
store before I buy the camera. That is, if they would even let me do that.
It would be great if someplace "rented" these things for a weekend.

Thanks again for the heads up.


"Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message
news:J65de.356$eU.149@fed1read07...
> First off, you can buy the cameras "body only," you don't have to buy them
> with a lens in a kit. With the Rebel XT, that kit lens is the 18-55
> f4.5-5.6, a lightweight, cheaply built lens with better than expected
image
> quality, considering the $100 premium over the body only. With the 20D,
you
> have a choice. For $100 more than the body only, you get that same 18-55
> lens. For $500 more, you get the 17-85 f4.5-5.6 IS USM, an excellent lens
> with image stabilization and "true" ring USM.
> Second, the focal length of the old lenses doesn't change, but the
> equivalent field of view does. For instance, your 50mm f1.8 on the 20D
> gives the same field of view as an 85mm lens would on your Elan IIE. So,
> the new 17-85 IS on the 20D acts like the old 28-135 IS did on a film
> camera.
> As far as lens quality goes, your 50mm f1.8 will be fine, I'm not so sure
> about the 35-80, it's not a lens I'm familiar with. I'll say this, we
found
> my wife's 28-105 to be rather inadequate on the 20D vs. the 10D and her
Elan
> II, and it had a better reputation than the 35-80. (We bought her a
28-135
> IS, like the one I've been using since the days of the A2) If you found
the
> quality of the Quantaray ok, it will suffer on the digital body. And it
may
> not even work, Quantaray and Sigma lenses have a reputation for not
working
> on Canon cameras designed after the lens was produced. From what I've
> heard, Retz/Quantaray won't rechip a lens so it will work, either.
>
> --
> Skip Middleton
> http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
>
>
Anonymous
May 1, 2005 5:58:55 PM

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

Good points. My Elan II-e only goes to 4000. Thanks!

"Uday Jain" <udayjain@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1114955730.618980.67750@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> A comment on your side note:
> The faster shutter speed would require faster lenes that tend to be
> more expensive. The battery pack for the XT (cheaper than the
> differential in price with the 20D) would solve the small body and
> battery inadequecy problems.
>
Anonymous
May 1, 2005 6:15:21 PM

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

On Sun, 01 May 2005 13:29:15 GMT, "DelphiCoder"
<delphicoder@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Hi All.
>
> I am still debating over the Canon 20D or the Rebel XT. With either of
>these cameras, I plan to use the few lens that I am already using on the
>Elan II-e that I have. They are:
>
>Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II AF
>Canon EF 35 - 80 mm 1:4 - 5.6 Ultrasonic AF
>Quantary 70-300mm f4 - 5.6 with Macro AF
>
>I am not a professional photographer, as my lens collection shows (although
>I do also have some cool lens (FD style) for my old AE-1 Program :)  ). Even
>those these lens have proved fine for me on the film camera, are they junk
>on the digital side? I realize that I will receive a "kit" lens with either

Don't bother with buying a Kit. Just buy a body and put the saving
toward a good lens.

I just bought the body (from Amazon very good deal when using their
card)


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

"A combat photographer should be able to make you see the
color of blood in black and white"


David Douglas Duncan
Speaking on why in Vietnam
he worked only in black and white
http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/exhibitions/online/ddd/
Anonymous
May 1, 2005 11:52:37 PM

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

On Sunday 01 May 2005 06:29, DelphiCoder wrote:

> I am still debating over the Canon 20D or the Rebel XT. With either
> of
> these cameras, I plan to use the few lens that I am already using on
> the Elan II-e that I have. They are:
>
> Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II AF
> Canon EF 35 - 80 mm 1:4 - 5.6 Ultrasonic AF
> Quantary 70-300mm f4 - 5.6 with Macro AF

That Quantary would make a better paperweight than a lens; It's too
light to be a proper doorstop.

> I am not a professional photographer, as my lens collection shows
> (although I do also have some cool lens (FD style) for my old AE-1
> Program :)  ). Even those these lens have proved fine for me on the
> film camera, are they junk on the digital side? I realize that I will
> receive a "kit" lens with either camera I choose. I understand these
> lens will now become different mm, like the 50mm will become something
> like a 60mm etc..

You can't use FD lenses on today's Canon AF cameras, film or digital.
Canon changed their lens mount when they went AF. But even though FD
lenses are old, optically they are excellent lenses. They and that
AE-1 and a 100 speed film will resolve more detail than an 8MP digital.
The average agreed consensus is that it takes about a 22 MP digital to
equal the resolution of 100 speed 35mm film.

> As a side note:
> Reason why I wish I could afford the 20D over the XT:
> Faster shutter speed (1/8000 versus 1/4000)

What are you planning on photographing at those speeds? Bullets in
flight? Warp driven starships? You are being seduced by numbers.
Don't fall prey to that marketing ploy. You'll have little need for
such high shutter speeds. Make them a low priority in your overall
decision making process.

> Slightly larger body feels more comfortable/natural in my hands (about
> 1/2 inch all around, heavier).

If the camera feels wrong or unconmfortable in your hands, it's not for
you.

> Battery has more shot capability before recharge is needed

For the difference in the price, you can buy a lot of batteries.


--
Stefan Patric
NoLife Polymath Group
tootek2@yahoo.com
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 12:26:28 AM

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

"DelphiCoder" <delphicoder@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:xe5de.2307$6q1.666@trnddc09...
> Thanks for the info on the Quantary. I will take the lens with me the next
> time I go to look at both models. The last place I looked, I asked about
> the
> Quantary. They no longer carry it in that store, but offer Tamron (sp?)
> now.
> I am assuming, and not trying to start a brand war here, that Sigma,
> Tamron,
> and Quantary are all pretty much the same?
>
> I am thinking of taking the three lens that I have and try them out in the
> store before I buy the camera. That is, if they would even let me do that.
> It would be great if someplace "rented" these things for a weekend.
>
> Thanks again for the heads up.
>
>

Sigma and Tamron both make lenses for Ritz that are sold under the Quantaray
name.
If the store won't let you try your lenses on the camera before you buy, go
somewhere else.
BTW, if you're buying from Ritz, you can probably do better elsewhere, or
from B&H, Adorama or some others online. For instance, Calumet, if you have
one in your area, beats Ritz' prices all hollow, better service, more
selection, and matches B&H's prices...

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 5:44:00 AM

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

Stefan Patric wrote:
> On Sunday 01 May 2005 06:29, DelphiCoder wrote:

>>As a side note:
>>Reason why I wish I could afford the 20D over the XT:
>>Faster shutter speed (1/8000 versus 1/4000)
>
>
> What are you planning on photographing at those speeds? Bullets in
> flight? Warp driven starships? You are being seduced by numbers.
> Don't fall prey to that marketing ploy. You'll have little need for
> such high shutter speeds. Make them a low priority in your overall
> decision making process.

Except that a faster shutter speed allows you to use a larger aperture
in light, and you might want that to get a particular depth of field
effect. Although, I guess you could just use filters to block out some
of the light for the same effect??
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 10:58:33 AM

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

"Randy W. Sims" <RandyS@ThePierianSpring.org> wrote in message
news:na2dnVCN-q28I-jfRVn_vg@giganews.com...
> Stefan Patric wrote:
>> On Sunday 01 May 2005 06:29, DelphiCoder wrote:
>
>>>As a side note:
>>>Reason why I wish I could afford the 20D over the XT:
>>>Faster shutter speed (1/8000 versus 1/4000)
>>
>>
>> What are you planning on photographing at those speeds? Bullets in
>> flight? Warp driven starships? You are being seduced by numbers. Don't
>> fall prey to that marketing ploy. You'll have little need for
>> such high shutter speeds. Make them a low priority in your overall
>> decision making process.
>
> Except that a faster shutter speed allows you to use a larger aperture in
> light, and you might want that to get a particular depth of field effect.
> Although, I guess you could just use filters to block out some of the
> light for the same effect??

I suspect that not many shots are actually taken above 1/1500th. <flame suit
on>
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 2:39:36 PM

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

Randy W. Sims wrote:

> Except that a faster shutter speed allows you to use a larger aperture
> in light, and you might want that to get a particular depth of field
> effect. Although, I guess you could just use filters to block out some
> of the light for the same effect??

Twenty years ago people resorted to ND filters if neccesary... top
shutter speeds of 1/1000 or 1/2000 were common. People still used
slower films (ISO 25) so it was less of an issue than more recent times
where ISO 100 is common, and many use ISO 400 films as their mainstay.

My Maxxum 9 has a top shutter speed of 1/12,000. I used it once doing
shaddow graphs of birds and leaves against a slightly smoke diffused
sun. At that I was at f/32 and had a 2 stop ND in the lens.

It is rare (I usually shoot ISO 100 films) that I have a shutter speed
faster than 1/2000. For my Maxxum 7D (1/4000 top speed) if I was in
trouble I would just throw on an ND to get the speed down. Those two
stops effectively bring it up to 1/16,000 which is much more than enough...

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
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 2:41:38 PM

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

"Stefan Patric" <writeme@addressbelow.com> wrote in message
news:2xhde.10104$_K.5452@fed1read03...
> What are you planning on photographing at those speeds? Bullets in
> flight?

Actually, I did want to try that.
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 2:58:55 PM

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

DelphiCoder wrote:

> "Stefan Patric" <writeme@addressbelow.com> wrote in message
> news:2xhde.10104$_K.5452@fed1read03...
>
>> What are you planning on photographing at those speeds? Bullets in
>> flight?
>
>
> Actually, I did want to try that.

The shutter speed has nothing to do with it. Even at 1/8,000, a high
powered bullet (3000 fps) will travel over 4 inches over that time. A
more common speed bullet will travel 1.5 inches.

Further, don't forget that at high shutter speeds a "slit" is travelling
across the frame.

You need a specialty strobe with high power and very short cycle at a
high ISO.

Open the shutter up in a dark room and fire the bullet (into a suitable
backstop [no, not your MIL]).

Some kind of trigger device (microphone or laser based) and a
controllable delay circuit to trigger the strobe.

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
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 8:15:53 PM

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

On Sun, 01 May 2005 14:15:21 GMT, John A Stovall
<johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> Don't bother with buying a Kit. Just buy a body and put the saving
> toward a good lens.

I'll weigh in on the other side. The O.P. seems to like inexpensive
lenses, and he doesn't own anything nearly as wide as the kit lens.
I think that for him, the kit lens is a good value.

--
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
May 2, 2005 9:00:30 PM

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

On Monday 02 May 2005 07:58, Alan Browne wrote:

> DelphiCoder wrote:
>
>> "Stefan Patric" <writeme@addressbelow.com> wrote in message
>> news:2xhde.10104$_K.5452@fed1read03...
>>
>>> What are you planning on photographing at those speeds? Bullets in
>>> flight?
>>
>>
>> Actually, I did want to try that.
>
> The shutter speed has nothing to do with it. Even at 1/8,000, a high
> powered bullet (3000 fps) will travel over 4 inches over that time. A
> more common speed bullet will travel 1.5 inches.

Okay. Bullets are out. All the shooting required to calibrate
everything would probably scare the hell of neighbors anyway. But how
far would a starship traveling at, say, Warp 3 go in 1/8000 sec?
Inquiring minds want to know. ;-)

> Further, don't forget that at high shutter speeds a "slit" is
> travelling across the frame.

Actually, with these types of high speed shutters, the slit travels
vertically from the bottom of the frame (the top of the picture. It's
upside down, remember.) to the top.

> You need a specialty strobe with high power and very short cycle at a
> high ISO.

Yes, a special strobe, but it doesn't need to recycle fast. It just
must have a very, and I mean VERY, short flash duration like on the
order of one millionth of a second.

> Open the shutter up in a dark room and fire the bullet (into a
> suitable backstop [no, not your MIL]).
>
> Some kind of trigger device (microphone or laser based) and a
> controllable delay circuit to trigger the strobe.

Either method will work. It just takes more calculations to use sound
to trigger the strobe than it does to use light. You can even use an
electronic timer circuit wired to the trigger of the gun.

--
Stefan Patric
NoLife Polymath Group
tootek2@yahoo.com
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 10:13:09 PM

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

"DelphiCoder" <delphicoder@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:xe5de.2307$6q1.666@trnddc09...

> I am thinking of taking the three lens that I have and try them out in the
> store before I buy the camera. That is, if they would even let me do that.
> It would be great if someplace "rented" these things for a weekend.
>
As far as renting, Calumet has both the Rebel and 20D for rent in my area,
(San Diego) you might check with stores in your area to see if there are any
available for rental...

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
May 3, 2005 6:58:26 AM

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

In article <na2dnVCN-q28I-jfRVn_vg@giganews.com>,
Randy W. Sims <RandyS@ThePierianSpring.org> wrote:

>> What are you planning on photographing at those speeds? Bullets in
>> flight? Warp driven starships? You are being seduced by numbers.
>> Don't fall prey to that marketing ploy. You'll have little need for
>> such high shutter speeds. Make them a low priority in your overall
>> decision making process.
>
>Except that a faster shutter speed allows you to use a larger aperture
>in light, and you might want that to get a particular depth of field
>effect. Although, I guess you could just use filters to block out some
>of the light for the same effect??

A heck of a lot of my photos are going to be Arizona landscapes, taken
at midday, in the summer. I'm pretty sure fast shutters will be useful
to me.
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 8:33:40 AM

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

On Mon, 02 May 2005 17:00:30 -0700, Stefan Patric
<writeme@addressbelow.com> wrote:
>
> But how far would a starship traveling at, say, Warp 3 go in 1/8000 sec?
> Inquiring minds want to know. ;-)

That's 3x the speed of light, yes?

If so, about 112.5 kilometers, or 70 miles, according to my
calculations. You'll need an awfully wide lens to keep all
of that in your frame. :-)

--
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
May 3, 2005 1:56:04 PM

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

Stefan Patric wrote:
>
> Actually, with these types of high speed shutters, the slit travels
> vertically from the bottom of the frame (the top of the picture. It's
> upside down, remember.) to the top.

Yeah, and so? You're still not going to catch much of the bullet. (In
my camera the travel is top to bottom).

>
>
>>You need a specialty strobe with high power and very short cycle at a
>>high ISO.
>
>
> Yes, a special strobe, but it doesn't need to recycle fast. It just

By cycle I mean discharge cycle (duration as you said). Most camera
strobes discharge over 1/10,000 to 2/1000 of a second. You will need
1/50,000 - 1/100,000.

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
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 2:19:36 PM

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

Ben Rosengart wrote:

> On Mon, 02 May 2005 17:00:30 -0700, Stefan Patric
> <writeme@addressbelow.com> wrote:
>
>>But how far would a starship traveling at, say, Warp 3 go in 1/8000 sec?
>>Inquiring minds want to know. ;-)
>
>
> That's 3x the speed of light, yes?

I believe it's an exponential in the pulp-"science"-fiction that is Star
Trek.

>
> If so, about 112.5 kilometers, or 70 miles, according to my
> calculations. You'll need an awfully wide lens to keep all
> of that in your frame. :-)

Relatvity would also have apparent length of the bullet getting quite
short. A 2 cm long bullet at 99.999% C would appear to you (standing
still as it went by) to be 90 micrometers long. Get your macro.

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
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 2:50:13 PM

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

On Mon, 02 May 2005 17:00:30 -0700, Stefan Patric
<writeme@addressbelow.com> wrote:

>On Monday 02 May 2005 07:58, Alan Browne wrote:
>
>> DelphiCoder wrote:
>>
>>> "Stefan Patric" <writeme@addressbelow.com> wrote in message
>>> news:2xhde.10104$_K.5452@fed1read03...
>>>
>>>> What are you planning on photographing at those speeds? Bullets in
>>>> flight?
>>>
>>>
>>> Actually, I did want to try that.
>>
>> The shutter speed has nothing to do with it. Even at 1/8,000, a high
>> powered bullet (3000 fps) will travel over 4 inches over that time. A
>> more common speed bullet will travel 1.5 inches.
>
>Okay. Bullets are out. All the shooting required to calibrate
>everything would probably scare the hell of neighbors anyway. But how
>far would a starship traveling at, say, Warp 3 go in 1/8000 sec?
>Inquiring minds want to know. ;-)
>
>> Further, don't forget that at high shutter speeds a "slit" is
>> travelling across the frame.
>
>Actually, with these types of high speed shutters, the slit travels
>vertically from the bottom of the frame (the top of the picture. It's
>upside down, remember.) to the top.
>
>> You need a specialty strobe with high power and very short cycle at a
>> high ISO.
>
>Yes, a special strobe, but it doesn't need to recycle fast. It just
>must have a very, and I mean VERY, short flash duration like on the
>order of one millionth of a second.

Most highspeed photography now doesn't depend on the strobe
speed of a light. I've seen it. The light comes on for a couple
seconds, the speed of the camera is accomplished by a ultra high
speed motor spinning a cylindrical mirror (polygonal?) that provides
the "strobe" across a film plane. It's used in conjunction with a
shutter.
If you want to capture a bullet in flight and aren't interested
in things like capturing a supersonic shock wave, you can detune the
bullet speed by reducing the powder charge. Some .45 cal. ammo fps is
well under 1000.
-Rich
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 7:01:38 PM

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

On Mon, 02 May 2005 17:00:30 -0700, Stefan Patric <writeme@addressbelow.com> wrote:

>On Monday 02 May 2005 07:58, Alan Browne wrote:
>
>> DelphiCoder wrote:
>>

>Okay. Bullets are out. All the shooting required to calibrate
>everything would probably scare the hell of neighbors anyway. But how
>far would a starship traveling at, say, Warp 3 go in 1/8000 sec?
>Inquiring minds want to know. ;-)
>

Well, it would actually depend on which generation of Star Trek you used.

Light speed = 299,792,458 meters per second

Okay below is a chart depicting the number of times light speed you would be traveling at each warp speed. Broken down to the various episodes, as in the
Original Star Trek the technology was not as good.






Warp Speed Comparison Chart
Warp Factor Number Of Times The Speed Of Light
ST ST- TNG/DS9/VOY
1 1 1
2 8 10
3 27 39
4 64 102
5 125 215
6 216 392
7 343 656
8 512 1,024
9 729 1,516
9.2 779 1,649
9.6 885 1,909
9.9 970 3,053
9.99 997 7,912
10 1,000 <INFINITE>
TRANSWARP
11 1,331
12 1,728
13 2,197
14 2,744
15 3,375
16 4,096
17 4,913
18 5,832
19 6,859
20 8,000
21 <INFINITE>
TRANSWARP



so therefore at warp 3 in the ORIGINAL ST you would be traveling at 8,094,396,366 meters per second, so in 1/8000 of a second your star ship would have moved
1,011,799.54575 meters or 628.7 miles thereby taking you well beyond the range of any standard camera lens you could hold in your two hands.

HOWEVER at warp 3 in the Next Generation Star Trek series you would be traveling at 11,691,905,862 meters per second, so in 1/8000 of a second your star ship
would have moved 1,461,488.23275 meters or 908.13 miles.

In my opinion using either system would not show anything on film even if you managed to get your shutter open while the ship was in frame, it might just
decrease your available light by a little bit and give a decent picture of what ever was in front of your camera.



(these number were taken from the following locations...so if they are wrong, blame someone else...)
warp speeds - http://www.star-fleet.com/ed/warp-chart.html
light speed - http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/guidry/violence/lightspeed.h...
mathematical conversions - http://www.easysurf.cc/cnvert.htm#memi2
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 7:01:39 PM

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

callme annie wrote:

> Original Star Trek the technology was not as good.

It still isn't.
Anonymous
May 4, 2005 12:33:44 AM

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

james <fishbowl@conservatory.com> wrote:

> A heck of a lot of my photos are going to be Arizona landscapes, taken
> at midday, in the summer.

Midday is the worst time to take Arizona landscapes, incidentally.

> I'm pretty sure fast shutters will be useful to me.

You'll probably be using small apertures anyway.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
!