A dSLR's fastest shutter-speed is really no faster than its flash-sync speed.

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by SelfImporantName, Jul 7, 2007.

  1. They'll spin a big cocoon?

    --
    It Came From Corry Lee Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
    http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net

    In a time of deception telling the truth is a revolutionary act. -
    George Orwell
     
    Unclaimed Mysteries, Jul 8, 2007
    #41
    1. Advertisements

  2. You're right, I should just ignore all their inane comments.
     
    SelfImporantName, Jul 8, 2007
    #42
    1. Advertisements

  3. SelfImporantName

    SMS Guest

    SelfImporantName wrote:

    Some D-SLR's have an electronic shutter as well, to solve this problem.
    The Nikon D70s had one, while the D80 did not. One of the professional
    Canon D-SLRs had one as well.

    I think that it's no secret that there's no getting around this
    limitation without an electronic shutter, but the other advantages of a
    D-SLR are more important to many people. Explicitly mentioning this in
    reviews might be nice, but it's probably unnecessary, since everyone
    that understands the issue knows that the film SLRs had the same issue.
     
    SMS, Jul 8, 2007
    #43
  4. SelfImporantName

    SMS Guest

    You're giving too little credit to the intelligence of people that come
    here for valid advice. Very few of them take anything that the people
    you refer to seriously. Wading through all the BS becomes a non-issue
    when you employ your newsreader's kill-files.

    OTOH, your incorrect presumption is that D-SLR buyers don't understand
    the flash-sync speed issue, or else they'd be flocking to P&S cameras
    with electronic shutters. Most D-SLR users (at least the ones that were
    once film SLR users) understand the flash-sync speed issue, and have
    understood it since the days of film SLRs, but the issues with point and
    shoots go way beyond the flash-sync speed.

    It's interesting that the D70s could go to 1/8000 of a second, though
    only with a non-Nikon flash, because if the camera recognized the Nikon
    flash it would restrict access to the faster electronic shutter speeds.
     
    SMS, Jul 8, 2007
    #44
  5. SelfImporantName

    Kadin2048 Guest

    Neat link. Thanks, Roger. I use HSS all the time but had never been
    exactly clear on how it did its thing. (Even more interesting to me are
    the wireless HSS systems with TTL, like Minolta's; I still find it
    amazing that it works as well as it does.)

    Always nice to get some redeeming value out of a troll thread. :)

    -Kadin.
     
    Kadin2048, Jul 8, 2007
    #45
  6. SelfImporantName

    Bill Funk Guest

    Most of us don't use ASA 25 film anymore.

    --
    THIS IS A SIG LINE; NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY!

    Al Gore's son was pulled over by cops in Southern
    California Tuesday going one hundred miles an hour
    in his Prius. He had marijuana, Valium, Xanax and
    Vicodin in the car. The Los Angeles Times headline
    read, Prius Goes One Hundred Miles an Hour.
     
    Bill Funk, Jul 8, 2007
    #46
  7. SelfImporantName

    John Bean Guest

    Or even call it "ASA" :)
     
    John Bean, Jul 8, 2007
    #47
  8. SelfImporantName

    John Sheehy Guest

    It has its limitations, though. It slows down the flash recycle time,
    because it is extremely inefficient and wastes light on the shutter
    curtains.

    You get a lot less flashes out of a set of batteries.

    The GN gets extremely low at high shutter speeds.

    It has no "action-stopping" ability beyond that provided by the shutter
    speed; all it basically is, is a lamp to increase exposure and fill
    shadows at the ambient shutter speed.

    It's better than nothing, but is no substitute for real sync at higher
    shutter speeds.

    --
     
    John Sheehy, Jul 9, 2007
    #48
  9. SelfImporantName

    John Turco Guest


    Hello, Scott:

    That's quite a revelation, indeed. (These "hybrid cars" don't use
    Rayovac's new Hybrid batteries, do they? <g>)


    Cordially,
    John Turco <>
     
    John Turco, Jul 9, 2007
    #49
  10. SelfImporantName

    bugbear Guest

    How do they do it?

    BugBear
     
    bugbear, Jul 9, 2007
    #50
  11. SelfImporantName

    Allen Guest

    Prepare yourself for a screed about how much better Lithium-Ion
    batteries would be for cars, followed by rebuttals, back and forth, back
    and forth, back and forth..........ad infinitum.
    Allen
     
    Allen, Jul 9, 2007
    #51
  12. SelfImporantName

    ASAAR Guest

    I would hope so, if one side repeatedly misrepresents the facts as
    has been the case so far. I'm pretty confident though that for the
    hybrid cars, alkalines won't be an option promoted by anyone, even
    if F cells would be used instead of AA cells. :)
     
    ASAAR, Jul 9, 2007
    #52
  13. SelfImporantName

    ASAAR Guest

    Maybe they don't? I've checked many manuals and have yet to find
    a P&S that can synch with the flash at 1/2500 sec. Thus proving
    that the "SelfImporantName" (note that he has since corrected this
    misspelling of his name) sock puppet is speaking through the wrong
    aperture. :) The few that have anything relevant to say are :

    Sony DSC-H1, p. 29 : (can't go as high as 1/2500 sec.?)
    Olympus C-8080WZ, p. 64 : (when using the built-in flash)
    Olympus C-8080WZ, p. 67 : (when using an external flash)
    Canon A530/A540, p. 45 : (range is 15 to 1/2000 seconds)
    Canon A540, p. 46 : (for Av mode)
    Canon A610/A620, p. 42 : (range is 15 to 1/2500 seconds)
    This also appears on page 41 of the A710IS's manual, although its
    top shutter speed is 1/2000 seconds. The Canon P&S manuals that
    I've checked all state in their Specifications pages :
     
    ASAAR, Jul 9, 2007
    #53
  14. SelfImporantName

    Allen Guest

    ASAAR, I would like to say that I'm on your side in the battery wars.
    You seem to have a scientific/technical background, which isn't obvious
    in the posts on the opposite side. Incidentally, I remember my first
    portable radio--an RCA monster that weighed close to 15 pounds; most of
    the weight was from a giant zinc/carbon unit that supplied 22.5 volts
    for plates and 3 volts for filaments. It was "portable" in the same
    sense that the first Compaqs (the ones that looked like sewing machine
    cases) were portable; wheels would have helped. It went to electronics
    hell when the Bakelite handle broke of because of the weight.
    Allen
     
    Allen, Jul 9, 2007
    #54
  15. SelfImporantName

    ASAAR Guest

    My parent's first portable was also an RCA radio, but it was
    actually quite portable. It also had the low voltage filament
    battery and another high voltage battery for the plates. I replaced
    the filament battery a several times and the HV battery at least
    once. I recall it having a higher voltage, maybe in the 60 to 90
    volt range. The case was made from a white or ivory colored
    plastic, with a horizontal, rotating AM antenna on the top of the
    case, below a wide handle. I remember seeing many ads for it in
    magazines demonstrating how tough the case was. Something about it
    being able to survive being dropped from a helicopter. It was also
    much smaller than your radio, probably weighing about two or three
    pounds. I'd guess that your radio would be older, but I could be
    wrong about that. To give you a rough idea of when it was sold, I
    remember bringing it to school and using it to listen to the
    "perfect game" pitched by Don Larsen in baseball's World Series.
    This was when I was in the seventh grade, and my class's 'home room'
    wasn't a regular room, but the school's gym. So the class got to
    listen to the game sitting in our seats which were just the gym's
    collapsible, wide, tiered wooden benches. Just like watching from
    the seats in many minor league ball parks. :)
     
    ASAAR, Jul 9, 2007
    #55
  16. SelfImporantName

    SMS Guest

    Toyota was going to use Li-Ion in the third generation Prius, but now
    they apparently have delayed this plan, and gone back to NiMH. Their
    concept hybrid sports car, the FT-HS, uses Li-Ion.

    "http://www.soultek.com/clean_energy/hybrid_cars/third_generation_toyota_prius_in_2008.htm"

    Unless they've found a way to extend the time-limited life of Li-Ion
    batteries beyond three years I think that the trade-off in terms of
    weight and performance may be a bad one.

    Toyota may do the same crap they do now with the current Prius in order
    to extend battery life, they don't allow deep discharge. In the UK, the
    Prius has a switch that can be flipped to go to deeper discharge and run
    longer on battery-only.

    Personally I like the plug-in hybrid conversions that some companies
    offer for the Prius. Being able to drive even 30 miles on batteries-only
    would be sufficient for a many driver's daily use. If Toyota offered
    this, rather than an after-market company, the cost could be $1000 more
    rather than $5000 more.
     
    SMS, Jul 9, 2007
    #56
  17. SelfImporantName

    AustinMN Guest

    *keyboard*

    I'd have given you the benefit of the doubt...horrendous my ass.
    Minor problem if you are shooting a NASCAR race from the front row,
    almost undetectable at any speed a human can achieve under their own
    power.

    Troll rating:

    Creativity: 4.5 points (highest score I've ever given)
    Validity: 1.2 points
    Crossposted to cross-purpose newsgroups: 0.0 points
    Follow-up arguments: 2.3 points

    Total: 8.5 out of a possible 20 points. Lame, but better than your
    average troll.

    Austin
     
    AustinMN, Jul 9, 2007
    #57
  18. SelfImporantName

    AustinMN Guest

    Anybody have an image of a curved baseball bat made with any SLR or
    DSLR camera manufactured in the last 20 years?

    No?

    End of story. You are a troll...please don't feed it.

    Austin
     
    AustinMN, Jul 9, 2007
    #58
  19. SelfImporantName

    SMS Guest

    Oh my goodness!

    In the past I kill-filed ASAAR, in the belief that some posts just don't
    deserve to be read or responded to, especially when so much
    misinformation is posted on a regular basis. But now you've got me
    going! I went back to Google Groups and found one of his latest gems of
    misinformation:

    Energizer also makes a USB charger that's powered through the USB
    port, and it probably charges much faster than the Ultralast, taking
    only about 5 hours to charge 2,500mAh NiMH cells. But because it's
    limited to the USB power supply, it can only charge one or two NiMH
    cells at a time. Energizer's Product Datasheet also warns that :

    "Multiple devices using the USB ports will greatly reduce charge
    current to a slow charge. The AC adapter will always provide a
    quick charge current."

    What this means is that if the charger has to share the USB bus
    with other devices so that it can't draw the full 500ma that it
    wants to use, which is also the design spec. for the USB's 5v power
    supply, it will drop to a slow charge rate, drawing only 100ma from
    the USB port. Guess what happens to the charge time? It jumps from
    5 hours to well over 20 hours to finish charging only two AA cells!

    This demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of how USB power is
    implemented. You get a guaranteed _minimum_ of 500mA _per port.

    In reality there is always some margin well over 500mA before shutdown.
    They have do do this just for surge currents. The shutdown of an
    individual port usually occurs at between 800mA and 1250mA. The entire
    USB power bus will shut down if the total current exceeds 2.0A total for
    all four ports, but if lower current devices (such as mice or keyboards)
    or powered devices (such as printers) are being used on some ports, the
    other ports can draw more than 500mA of power with no ill effects.

    By the way, here's the data sheet for the Energizer 2 cell USB charger
    that was referred to:
    "http://www.energizer.com/usbcharger/download/CHUSB_E_F_S.pdf". It does
    indeed state that to charge two 2500mAH batteries it will take 5 hours.
    However _no where_ does it state what was claimed regarding multiple
    devices using the USB ports reducing the charge current. If Eveready
    ever actually made such a ridiculous statement then they realized their
    mistake and withdrew it, but I highly doubt that they ever wrote
    anything like that, it's probaly just another fabrication by the poster
    in question. The only reduced current would _ever_ happen is if the
    charger was plugged into an unpowered USB 1.1 hub that was shared with
    other devices; every port on a notebook or desktop PC can supply 500mA
    minimum. USB 2.0 hubs are always powered and can supply 500mA per port.

    If you wanted to charge four batteries, you could buy two of those
    Energizer Duo chargers, and the charge time would not change at all
    since each USB port would be supplying 500mA. Or a charger manufacturer
    could do what some DVD±R/W drives do, and plug into two USB ports at the
    same time in order to supply a guaranteed higher current (if you believe
    the poster in question, this won't work because the USB ports share a
    total of 500mA-- fortunately he has no idea what he's talking about, as
    usual).

    Let's analyze who a USB NiMH charger works, just to clear up any doubt:

    The USB port provides a guaranteed 500mA at 5 volts. However the NiMH
    charging voltage is about 1.8 volts (you can charge with as little as
    1.4V but most newer chargers use 1.8V). The theoretical available
    charging current would be 5V*500mA/1.8V=1389mA. However since the DC to
    DC converter (they don't use a linear regulator) is only about 80-90%
    efficient, and since the charger uses some current for the the
    controller circuitry, LEDs, etc, there is about 1000mA available for
    actual charging. This works out to 250mA per cell for four cells or
    500mA per cell for two cells. To charge four 2500mAH cells from zero,
    would take ten hours (250mA * 10 hours = 2500mAH). To charge two 2500mAH
    cells from zero would take five hours (500mA * 5 hours = 2500mAH). The
    latter matches what the Eveready Duo data sheet states.

    I humbly suggest that you be more discerning in the future when looking
    for someone with a scientific and technical background.
     
    SMS, Jul 9, 2007
    #59
  20. I made a JOKE about batteries in hybrid cars, and it's become the topic
    of the discussion!

    Let's try this one. Over and over, I read here that people are
    clamoring for AA powered digital cameras, as opposed to "expensive,
    proprietary" battery packs. Seems to make little sense, except for
    people who don't use their cameras much (my "accident camera" in the
    car uses disposable AA's)

    Should we not also seek out AA powered cars? Same arguments - generic
    technology, cheaper, get them anywhere... and think how much fun the
    hot-rodders could have cleaning 5,000 battery contacts!
     
    Scott Schuckert, Jul 9, 2007
    #60
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.