We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Digital Camera with short 'ON' time?

ABH_3
Posts: 1,211 Forumite
Hi,
I am looking for a digital camera with a short 'On' time. That means I want to turn the camera on in the shortest time possible and take a photo. I have been looking at the Casion Exilim range, which seem ideal at around 1.4ms from cold to hot (hot being ready to take a photo).
Unfortunately, they are little bit out of my price range presently. So does anyone have any sugestions for a 'cheap' alternative?
Thanks.
I am looking for a digital camera with a short 'On' time. That means I want to turn the camera on in the shortest time possible and take a photo. I have been looking at the Casion Exilim range, which seem ideal at around 1.4ms from cold to hot (hot being ready to take a photo).
Unfortunately, they are little bit out of my price range presently. So does anyone have any sugestions for a 'cheap' alternative?
Thanks.
It could have been worse. At least source code's not combustible, or you can bet somebody at McAfee would have lit it.
0
Comments
-
You get what you pay for I am afraid, and quick turn on time and low shutter lag are two things that are generally only offered in higher range models.
One tip I could give you I guess but is common sense too is go for a camera with a fixed lens. If the lens has to extend or come out of the camera body you know things are going to be slower than somthing that is fixed.
Thing is you will pay with overall image quality but unless you pay more or go S/H there are probably not many choices...
have you tried these...?0 -
ollyk wrote:You get what you pay for I am afraid, and quick turn on time and low shutter lag are two things that are generally only offered in higher range models.
I was afraid someone was going to say thatOne tip I could give you I guess but is common sense too is go for a camera with a fixed lens. If the lens has to extend or come out of the camera body you know things are going to be slower than somthing that is fixed.
Thing is you will pay with overall image quality but unless you pay more or go S/H there are probably not many choices...
I'm finding that out graduallyhave you tried these...?
What I was hoping for is some camera models which feature a quick 'on' time. I used the Exilim range purely to demonstrate the feature I was looking for. I don't mind looking at older camera models, but I need it to be digital so I don't have to mess around with developing prints or sending the film\card off to some farflung place.
I've looked through the listings at 7 day shop but they aren't that good in terms of price. You can buy refurbished cameras from fuji, casio, canon which are similarily priced.
If you know what the 'technical' term is I'm looking for, to give me something to research or could you sugest some suitable camera models, that would help
Thanks.It could have been worse. At least source code's not combustible, or you can bet somebody at McAfee would have lit it.0 -
ABH wrote:I am looking for a digital camera with a short 'On' time. That means I want to turn the camera on in the shortest time possible and take a photo. I have been looking at the Casion Exilim range, which seem ideal at around 1.4ms from cold to hot (hot being ready to take a photo).
Just to satisfy my idle curiousity why is the start up time important to you? Even a slow camera will only take a few seconds.
FWIW if you look at the reviews here:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/
the start up times 'Power: off to record' are generally shown on the 'Perfomance' pages (though a bit laborious to look through them all).Stompa0 -
Stompa wrote:Just to satisfy my idle curiousity why is the start up time important to you?
I've got a graphics card that seems to exhibit some problems periodically. It makes the screen go all pixelated, I can't return it as it works for 80% of the time without incident. However, usually when I'm in the thick of it during a gaming session. It corrupts the screen, so much so that I have to perform a hard reset and reboot. The onscreen pixelation lasts for about 10 seconds or so, then the screen goes blank. I've spoken to the retailer and they say that unless they can duplicate the error, there's no chance of a refund\replacement. Even I can't duplicate the problem on demmand, it happens and I just need to prove it.Even a slow camera will only take a few seconds.
That's what I thought, however, I've borrowed a couple of digital cameras off of friends and they take too long to boot and take the picture. Even leaving the camera on they take too long to take the picture from pressing the button to the time I hear the 'click'.FWIW if you look at the reviews here:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/
the start up times 'Power: off to record' are generally shown on the 'Perfomance' pages (though a bit laborious to look through them all).
Well, I'm desperate enough
Thanks for the link.It could have been worse. At least source code's not combustible, or you can bet somebody at McAfee would have lit it.0 -
ABH wrote:I've got a graphics card that seems to exhibit some problems periodically. It makes the screen go all pixelated, I can't return it as it works for 80% of the time without incident. However, usually when I'm in the thick of it during a gaming session. It corrupts the screen, so much so that I have to perform a hard reset and reboot. The onscreen pixelation lasts for about 10 seconds or so, then the screen goes blank. I've spoken to the retailer and they say that unless they can duplicate the error, there's no chance of a refund\replacement. Even I can't duplicate the problem on demmand, it happens and I just need to prove it.
OK, I would never have guessed that reason in a million years! Had you considered pointing some sort of video camera at the screen all the time instead? (which wouldn't rely on your reaction time)
Oddly, when my own TV developed intermittent problems I ended up taking photos of it for the TV repair man because the chances of it happening whilst he was there were so small.Stompa0 -
Oh well there are other complication taking pictures of monitors / tv screens!
Like refresh rate, the camera shutter speed should be of an exact multiple of this or you will only get a partial picture of the screen if anything at all!
You will not be able to control a cheaper camera enough to guarentee this.
Also you can't use a flash so you will need higher ISO to compensate which will be rubbish with cheaper camera's.
Personally, I would bin this thread and open another thread entitled consumer rights returning intermittent video card or something I am sure they arn't playing by consumer protection laws!
Anyway, it isn't a Geforce Ti 4200 or similar is it?0 -
Stompa wrote:OK, I would never have guessed that reason in a million years!
Yeah, you probably thought it was something 'adult' orientated... just like my friends... dirty minds the lot of you!Had you considered pointing some sort of video camera at the screen all the time instead? (which wouldn't rely on your reaction time)
Yes I have. But unfortunately, due to the location of the computer it's not possible. The only thing I could attach a web cam or similar too, would be my shoulder... so not much chance of it remaining stable.Oddly, when my own TV developed intermittent problems I ended up taking photos of it for the TV repair man because the chances of it happening whilst he was there were so small.
That's my thinking as well.It could have been worse. At least source code's not combustible, or you can bet somebody at McAfee would have lit it.0 -
ollyk wrote:Oh well there are other complication taking pictures of monitors / tv screens!
Like refresh rate, the camera shutter speed should be of an exact multiple of this or you will only get a partial picture of the screen if anything at all!
Is this likely to be a problem as the monitor that I intend to photograph is a 24" Dell LCD? Those that frequent and take photo's on the avforums when showing off their new aquisitions don't seem to experience any problems.You will not be able to control a cheaper camera enough to guarentee this.
Also you can't use a flash so you will need higher ISO to compensate which will be rubbish with cheaper camera's.
I am open to sugestions as to which camera I should be looking for?Personally, I would bin this thread and open another thread entitled consumer rights returning intermittent video card or something I am sure they arn't playing by consumer protection laws!
They are, the card is out of its 7 day DSR period. It's within the 6 months where the fault would be considered 'inherent' and so this is the ideal time to try to gain the evidence required for a swapout.Anyway, it isn't a Geforce Ti 4200 or similar is it?
No, Nvidia 7800GTX.It could have been worse. At least source code's not combustible, or you can bet somebody at McAfee would have lit it.0 -
ABH wrote:Is this likely to be a problem as the monitor that I intend to photograph is a 24" Dell LCD? Those that frequent and take photo's on the avforums when showing off their new aquisitions don't seem to experience any problems.
I just tried taking a photo of my own TFT screen (not trying to do anything very clever, just point & click, everything on auto) and couldn't see any problems - it was of the MSE forums and the text was easily readable. I'm guessing that would be sufficient for your purposes.Stompa0 -
Stompa wrote:I just tried taking a photo of my own TFT screen (not trying to do anything very clever, just point & click, everything on auto) and couldn't see any problems - it was of the MSE forums and the text was easily readable. I'm guessing that would be sufficient for your purposes.
That's good news then. So now all I have to do is decide upon the right model :doh:
I am beginning to think that I might be better off just waiting till the new year, then using the time to save up for an exilim. It seems the most appropriate to my needs. Hopefully, I will be able to find a good deal somewhere.It could have been worse. At least source code's not combustible, or you can bet somebody at McAfee would have lit it.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 351.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.8K Spending & Discounts
- 244.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.5K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.1K Life & Family
- 257.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards