Re: slightly off-topic...or not (re cameras)
Hi Paul
With digital cameras that is not entirely correct. They are a lot
better than they used to be, where you needed to anticipate a moment
by pressing the shutter before the event, but there is definitely a
time-lag involved in the processing/capturing of the image. My first
camera was so bad that my wife refused to use it because she kept
getting after-shots instead of the event. Our most recent camera is
much better and it is virtually unnoticeable. It was not a focussing
issue, but something to do with the digital capturing computation. It
definitely pays to try out a camera for that very issue before you buy
it. A lot of good reviews will also provide information on the lag for
various models.
regards
Bruce White
On 30/06/2009, at 9:04 AM, Paul Viapiano wrote:
Really, the lag thing is not so much an issue...I mean, with
autofocus, almost any camera needs a slight amount of time to do its
focus thing. The trick is to do a half-press which focuses the cam
and then click off your shot. The actual click takes no time at all,
there's no lag in the clicking, it's the autofocus...it's not an
issue at all.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Judy Seigel" <jseigel@panix.com>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca>
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 1:55 PM
Subject: Re: slightly off-topic...or not (re cameras)
Thanks so much to everybody for the encouraging (and wide range of)
replies. Last time, I followed list advice (from Tom.... wasn't
it?) which proved excellent, tho now we see the "revolution of
rising expectations." Then, no digital did rapid response, so we
didn't expect it. Now, it seems many can, so I NEED it. (And if I'd
had it last night, when we had Gay Pride on the block, I could have
caught & blown up to billboard size the lady who thought "gay
rights" included vomiting into my areaway for me to clean up. She
was literally blind drunk, but her enabler was, let's say,
disgruntled when I, um, interfered in a manner that might be called
"energetic.")
At this point.... what is it the Mets (or Yankees?) say?... "Wait
til next year"? Tho, experience is that just having the right
camera on hand can magically forestall all sorts of problems (by
brain waves probably).
I will meanwhile agree with Jeremy re "view finder." There is
allegedly a view finder on my Canon, but 1/3rd of it is blocked by
the lens and the rest shows only a squinty blur. But the LCD (if
that's what it is, I've just called it "the monitor"), which swings
out to whichever angle you want, is SUPERB, and the reason I chose
this model in the first place.
However, this weekend I had a houseguest whose camera was so
appealing it went to the top of my (preliminary) list -- (at least
I won't have to reproach myself for being impulsive). What charmed
on this one was exactly the viewing screen.... the entire back of
the camera. The image there is so bee-utiful we might not manage to
make a print as luscious.
That's the Canon Powershot SD 790IS, "Digital Elf." Friend didn't
have specifics on the time lag, but it seemed a fraction of a
second. She also has hers set for the largest possible file per
shot, so each is (approx.) 3 to 5 mgs, tho it could be smaller. (My
jpegs are 1-1/2 mgs... which in my innocence I've found enough. I
mean if it looks scant, photoshop can always dial in some more,
can't it? (I'm not trying to be Timothy Greenfield Sanders.)
My thought now, however, is that almost any small or smallish
camera could help prevent osteoporosis -- as they tend to keep us
walking, allegedly the *best* exercise. That RNC summer when I shot
all those T-shirts, I lost almost 10 pounds. (They found me again
since then, however. Maybe I haven't been shooting enough.)
Meanwhile, many thanks to all for the suggestions -- I'm making a
list, and then (with more thanks) will study the website.
Judy
On Sat, 27 Jun 2009, Jeremy Moore wrote:
Not everyone agrees. I prefer the LCD on the back of the camera to
the
IMO-useless optical viewfinders found on most point and shoots--I
have the
LX2 which doesn't have an optical viewfinder and I have never
wished it had
one. Then again, I prefer composing 2-3 feet away from my face as
the 4x5 is
my most used camera.
-jeremy-
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 6:51 PM, Linda Stinchfield <linda@turtlesilk.com
>wrote:
Now my new hobby horse-- do NOT get one without a viewfinder. I
just got a
new little Panasonic Lumix to carry in my purse, and I cannot see *
anything* in that d***d LCD window. Have gone back to lugging my
older,
larger Lumix around with me. Maybe it helps prevent osteoporosis.>>
Bruce White
b_white@westlandhigh.school.nz
Photography Department
Westland High School
PO Box 154
Hokitika
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
This email was sent using Telecom SchoolZone.
www.schoolzone.net.nz
This email has been scanned for viruses by Telecom SchoolZone,
but is not guaranteed to be virus-free.
--------------------------------------------------------------
|