4000 vs 8000 shutter speed

James Crockett wrote in post #18453236
It's rating is higher than the 5div but what about the Sony lenses? Yes I'm a rookie. I enjoy this site, alot of knowledge here. I like the canon skin tones and the lens selection they have.. thanks!

what about the sony lenses?

at this point they ve got quite a very good selection ,,, taking your interest in mind.
and third party options..

skin tones.. well I will admit I struggled there with sony but .. there are others who did very well there..so, it is doable

Bassat wrote in post #18453152
Thanks for the info, Jake. I get it, now. But aren't most P&S cameras equipped with ONLY electronic shutters? If that is true, is it just the scale-ability of the technology? 1/1.7" to full frame is a pretty big leap. While I'm off in weirdville, aren't most high-speed cameras (10k-20k+ FPS) based on CCD? Wow! Think of the culling job from a football game shot at 20k fps. What a challenge for AF!

My explanation was applicable in 2005 when Canon released the 1D MkII which switched to CMOS.

I honestly have no idea if/why/etc. they have not been able to get a CMOS to do what a CCD did all these years later. But keep in mind, in addition to all of the other advances we get every few years, we do see huge increases in MP and thus file size and the amount of data one would need to get off the sensor. Related?

Or maybe CMOS couldn't do it even today with an 8.5 MP sensor. So I don't know why a modern CMOS can't. I just know why the 1D could.

James Crockett wrote in post #18453236
It's rating is higher than the 5div but what about the Sony lenses? Yes I'm a rookie. I enjoy this site, alot of knowledge here. I like the canon skin tones and the lens selection they have.. thanks!

Sony's lenses have pretty much caught up in most regards, I had the Zeiss 55/1.8 and Sony 28/2 for my a7S and they were great. You can also use an adapter for any Canon lens you want, AF is pretty much the same as a Sony lens with them from what I've heard around the forums (never tried it myself).

As for skin tones... they've gotten better, but they're still not as easy to work with as Canon (at least they weren't when I was still shooting Sony last year). I frequently found myself having to mess with the HSL sliders in Lightroom to get the look I wanted, but you can still create some beautiful shots with them.

If you want great lenses and bodies and excellent skin tones for a bit less though, I would take a serious look at Fuji. Fuji's color reproduction was one of the biggest reasons I made the switch. I was shooting an X-E2 back to back with my a7S and realized I almost always preferred the shots from the Fuji to those from the Sony, and they were faster to process how I wanted.

Not trying to start a brand war here, just encouraging you to search out all your options.

gjl711 wrote in post #18453116
Having lived a significant part of my life in the Chicago area and now in TX, there really is a difference. If you look at the angle of the sun, in Dallas, May 21 is equal to June 21st in Illinois. From May 21st through July 21st, the sun is more vertical than it ever gets in Chicago thus, it is a whole lot brighter. This site offers the math behind the effect.

Thanks for the link. I did quite a bit of reading on this last night and this morning before the kids woke up. I get the concepts but I'm still unconvinced that the 10° of latitude between Chicago and Dallas is going to make a significant difference in visible light landing on a subject. I am going to start a thread sometime this weekend to discuss this further ... unless someone else does it first ... just link me to it.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #18453334
My explanation was applicable in 2005 when Canon released the 1D MkII which switched to CMOS.

I honestly have no idea if/why/etc. they have not been able to get a CMOS to do what a CCD did all these years later. But keep in mind, in addition to all of the other advances we get every few years, we do see huge increases in MP and thus file size and the amount of data one would need to get off the sensor. Related?

Or maybe CMOS couldn't do it even today with an 8.5 MP sensor. So I don't know why a modern CMOS can't. I just know why the 1D could.

Canon has a "global shutter" on a 2/3 CMOS sensor right now. I suspect a APSC and FF are in the works.

Left Handed Brisket wrote in post #18453517
Canon has a "global shutter" on a 2/3 CMOS sensor right now. I suspect a APSC and FF are in the works.

I predict in 10 years everything being global sensor and death to mechanical shutters. Everything will be EVF and everything will video cameras basically where we extract stills.

16K video cameras with global shutters and ISO performance from 25-1,000,000 and if the camera doesn't have quad memory cards nobody will want it.

Left Handed Brisket wrote in post #18453517
Thanks for the link. I did quite a bit of reading on this last night and this morning before the kids woke up. I get the concepts but I'm still unconvinced that the 10° of latitude between Chicago and Dallas is going to make a significant difference in visible light landing on a subject. I am going to start a thread sometime this weekend to discuss this further ... unless someone else does it first ... just link me to it.
...

Maybe we could run a POTN global experiment. Get POTN members to submit their settings from all over the globe for a picture taken of a blank white sheet of paper laying flat on the ground which fills a significant portion of the frame and send in their settings. I wouldn't think that the change is significant but reviewing the pictures in my library which are taken outdoors around noon does show that the ones in Chicago are -1EV from the ones in Dallas. Very unscientific I know and it is near impossible to find two photos which are similar enough to compare but I did find a couple.

Talley wrote in post #18453554
I predict in 10 years everything being global sensor and death to mechanical shutters. Everything will be EVF and everything will video cameras basically where we extract stills.

16K video cameras with global shutters and ISO performance from 25-1,000,000 and if the camera doesn't have quad memory cards nobody will want it.

Most certainly. And radio is going to put newspapers out of business. 8-track tapes will kill music sales. Thermonuclear weapons will set the atmosphere on fire. Any day now.

Left Handed Brisket wrote in post #18453517
Thanks for the link. I did quite a bit of reading on this last night and this morning before the kids woke up. I get the concepts but I'm still unconvinced that the 10° of latitude between Chicago and Dallas is going to make a significant difference in visible light landing on a subject. I am going to start a thread sometime this weekend to discuss this further ... unless someone else does it first ... just link me to it.



Canon has a "global shutter" on a 2/3 CMOS sensor right now. I suspect a APSC and FF are in the works.

I didn't mean to suggest that the Florida sun is brighter than other places. Location does matter in some things. I'm not sure about how a camera reacts to a location closer to the equator.

I was trying to say that if I'm out in the early afternoon in the Spring, I run into situations where I'm shooting at shutter speeds over 1/4000. My wife was using a SL1 and hit the limit a bunch of times. Pretty easy fix. I just lowered the ISO and she was fine (she can't be bothered to learn the tech stuff... but her photos are brilliant). I guess I should try auto ISO, but I don't like giving up that choice to the camera. As I said earlier, my practice is to set the ISO so I get a shutter speed over 1/1000 at f/7.1 or f/8. That gives me flexibility during my outing. I sort of meter the various settings: shade, partial sun light, full sun light, etc. and find an ISO that works for most shots. Then I vary the ISO manually if necessary.

Talley wrote in post #18453554
I predict in 10 years everything being global sensor and death to mechanical shutters. Everything will be EVF and everything will video cameras basically where we extract stills.

16K video cameras with global shutters and ISO performance from 25-1,000,000 and if the camera doesn't have quad memory cards nobody will want it.

Sweet, then I can get an A7S2 for $500 maybe!

Very best,

James Crockett wrote in post #18452313
Do you really need 8000 shutter speed? Thanks and take care.

To shoot in bright sunlight at f/1.4, many cameras do. I have had two cameras with a 1/4000 max shutter speed. The first, from about 10 years ago, had low enough DxOMark-style "measured ISO" to get away with it. The second, from 6 years ago, clips the RAW highlights for bright whites with an f/1.4 lens, when the sun is bright and the sky is clear.

The sad thing is that many cameras lose their light-collecting efficiency at low f-numbers, so they scale up the RAW data and clip it to make the RAW data look normal. So, my 2nd camera may have actually captured whites without clipping, but the camera clipped them anyway, to meet standards!

Talley wrote in post #18453766
shoulder strap only and let that camera smack anything you brush up against... if the camera can't survive it's worthless lol

This. I even took my X100T skiing with me for my first time ever skiing and just used a strap. As you can imagine I tumbled down the mountain a number of times, no problems

James Crockett wrote in post #18452313
Do you really need 8000 shutter speed? Thanks and take care.

I didn't buy fast glass to shoot them at 5.6, so yes.

panicatnabisco wrote in post #18453868
I didn't buy fast glass to shoot them at 5.6, so yes.

So I guess your "fast" glass is f4? Cause we're literally talking about a 1 stop advantage here...

It is interesting how many are okay spending thousands on a product that Canon restricts by some internal settings, and then they work hard to get others to conform to the same thinking.

Look on the bright side, my first SLR, a Praktica Nova had a maximum shutter speed of 1/500! When I got my ME Super in 1980 (a christmas present for doing well in my school exams that year) I was blown away to have one of the few cameras that had 1/2000 as the fastest speed. Many other SLR's were still only at 1/1000.

Even then though a majority of my exposures will have been at under 1/500, so not really putting the Praktica at a disadvantage shutter speed wise. Still I was glad to have the higher speeds available for those times when they were required. Would the difference between 1/4000 and 1/8000 be a deal breaker in buying a new camera? Probably not, but it would be on the list of things to want.

It's like a lot of things, having a PC socket on a camera is also important to me, since I often need to use strobes in situations where RF triggers are just unreliable due to interference. Also I want CF over SD cards, I have had issues with killing SD cards by just touching them in the past. For me those two features are way above the max shutter speed in importance. Of course to get those on a camera usually means getting a 1/8000 shutter too, so I have it available should I need it in extreme circumstances.

What I would really like to see in a modern DSLR is a true base ISO of 50 or even better 25. I would happily lose a stop or two off the top of current sensors in order to get that. If the physics prevents that, then fine I'll keep taking more at the top, even though I wouldn't use it nearly as much as I might use a true ISO 50 or 25.

Others will be shooting different subjects, and will have other requirements that are more or less important to them.

Alan