Shot speed and a comparison between digital and film

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Eigenvector, Sep 23, 2003.

  1. Eigenvector

    Eigenvector Guest

    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).
     
    Eigenvector, Sep 23, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Eigenvector

    nospam Guest

    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, Sep 23, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Eigenvector

    Eigenvector Guest

    "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, Sep 24, 2003
    #3
  4. "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
     
    Michael Meissner, Sep 24, 2003
    #4
  5. Eigenvector

    Ray Fischer Guest

    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, Sep 24, 2003
    #5
  6. Eigenvector

    Eigenvector Guest

    "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, Sep 25, 2003
    #6
  7. "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
     
    Michael Meissner, Sep 25, 2003
    #7
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Jamie Pollard
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,859
  2. A recent digital film comparison

    , Jun 16, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    328
    Views:
    3,744
  3. Tass

    Shot to shot speed

    Tass, Feb 13, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    487
    timeOday
    Feb 13, 2006
  4. rapee
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    735
    rapee
    Mar 14, 2008
  5. nospam

    Re: Photography (film - digital comparison))

    nospam, Sep 6, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    383
    David Dyer-Bennet
    Sep 22, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page