«

I notice that I get quite a bit of lag between shots on my Oly C720
(especially when put on TIFF mode). That said, are digital cameras
incapable of taking shots at the speed that a film camera can produce?

If there are any high speed cameras out there, what are they and how do they
compare with film cameras. Seems like mine is about 1/10th the speed of a
good film camera. For comparison we can keep the discussion to 35mm film
cameras and digitals to 1600x1200 jpeg (which my Olympus C720 designates
SHQ).

In article <kPMbb.434$>, Eigenvector
<> wrote:

> I notice that I get quite a bit of lag between shots on my Oly C720
> (especially when put on TIFF mode). That said, are digital cameras
> incapable of taking shots at the speed that a film camera can produce?
>
> If there are any high speed cameras out there, what are they and how do they
> compare with film cameras. Seems like mine is about 1/10th the speed of a
> good film camera. For comparison we can keep the discussion to 35mm film
> cameras and digitals to 1600x1200 jpeg (which my Olympus C720 designates
> SHQ).

thats not a fair comparison.

compare a 35mm film slr with a '35mm' digital slr. the shutter lag is
comparable, although the price sure isn't.

compare a point and shoot consumer film camera to a consumer digital
and you'll find that the point and shoot film cameras aren't all that
fast either.

"nospam" <> wrote in message
news:220920031807479782%...
> In article <kPMbb.434$>, Eigenvector
> <> wrote:
>
> > I notice that I get quite a bit of lag between shots on my Oly C720
> > (especially when put on TIFF mode). That said, are digital cameras
> > incapable of taking shots at the speed that a film camera can produce?
> >
> > If there are any high speed cameras out there, what are they and how do
they
> > compare with film cameras. Seems like mine is about 1/10th the speed of
a
> > good film camera. For comparison we can keep the discussion to 35mm
film
> > cameras and digitals to 1600x1200 jpeg (which my Olympus C720 designates
> > SHQ).
>
> thats not a fair comparison.
>
> compare a 35mm film slr with a '35mm' digital slr. the shutter lag is
> comparable, although the price sure isn't.
>
I guess I'm not familiar with the terms. When I think of a film camera, I
think of some professional photographer's camera that he/she/it uses to take
shots out in the field - like combat photos or something. A camera like
that can pop off shots at maybe 1 shot every second or so. When I compare
that to mine, I just can't see a digital camera dumping to memory that fast.
But then again I really don't know a heck of a lot about cameras.

> compare a point and shoot consumer film camera to a consumer digital
> and you'll find that the point and shoot film cameras aren't all that
> fast either.

"Eigenvector" <> writes:

> I notice that I get quite a bit of lag between shots on my Oly C720
> (especially when put on TIFF mode). That said, are digital cameras
> incapable of taking shots at the speed that a film camera can produce?
>
> If there are any high speed cameras out there, what are they and how do they
> compare with film cameras. Seems like mine is about 1/10th the speed of a
> good film camera. For comparison we can keep the discussion to 35mm film
> cameras and digitals to 1600x1200 jpeg (which my Olympus C720 designates
> SHQ).

On most Olympus cameras, there is a continous mode where the camera can record
a burst of pictures (usually 1-3 frames per second), and then at the end write
all of the pictures out to memory. Some cameras will allow a new picture to be
taken once the buffer has enough space, some will freeze the camera until the
buffer is completely empty. In terms of fps, the 1.3 megapixel Olympus E-100RS
that is no longer produced, could go up to 15 fps. In terms of current
non-DSLR cameras, the Minolta 7HI and Fuji S602 can do 5 fps.

In terms of DSLRs (digital SLRs), the current speed record is the 4 megapixel
Canon 1D (8 fps max 21 JPEG or 16 RAW), and the forthcoming Nikon D2H (8 fps up
to 40 images). Both are in the $3-4k range without lenses.

--
Michael Meissner
email:
http://www.the-meissners.org

Eigenvector <> wrote:

>I guess I'm not familiar with the terms. When I think of a film camera, I
>think of some professional photographer's camera that he/she/it uses to take
>shots out in the field - like combat photos or something. A camera like
>that can pop off shots at maybe 1 shot every second or so.

Faster than that.

> When I compare
>that to mine, I just can't see a digital camera dumping to memory that fast.
>But then again I really don't know a heck of a lot about cameras.

High-end digital SLRs do 3-4 shots per second as well. They have a
fast buffer which can store 4 to 10 pictures taken quickly and then
transfer the picture to a memory card.

The big differnce is that a motor-driven film camera can do an entire
roll (or even spool in the case of movies).

--
Ray Fischer

"Ray Fischer" <> wrote in message
news:bkr5hl$kq3$...
> Eigenvector <> wrote:
>
> >I guess I'm not familiar with the terms. When I think of a film camera,
I
> >think of some professional photographer's camera that he/she/it uses to
take
> >shots out in the field - like combat photos or something. A camera like
> >that can pop off shots at maybe 1 shot every second or so.
>
> Faster than that.
>
> > When I compare
> >that to mine, I just can't see a digital camera dumping to memory that
fast.
> >But then again I really don't know a heck of a lot about cameras.
>
> High-end digital SLRs do 3-4 shots per second as well. They have a
> fast buffer which can store 4 to 10 pictures taken quickly and then
> transfer the picture to a memory card.
>
> The big differnce is that a motor-driven film camera can do an entire
> roll (or even spool in the case of movies).
>
> --
Okay, so a digital can do it, in small bursts albeit, it will just cost much
more to do it.

Didn't know that was possible because of the data transfer that has to
happen, but now I know.

Any idea when technology like that will start to become more available to
the casual user. I noted the comment before yours about how Olympus often
has the burst picture taking - bracketing is what it is called I think(?).
That's not really what I had in mind, although I guess for high speed shots
the effect is the same.

"Eigenvector" <> writes:

> Any idea when technology like that will start to become more available to
> the casual user. I noted the comment before yours about how Olympus often
> has the burst picture taking - bracketing is what it is called I think(?).
> That's not really what I had in mind, although I guess for high speed shots
> the effect is the same.

Bracketing is different from burst (or continous) mode. With bracketing, the
camera takes 3 or 5 pictures (depending on the camera and the settings),
varying the settings (such as f/stop or shutter) speed so you get multiple
pictures, some underexposed, some overexposed, and one at the correct exposure
as calculated by the meter. Some cameras can bracket other things like the
white balance setting.

On my Olympus camera, I set it to record 5 pictures, a picture at 2 f/stops
underexposure, a picture at 1 f/stop underexposure, a picture at what the
camera thinks is a good exposure, a picture at 1 f/stop overexposure, and a
picture at 2 f/stops overexposure. This is useful for instance in cloud
pictures, where 1-2 f/stops underexposure generally gives a better picture.

Continous mode just takes picture after picture with the same settings. On
some cameras, you can tell the camera to refocus between shots.

--
Michael Meissner
email:
http://www.the-meissners.org