Wednesday, April 26, 2006


Is technology holding me back?

My trusty digital camera has a shutter delay, of course, as do all digital point-and-shoots. Back on that hail storm night, there was an amazing lightning display that was like a fireworks show. I got out the camera and started snapping away. But agonizingly, the shutter delay was even longer than usual... it seemed to last five seconds. And picture after picture came out nearly black.

This gives you the slightest taste of what I saw.


Do I need to shell out for a digital SLR?

DS and I LOVE storms, and this lightning was phenomenal.
Do or do not. But esp. since you don't (to my knowledge) have dependents, it doesn't strike me as an especially tough decision.
Are digital SLR's typically better than digital point-n-shoots in terms of shutter delay (given the same manufacturer)? Or is a delay just the nature of the digital beast?
Kim: A lot of digital camera lag has to do with the use of (relatively) cheap electronics to hold down the price. Part of the reason DSLRs are relatively expensive is that they have fancier electronics to improve image quality and minimize lags.

However, as all electronic devices get faster/smaller/cheaper over time, digicams have improved greatly overall since we got ours back in paleolithic times. (As its flash metering hasn't been quite the same since its dip in Lake Monona, and its autofocus was always pathetic, I really should bite the bullet and replace ours.) There are, in fact, some point-and-shoots that offer near-SLR quality, though those tend to also have near-SLR prices.
Cool picture.

My cheapy Canon has a maddening multi-second delay. I'll be a SLR owner this summer.

buzhrs- (buzz hours) occurs right after happyhr
OK, umm... I won't even pretend to know what Tom Bozzo said. I'll just say that all your pics on your blog are really amazing. What camera do you have anyway? I've been thinking of updating mine.
Our camera is 3-1/2 years old -- a slightly older version of the camera that is curretnly annoying Janelle -- basically part of the first generation of reasonably priced cameras that were totally workable substitutes for film cameras for casual photographers. Like Janelle's, it takes decent pictures within its limitations. Amazingly, it survived being dropped into Lake Monona the summer before last.

The current equivalent model is smaller, lighter, uses fewer batteries, takes higher resolution pictures, has a greater (optical) zoom range, is reportedly less laggy once powered up, and at least $100 cheaper to boot. My consumerist dilemma is whether I need to spend a grand for an SLR when a quarter that will get something vastly superior to what I have.
Lena -- thanks! It's a Nikon Coolpix that I got a year ago.
Gah. My old Nikon Coolpix was almost 1000 dollars, and it's not as nice as Oscars :(

Being an early adopter has some disadvantages.

BTW, anyone want a really nice Nikon F4 film camera? I haven't used it in at least 5 years.
Something people rarely think about is the little storage card in their cameras. Those are of varying quality, and some of the cheaper ones are much slower than than pricier counterparts.
Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Subscribe to Posts [Atom]