Re: slightly off-topic...or not (re cameras)
You and I are both correct, because it comes down to the cameras one
has experienced. My old Panasonic from 2002 had at least 1 sec delay.
My new one from this year is instant. Yet I read about one recent
model (can't remember the brand) last week that had 3 seconds delay!
That's why I say to try them out and go with what serves you best.
For me, digital is just a reconnaissance tool when exploring for large
format film opportunities.
On 30/06/2009, at 9:31 AM, Paul Viapiano wrote:
I know, I understand...but even with my very early Canon D30 dSLR
there is virtually no lag, and with my wife's 3 year old ELPH same
thing...
It's basically not a factor with cameras of the last few years, in
my estimation...unless we're talking $100 and below price points...no?
----- Original Message ----- From: "Bruce White" <b_white@westlandhigh.school.nz
>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca>
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 2:17 PM
Subject: 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.
--------------------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------
|