8 Jul
2011
8 Jul
'11
11:04 a.m.
On 07/07/2011 19:28, Tony Duell wrote:
Sure. For an enjtirely electronically-conmtroleld camera (I assume even
things like the miroro movement are electrically triggered), an
electrical remote release makes more sense than a mechanical cable release.
It's a pity the isn't some unversal standard for basical functionaity
(It's this type of connecotre, short these 2 pins to trigger the camera),
so you could use anybody's accessories, jsut as with the mechanical cable
release ona film camera.
My
digital camera doesn't even have a real cable release mount. But, I
Yes, I am told may do not. I wonder why not, given that I use a cable relase
with film cameras al lthe time. It's a pity such things are not standardised
and documented.
Not a universal standard, but many SLRs use a 2.5mm jack plug that
simply shorts some contacts. I remember when I got my first camera that
supported electrical/electronic shutter release. There's nothing wrong
with a cable release when you're manually operating the camera next to
you, but the only common and reliable way to do it from any distance was
an air release. I had one, good for about 50 feet. The electrical timer. Now virtually all SLRs, most bridge cameras,
and many compacts
support electronic and IR triggering, and the cost of the trigger device
is about the same as a decent cable release. Somewhat less, if you
I would much prefer it if the operatrion was properly docuemtned, since I
find most photogrtaphic electroncis to be lecalised robbery...
already have an iPaq, iPhone, or Android phone and
only count the
software cost.
There is something perverse about using such a powerful processor just to
trigger a camera... Needless to say this would nevr be an option for me.
-tony