DPReview relocates - from London, England, to Seattle, WA, USA!

On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 00:13:33 -0400, shiva das wrote:
: The day you actually convince _one_ camera company to produce a
: mass-market camera with the shutter speeds denoted in milliseconds and
: f-stops in binary is the day we well be dining on cold roast pork flying
: through hell on a snowball...

It's a day you may well live to see. Now that shutter speeds are displayed by
software instead of engraved on a wheel, there's nothing to prevent a camera
from expressing them in any notation you choose.

Cameras already ignore the 1/x convention in the shutter speeds they select
automatically. I remember one case where the Exif readout told me that the
shot had been exposed for 0.7 sec.

Bob

Robert Coe wrote:

Cameras already ignore the 1/x convention in the shutter speeds they
select automatically.

And manually. My 450D goes (in 1/3 step increments) ... 1/8, 1/6, 1/5, 1/4,
0"3, 0"4, 0"5, 0"6, 0"8, 1", 1"3, 1"6, 2"... I have no idea why they thought
0"5 makes more sense than 0.5 (the EXIF says 0.5"). But Canon don't GAF
about labels making sense anyway - they omit the solidus from all displays
of aperture settings, thus bamboozling generations of newbs.

On Sat, 23 Oct 2010 09:38:09 +0800, "Wilba"
wrote:
: Robert Coe wrote:
:
: Cameras already ignore the 1/x convention in the shutter speeds they
: select automatically.
:
: And manually. My 450D goes (in 1/3 step increments) ... 1/8, 1/6, 1/5, 1/4,
: 0"3, 0"4, 0"5, 0"6, 0"8, 1", 1"3, 1"6, 2"... I have no idea why they thought
: 0"5 makes more sense than 0.5 (the EXIF says 0.5"). But Canon don't GAF
: about labels making sense anyway - they omit the solidus from all displays
: of aperture settings, thus bamboozling generations of newbs.

The underlying idea has to be that the double quote is a widespread notation
for "seconds" (although I suspect that its original meaning was restricted to
"seconds of arc" and probably didn't include sixtieths of a minute). Why they
used it instead of a decimal point in this context is certainly unclear. Maybe
they were worried about speeds that included a decimal getting confused with
aperture values (which, however, have an "F" displayed before them on a 450D).

Bob

Robert Coe wrote:
Wilba wrote:
: Robert Coe wrote:
:
: Cameras already ignore the 1/x convention in the shutter speeds they
: select automatically.
:
: And manually. My 450D goes (in 1/3 step increments) ... 1/8, 1/6, 1/5,
1/4,
: 0"3, 0"4, 0"5, 0"6, 0"8, 1", 1"3, 1"6, 2"... I have no idea why they
thought
: 0"5 makes more sense than 0.5 (the EXIF says 0.5"). But Canon don't GAF
: about labels making sense anyway - they omit the solidus from all
displays
: of aperture settings, thus bamboozling generations of newbs.

The underlying idea has to be that the double quote is a widespread
notation
for "seconds" (although I suspect that its original meaning was restricted
to
"seconds of arc" and probably didn't include sixtieths of a minute).

AFAIK, a double quote only denotes an arcsecond, not a time second. Bad
Canon.

Why they used it instead of a decimal point in this context is certainly
unclear.
Maybe they were worried about speeds that included a decimal getting
confused
with aperture values (which, however, have an "F" displayed before them on
a
450D).

I'd rather they were entirely standard-compliant and unambiguous, like
'1/4000s f/5.6', but I bet somewhere sometime that was too wide to display
and the "superfluous" characters were removed.

On 10-10-21 21:04 , Robert Coe wrote:
On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 18:21:39 -0400, Alan Browne

: My Maxxum 9 has a 1/12,000 shutter speed - though rarely used it.

Just as well. Nobody on the planet could build a mechanical shutter to that
accuracy.

Well, one definitely could - but the price would reflect the fineness of
the accuracy.

--
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.

Bruce wrote in
:

Savageduck wrote:
Didn't know you were a fan of Tom Lehrer

From bull fights to the periodic table.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6RbfaoX5Hw


He has been putting a smile on my face for over 50 years now.


Lehrer has been around for so long that I was surprised to learn that
he is still alive. He was extremely popular here in the UK in the
1960s and I recall my grandfather was a fan. At that time, I was too
young to fully appreciate Lehrer's humour.



Speaking of the 60's, should the theme of this move be from the TV
series, "Here Come the Brides?"

John A. wrote:
On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 22:19:40 -0400, Robert wrote:

On Sat, 23 Oct 2010 09:38:09 +0800,
wrote:
: Robert Coe wrote:
:
: Cameras already ignore the 1/x convention in the shutter speeds they
: select automatically.
:
: And manually. My 450D goes (in 1/3 step increments) ... 1/8, 1/6, 1/5, 1/4,
: 0"3, 0"4, 0"5, 0"6, 0"8, 1", 1"3, 1"6, 2"... I have no idea why they thought
: 0"5 makes more sense than 0.5 (the EXIF says 0.5"). But Canon don't GAF
: about labels making sense anyway - they omit the solidus from all displays
: of aperture settings, thus bamboozling generations of newbs.

The underlying idea has to be that the double quote is a widespread notation
for "seconds" (although I suspect that its original meaning was restricted to
"seconds of arc" and probably didn't include sixtieths of a minute). Why they
used it instead of a decimal point in this context is certainly unclear. Maybe
they were worried about speeds that included a decimal getting confused with
aperture values (which, however, have an "F" displayed before them on a 450D).

IIRC, in some parts of the world the usage of dots and commas in
numeric notation is reversed. Maybe they figured something universally
confusing would be more politic.

lol :-)

My Nikon reads:

8, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2.5, 2, 1.6, 1.3, 1", 1.3", 1.6", 2"

-which I find terribly confusing!

that should be read like:

1/8", 1/6", 1/5", 1/4", 1/3", 1/2.5", 1/2", 1/1.6", 1/1.3", 1", 1.3",
1.6", 2"

-but what the hell is 1/1.6? one one-point-sixth?! Jesus. :-)

I suppose there isn't room to have 1-1/3", 1-2/3".

Fractions do work nicely for doubling but only in full stops, not as
well for thirds of stops. I forget how the exif reads but it's something
a little different, like probably 1/1.6" is 0.625 seconds...mm, nope,
it's .7 sec. The camera can also be set to half stops or single stop
increments... of course they call them steps in the menu. In fact, I
just set it to half stop increments; that'll be easier and is plenty of
control. Now it's only got one weird one:

8, 6, 4, 3, 2, 1.5, 1", 1.5", 2"

ISO is messy that way though:

200, 280, 400, 560, 800

I just set that to full stops, it's quicker that way.

peter wrote:
On 10/22/2010 11:45 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2010-10-22 06:26:58 -0700, peter said:

On 10/22/2010 12:09 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2010-10-21 20:00:48 -0700, peter
said:



Hint: there are 10 types of people: those that understand binary and
those
that don't.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXx2VVSWDMo

...and both of them confuse me.

Now if you will excuse me there is a pigeon in dire need of
poisoning.


Didn't know you were a fan of Tom Lehrer

From bull fights to the periodic table.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6RbfaoX5Hw


He has been putting a smile on my face for over 50 years now.


Yup! You got me listening to most of the songs on that page. ;-)

Here's the modern equivalent:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSmua...xt=1& index=1
-yeah, I know, more crude but maybe not for the times...

Bruce wrote:
Paul Furman wrote:

but what the hell is 1/1.6? one one-point-sixth?! Jesus. :-)

It is a type of descriptor that is in common use for describing the
size of digital sensors. In either application it is almost
meaningless. ;-)

Ha, right, that too; video tubes.

With half stop steps, it now goes to 1.5 which would be:
one one and a halfth: 1/1-1/2.