OT: Revisiting 'Digital Cameras'

Recently got a pentax istD so's I can use all my old pentax lenses


--
Larry
Series 3 rust and holes



"Mother" <"@ {m} @"@101fc.net> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> It's nearing 'that time' when I'll need to be replacing my trusty
> digital camera (a very handy, not too bad quality Fuji Finepix).
>
> My criteria:
>
> * At least 6 megapixel - real, not 'interpolated' nonsense
> (may settle for 4).
>
> * High quality optics - IOW, decent lens(e)
>
> * Compact - like "forget it's in my pocket" small.
>
> * Take recharge batteries - AA or AAA - NOT some expensive prop cell.
>
> * Takes the pic when I press the shutter - not 1 sec later...
>
> * Good quality flash.
>
> * Screen on back.
>
> * Tripod 'screw' on the bottom.
>
> * Erm... fairly robust (humph).
>
> To give you an idea, my current camera measures 80mm x 70mm x 22mm and
> weighs 142g - I want something similar, but much, much better.
>
> I'd also like some good 'manual' control over DOF, F setting and the
> like. Ideally pressing the shutter button half way down will lock the
> exposure in auto mode.
>
> So, who can suggest wot? ;-)
>

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 22:22:12 +0000, Danny wrote:

> Which is why I added the part about memory card size and speed.

Not overly relevant to the boot time, the casio takes just as long to
boot with a CF card in as it does with a microdrive.

The time to process and store an image post exposure is longer with
the microdrive though.

--
Cheers [email protected]
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

"nevillef" <F_CK@FF_SPAMMERS.COM> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I was about to suggest you a get DSLR, prices are dropping all the
>time.....then I read the 'must be small' bit!!!

I recently had a Nikon D70 & it was indeed a great camera, just too big for
me!

>
> With a pro quality lens attached a DSLR starts to weigh in at several
> kilos- but then again the better quality CCD's and decent lenses mean way
> better pictures than most compacts will ever produce.
>
> You pays yer money....
>
> Nevillef

The Canon G6 is a very good camera & not silly money.

Nige

nikon 4100
currently on offer at my local asda store 146 ukp

On 2005-02-17, Simon Barr <[email protected]> wrote:

> I just remembered that my 602 has a setting to take a bunch of pictures,
> one after the other, five I think, did play with the setting when I got
> the camera.

You can set it to take as many pics as you want in quick succession
and it will store only the last 5, I've used it on many occasions to
compensate for the delay between shutter press and picture taking.
I look through the viewfinder with one eye and watch the scene with
the other and start firing when the car or whatever is about to come
into the scene, and stop when it leaves. I usually get at least one
useable pic.

As for Martin's pick list, I don't think he's going to get anything
that matches without throwing away the "cheap and compact"
requirements and going for a digital SLR like a Canon 300D or
similar.

--
For every expert, there is an equal but opposite expert

Wifey recently replaced our aging Finepix. Battery life had got down to
about 10 mins!

Pentax Optio 750Z. Bloody brilliant.

Pros: 7 megapixel, pentax lens, loads of control, bells and whistles
etc. Does not take standard batteries but battery life seems to be huge,
we've charged it just twice since Christmas! AND it comes with an
out-of-camera charger as standard. Dunno about robust but the screen
flips round like on a camcorder so it doesn't get scratched when in your
pocket. Sounds like a cat meowing when you turn it on.

Cons:
USB connection, so full-res TIFF files take ages to transfer. Would have
been nice if Firewire or USB2.

Mother wrote:
> It's nearing 'that time' when I'll need to be replacing my trusty
> digital camera (a very handy, not too bad quality Fuji Finepix).
>
> My criteria:
>
> * At least 6 megapixel - real, not 'interpolated' nonsense
> (may settle for 4).
>
> * High quality optics - IOW, decent lens(e)
>
> * Compact - like "forget it's in my pocket" small.
>
> * Take recharge batteries - AA or AAA - NOT some expensive prop cell.
>
> * Takes the pic when I press the shutter - not 1 sec later...
>
> * Good quality flash.
>
> * Screen on back.
>
> * Tripod 'screw' on the bottom.
>
> * Erm... fairly robust (humph).
>
> To give you an idea, my current camera measures 80mm x 70mm x 22mm and
> weighs 142g - I want something similar, but much, much better.
>
> I'd also like some good 'manual' control over DOF, F setting and the
> like. Ideally pressing the shutter button half way down will lock the
> exposure in auto mode.
>
> So, who can suggest wot? ;-)
>

On 2005-02-17, Danny <[email protected]> wrote:

> Which is why I added the part about memory card size and speed.
> Most of the time taken to capture an image (assuming the shutter is
> cocked to capture focus and exposure information) is in writing the
> data.

Digital cameras invariably take the picture to an internal buffer then
write it to the card afterwards, media type has no effect on the time
delay between pressing the button and the picture being *captured*.
Once the picture has been captured, *then* you have to wait for a bit
until the image is written to the media. Capturing the image takes as
long as it takes the shutter to fire, by definition. When you set the
shutter speed to 1/60th of a second, then you are really setting it to
spend just 1/60th of a second in capturing the image.

The issue here is the delay between the button being pressed and the
image capture starting (a.k.a. "shutter firing"), for example you try
to take a pic of a moving car and when it's in the centre of the
veiwfinder you press the button only to find that the captured picture
is of either a blank track or the back end of a car as it's moved so
far since you pressed the button.

Given the advances in electronics over the years, the cynic in me
thinks that this delay is no longer necessary but is introduced to
keep sales of higher-end cameras up, but I may be being a little
over-cynical there.

Fully mechanical SLRs like the Olympus OM4ti (IIRC) and also other
traditional film SLRs also suffer from a delay caused by the shutter
trigger mechanism, however it's *tiny* compared to the digital
problem. Even so you could still get "rt" versions of many film SLRs
that went to great pains to minimise this delay and were popular with
sports photographers.

A friend of mine has a Canon 300D, and says that the reaction time to
button presses is "instantaneous", but one person's instantaneous is
another person's wading through treacle. I tried taking pics with my
Fuji Finepix 602 at airshows and car races, and even when switching to
fully manual (focus and exposure) it was still rubbish. I had to
resort to the rapid-fire-and-keep-last-5 mode to avoid getting masses
of empty shots. At least the digital camera doesn't cost me a tenner
per film including processing though!

It might be worth trying the Canon 300D, it's expensive and large but
if my friend is right (and he uses the thing at airshows and is used
to high-end SLRs like EOS 3's) then it'll remove the delay and also
give you access to some very good optics.

For proper depth-of-field control you *have* to go to an SLR with a
"prime" lens, i.e. not a zoom lens, with such a lens you can set the
depth of field using the lens barrel markings. With canon kit you can
buy old 50mm lenses for less than 100 quid and put them on your
super-duper digital, however due to the difference in size between
35mm film and the CCD in most digital cameras, the lens barrel
markings will be out so you would have to do a bit of mental maths,
like multiply the distances by something like 1.3. Using lens barrel
markings is the key to composing a shot that uses focus as part of the
composition, not even depth-of-field preview can compensate for it.

In a digital camera, there's nothing to stop the manufacturers from
putting in a proper depth-of-field control, e.g. state that you want
1.3 metres to 5 metres in focus and it sets the focus and zoom
appropriately, but there's just no demand from the look of it.

--
For every expert, there is an equal but opposite expert

Dave Liquorice wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 22:22:12 +0000, Danny wrote:
>
>
>>Which is why I added the part about memory card size and speed.
>
>
> Not overly relevant to the boot time, the casio takes just as long to
> boot with a CF card in as it does with a microdrive.
>
> The time to process and store an image post exposure is longer with
> the microdrive though.
>

Sorry, I wasn't referring to the boot time, but the capture time once
the shutter has been pressed. Size of memory card and technology used
do play a part though, since the file system has to come up before
images can be shot/saved.

--
Regards,
Danny

http://www.gaggia-espresso.com (a purely hobby site)
http://www.dannyscoffee.com (UK advert for my mobile espresso service)
http://www.malabargold.co.uk (UK/European online ordering for Malabar
Gold blend)
swap Z for above characters in email address to reply

Ian Rawlings wrote:
> On 2005-02-17, Danny <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Which is why I added the part about memory card size and speed.
>> Most of the time taken to capture an image (assuming the shutter is
>> cocked to capture focus and exposure information) is in writing the
>> data.
>
> Digital cameras invariably take the picture to an internal buffer then
> write it to the card afterwards, media type has no effect on the time
> delay between pressing the button and the picture being *captured*.
> Once the picture has been captured, *then* you have to wait for a bit
> until the image is written to the media. Capturing the image takes as
> long as it takes the shutter to fire, by definition. When you set the
> shutter speed to 1/60th of a second, then you are really setting it to
> spend just 1/60th of a second in capturing the image.
>
> The issue here is the delay between the button being pressed and the
> image capture starting (a.k.a. "shutter firing"), for example you try
> to take a pic of a moving car and when it's in the centre of the
> veiwfinder you press the button only to find that the captured picture
> is of either a blank track or the back end of a car as it's moved so
> far since you pressed the button.
>
> Given the advances in electronics over the years, the cynic in me
> thinks that this delay is no longer necessary but is introduced to
> keep sales of higher-end cameras up, but I may be being a little
> over-cynical there.
>
> Fully mechanical SLRs like the Olympus OM4ti (IIRC) and also other
> traditional film SLRs also suffer from a delay caused by the shutter
> trigger mechanism, however it's *tiny* compared to the digital
> problem. Even so you could still get "rt" versions of many film SLRs
> that went to great pains to minimise this delay and were popular with
> sports photographers.
>
> A friend of mine has a Canon 300D, and says that the reaction time to
> button presses is "instantaneous", but one person's instantaneous is
> another person's wading through treacle. I tried taking pics with my
> Fuji Finepix 602 at airshows and car races, and even when switching to
> fully manual (focus and exposure) it was still rubbish. I had to
> resort to the rapid-fire-and-keep-last-5 mode to avoid getting masses
> of empty shots. At least the digital camera doesn't cost me a tenner
> per film including processing though!
>
> It might be worth trying the Canon 300D, it's expensive and large but
> if my friend is right (and he uses the thing at airshows and is used
> to high-end SLRs like EOS 3's) then it'll remove the delay and also
> give you access to some very good optics.
>
> For proper depth-of-field control you *have* to go to an SLR with a
> "prime" lens, i.e. not a zoom lens, with such a lens you can set the
> depth of field using the lens barrel markings. With canon kit you can
> buy old 50mm lenses for less than 100 quid and put them on your
> super-duper digital, however due to the difference in size between
> 35mm film and the CCD in most digital cameras, the lens barrel
> markings will be out so you would have to do a bit of mental maths,
> like multiply the distances by something like 1.3. Using lens barrel
> markings is the key to composing a shot that uses focus as part of the
> composition, not even depth-of-field preview can compensate for it.
>
> In a digital camera, there's nothing to stop the manufacturers from
> putting in a proper depth-of-field control, e.g. state that you want
> 1.3 metres to 5 metres in focus and it sets the focus and zoom
> appropriately, but there's just no demand from the look of it.

I tried the 300d & whilst it took great pictures, the build quality ins't great. I got a Nikon D70 & that
is a bloody ace camera.

Nige


--
Subaru WRX (The Bitch)

Series 3 Landrover 88" (Albert)

"If you tolerate this then your children will be next"

Ian Rawlings wrote:
>
> The issue here is the delay between the button being pressed and the
> image capture starting (a.k.a. "shutter firing"), for example you try
> to take a pic of a moving car and when it's in the centre of the
> veiwfinder you press the button only to find that the captured picture
> is of either a blank track or the back end of a car as it's moved so
> far since you pressed the button.

My Olympus mje-400 has a half way on the shutter what starts up the
autofocus and light setting stuff, which takes about a second, and
then when you close the button the rest of the way it takes instantly.
Works well for moving things but it takes a gentle touch as there is
no detent on it. Bike racing you need to focus on the track, watch the
display change and then as the right guy comes in sweep through with
him and click at the point you focused on. Very easy when you get used
to it.

nigelH

On 2005-02-19, Nigel Hewitt <[email protected]> wrote:

> My Olympus mje-400 has a half way on the shutter what starts up the
> autofocus and light setting stuff, which takes about a second, and
> then when you close the button the rest of the way it takes instantly.

Hmm, I doubt it's instant, otherwise you wouldn't need to sweep with
him, with a proper film-based SLR like an EOS 3 or even a 20 quid
Olympus OM40 you can watch the bike come into frame, wait till he gets
to the middle, and take the photo. With that kind of reaction time
you can then do fancy effects like motion blur where you *do* sweep
with him with a slightly slower exposure than you need so that the
bike (which is relatively stationary as you are sweeping with it)
comes out sharp while the background is blurred. You can't get that
kind of control with the current crop of digital cameras unless you
spend mucho dinero on a 400 quid digital version of a film camera that
used to sell for 70 quid!

Progress eh ;-)

--
For every expert, there is an equal but opposite expert

>I tried the 300d & whilst it took great pictures, the build quality ins't great. I got a Nikon D70 & that
>is a bloody ace camera.
>
>Nige

There is the EOS 10D which is virtually identical (in fact slightly
higher) spec but not in a stupid reflective plastic body!


--

Tim Hobbs

'58 Series 2 88" aka "Stig"
'77 101FC Ambulance aka "Burrt"
'03 Volvo V70

My Landies? http://www.seriesii.co.uk
Barcoding? http://www.bartec-systems.com
Tony Luckwill web archive at http://www.luckwill.com

Ian Rawlings wrote:
> Nigel Hewitt wrote:
>
>> My Olympus mje-400 has a half way on the shutter what starts up the
>> autofocus and light setting stuff, which takes about a second, and
>> then when you close the button the rest of the way it takes
>> instantly.
>
> Hmm, I doubt it's instant, otherwise you wouldn't need to sweep with
> him, with a proper film-based SLR like an EOS 3 or even a 20 quid
> Olympus OM40 you can watch the bike come into frame, wait till he gets
> to the middle, and take the photo.

*shrug*
I sweep because I need to frame it. The problem is me.
Digital camers do have a 'shutter' time. It is the period over
which the CCD integrates light but involves no moving parts.
If I am using the flash with the half push the delay is imperceptable.

It works for me.

nigelH

On or around Sun, 20 Feb 2005 08:31:32 +0000, Tim Hobbs
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>>I tried the 300d & whilst it took great pictures, the build quality ins't great. I got a Nikon D70 & that
>>is a bloody ace camera.
>>
>>Nige
>
>There is the EOS 10D which is virtually identical (in fact slightly
>higher) spec but not in a stupid reflective plastic body!

mind, none of these are much like what Martyn was after.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
"Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero" (sieze today, and put
as little trust as you can in tomorrow) Horace (65 - 8 BC) Odes, I.xi.8

On Saturday, in article
<[email protected]>
[email protected] "Ian Rawlings" wrote:

> On 2005-02-19, Nigel Hewitt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > My Olympus mje-400 has a half way on the shutter what starts up the
> > autofocus and light setting stuff, which takes about a second, and
> > then when you close the button the rest of the way it takes instantly.
>
> Hmm, I doubt it's instant, otherwise you wouldn't need to sweep with
> him, with a proper film-based SLR like an EOS 3 or even a 20 quid
> Olympus OM40 you can watch the bike come into frame, wait till he gets
> to the middle, and take the photo. With that kind of reaction time
> you can then do fancy effects like motion blur where you *do* sweep
> with him with a slightly slower exposure than you need so that the
> bike (which is relatively stationary as you are sweeping with it)
> comes out sharp while the background is blurred. You can't get that
> kind of control with the current crop of digital cameras unless you
> spend mucho dinero on a 400 quid digital version of a film camera that
> used to sell for 70 quid!
>
> Progress eh ;-)

My first air-show photos were taken on a camera which you can now get on
eBay for around thirty quid. 135mm lens maybe the same again.

There's a digital camera which will take the same lenses, sold for a
couple of thousand.

But that 85mm f2 is still a damn fine lens, 70 years after the optics
were designed.

--
David G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.

"I am Number Two," said Penfold. "You are Number Six."

On 2005-02-20, Nigel Hewitt <[email protected]> wrote:

> Digital camers do have a 'shutter' time. It is the period over
> which the CCD integrates light but involves no moving parts.

Some of them *do* have moving shutter parts, which puzzled me ;-) It's
mostly the lower-end cameras that don't use mechanical shutters, I did
find out the reason for this but it escapes me now. I think it's
something to do with the colour response of the CCD when it's
activated being different to when it's been going for a while or
sommat, so more expensive cameras keep the CCD going most of the time
and use a mechanical shutter. That's from memory though. I know that
all the digital SLR cameras use mechanical shutters, even my Fuji
Finepix S602Z has a mechanical shutter. Can't remember if my tiny
Minolta has or not.

But yes, all current cameras have an exposure time, which on film and
some digital cameras is how long the shutter is open for, and on some
digital cameras is the time that the CCD is active for.

> If I am using the flash with the half push the delay is
> imperceptable.

Is it a fairly recent camera? Maybe they've improved, my digital
cameras are all at least 2 years old now. There's no good reason to
have long delays between button presses and the beginning of the
exposure, not with modern technology. The fact that my S602Z still
has a delay even with manual-everything is just inexcuseable!

--
For every expert, there is an equal but opposite expert

On 2005-02-20, "David G. Bell" <[email protected]> wrote:

> But that 85mm f2 is still a damn fine lens, 70 years after the optics
> were designed.

Prime lenses (i.e. non-zoom) haven't really improved optically as
there's not much to them so an old prime lens is pretty much as good
as its new counterpart, apart from autofocus. Zoom lenses are another
matter, old zooms are pretty crummy compared to new ones, but most
people don't worry too much about the quality as they're good enough
for most purposes.

I still have an F1.4 50mm Olympus lens on an old OM2-SP, the last
camera I ever used to take serious photos. I used to have 4K's worth
of Canon autofocus lenses, flash guns, motor power boosters etc but I
always took better pictures on the old OM2-SP, so flogged the canon
gear on ebay as I never took good pictures with it. The Canon
pro-series 100-400 lens was the best zoom lens I'd ever used though,
great piece of kit.

--
For every expert, there is an equal but opposite expert

On 2005-02-19, Danny <[email protected]> wrote:

> Size of memory card and technology used do play a part though, since
> the file system has to come up before images can be shot/saved.

It only plays a part in how long it takes to save the image, *not* how
long it takes to shoot it. The image saved to card is a formatted
image, either TIFF or jpeg usually, and no CCD outputs a TIFF or
JPEG. The image is saved in raw pixel values to an internal buffer
then is written to the card as a TIFF or JPEG file.

--
For every expert, there is an equal but opposite expert

Austin Shackles wrote:
> On or around Sun, 20 Feb 2005 08:31:32 +0000, Tim Hobbs
> <[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
>
>>> I tried the 300d & whilst it took great pictures, the build quality
>>> ins't great. I got a Nikon D70 & that is a bloody ace camera.
>>>
>>> Nige
>>
>> There is the EOS 10D which is virtually identical (in fact slightly
>> higher) spec but not in a stupid reflective plastic body!
>
> mind, none of these are much like what Martyn was after.

True enough, but to be fair the G6 is what he needs & I'm gonna take mine to show him tomorrow. It is
easily the best 'amalgamation' of SLR & compact types available.

Nige

--
Subaru WRX (The Bitch)

Series 3 Landrover 88" (Albert)

"If you tolerate this then your children will be next"

On 2005-02-20, Ian Rawlings <[email protected]> wrote:

> Some of them *do* have moving shutter parts, which puzzled me ;-)
> It's mostly the lower-end cameras that don't use mechanical
> shutters, I did find out the reason for this but it escapes me now.

OK, I've dug up an explanation of why higher-end digital cameras use
mechanical shutters, and here it is, quoted verbatim;

----------------------------------------
A digital camera captures its image in several steps, depending on the
camera mode, and the exact technology of the detectors, the process of
capturing a picture is something like:

1) open the shutter for framing, focus, exposure, and white balance
calculation.

2) close the shutter, and charge all the CCD detectors to a known state.

3) open the shutter for a fixed time, and record the image by bleeding off
an amount of charge in each pixel that is proportional to the light
intensity.

4) close the shutter, and extract the digital image by sequentially
connecting each pixel to an A/D converter, and storing the resulting digital
value in the camera's internal memory.

5) color convert, sharpen, and compress the image before transferring it to
permanent memory.

Steps 2 and 4 must be done in darkness, for obvious reasons. Step 4 in
particular is relatively slow, since each pixel must be read sequentially,
converted to a digital value, and then stored in memory. Add to that the
constraint that all the pixels should be exposed simultaneously to avoid
distortion of moving objects, and the fact that the shutter can be extremely
small for most digital cameras, and a mechanical shutter is an excellent
solution.

Some low-resolution digital cameras do indeed use an electronic shutter.
The shutterless design works well for low resolution images where motion
distortion is acceptable, such as the Casio wrist watch camera and web.
These cameras are really digital video cameras, and the data rate is slow
enough to simply scan each pixel through an A/D converter in real time.

In principle, as technology improves, the same idea could be extended to
higher resolution cameras, but a mechanical shutter will probably always
offer a quantum leap in image quality over sequentially scanned images of
the same resolution.

--
Mike Russell
http://www.zocalo.net/~mgr
http://geigy.2y.net
----------------------------------------

So it would seem that the reason for a delay inbetween the pressing of
the button and the beginning of the exposure step might be partly down
to step 2 above, charging the CCD up.

And as for lower-end cameras not using a shutter, it would seem that
they are using the high-res video CCDs used in camcorders that
continue to expose the image even while it's being read off.

--
For every expert, there is an equal but opposite expert