Talk About Network

Google





Photography > Photography > Re: Serious que...
Latest [ Topics | Posts ] Archive Post A New Topic Post a Reply
<< Topic < Post Post 41 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 "Anon" <abuse@[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Feb 21, 2008 at 12:03 AM

"Dudley Hanks" <hanks.dudley@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:Qs2vj.37026$w57.6836@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "Anon" <abuse@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
> news:C52vj.3536$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

I miss my old Canon FTb for just that reason - it was quick, simple and
easy 
to set a shutter speed; peek through the viewfinder and quickly focus (a
lot 
quicker than some autofocus systems can), and twist the aperture ring to
get 
the exposure.

No messing about with awkwardly positioned 'command wheels' whose function

varies depending on what particular mode you happen to be in, no mucking 
about through 25 levels of menus to get to some simple and often needed 
adjustment (are you listening Fuji??), no waiting for the autofocus to try

the entire focal range (sometimes twice!) only for it to give up as it
can't 
find an edge in the dead centre of the image, no batteries going flat just

because its cold outside.. the list goes on.

Technology doesn't always improve things.
 




 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 16:52:28 PST 2009.