Talk About Network

Google





Photography > Photography > Re: Serious que...
Latest [ Topics | Posts ] Archive Post A New Topic Post a Reply
<< Topic < Post Post 40 of 66 Topic 11277 of 12303
Post > Topic >>

Re: Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of taking clear video/stills of UFO's?

by "Dudley Hanks" <hanks.dudley@[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Feb 20, 2008 at 11:11 PM

"Anon" <abuse@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:C52vj.3536$ay3.2641@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "SteveB" <morphonym@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
> news:jg2u85-8ik2.ln1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> "Ken Hart" <kwhart1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
>> news:fpgcf8$4jl$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>
>>> "SteveB" <morphonym@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
>>> news:a7hs85-tl41.ln1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>> Trouble is, mine times out, and if I don't take a picture in some 
>>>> specified time, it shuts off automatically. Now, you have to catch 
>>>> that, and reset, unless your camera like mine will stay on
continuously 
>>>> if it is on its AC power supply.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Camera times out and shuts off? How does that work? I've never had
that 
>>> happen with any of my cameras. They don't even have an AC power
supply.
>>
>> It's pretty simple.  There's a timer in there so that if you forget to 
>> turn off your camera and don't take a picture for x amount of minutes,
it 
>> shuts the power off.  Particularly useful when you leave the LCD screen

>> on, and it's using battery power by the handful.
>>
>> What's so hard to understand about that?  Just because your camera 
>> doesn't have this feature does not mean it is not available.  Maybe
it's 
>> only available on the better cameras.
>>
>> Steve
>
> Only P&S and bridge cameras do this. SLRs and DSLR don't. Although,
having 
> said that, most DSLRs go into a power save mode after a while, but a 
> simple press on a button wakes them up instantly. Cameras that use an
LCD 
> for composing tend to switch off completely requiring a full power on 
> cycle again (and in the case of the cheaper cameras, requiring your to 
> reset the zoom and focus).
>
>
>

But, as Ken has pointed out (I think with tongue in cheek), when it comes
to 
always being ready, mechanical cameras rule.

They always are ready to go;  they never have to power up;  they don't go
to 
sleep;  and you don't have to worry about losing a preset focal / 
compositional configuration until you decide to take everything down and 
move on.

I for one miss that kind of reliability in electronic cameras --
regardless 
of what flavour we're talking about.

Keep clicking, Ken.

Dudley
 




 66 Posts in Topic:
Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of taking
Doc <docsavage20@[EMAI  2008-02-19 14:41:22 
Re: Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of tak
"nappy" <n@[  2008-02-19 14:46:58 
Re: Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of tak
dlzc <dlzc1@[EMAIL PRO  2008-02-19 15:24:23 
Re: Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of tak
Pudentame <no.one@[EMA  2008-02-19 22:56:55 
Re: Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of tak
Doc <docsavage20@[EMAI  2008-02-19 15:43:11 
Re: Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of tak
"William Graham"  2008-02-19 22:05:18 
Re: Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of tak
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com   2008-02-20 06:04:57 
Re: Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of tak
"William Graham"  2008-02-20 12:27:25 
Re: Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of tak
"David McCall"   2008-02-20 21:53:44 
Re: Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of tak
"William Graham"  2008-02-20 16:56:15 
Re: Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of tak
"SteveB" <me  2008-02-20 20:17:23 
Re: Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of tak
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com   2008-02-20 20:28:28 
Re: Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of tak
"William Graham"  2008-02-21 21:42:26 
Re: Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of tak
"Dudley Hanks"   2008-02-22 07:12:33 
Re: Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of tak
"William Graham"  2008-02-21 23:32:13 
Re: Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of tak
Rick Merrill <rick0.me  2008-02-22 11:21:39 
Re: Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of tak
"SteveB" <me  2008-02-22 09:54:18 
Re: Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of tak
"Dudley Hanks"   2008-02-22 20:03:15 
Re: Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of tak
"SteveB" <me  2008-02-22 15:48:32 
Re: Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of tak
Pudentame <no.one@[EMA  2008-02-22 17:46:10 
Re: Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of tak
Rick Merrill <rick0.me  2008-02-23 11:34:23 
Re: Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of tak
"William Graham"  2008-02-22 19:18:03 
Re: Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of tak
Larry in AZ <usenet2@[  2008-02-19 23:51:09 
Re: Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of tak
"Androcles" <  2008-02-19 23:55:14 
Re: Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of tak
TRoss <tross003@[EMAIL  2008-02-19 18:14:47 
Re: Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of tak
"Larry L [in Honolul  2008-02-20 01:35:57 
Re: Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of tak
"David McCall"   2008-02-20 01:45:19 
Re: Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of tak
"William Graham"  2008-02-19 22:12:41 
Re: Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of tak
Doc <docsavage20@[EMAI  2008-02-19 18:54:43 
Re: Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of tak
ushere <removethis.les  2008-02-20 03:22:02 
Re: Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of tak
Larry in AZ <usenet2@[  2008-02-20 09:42:34 
Re: Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of tak
"SteveB" <mo  2008-02-19 19:52:01 
Re: Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of tak
"Ken Hart" <  2008-02-20 00:04:57 
Re: Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of tak
"Dudley Hanks"   2008-02-20 07:30:31 
Re: Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of tak
Blinky the Shark <no.s  2008-02-19 23:55:25 
Re: Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of tak
"SteveB" <mo  2008-02-20 09:53:15 
Re: Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of tak
"Ken Hart" <  2008-02-20 12:16:16 
Re: Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of tak
Joel <Joel@[EMAIL PROT  2008-02-20 12:21:07 
Re: Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of tak
"Anon" <abus  2008-02-20 22:46:58 
Re: Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of tak
"Dudley Hanks"   2008-02-20 23:11:44 
Re: Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of tak
"Anon" <abus  2008-02-21 00:03:02 
Re: Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of tak
"Ken Hart" <  2008-02-20 20:04:07 
Re: Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of tak
"Ken Hart" <  2008-02-20 19:58:42 
Re: Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of tak
Pudentame <no.one@[EMA  2008-02-19 22:53:00 
Re: Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of tak
Larry in AZ <usenet2@[  2008-02-20 09:48:48 
Re: Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of tak
Bill <trash@[EMAIL PRO  2008-02-20 12:04:31 
Re: Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of tak
"Dudley Hanks"   2008-02-20 20:18:37 
Re: Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of tak
"William Graham"  2008-02-20 12:46:44 
Re: Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of tak
"Rita Berkowitz"  2008-02-20 15:58:36 
Re: Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of tak
"Dudley Hanks"   2008-02-20 21:19:21 
Re: Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of tak
"William Graham"  2008-02-20 13:29:10 
Re: Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of tak
"Dudley Hanks"   2008-02-20 22:15:50 
Re: Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of tak
"William Graham"  2008-02-20 16:35:58 
Re: Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of tak
Pudentame <no.one@[EMA  2008-02-20 20:29:40 
Re: Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of tak
Pudentame <no.one@[EMA  2008-02-20 20:26:28 
Re: UFO Photography and Videography (was: from a skeptic)
"William Graham"  2008-02-19 22:09:39 
Re: Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of tak
"Dudley Hanks"   2008-02-20 07:52:03 
Re: Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of tak
Martin Heffels <goofie  2008-02-20 15:19:00 
Re: Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of tak
Doc <docsavage20@[EMAI  2008-02-20 08:44:03 
Re: Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of tak
Doc <docsavage20@[EMAI  2008-02-20 08:55:40 
Re: Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of tak
"Dudley Hanks"   2008-02-20 20:08:25 
Re: Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of tak
Marvin <physchem@[EMAI  2008-02-20 19:02:16 
Re: Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of tak
"john bates" &l  2008-02-21 19:16:04 
Re: Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of tak
Doc <docsavage20@[EMAI  2008-02-20 21:04:38 
Re: Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of tak
Doc <docsavage20@[EMAI  2008-02-20 21:09:10 
Re: Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of tak
dlzc <dlzc1@[EMAIL PRO  2008-02-26 11:49:51 

Post A Reply:
  Go here to Signup

AddThis Feed Button


About - Advertising - Contact - Frequently Asked Questions - Privacy Policy - Terms of Use - Signup

Contact
localhost-V2008-12-19 Fri Jan 9 17:54:33 PST 2009.