File :-(, x, )
60 motherfucking frames per second Anonymous
Is that some extrem fast continuous shooting or what?
>> Anonymous
>>109237
yse it iz lol
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
hey guys, what's going on in this thr-

oshit, i got dethroned?
>> Anonymous
>>109237

faux slr?
>> Anonymous
>>109237
@ 640*480
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>109250
Nope. Full 6 megapixel, apparently.

When you drop it down to 640x480, you can get 1200fps.
>> Anonymous
That's pretty cool. But what would be the use of it? Also, $1,000 P&S is 1995 style.
>> Anonymous
>>109248
>>109252

Bridge camera aka superzoom aka made of fail.

Compact P&S or SLR. I don't think there's any room for bridge.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>109252
It's for people who suck at hitting the shutter at the right time.
>> Anonymous
>>109254
Nonsense. Just like how with medium format cameras there was no need or "room" for 35mm ones that didn't suck?

>>109252
Sports photographers will eat this thing up. A 432mm equiv. lens and that many frames per second? And when they're printing to newsprint, any drop in image quality over their 1D Mk. IIIs will drastically overshadowed by the junk paper.
>> Anonymous
>>109256
I really doubt that. Sports don't only happen at high noon. ISO and big apertures are equally useful in shooting sports.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>109256
>Nonsense. Just like how with medium format cameras there was no need or "room" for 35mm ones that didn't suck?
Not really the same thing.

See, the problem with "bridge" cameras is that they don't really give you that much over a P&S camera. More zoom range, maybe a hot shoe, but that's pretty much it. And they come along with the disadvantage that they're often nearly as big and expensive as a low-end SLR with nowhere near the same image quality.

In your analogy, it'd be like a 35mm camera with a fixed lens that was the same size and cost as a Hasselblad.

(Of course, this argument doesn't apply to the EX-F1 as much, since 60 motherfucking frames per second at 6MP is pretty awesome)

Also, did anyone notice that Sony just announced another Alpha? There's an A200 now. Guess Butterfly'll have to wait a bit longer for her full frame.
>> Anonymous
P&S shutter delay = epic fail for sports photography.
>> Anonymous
>>109256

"1/1.8-inch high-speed CMOS Type CCD"
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>109263
This camera has negative shutter delay. It can actually be set up to buffer some frames before you hit the shutter button.

It totally sounds like I'm joking, but I'm not.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0801/08010601casiof1.asp
>> Anonymous
>>109261
i love your posts, ac :]
>> Anonymous
>>109261
Better controls, viewfinders, other ergonomics, raw format and (over most compacts) better lenses and a manual focus option aren't advantages worth paying for?

Other than the fixed-lens aspect (mitigated a bit by f/2.8 zooms, but not entirely) look at it like a Leica versus a 35mm point and shoot. You can't shove an M in your pants pocket, but it's a much better photo-taking tool than some random point and shoot that happens to take the same film.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>109295
>Better controls, viewfinders, other ergonomics, raw format and (over most compacts) better lenses and a manual focus option aren't advantages worth paying for?
They're totally worth paying for. Which is why, for about the same price, I'd recommend getting a digital SLR. A digital SLR's viewfinder, ergonomics, controls, lenses, and manual focusing are going to blow away those of any bridge camera out there.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
ITS A FUCKING VIDEO CAMERA
>> Anonymous
>>109258
The lens is relatively fast- f/4.7 at the far end- and again, newspaper paper eats flaws in images. It looks like trash anyways and would almost never be printed larger than a 4x6, so the extra noise won't be the huge problem it would normally be.
>> Anonymous
>>109297
Bridge cameras are still smaller and lighter than SLRs and have a much quieter shutter. Both sensor sizes have their role, just like both 135, medium format, and large format have their role.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
Oh, and the sensor is a sony :P
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>109305
>Bridge cameras are still smaller and lighter than SLRs and have a much quieter shutter. Both sensor sizes have their role, just like both 135, medium format, and large format have their role.
Not small enough for it to matter. I can't fit one in my pocket. It's still really heavy to carry around all day. When I'm using one, it's extremely obvious.

I'm not arguing against smaller-than-SLR sensor sizes. I'm just saying that, if you're going to make a camera with a tiny sensor, you should put it in a body to match.

If you want something that handles like an SLR, you can get an SLR for about the same price. If you want something quiet and discreet, a compact P&S will be just as quiet and a lot more discreet and a lot cheaper.

Bridge cameras combine the image quality (and, in a lot of cases, the poor controls) of a P&S with the inconvenient size and high price of an SLR.
>> Anonymous
>>109315Bridge cameras combine the image quality (and, in a lot of cases, the poor controls) of a P&S with the inconvenient size and high price of an SLR.

Stuck with one lens and EVF is made of fail if you're tracking something. But I guess with 60 FPS, you can spray and pray, lol
>> Anonymous
The only way I see this being good for sports is if the AF system continues to operate while shooting. 60FPS of a static object is rarely necessary.
>> Vincent
>>109325
Its got a 1/1.8 inch sensor
It's counting on everything being in focus all the time.

I wouldn't mind seeing some sample shots, And how long the camera is going to be useless while it writes all the images to the SD card...
>> Anonymous
So I just noticed this is a Casio. A fucking Casio. Don't they make cheap watches and calculators?

People already think Sony is a joke. Where does Casio get off making a 60 FPS camera.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>109362
My Casio watch was like $60, as I recall.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>109366

My IWC Big Pilot was like $40,000$, as I recall.
>> Anonymous
>>109369
My mosaic of H3D's mounted on my kitchen wall to resemble the face of a clock cost $32 Billion, if I recall.
>> Anonymous
>>109300ITS A FUCKING VIDEO CAMERA

Truth.
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
If it is $1000 then there's no way I'd pay that for those features. It's priced into the DSLR territory and 60 motherfucking frames per second on that camera isn't worth it. 1200fps might be fun to play with for a day or two for high speed photography but I could have a lot more fun for $1000's worth of cash.
>> Anonymous
In action:

http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/06/casios-ex-f1-shoots-in-superslowmo/
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
>>109416

Oh no. A thought just occurs. We are going to see this gimmick appear again and again all over Youtube, flickr and everywhere else once this hits the shelves. I can already imagine myself sick of seeing it. Brace for impact.
>> Anonymous
I have to say it's pretty damn cool for the high speed capture functions. For 1,000$, it's definitely worth it if you can put it to good use.
>> Anonymous
Do you think we'll live to see 60 motherfucking frames per second at 21 motherfucking megapixels?
>> Anonymous
>>109421

Yes.
>> Anonymous
>>109421

Probably no more than a few years off. Sheesh. Chill out.
>> Anonymous
>>109421
who give a fuck about that anyway
>> Anonymous
UBER EXTREM FAST FUCKING SHUTTER SPEED OF LIGHT?
>> Anonymous
>>109557
I think the EX-F1 doesn't have a shutter in the traditional sense.
>> Anonymous
>>109584

Without a proper shutter, it runs a risk of smearing.
>> Anonymous
>>109600
Yeah, so it's bound to have some other means of interrupting light registration. A traditional leaf or focal plane shutter operating at 1200 times per second will wear out very quickly.
>> Anonymous
>>109602

These cameras are totally silent. All compacts are. No mechanical shutters.
>> eku !8cibvLQ11s
>>109603

My old Powershot A80 wasn't totally silent. It had that tiny but just noticable sound when taking photo.
>> Anonymous
>>109604

None of the Fuji cams I had did. I could set them off near a dog and it wouldn't twitch to the click. No chance of that with anything with a mechanical shutter clicking away.
>> Anonymous
>>109605

Camera phones don't have them either. I've never heard mine go "click" yet. I might not have as good hearing as your dog, but I'm young and do still have good hearing for a person. Even right up to my ear it makes no sound.
>> Anonymous
Some point-and-shoot cameras have shutters that close while the CCD is flushed. But these shutters aren't directly related to the exposure, which is controlled by the CCD circuitry.
>> Macheath !8b4g0BkNZg
>>109604
My Powershot S70 also made a noise when taking photos, though it's nothing compared to an SLR shutter. You could only really hear it if there was no other noise in the room.
>> Anonymous
>>109237
Dear god, imagine the slow motion animation at>>109251
oh fuck, I'm buying it.
>> Anonymous
Think of the porn capabilities! Cumshots at 1200fps.
>> Anonymous
>>109686
/p/ is for /p/orn ?
>> Anonymous
>>109686
gtfo
>> Anonymous
>>109704
fgsfds
>> Anonymous
pretty much all p&s's dont have a shutter.

they work by simply switching the CCD on/off extremely fast.

the noise you hear could be the aperture closing down to the selected f/stop for the shot as aperture is still a physical "thing"
cell cameras therefore have no variable aperture so they are completely silent and work by varying the shutter speed to suit the aperture set at factory.
>> Anonymous
>>110872
I'm almost certain you're wrong. Every point and shoot I've ever used has had a shutter, although there's probably a billion ultra-craptastic snapper cameras out there. I'd still imagine they would have a shutter, because of the technical issues involved in a camera not having one.
>> Anonymous
>>110900
Did they have live view? If so, how did they have a shutter? It would be pretty pointless to have a shutter that was open all the time.
>> Anonymous
fps is more a function of how fast your memory can write
>> Anonymous
>>110910
listen to this man
>> Anonymous
>>110910
Yes, they were point and shoots. Almost by definition they have live view, often only live view.

I forget what it was, exactly- AC told me about it when I asked the same "why not dump shutters on cameras with no mirror" question a few months back- but there's some technical reason why it's very good for a camera to have a physical shutter.
>> Anonymous
>>110921

Smearing?