Good for Nikon!

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Ed Ruf" <egruf_usenet@cox.net> wrote in message
newsoet615cglsgp41gkfpqjvb6siqh1r12rl@4ax.com...
> On 26 Apr 2005 06:28:15 -0700, in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
> elprimogeeko@hotmail.com (MarkyBoyTM) wrote:
>
> >You can even with the wirless one. I've had my D70 on a tripod and
> >used the wireless remote from behind the camera with no problems.
>
> ??? It's not wireless, it's IR, so how do you get IR from the remote
behind
> the camera into the sensor on the front? Did you reflect it off something?

I haven't tried fully from behind my Rebel XT but from the side I can be
quite behind the plane of the front of the camera and the IR still receives
a signal from the remote.

Greg

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Ed Ruf wrote:


> ??? It's not wireless, it's IR, so how do you get IR from the remote behind
> the camera into the sensor on the front? Did you reflect it off something?

IR is a portion of the EM spectrum. No wires. Wireless.

I've often used white paper or crumpled and then unfolded alu foil as a
reflector to aid IR controlled TTL flashes (Minolta) or to help slaves
set far away to fire.

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http/www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http/www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http/www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <gwTae.1127967$8l.3210@pd7tw1no>,
"Dirty Harry" <NOJUNK@FU.ca> wrote:

>Does the new firmware give you iso 100 or a spot for a remote shutter cable?

If the firmware gives you ISO 100, it will do it by metering for ISO 50
in ISO 100-level amplification, and reducing the exposure during RAW
conversion. You can do that now, if you shoot in RAW. You lose a stop
of highlights, though.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Ed Ruf <egruf_usenet@cox.net> wrote:

>> You can even with the wirless one. I've had my D70 on a tripod and
>> used the wireless remote from behind the camera with no problems.
>
> ??? It's not wireless, it's IR, so how do you get IR from the remote behind
> the camera into the sensor on the front? Did you reflect it off something?

It works fine most of the time. Though it is pretty silly to have the
receiver on the front of the camera instead of the back. I guess both
would have been ideal.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 19:52:20 -0400, in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Alan
Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

>Ed Ruf wrote:
>
>
>> ??? It's not wireless, it's IR, so how do you get IR from the remote behind
>> the camera into the sensor on the front? Did you reflect it off something?
>
>IR is a portion of the EM spectrum. No wires. Wireless.

Pull foot out of mouth, Was a very long day.... Indeed IR is wireless, but
line of sight. I prefer calling it IR to distinguish from other
non-directional wireless connections.
----------
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http/edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Ed Ruf wrote:

> Pull foot out of mouth, Was a very long day.... Indeed IR is wireless, but
> line of sight. I prefer calling it IR to distinguish from other
> non-directional wireless connections.

Many "wireless" devices are both line of site and directional. Cell
phone tower antennas are directional (fat direction, 120° or so), radar
is very directional and line of site, many military tactical radios are
directional and line of site... I'll stop, I'm sure you get the point.

Calling it IR is fine and I tend to do the same thing ... as I find IR
to be finicky for controlling flashes (or the television for that matter).

Cheers,
Alan.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http/www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http/www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http/www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On 26 Apr 2005 17:04:16 -0400, dnichols@d-and-d.com (DoN. Nichols)
wrote:

>In article <jjas619vgn1j8r9rggkmp800ttb0r7cfqs@4ax.com>,
>Owamanga <owamanga(not-this-bit)@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>On 25 Apr 2005 22:12:30 -0400, dnichols@d-and-d.com (DoN. Nichols)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <vvop61diuj1pn7sta8b0l99j8q0nlul1gf@4ax.com>,
>>>Owamanga <owamanga(not-this-bit)@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> [ ... ]
>
>>>>>The D70s is a minor update to an already-great camera. There's not a whole
>>>>>lot you can really do to improve the D70 in firmware. I never updated the
>>>>>firmware in mine at all; it was never necessary.
>>>>
>>>>There's loads of stuff they could do:
>>>>
>>>>Remove the flash sync limit of 1/500 and let it go right up to 1/8000
>>>>(currently, this can be achieved with a piece of electrical tape).
>>>
>>> How? And why would you need to?
>>
>>How? it is currently an firmware restriction that has no basis in
>>electrical or physical restrictive capabilities of the camera.
>>Solution: Remove the limit.
>
> This implies that the mechanical shutter is *always* fully open
>at any speed, and that the electro-optical shutter does it all.

Yes, it is fully open at all speeds. The D70 is mechanical up to
1/250th and then relies on the electronic shutter to cope with the
higher speeds. There is no shutter speed on the D70 where the
mechanical shutter doesn't fully open. Thus, excepting technical
issues with the duration of the flash itself, it (the camera) is quite
capable of synching at all shutter speeds.

So - B to 1/250 entirely mechanical. Beyond that, hybrid mechanical
(shutter opens for 1/250) + electronic.

People have tried this with an external flash with mixed results. The
limitation can be removed by using a non-nikon flash, or by use of
electrical tape to cover some of the flash contacts (simulating a
non-nikon flash). At very high shutter speeds, some loss in flash
power (and distance) is expected - where the total flash time is
longer than the fast shutter speed.

The hybrid shutter in the D70 protects the bayer filters on the sensor
from unwanted long term exposure to potentially damaging light by
keeping a mechanical shutter in front of it closed until a photo is
being taken.

[remainder snipped]

--
Owamanga!
http/www.pbase.com/owamanga

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <42ft61dbvf4tvtapd3e33mpdt1t0elpuck@4ax.com>, I
JPS@no.komm, mistakenly wrote:

>In message <gwTae.1127967$8l.3210@pd7tw1no>,
>"Dirty Harry" <NOJUNK@FU.ca> wrote:
>
>>Does the new firmware give you iso 100 or a spot for a remote shutter cable?
>
>If the firmware gives you ISO 100, it will do it by metering for ISO 50
>in ISO 100-level amplification,

Don't know how I wrote that; perhaps I was translating it to my cameras.
That should be "metering for ISO 100 in ISO 100-level amplification".


--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <q050719cr2nvp7dk272qfq5li86rgqksto@4ax.com>,
JPS@no.komm mistakenly re-wrote:

>In message <42ft61dbvf4tvtapd3e33mpdt1t0elpuck@4ax.com>, I
>JPS@no.komm, mistakenly wrote:
>
>>In message <gwTae.1127967$8l.3210@pd7tw1no>,
>>"Dirty Harry" <NOJUNK@FU.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>Does the new firmware give you iso 100 or a spot for a remote shutter cable?
>>
>>If the firmware gives you ISO 100, it will do it by metering for ISO 50
>>in ISO 100-level amplification,
>
>Don't know how I wrote that; perhaps I was translating it to my cameras.
>That should be "metering for ISO 100 in ISO 100-level amplification".

Damn!!! I still wrote it wrong. It should be, "metering for ISO 100 in
ISO 200-level amplification".

I just read over this twice, and I am 99% certain it is now correct!
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><