Moonset Over Zion
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Ofnuts on 26 Jul 2010 16:26 On 26/07/2010 21:58, DanP wrote: > On Jul 26, 8:26 pm, Ofnuts<o.f.n.u....(a)la.poste.net> wrote: > >> Just wondering... f/4, 1/40000s is about 19.3EV at 100ISO (and f/2.7, >> 1/12500s is 19.5), and still 17.3EV(a)400ISO. Given that the best natural >> lighting is 16EV(a)100ISO (midday sunlight on sand or snow) what kind of >> natural, non-flash lighting is used to take pictures at f/4, 1/40000s? > > Ehmm, with CHDK the aperture has to be f/8 for 1/40000 s. I stand corrected :-) > Pretty much useless for photography but good for trolling. > There is a reason why no manufacturer makes such ridiculous fast > shutters. I thought it was meant for tack-sharp hand-held shots... -- Bertrand
From: DanP on 26 Jul 2010 16:49 On Jul 26, 9:26 pm, Ofnuts <o.f.n.u....(a)la.poste.net> wrote: > On 26/07/2010 21:58, DanP wrote: > > > On Jul 26, 8:26 pm, Ofnuts<o.f.n.u....(a)la.poste.net> wrote: > > >> Just wondering... f/4, 1/40000s is about 19.3EV at 100ISO (and f/2.7, > >> 1/12500s is 19.5), and still 17.3EV(a)400ISO. Given that the best natural > >> lighting is 16EV(a)100ISO (midday sunlight on sand or snow) what kind of > >> natural, non-flash lighting is used to take pictures at f/4, 1/40000s? > > > Ehmm, with CHDK the aperture has to be f/8 for 1/40000 s. > > I stand corrected :-) > > > Pretty much useless for photography but good for trolling. > > There is a reason why no manufacturer makes such ridiculous fast > > shutters. > > I thought it was meant for tack-sharp hand-held shots... Erm, I meant fast exposure times, as opposed to fps. DanP
From: LOL! on 26 Jul 2010 23:31 On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 12:58:05 -0700 (PDT), DanP <dan.petre(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >On Jul 26, 8:26�pm, Ofnuts <o.f.n.u....(a)la.poste.net> wrote: > >> Just wondering... f/4, 1/40000s is about 19.3EV at 100ISO (and f/2.7, >> 1/12500s is 19.5), and still 17.3EV(a)400ISO. Given that the best natural >> lighting is 16EV(a)100ISO (midday sunlight on sand or snow) what kind of >> natural, non-flash lighting is used to take pictures at f/4, 1/40000s? > >Ehmm, with CHDK the aperture has to be f/8 for 1/40000 s. >Pretty much useless for photography but good for trolling. > >There is a reason why no manufacturer makes such ridiculous fast >shutters. >But there are flashes that go up to 1/20000 but not for toy cameras. > >DanP Correct, not for toy cameras like DSLRs. The flash for some CHDK P&S cameras can fire with pulse durations as short as 1/224,000 of a second with perfect full-frame shutter sync at 1/40,000 of a second, as already measured and confirmed. We're not talking about your crippling slow and lame DSLR flash units and agonizingly slow image distorting focal-plane shutters designed last century. Got any more of your ignorance and stupidity that you wish to advertise to the whole world? LOL!
From: DanP on 27 Jul 2010 03:30 On Jul 27, 1:18 am, LOL! <l...(a)lol.org> wrote: > On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 12:44:40 -0700 (PDT), DanP <dan.pe...(a)hotmail.com> > wrote: > > >On Jul 25, 10:23 pm, LOL! <l...(a)lol.org> wrote: > > >> WRONG! Fool. That helicopter shot WAS taken with a DSLR. > > >What? You expect me to take your word for it? > > >This was taken with a DSLRhttp://www.flickr.com/photos/professoraa/2728062620/ > >Not perfect but far better than your example. > > Oh yes, that's *SO* much better! Deformed AND BLURRED now! Not deformed. See a stationary one http://www.tzlee.com/gallery/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=58943&g2_serialNumber=1 DanP
From: DanP on 27 Jul 2010 05:13
On Jul 27, 9:04 am, LOL! <l...(a)lol.org> wrote: > On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 00:30:31 -0700 (PDT), DanP <dan.pe...(a)hotmail.com> > wrote: > > > > >On Jul 27, 1:18 am, LOL! <l...(a)lol.org> wrote: > >> On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 12:44:40 -0700 (PDT), DanP <dan.pe...(a)hotmail.com> > >> wrote: > > >> >On Jul 25, 10:23 pm, LOL! <l...(a)lol.org> wrote: > > >> >> WRONG! Fool. That helicopter shot WAS taken with a DSLR. > > >> >What? You expect me to take your word for it? > > >> >This was taken with a DSLRhttp://www.flickr.com/photos/professoraa/2728062620/ > >> >Not perfect but far better than your example. > > >> Oh yes, that's *SO* much better! Deformed AND BLURRED now! > > >Not deformed. See a stationary one > >http://www.tzlee.com/gallery/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_it.... > > >DanP > > Wow, what an advantge, minorly deformed AND BLURRED. Not even minorly. Tips are exctly like you see them, bent, that is their design. See the stationary photo again. And motion blurr is not the point, the point is that you lied about DSLR shutters distorting pictures. DanP |