you make an interesting point about old. I was at an art show and the photographers who going on and on and on some more about how they (snooty, english voice), "do it the old fashioned way. The way of dark rooms and film and real work". I didn't chime in, but it is sort of demeaning when established film photogs try to dismiss the new wave of digital photographers. But deep down I heard a sense of desperation in their voices as patrons listened in. The old photogs almost were trying to plea with the patrons about the justification of them not embracing new technology.
Here is my point. I love film photography. I love digital. I love history. And finally I love technology. But I am young and new to the game. But someone like bear, has been around and seen both and has embraced both. That should be congratulated. To capture the excitement of change, but retain the knowledge of years gone by.
note: I knew what bulb did, but DID NOT know what the term meant as it were.
OK, how about this bulb question: my camera has it, but why couldn't Canon set it up so that when "bulb" is selected, the first push on the button would open the shutter and then you could release it and the next push would close the shutter? Just to make people buy a remote? Or because of the original way it was done that Bear described? Or because of the fear of shaking the camera? (One could think that having to keep your finger on the button could cause shake as well.)
OK, how about this bulb question: my camera has it, but why couldn't Canon set it up so that when "bulb" is selected, the first push on the button would open the shutter and then you could release it and the next push would close the shutter?
There is a different name for that shutter mode: it is called "Time." I've seen shutters with both a B and a T setting.
That does not answer the question about why none of the digital cameras have a Time setting as well as Bulb. I think part of it has to do with the way shutters work.
How would the way the shutters work be an issue? I can get an RC-1 remote to do what I want, but I just wonder why, with all the electronics and computing power in the Rebel, why it can't be set up to hold the shutter open without requiring a finger on the button.
How would the way the shutters work be an issue? I can get an RC-1 remote to do what I want, but I just wonder why, with all the electronics and computing power in the Rebel, why it can't be set up to hold the shutter open without requiring a finger on the button.
because touching the camera imparts camera shake
don't touch the camera, touchthe remote, & you will get better images ..
For most of the older film cameras, you could use the 'bulb' setting without having a battery in your camera. So if your battery died... You wouldn't be completely screwed... You'd just have to guess your exposure because your light meter wouldn't work.
The bulb setting is great if you have a lens that has a weird f/stop... Like an f/32. That way you can still get a properly exposed image if you use a stop watch and a cable release... or a remote control for digital cameras.
Even most P&S cameras have a 15 or 30 second exposure setting -- it makes sense that they could make a menu item to make the exposure time manually programmable for times over 1 second. This should be only a software problem -- if the shutter can do 1 second and it can do 15 seconds, then it should be physically capable of doing 9 seconds if properly instructed/controlled.
How would the way the shutters work be an issue? I can get an RC-1 remote to do what I want, but I just wonder why, with all the electronics and computing power in the Rebel, why it can't be set up to hold the shutter open without requiring a finger on the button.
It would certainly be easy to get the electronic circuits to do anything you want. I think part of the issue is that in modern shutters, holding the shutter open requires electrical power. If you accidently start a time exposure and don't end it, your batteries will be dead when you come back. It is much less likely to be a problem with a bulb setting--as soon as you lift the finger off the button (or cable release), the exposure is ended and the battery is not run down.
Astronomical photographers prefer old mechanical SLRs for exactly this reason. They measure some of their exposures in hours. Batteries don't last long with these exposures.
How would the way the shutters work be an issue? I can get an RC-1 remote to do what I want, but I just wonder why, with all the electronics and computing power in the Rebel, why it can't be set up to hold the shutter open without requiring a finger on the button.
because touching the camera imparts camera shake
don't touch the camera, touchthe remote, & you will get better images ..
Of course, one could cover the lens manually, open the shutter, wait for any camera shake to stop, and then unblock the lens, reblock it and then press the shutter button to close the shutter again.
How would the way the shutters work be an issue? I can get an RC-1 remote to do what I want, but I just wonder why, with all the electronics and computing power in the Rebel, why it can't be set up to hold the shutter open without requiring a finger on the button.
It would certainly be easy to get the electronic circuits to do anything you want. I think part of the issue is that in modern shutters, holding the shutter open requires electrical power. If you accidently start a time exposure and don't end it, your batteries will be dead when you come back. It is much less likely to be a problem with a bulb setting--as soon as you lift the finger off the button (or cable release), the exposure is ended and the battery is not run down.
Astronomical photographers prefer old mechanical SLRs for exactly this reason. They measure some of their exposures in hours. Batteries don't last long with these exposures.
--DanW
This is correct. IN the old days mechanical cameras had both "time" and "bulb" functions; in "time" the first click opens the shutter and the second click closes it. But the shutter is held open mechanically. The dSLR cams use electronic shutters, and to hold them open you have to have power. Set it up and forget about it, and you are out of power pretty quickly. There's also the issue of mirror lockup; when your mirror opens it shakes the camera. So most dSLR cams have a mirror lockup menu function; when you use that, the first press locks the mirror up, the second press fires the shutter. The mechanical SLRs had a mechanical lockup, so this was not an issue, but with a dSLR using a "time" function PLUS mirror lockup, you'd need three taps; one for mirror, one to start exposure, one to finish exposure.
In any event, that's why they have programmable remote releases; pricy, but effective. I use the simple on-off release; it has a slide lock to hold it open during long exposures.
I don't think holding the shutter open drains the batteries all that fast -- using the LCD drains the batteries. Every camera I've seen lately has an exposure of 15 seconds or longer.
It would certainly be easy to get the electronic circuits to do anything you want. I think part of the issue is that in modern shutters, holding the shutter open requires electrical power. If you accidently start a time exposure and don't end it, your batteries will be dead when you come back. It is much less likely to be a problem with a bulb setting--as soon as you lift the finger off the button (or cable release), the exposure is ended and the battery is not run down.
Astronomical photographers prefer old mechanical SLRs for exactly this reason. They measure some of their exposures in hours. Batteries don't last long with these exposures.
--DanW
Sure, but the battery issue is the same if you use a remote or hold it with your finger for a bulb setting. I'm just saying it seems to me the "Time" shutter mode (thanks for that info, wheeledd) would be easy enough to include on just about any dSLR.
It would certainly be easy to get the electronic circuits to do anything you want. I think part of the issue is that in modern shutters, holding the shutter open requires electrical power. If you accidently start a time exposure and don't end it, your batteries will be dead when you come back. It is much less likely to be a problem with a bulb setting--as soon as you lift the finger off the button (or cable release), the exposure is ended and the battery is not run down.
Astronomical photographers prefer old mechanical SLRs for exactly this reason. They measure some of their exposures in hours. Batteries don't last long with these exposures.
--DanW
Sure, but the battery issue is the same if you use a remote or hold it with your finger for a bulb setting. I'm just saying it seems to me the "Time" shutter mode (thanks for that info, wheeledd) would be easy enough to include on just about any dSLR.
It's not that simple, because of the mirror lockup issue; see my previous post. You couldn't use a 2-tap "time" exposure with mirror lockup enabled.
Sure, but the battery issue is the same if you use a remote or hold it with your finger for a bulb setting. I'm just saying it seems to me the "Time" shutter mode (thanks for that info, wheeledd) would be easy enough to include on just about any dSLR.
It's not that simple, because of the mirror lockup issue; see my previous post. You couldn't use a 2-tap "time" exposure with mirror lockup enabled.
R.
Now I'm confused. Why can't a dSLR do mirror lockup and then have the next two taps open and close the shutter?
Sure, but the battery issue is the same if you use a remote or hold it with your finger for a bulb setting. I'm just saying it seems to me the "Time" shutter mode (thanks for that info, wheeledd) would be easy enough to include on just about any dSLR.
It's not that simple, because of the mirror lockup issue; see my previous post. You couldn't use a 2-tap "time" exposure with mirror lockup enabled.
R.
Now I'm confused. Why can't a dSLR do mirror lockup and then have the next two taps open and close the shutter?
no reason -
it was one of the minor irritants of the D200 - tap tap & maximum of 30sec the shutter will close ..
