Originally posted by GerryL Welcome to the forums BrettA! < Cut >
From your query about the 10sec min (don't even know if it is true since I said haven't played with it), if it where to take something like a 1 sec shot minimum, won't this be like already doing video?
It might also be connected to the 99 (I think) max number of shots, since it won't make too much of a difference in the shots (done 1 sec at a time) if shots where viewed continuously as in a time lapse photography.
You won't actually see flowers bloom or the clouds go zooming by.
Try "You Tube" and you'll see examples of time lapse photos done with the W80. ...
Thanks, Gerry, and
yes, it is a 10 second min (with 11, 12, 13.... yada, yada, yada) on the one I tested in store, but
no, re time lapse as I'd use my D700 for that. The sole purpose of the W80 for me would be KAP (kites) and even there it would only be for stills (I have an Olympus E-PL1 and a Vixia HF20 for motion). So 10 seconds is doable, but somewhat of a waste of time... it just seems silly and pointless to allow 1 second increments above 10 and nothing at all below 10.
And of course I never suggested 1 second setting. But for this application, I'd likely usually want 2 to 4 second intervals and perhaps 99 shots (if a setting is even mandatory) to pick the best 2 or 3, but c'est la vie, I guess. At least it
has an intervalometer, while my Olympus PEN doesn't at all (or I'd be using it -
and will if a later model comes out with it and is compatible with the underwater housing). For interest of comparative purposes, my D700 has a limit, too - 8,991 shots (I'm not expecting the W80 to compete, just noting that someone thinks a limit higher than say, 12, ain't such a bad thing).
But I was also trying to determine if there's any
reason for these seemingly arbitrary and low limits... it seems not so far. Arbitrary limitations always seem so pointless, since it can't cost any more than to allow 1 second increments from 1 second, rather than from 10, and since some designer can't really know what everyone will want.
And speaking of YouTube, I did in fact view a time lapse done on a highway, and with the setting chosen (10 secs.?), the cars in the other lane had no motion at all since they completely changed from frame to frame. While everyone's different, my preference there would have been a finer setting - perhaps a second or 3 - to allow you to see the the movement of oncoming cars. Without the limitation, one could easily choose either way rather than being forced into one (jerky, discontinuous) way. AIUI, playback is generally at 24 or 30 fps, so a 1 second setting would speed the motion up by a factor of 24 or 30 times, surely making a huge difference. Indeed, even a half-second would make a big difference with playback, it seems. Anyway, thanks again :-)!