[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: digital cameras
----------
> From: Tesla List <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
> To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
> Subject: Re: digital cameras
> Date: Wednesday, May 19, 1999 4:23 PM
>
> Original Poster: Stan <sdarling-at-columbus.rr-dot-com>
>
> Finally, an area where I may be an 'expert' on this listserv :)
>
> I have used many different digital cameras for my real job and the best
> I have seen to date is the Sony DSC D700. It is a professional-level
> digital cam with 1300x1024 resolution. It has shutter speeds from 4 sec
> to 1/2000 sec. It also has many SLR type features such as aperature
> priorit, shutter priority, and continuous shooting. I think it runs a
> little under $2000(!).
>
> Like most other folks here have said, I'm not sure why you want to go
> digital. Although that Sony can match most SLRs in terms of performance
> features, it costs 10 times as much, has a lower resolution, and is more
> prone to getting zapped.
Thanks for the lead.
Why digital? Its much cheaper than polaroid film.
When setting up a system that requires some empirical timing (like, for
instance, taking photos of a speeding bullet), there is a lot of fooling
around to get the setup right (exposure, timing, etc.). If I use the local
1 hour place and use 35 mm film, it runs about $20/36 frames, plus, the
time involved in loading the film, making a sequence of exposures,
unloading, taking it to the lab, waiting around, etc. It sure is nice to
have something that you can set up and get quick feedback. Particularly if
someone is paying you to do the setup!
The cost is just a threshold of pain issue. $200-400 is clearly within the
threshold, $2K is a bit steep, although it is getting close, considering.
$2K isn't worth it if all I am doing is taking pictures for my own
amusement.
Zapping the camera isn't an issue.. This is what shielding is for.