Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 16, 2004, 8:19 PM   #1
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 62
Default IR Remote: Two Stupid Questions

I keep looking at reviews and press anouncements on new digital cameras models. Many have an IR remote control that only works in front of the camera often within a very short distance (ie less than 15 feet).

Stupid question 1:
Other than self portaits ... what are they useful for ??
The ones with Zoom control realy mystify me.
Adjust the zoom from the front ... then step to the
back to see if your head fills the frame ??

Stupid question 2:
What is so difficult about the concept treading the shutter buton for a simple cable release that digital camera designers can not handle it ???
LewTwo is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Mar 16, 2004, 8:30 PM   #2
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 23
Default

My old Canon Pro90 has an infrared remote and an articulated LCD screen that lets me rotate it around so I can do group shots that include me. It also lets me control the zoom to help frame the picture. I rarely use it, but when I need it, it works great. It's better than a cable because there's no wire in the picture.
Bob_Wildman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 16, 2004, 9:09 PM   #3
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 62
Default

Exactly my point.

An IR remote is only good for pictures that include the camera operator ... the same thing we have used self timers for for years and nearly all digital cameras include a self timer.

For other situations (i.e. long zooms, macro photography, remote camera placement) photographers have used shutter cable releases. IR remotes do not address these situations. A very few progfesional digital cameras have a threaded shutter buttons. A few cameras have optional overpriced wired remotes, but most have nothing to address these situations.
LewTwo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 16, 2004, 10:11 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
ohenry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,676
Default

The advantage of the remote over the timer is that you don't have to rush back to get in position after pressing the shutter release.
ohenry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 16, 2004, 11:18 PM   #5
hst
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 182
Default It works great with a swivel screen

Some cameras with IR remotes also have a swivel screen so you can actually see from the front where you are zooming and where things are positioned. It works good if your trying to compose a shot from in front of the lense like working with a small child and trying to keep their attention or when including yourself and making sure eveyone is properly posed before you shoot the picture. It also works great for tripod shots so you get no movement with long shutter times and you can zoom in without having to move back to the camera for another shot. Not a necessary feature but nice to have in some instances.
hst is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 16, 2004, 11:27 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 325
Default

OK maybe Im the only one who does this *shameful wince* But Ive been known to commision myself not only as photographer but also as my own "light gopher"... I ... admittedly ... will hold spotlights or light boxes over subjects to get the lighting I need when there are no other hands available... so the IR remote has been very helpful in those instances... Only really useful when I am in full manual mode ... but this was something I did with my olympus quite a bit ... not yet with the 300D
mrkryz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 17, 2004, 12:07 AM   #7
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 62
Default

Ok ... I will concede the studio shot of a child and even the studio set up --- both of great importance to the professional photographer. But most of the pro cameras have some other kind of remote available. Drop down to Pro-summer, amateur or consumer levels and all you get is the little IR thing.

"...or when including yourself and making sure eveyone is properly posed ..."

That was the a point I conceded in the question to begin with.

The point is most of the time (99%) I am behind the camera not in front of it (and that is a good thing). Behind the camera a IR remote is useless ... unless they put a sensor on the back as well.


Speaking of the other types of remotes: My circa 2000 Casio SX8000 has a wired remote that runs circles around anything that Nikon, Canon, Sony, Olympus or anyone else has offered .... and it came in the box with the camera (not a $100 option like the one for my CP995).


My point:
Digital camera manufacturers are currently offering less in a remote than the technology that was available 4 years ago. In my oprinion the IR remote is less capable than the cable release that was available 50 years ago. Technology is supposed to move foward not backwards.

The thought that I almost spent ~$1,000 for a DSLR that is thus handicapped just iritates me. I will of course choose a different camera that has a wired remote option but why would any manufacture produce a camera that can ONLY be fired remotely from the front?
LewTwo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 17, 2004, 3:46 AM   #8
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,545
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LewTwo
My point:
Digital camera manufacturers are currently offering less in a remote than the technology that was available 4 years ago. In my oprinion the IR remote is less capable than the cable release that was available 50 years ago. Technology is supposed to move foward not backwards.

The thought that I almost spent ~$1,000 for a DSLR that is thus handicapped just iritates me. I will of course choose a different camera that has a wired remote option but why would any manufacture produce a camera that can ONLY be fired remotely from the front?
Have you actually try this setup? On short distance especially macro you can hold the remote anywhere, even behind the camera and still have the ability to control it... The IR signal bounces off the bench or light color surfaces and the camera will still pickup the signal! When the camera is on a tripod with a long zoom, it's much more convenient to reach to the front with the tiny remote, which is within arm lenght than to attach a thread release... and be tied to the camera. ops:

Most cameras already have a USB port: Remote Control and Remote Capture are fully supported through this connection from several manufacturers already... Granted you'll need a laptop, but then you can also do more than a 'dumb' cable release like adjusting the exposure, zooming or even change the ISO remotely, etc... I don't recall any of my film SLRs were capable of this. http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_reviews/g5_pg7.html

Of course on more expensive dSLRs you can also shoot in RAW and have the pictures processed remotely at the PC/laptop instead of inside the camera... Some might even do it faster than other through the Firewire instead!
:lol: :lol: :lol:

BTW I don't know which cameras you have looked at but at least on the Digital Rebel, 10D and D7/i/Hi/A1/A2 there's an electrical cable release option.. It's just doesn't mechanically screw in the shutter release that's all!
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 17, 2004, 8:38 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 575
Default

I honestly say I never had a problem with my C3000Z and the infared remote that came with it. I always used the remote as a remote shutter release especially during night shots.
Gandalf065 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 17, 2004, 9:35 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Indian Rocks Beach, FL
Posts: 4,036
Default

My little C50 came with a remote and I wish all of my cameras did. I have never used it for self portraits, but it is very handy for tripod shots from my little Ultrapod. Standing behind the camera I can reach anywhere in the front to zoom or trigger the camera. I donít use the zoom control that much except for fine adjustments sometimes, but using it as a remote shutter release avoids having to set up for self timer for each tripod shot.

I donít know about others, but the Oly remote is really tiny. Maybe half the size of a credit card and not much thicker. It is a lot easier to tote for a small camera than a cable release would be. I guess if you have a camera bag full of gear the instant action of the cable release might have some advantages Ė there is a bit of a delay with the Oly remote in the shutter release.

People use the remotes to include themselves in photos. I think one of the main uses is to be able to show images on a TV without having to stand next to the camera. You can scroll either way through all of the pictures using the remote. I donít usually view my pictures on a TV, but now that I have a HD system I might Ė and the remote would be very handy.

If you feel you have to physically walk around in front of the camera to trigger it I can see why a mechanical cable release might be more suitable for you.
slipe is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 6:54 PM.