Look at this guy's shot with older Olympus

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

RichA wrote:
> 1/18000th of second!
> -Rich
>
> http://www.pbase.com/daddyo/image/42934677

Is that speed possible? It doesn't seem necessary. I did a google search
and came up with the following link:

<http://encarta.msn.com/sidebar_461501191/1939_Entomology.html>

It looks like 1/500 or a tad faster would be plenty to stop the wings.

Randy.

--
First Shots:
<http://thepierianspring.org/gallery/>

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

Randy W. Sims wrote:

> It looks like 1/500 or a tad faster would be plenty to stop the wings.

The EXIF claims : 1/18,000 as shutter speed. Strange. The E-20 does
1/640 max. Maybe the camera can determine the flash duration from the
amount of power used and calculate the duration of the flash?
(non-linear and then some).

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.

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

Alan Browne wrote:
> Alan Browne wrote:
>
>> Randy W. Sims wrote:
>>
>>> It looks like 1/500 or a tad faster would be plenty to stop the wings.
>>
>>
>>
>> The EXIF claims : 1/18,000 as shutter speed. Strange. The E-20 does
>> 1/640 max. Maybe the camera can determine the flash duration from the
>> amount of power used and calculate the duration of the flash?
>> (non-linear and then some).
>
>
> Yep ... the E-20N version can go to 1/18,000 shutter speed (electronic
> shutter). So just have to fire the flash before the "shutter" pass and
> wait for the flash to reach peak discharge (about 100 microsecs) and
> then run the shutter pass.

Hmm, that's interesting. I don't remember reading anything on electronic
shutters. I've read a good deal about the various types of mechanical
shutters. What is an electronic shutter? Electronically turning the
sensor "on"/"off"? or turning the feed from the sensor to the CPU on/off?

That still seems incredibly fast. Faster than necessary, and too fast to
get adequate light to the sensor. But my knowledge and experience are
still extremely limited.

Looks like a short focal length. I'm guessing the camera was on a tripod
and he used a remote to fire? That's another interesting idea to try;
photographing insects. Right now I find I'm doing a lot of "imitation"
type stuff for learning exercises. That way I have something to compare
my photos with.

Randy.

--
First Shots:
<http://thepierianspring.org/gallery/>

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

In article <tMGdnROTN5By6eTfRVn_vg@giganews.com>,
"Randy W. Sims" <RandyS@ThePierianSpring.org> wrote:

> RichA wrote:
> > 1/18000th of second!
> > -Rich
> >
> > http://www.pbase.com/daddyo/image/42934677
>
> Is that speed possible? It doesn't seem necessary. I did a google search
> and came up with the following link:
>
> <http://encarta.msn.com/sidebar_461501191/1939_Entomology.html>
>
> It looks like 1/500 or a tad faster would be plenty to stop the wings.
>
The encarta sites says 160 to 200 beats per second for a honey bee.

That means 1/200 of a second to go through a full cycle.

at 1/500th, the wings would move through 2/5ths of a full cycle.

To "freeze" the wings you have to have the shutter time well less than
the time it takes for the wing to move a distance equal to its own
thickness.

close examination of the picture might lead one to believe the wingtips
are just a little more blurry than the rest of the bee which could
indicate 18000 isn't totally freezing the wings.

Cool picture though.

mgg
> Randy.
--
sig goes here

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

"Michael Gardner" <mgg@prairienet.org.xyz> wrote in message
news5ddfl$9fq$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
> In article <tMGdnROTN5By6eTfRVn_vg@giganews.com>,
> "Randy W. Sims" <RandyS@ThePierianSpring.org> wrote:
>
>> RichA wrote:
>> > 1/18000th of second!
>> > -Rich
>> >
>> > http://www.pbase.com/daddyo/image/42934677
>>
>> Is that speed possible? It doesn't seem necessary. I did a google search
>> and came up with the following link:
>>
>> <http://encarta.msn.com/sidebar_461501191/1939_Entomology.html>
>>
>> It looks like 1/500 or a tad faster would be plenty to stop the wings.
>>
> The encarta sites says 160 to 200 beats per second for a honey bee.
>
> That means 1/200 of a second to go through a full cycle.
>
> at 1/500th, the wings would move through 2/5ths of a full cycle.
>
> To "freeze" the wings you have to have the shutter time well less than
> the time it takes for the wing to move a distance equal to its own
> thickness.
>
> close examination of the picture might lead one to believe the wingtips
> are just a little more blurry than the rest of the bee which could
> indicate 18000 isn't totally freezing the wings.
>
> Cool picture though.
>
> mgg
>> Randy.
> --
> sig goes here


I think it's dead and just stuck on a bit of wire...

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

Craig Marston wrote:

> "Michael Gardner" <mgg@prairienet.org.xyz> wrote in message
> news5ddfl$9fq$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
>
>>In article <tMGdnROTN5By6eTfRVn_vg@giganews.com>,
>>"Randy W. Sims" <RandyS@ThePierianSpring.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>RichA wrote:
>>>
>>>>1/18000th of second!
>>>>-Rich
>>>>
>>>>http://www.pbase.com/daddyo/image/42934677
>>>
>>
>>close examination of the picture might lead one to believe the wingtips
>>are just a little more blurry than the rest of the bee which could
>>indicate 18000 isn't totally freezing the wings.
>>
>>Cool picture though.
>>
>>>Randy.
>>
>
> I think it's dead and just stuck on a bit of wire...
>
>
>


That's a rather wide angle shot. I have been shooting bees and generally
waited till they land on a flower but this made me want to try. With ISO
cranked all the way to 1600 on a D70 I could only get to 1/8000 sec:
<http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Bay-Area/San-Francisco/our-garden/more/2005-05-05-bees>
I guess full sun would be somewhat better than bright cloudy weather.