On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 20:35:41 -0500, Wes wrote:

Jon Elson wrote:



nick hull wrote:

The site is too far from any possible computer site, at least 1000'.
That's why I don't use a video camera, too far for co-ax.
Huh? You can send video over miles of coax, if you terminate it
properly. Hmmm, let's see, 1000' at $0.13/ft = $130, you might be able
to do better on eBay. You can probably send the camera power on the
same cable with a little ingenuity, too.

Jon

Arcnet will do 2000 ft irrc. Wonder if they ever made pci cards for it?

Wes
Nope. Arcnet died before ISA did. There were a few parallep port
arcnets.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Tue, 01 Jan 2008 07:36:47 -0600, nick hull wrote:

In article ,
clare at snyder.on.ca wrote:

There is a hill between the camera site and my wireless router, will a
wireless tcp/ip camera work at 1000' with a hill in between? What kind
of transmitter is on the camera? I've never used that kind before.

Should work - it's radio. If it doesn't, put a repeater at the top of
the hill. Same kind of transmitter as in the wireless adapter on your
notebook, or in your wireless router.

OK, I get a vision of camera-(radio)-wireless router-computer. I tried
googling on wireless cameras but never saw any mention of range. Do I
look for a dedicated radio and how does it fit to the camera? I have a
cheap camera now, what is the (radio) called that transmits the camera
to my wireless router.

May sound like stupid questions, but my computer has no wireless
connection so I'm using a wireless router with wires connected (Linksys
WRT54G).

Free men own guns - www(dot)geocities(dot)com/CapitolHill/5357/
You buy a wireless web-cam.
Look at this one:
http://www.studica.com/products/prod...roductid=50477
from Linksys as an example.
Just google "internet IP webcam" or "wireless internet webcam"

Using a wired computer on a wireless router is definitely not a sin.
That's why they have all those RJ plugs on them.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Tue, 01 Jan 2008 14:12:44 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:

Jon Elson wrote:

nick hull wrote:

The site is too far from any possible computer site, at least 1000'.
That's why I don't use a video camera, too far for co-ax.
Huh? You can send video over miles of coax, if you terminate it
properly. Hmmm, let's see, 1000' at $0.13/ft = $130, you might be able
to do better on eBay. You can probably send the camera power on the
same cable with a little ingenuity, too.


Have you ever tried to send usable video over miles of coax, without
the proper equalizers? We used a modulator/demodulator to move video a
half mile, over .500 75 Ohm hardline for a live feed at a TV station,
back in the late '80s. You can pick up a lot of 60 HZ hum, due to
ground differentials at a half mile, as well.


ONLY ground ONE end.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Tue, 01 Jan 2008 11:55:22 -0800, jk wrote:

clare at snyder.on.ca wrote:

On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 06:22:26 -0600, nick hull wrote:


Check into X10.


Boo----Hisss----
Those jackasses are NOT worth dealing with.
jk
Perhaps, but there are other companies that sell the SAME stuff for
more money. ANd their software works pretty good.
And their software works with other cameras too.

Good software is also available with a lot of webcams. As well as some
REALLY high priced junk sold by many security CCTV distributors.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

In article ,
clare at snyder.on.ca wrote:

On Tue, 01 Jan 2008 07:36:47 -0600, nick hull wrote:

In article ,
clare at snyder.on.ca wrote:

There is a hill between the camera site and my wireless router, will a
wireless tcp/ip camera work at 1000' with a hill in between? What kind
of transmitter is on the camera? I've never used that kind before.

Should work - it's radio. If it doesn't, put a repeater at the top of
the hill. Same kind of transmitter as in the wireless adapter on your
notebook, or in your wireless router.

OK, I get a vision of camera-(radio)-wireless router-computer. I tried
googling on wireless cameras but never saw any mention of range. Do I
look for a dedicated radio and how does it fit to the camera? I have a
cheap camera now, what is the (radio) called that transmits the camera
to my wireless router.

May sound like stupid questions, but my computer has no wireless
connection so I'm using a wireless router with wires connected (Linksys
WRT54G).

Free men own guns - www(dot)geocities(dot)com/CapitolHill/5357/
You buy a wireless web-cam.
Look at this one:
http://www.studica.com/products/prod...roductid=50477
from Linksys as an example.
Just google "internet IP webcam" or "wireless internet webcam"

I've been googling and I find it hard to believe those webcams will
transmit 1000' when there is no clear line of sight. I have rarely seen
'long distance' mentioned in conjunction with 700' line of sight.
Transmission distances are not mentioned and experience causes me to
doubt they would go half the distance. Who has hard data on actual
transmission distances in the field?


Using a wired computer on a wireless router is definitely not a sin.
That's why they have all those RJ plugs on them.

Free men own guns - www(dot)geocities(dot)com/CapitolHill/5357/

In article ,
Don Foreman wrote:

On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 13:08:39 -0600, nick hull wrote:

In article ,
Don Foreman wrote:


Digital cameras, at least some of them, only turn themselves off
after a period of no activity. Many or most digital cameras have a
"focus" or "lock exposure" function when you half-press the shutter
button. Just do that periodically, and the camera will stay on, while
taking photos only when the button is fully depressed.

An idea worth trying Would prefer to do it electrically instead of
mechanically to avoid camera shake.

Many also have some means of remote actuation. The Olympus I rigged
up for a guy to take wildlife photos remotely (by radio control) had a
connector on it. The remote had two resistors and a two-position
button. The camera would focus and read exposure with one resistance,
operate the shutter with a lower resistance. I just replicated the
remote with a radio. He never mentioned having problems with the
camera shutting off, so it may be that it would stay on when the
remote was connected.

My old Oly C2500 has infrared remote control, which would be even
easier -- no connector.

I'm trying to do it with a Olympus 300 which has an IR remote if I can
keep the camera on. If it goes off I have to manually push buttons to
get it back to remote operation. Would love to attach wires to do it as
long as I can keep the camera on.

Free men own guns - www(dot)geocities(dot)com/CapitolHill/5357/

Check your camera menu -- or (shudder) manual if you still have it. My
Oly C2500 of similar vintage can be set to not turn itself off. Also,

Could not find such an option in menu or manual ;(

with the shutoff time set at one minute, I found that doing something
with the IR remote (which I think is the same as used on the D300)
periodically keeps the camera on. I just hit the W and Z zoom
buttons.

My remote only has ONE button, to take the picture ;(

The camera would need an external power supply of course, or the
batteries will be consumed in a couple of hours. The IR remote could
be simulated with an IR LED and appropriate drive elex.

I have an external power supply, but the camera goes to sleep and
retracts the lens in a couple of minutes anyway.

Free men own guns - www(dot)geocities(dot)com/CapitolHill/5357/

On 2008-01-01, Don Foreman wrote:
On Tue, 01 Jan 2008 09:45:58 -0600, nick hull wrote:

In article ,
"DoN. Nichols" wrote:

[ ... ]

Look at a used Digital SLR. Anything which does not try to use
its display as a viewfinder should be pretty quick to turn on. And
maybe you can find one inexpensive enough. Do you want to put it in a
weatherproof housing -- or just bring it in when the weather threatens?

It will stay in the weather 24/365, I'll make a housing to protect it.

Free men own guns - www(dot)geocities(dot)com/CapitolHill/5357/

This camera
http://tinyurl.com/287m7f
is a digital SLR, and it does have a setting where it stays on. The
LCD display is not active except possibly after a shot -- and that can
also be turned off.

Actually it is *not* a digital SLR. Note the wording from the
auction:


================================================== ====================
You're viewing an Olympus C-2500L

I used this camera Until I could afford the Expensive Lenses and Body of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
more expensive DSLR.

It is an excellent reliable camera that gives you some of the control of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
an SLR Camera without all the associated costs.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
================================================== ====================

So -- it may do what is needed here -- but it is not (and does
not claim to be) a DSLR. Two physical differences:

1) A SLR (digital or non) has a moving mirror which redirects
the image to the viewfinder. From the location of the
viewfinder eyepiece, I don't think that this is the case here.

I *think* that what it has is an internal display in the
viewfinder, which could slow it down as much as using the
external display.

2) A SLR has interchangeable lenses. This one has only a fixed
zoom lens.

It can be triggered by IR remote. There is no direct connection to
the camera, but an electrically-triggered (and silent) IR remote
would be simple enough to make -- or modify the one that comes with
the camera or an available replacement. (They're available for about
$29)

I have one of these cameras. It's dated, but still an excellent
camera. I don't lust for a newer one.

O.K. Just don't call it a DSLR. :-)

There is no provision for external power supply, but one could easily
contrive something to go in the battery compartment. It uses 5 to 5.2
volts DC, normally supplied by four NiMH AA cells.

Another possibility might be a cheap laptop 'puter and a webcam. House
the laptop in a suitably secure container. A cheap laptop would cost
considerably less than a current-model digital SLR. Thousands of .jpg
images can be stored on the harddrive of even an old laptop.

It is not really clear what he wants this for -- though it
sounds like he needs an anti theft camera.

Enjoy,
DoN.

--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

clare, at, snyder.on.ca wrote:

On Tue, 01 Jan 2008 14:12:44 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:

Jon Elson wrote:

nick hull wrote:

The site is too far from any possible computer site, at least 1000'.
That's why I don't use a video camera, too far for co-ax.
Huh? You can send video over miles of coax, if you terminate it
properly. Hmmm, let's see, 1000' at $0.13/ft = $130, you might be able
to do better on eBay. You can probably send the camera power on the
same cable with a little ingenuity, too.


Have you ever tried to send usable video over miles of coax, without
the proper equalizers? We used a modulator/demodulator to move video a
half mile, over .500 75 Ohm hardline for a live feed at a TV station,
back in the late '80s. You can pick up a lot of 60 HZ hum, due to
ground differentials at a half mile, as well.

ONLY ground ONE end.


Been there, done that, and still needed a $1000 video isolation
transformer.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

On 2008-01-02, nick hull wrote:
In article ,
Don Foreman wrote:

On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 13:08:39 -0600, nick hull wrote:

In article ,
Don Foreman wrote:


Digital cameras, at least some of them, only turn themselves off
after a period of no activity. Many or most digital cameras have a
"focus" or "lock exposure" function when you half-press the shutter
button. Just do that periodically, and the camera will stay on, while
taking photos only when the button is fully depressed.

An idea worth trying Would prefer to do it electrically instead of
mechanically to avoid camera shake.

The wired remotes on the Nikon DSLRs which have such have a
two-stage button. Push it half way and the camera wakes up and
autofocuses. Push it fully and the camera takes the picture.

My original D70 only has IR wireless remote -- with the sensor
facing out towards the subject -- the idea being that you'll use it to
put yourself in the picture. :-) The D70s (also now obsolete, and thus
fairly cheap) has provisions for a wired remote as well.

[ ... ]

I'm trying to do it with a Olympus 300 which has an IR remote if I can
keep the camera on. If it goes off I have to manually push buttons to
get it back to remote operation. Would love to attach wires to do it as
long as I can keep the camera on.

For the length of wires which you are talking about, the odds
are that it will zap the electronics of the camera. For that --
actually -- the best bet would be the IR remote for the Nikons. Just
route a pair of wires out to operate an IR LED mounted facing the front
of the camera. No wiring into the camera's body. But -- there is the
problem that the camera will only stay in a mode receptive to the IR
remote for a short time, I believe. Yep -- diving into the menus shows
that 15 minutes of readiness is all that is available for the wireless
(IR) remote. But you could wire up an optically isolated set of remote
contacts to a wired remote socket for a long wire routing to protect
against voltages which could zap the camera's electronics.

Free men own guns - www(dot)geocities(dot)com/CapitolHill/5357/

Check your camera menu -- or (shudder) manual if you still have it. My
Oly C2500 of similar vintage can be set to not turn itself off. Also,

Could not find such an option in menu or manual ;(

with the shutoff time set at one minute, I found that doing something
with the IR remote (which I think is the same as used on the D300)
periodically keeps the camera on. I just hit the W and Z zoom
buttons.

My remote only has ONE button, to take the picture ;(

Does it have a half-pressed state to wake up and focus the
camera before reaching full actuation to actually take the picture?

The camera would need an external power supply of course, or the
batteries will be consumed in a couple of hours. The IR remote could
be simulated with an IR LED and appropriate drive elex.

I have an external power supply, but the camera goes to sleep and
retracts the lens in a couple of minutes anyway.

Now -- *that* is something which you won't experience in a DSLR.
The lenses are (usually) the same as used on the film cameras, and
*can't* retract into the camera body. There is no room in there. ;-)
But -- it also means that you can select a non Autofocus lens with no
zoom but the right focal length to give the coverage you want, and that
is two things which won't reset on you. :-) Of course, some of the
cameras (like the D70) won't do auto exposure unless there is a chip in
the lens. But you could pick up an old 50mm lens with AF and no zoom.
(Note that on most DSLRs you will want a slightly wider lens than you
would on film -- because the sensor is smaller than the full frame 35mm
film, so a given lens focal length has less coverage -- but more
"reach". So -- bear this in mind when selecting the right lens.

Enjoy,
DoN.

--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

nick hull fired this volley in
:
1 sec of trigger.

Any help or suggestions greatly appreciated. I would rather do this
with a camera rather than a video link if possible - I don't need real
time but do need a compact easy to review output; I'd normally review
the output every week or 2.

Nick, I had "neighbor visitors" for a long time, who thought my barn was
an attractive meeting place. Things got messed with, and occasionally
taken. (especially the beer; damn!)

I set up an inexpensive Wally-World video camera, and a junked-out old
desktop PC. I run the freeware "HSSVSS", which monitors up to two
channels of video (up to 8 in the purchased version), and saves still
frames upon motion detection.

It has been _perfect_ for me. It will monitor as long as I want, and
save up all motion frames for future review, with an option to re-cycle
the frames after a certain amount of storage has been used. It will also
e-mail me whenever there's an event, and allow me to review the frames or
watch the real-time video remotely (as from my business, 10 miles away).

The whole rig (discounting the old PC, which cost, essentially, nothing)
came in at $119, including software, cabling, camera, and video-to-USB
interface.

After a quick advertising around the community concerning the fact that I
had 24-hour surveillance, and we've not had another visit, except for the
errant deer who wanders into the shot now and again.

LLoyd

On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 10:22:32 -0600, nick hull wrote:


The site is too far from any possible computer site, at least 1000'.
That's why I don't use a video camera, too far for co-ax.

Cat5 is cheap, and I've sent video 1500' over it using an $8 pair of
baluns http://tinyurl.com/333str. Twist 3 wires together for each
power leg, and use a higher voltage supply to account for the voltage
drop.

If you're willing to reconsider the still image solution, this game
camera controller board
http://www.pixcontroller.com/Products/PixU_PIR.htm signals a camera
pretty quickly. First picture delay depends on how long it takes the
camera to boot up, perhaps 4 seconds total on mine. Subsequent shots
are nearly instantaneous since the camera is already on. I'm using 6
AAs to power the board, and swapping those out once a month. 2 Ds for
the camera, replaced every couple weeks since it takes as many as 400
shots a day, lots of them with flash. Doesn't have to be fancy, photo
of mine here http://www.citlink.net/~wmbjk/gamecam/camera2.jpg. Game
cam shots (mostly) here http://www.citlink.net/~wmbjk/gamecam.htm and
here http://www.citlink.net/~wmbjk/gamecam2.htm.

Wayne

In article ,
"DoN. Nichols" wrote:

On 2008-01-01, Don Foreman wrote:
On Tue, 01 Jan 2008 09:45:58 -0600, nick hull wrote:

In article ,
"DoN. Nichols" wrote:

[ ... ]

Look at a used Digital SLR. Anything which does not try to use
its display as a viewfinder should be pretty quick to turn on. And
maybe you can find one inexpensive enough. Do you want to put it in a
weatherproof housing -- or just bring it in when the weather threatens?

It will stay in the weather 24/365, I'll make a housing to protect it.

Free men own guns - www(dot)geocities(dot)com/CapitolHill/5357/

This camera
http://tinyurl.com/287m7f
is a digital SLR, and it does have a setting where it stays on. The
LCD display is not active except possibly after a shot -- and that can
also be turned off.

Actually it is *not* a digital SLR. Note the wording from the
auction:


================================================== ====================
You're viewing an Olympus C-2500L

I used this camera Until I could afford the Expensive Lenses and Body of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
more expensive DSLR.

It is an excellent reliable camera that gives you some of the control of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
an SLR Camera without all the associated costs.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
================================================== ====================

So -- it may do what is needed here -- but it is not (and does
not claim to be) a DSLR. Two physical differences:

1) A SLR (digital or non) has a moving mirror which redirects
the image to the viewfinder. From the location of the
viewfinder eyepiece, I don't think that this is the case here.

I *think* that what it has is an internal display in the
viewfinder, which could slow it down as much as using the
external display.

2) A SLR has interchangeable lenses. This one has only a fixed
zoom lens.

It can be triggered by IR remote. There is no direct connection to
the camera, but an electrically-triggered (and silent) IR remote
would be simple enough to make -- or modify the one that comes with
the camera or an available replacement. (They're available for about
$29)

I have one of these cameras. It's dated, but still an excellent
camera. I don't lust for a newer one.

O.K. Just don't call it a DSLR. :-)

There is no provision for external power supply, but one could easily
contrive something to go in the battery compartment. It uses 5 to 5.2
volts DC, normally supplied by four NiMH AA cells.

Another possibility might be a cheap laptop 'puter and a webcam. House
the laptop in a suitably secure container. A cheap laptop would cost
considerably less than a current-model digital SLR. Thousands of .jpg
images can be stored on the harddrive of even an old laptop.

It is not really clear what he wants this for -- though it
sounds like he needs an anti theft camera.

Yes, I need an anti-theft, anti-trespasser driveway gate camera and the
Olympus C-2500L seems to be real close to what I need. I want to fix
the focus, I know what the distance will be (about 30'). I do not need
interchangeable lenses, the camera will be set up outdoors 24/365 and it
looks like I can power it externally and trigger it by IR and set the
aperture manually and let it set the speed to light conditions. I will
not use a flash on the camera (too far) but might want a remote flash
closer to the subject. Floodlights might be available.

Since I will principally aim the tripod mounted camera by trial & error
I don't even have to have a viewfinder

I would appreciate feedback from readers who have this or similar
cameras as to the suitability. My requirements are;

* Can be powered from an external AC source and set to never shut down.
OK if I have to modify the battery compartment for AC connection.

* Can be remotely triggered and sets the speed for correct exposure

* Digital, uses a chip I can remove and read with a card reader on my
computer

* I would LIKE a fast response between triggering and picture taking,
i,e, no 5 second warm-up. If I use a remote flash it will be powered up
either 24 hrs or during darkness. I do not want a viewfinder or moving
lenses to slow the response time, I need to snap the pix within 1 sec of
trigger.

Any help or suggestions greatly appreciated. I would rather do this
with a camera rather than a video link if possible - I don't need real
time but do need a compact easy to review output; I'd normally review
the output every week or 2.

nick

Free men own guns - www(dot)geocities(dot)com/CapitolHill/5357/

On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 09:24:54 -0600, with neither quill nor qualm, nick
hull quickly quoth:

Yes, I need an anti-theft, anti-trespasser driveway gate camera and the
Olympus C-2500L seems to be real close to what I need. I want to fix
the focus, I know what the distance will be (about 30'). I do not need
interchangeable lenses, the camera will be set up outdoors 24/365 and it
looks like I can power it externally and trigger it by IR and set the
aperture manually and let it set the speed to light conditions. I will
not use a flash on the camera (too far) but might want a remote flash
closer to the subject. Floodlights might be available.

Since I will principally aim the tripod mounted camera by trial & error
I don't even have to have a viewfinder

I would appreciate feedback from readers who have this or similar
cameras as to the suitability. My requirements are;

Couldn't you use a good video camera with telephoto lens mounted on
the hill between you so you could use wired video for the gate. I was
thinking that it might not work well during rainy or foggy nights, but
a closer camera might not, either. Light the area.

Alternatively, use RF vidcam and set up a repeater on the hill.


* Can be powered from an external AC source and set to never shut down.
OK if I have to modify the battery compartment for AC connection.

* Can be remotely triggered and sets the speed for correct exposure

* Digital, uses a chip I can remove and read with a card reader on my
computer

* I would LIKE a fast response between triggering and picture taking,
i,e, no 5 second warm-up. If I use a remote flash it will be powered up
either 24 hrs or during darkness. I do not want a viewfinder or moving
lenses to slow the response time, I need to snap the pix within 1 sec of
trigger.

Vidcams are always on and software for the recorder can work with
motion sensors.


Any help or suggestions greatly appreciated. I would rather do this
with a camera rather than a video link if possible - I don't need real
time but do need a compact easy to review output; I'd normally review
the output every week or 2.

If it's that far between reviews, perhaps a wildlife cam is in order.
Build a secure metal enclosure for it.

Just remember that if things are happening at your gate, a single
flash picture won't tell you the whole story where a short run video
would. Only you can weigh the advantages. G'luck.

---
Stay centered by accepting whatever you are doing.
This is the ultimate.
--Chuang-tzu (369 BC - 286 BC)

In article ,
Larry Jaques wrote:

Couldn't you use a good video camera with telephoto lens mounted on
the hill between you so you could use wired video for the gate. I was
thinking that it might not work well during rainy or foggy nights, but
a closer camera might not, either. Light the area.

Too much woods in the way

Alternatively, use RF vidcam and set up a repeater on the hill.

Sounds possible, I'm studying it

If it's that far between reviews, perhaps a wildlife cam is in order.
Build a secure metal enclosure for it.

I have one, am building a thicker metal enclosure; the first one got
broken into and stolen. I would also like to be able to take pictures
on signals, not just warm bodies.

Just remember that if things are happening at your gate, a single
flash picture won't tell you the whole story where a short run video
would. Only you can weigh the advantages. G'luck.

Video can be nice but still cameras have much better resolution. Maybe
some day I can afford both, for now digital cameras seem easier and
cheaper.

Free men own guns - www(dot)geocities(dot)com/CapitolHill/5357/

On 2 Jan 2008 04:03:27 GMT, "DoN. Nichols"
wrote:

On 2008-01-01, Don Foreman wrote:
On Tue, 01 Jan 2008 09:45:58 -0600, nick hull wrote:

In article ,
"DoN. Nichols" wrote:

[ ... ]

Look at a used Digital SLR. Anything which does not try to use
its display as a viewfinder should be pretty quick to turn on. And
maybe you can find one inexpensive enough. Do you want to put it in a
weatherproof housing -- or just bring it in when the weather threatens?

It will stay in the weather 24/365, I'll make a housing to protect it.

Free men own guns - www(dot)geocities(dot)com/CapitolHill/5357/

This camera
http://tinyurl.com/287m7f
is a digital SLR, and it does have a setting where it stays on. The
LCD display is not active except possibly after a shot -- and that can
also be turned off.

Actually it is *not* a digital SLR. Note the wording from the
auction:


================================================== ====================
You're viewing an Olympus C-2500L

I used this camera Until I could afford the Expensive Lenses and Body of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
more expensive DSLR.

It is an excellent reliable camera that gives you some of the control of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
an SLR Camera without all the associated costs.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
================================================== ====================

So -- it may do what is needed here -- but it is not (and does
not claim to be) a DSLR. Two physical differences:

1) A SLR (digital or non) has a moving mirror which redirects
the image to the viewfinder. From the location of the
viewfinder eyepiece, I don't think that this is the case here.

I *think* that what it has is an internal display in the
viewfinder, which could slow it down as much as using the
external display.

2) A SLR has interchangeable lenses. This one has only a fixed
zoom lens.

It can be triggered by IR remote. There is no direct connection to
the camera, but an electrically-triggered (and silent) IR remote
would be simple enough to make -- or modify the one that comes with
the camera or an available replacement. (They're available for about
$29)

I have one of these cameras. It's dated, but still an excellent
camera. I don't lust for a newer one.

O.K. Just don't call it a DSLR. :-)

See
http://www.steves-digicams.com/c2500.html

The viewfinder does indeed view optically thru the lens. When I press
the shutter I can hear the mirror slap within if I put my ear right on
the camera. It's a quiet "tic tic", and the viewfinder goes
momentarily dark when that happens.

There is no electronic viewfinding function on this digital camera
because the image sensor is obscured by the mirror when viewfinding.
This camera gets considerably better battery life than most digital
cameras because it need not ever use the LCD display to take photos.

SLR literally means "single lens reflex". Many SLR's do indeed have
interchangable lenses, but that is not a condition for being an SLR.

On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 09:24:54 -0600, nick hull wrote:



Yes, I need an anti-theft, anti-trespasser driveway gate camera and the
Olympus C-2500L seems to be real close to what I need. I want to fix
the focus, I know what the distance will be (about 30'). I do not need
interchangeable lenses, the camera will be set up outdoors 24/365 and it
looks like I can power it externally and trigger it by IR and set the
aperture manually and let it set the speed to light conditions. I will
not use a flash on the camera (too far) but might want a remote flash
closer to the subject. Floodlights might be available.

Since I will principally aim the tripod mounted camera by trial & error
I don't even have to have a viewfinder

I would appreciate feedback from readers who have this or similar
cameras as to the suitability. My requirements are;

* Can be powered from an external AC source and set to never shut down.
OK if I have to modify the battery compartment for AC connection.

Yes. It can be set to never shut down, and you can supply 5 to 5.2 VDC
to the battery contacts within. There is no external power connector.

* Can be remotely triggered and sets the speed for correct exposure

Yes

* Digital, uses a chip I can remove and read with a card reader on my
computer

Yes. It uses either SmartMemory (now obsolete) or CF (still
available). USB readers are readily available for about $25. SanDisk
is one, available at BestBuy. The camera itself has an RS-232 serial
port that is abysmally slow. This is probably the last digicam that
didn't have USB. I always use the card reader.

* I would LIKE a fast response between triggering and picture taking,
i,e, no 5 second warm-up. If I use a remote flash it will be powered up
either 24 hrs or during darkness. I do not want a viewfinder or moving
lenses to slow the response time, I need to snap the pix within 1 sec of
trigger.

Shootin' out the back door, about half a second or a bit less from
full press to click -- no half-press to focus and meter exposure.
Might be quicker if set to manual (preset) exposure and focus, this
was in full auto mode. The camera has contacts in the "hot shoe" for
external flash, and the built-in flash is actually pretty good. 20 or
30 feet, no problem. It can be supressed, just don't deploy it! The
available (on EBay) FL-40 external flash is excellent and quite
powerful.

"Film speed" to ISO400 is an available setting. The images get a bit
noisier but it works well in low-light situations. I've taken photos
with a flashlight and by moonlight with this camera.

On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 13:07:23 -0600, Don Foreman
wrote:


* Can be powered from an external AC source and set to never shut down.
OK if I have to modify the battery compartment for AC connection.

Yes. It can be set to never shut down, and you can supply 5 to 5.2 VDC
to the battery contacts within. There is no external power connector.

Make that a regulated supply, pls. Probably goes without sayin' but
....

I haven't measured it, but I'd guess it could take at least half an
amp at times. I'd allow for an amp. An LM7805 regulator chip would
provide the regulation for under a buck. Email if you want more info.

On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 13:07:23 -0600, Don Foreman
wrote:


Yes. It can be set to never shut down, and you can supply 5 to 5.2 VDC
to the battery contacts within. There is no external power connector.

CORRECTION! (I finally found my manual) There is a jack for external
power, and an AC adapter was sold separately. The camera does not
power down automatically when the external supply is used.

Now the bad news: while the camera responds quickly to the shutter
button, there is a 2 second delay when actuated by the IR remote. I
don't see a way around that, other than to operate the shutter button
mechanically with a small solenoid.

"nick hull" wrote in message
.. .
I know this is WAY OT but I need some clues to get started. I want to
use a digital camera as a security camera.

You need an inexpensive DVR with motion sensing. Everfocus, panasonic and
others make them. www.alarmwarehouse.com sells them. Tab to Digital
Recorders.

On 2008-01-02, Don Foreman wrote:
On 2 Jan 2008 04:03:27 GMT, "DoN. Nichols"
wrote:

[ ... ]

Actually it is *not* a digital SLR. Note the wording from the
auction:


================================================== ====================
You're viewing an Olympus C-2500L

I used this camera Until I could afford the Expensive Lenses and Body of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
more expensive DSLR.

It is an excellent reliable camera that gives you some of the control of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
an SLR Camera without all the associated costs.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
================================================== ====================

So -- it may do what is needed here -- but it is not (and does
not claim to be) a DSLR. Two physical differences:

1) A SLR (digital or non) has a moving mirror which redirects
the image to the viewfinder. From the location of the
viewfinder eyepiece, I don't think that this is the case here.

I *think* that what it has is an internal display in the
viewfinder, which could slow it down as much as using the
external display.

2) A SLR has interchangeable lenses. This one has only a fixed
zoom lens.

[ ... ]

O.K. Just don't call it a DSLR. :-)

See
http://www.steves-digicams.com/c2500.html

The viewfinder does indeed view optically thru the lens. When I press
the shutter I can hear the mirror slap within if I put my ear right on
the camera. It's a quiet "tic tic", and the viewfinder goes
momentarily dark when that happens.

O.K. So it has the mirror -- but most would not call this an
SLR. Instead they would call it a "ZLR" (zoom lens reflex).

There is no electronic viewfinding function on this digital camera
because the image sensor is obscured by the mirror when viewfinding.

O.K. ZLR.

This camera gets considerably better battery life than most digital
cameras because it need not ever use the LCD display to take photos.

Agreed that that is one of the major killers of battery life.

SLR literally means "single lens reflex". Many SLR's do indeed have
interchangable lenses, but that is not a condition for being an SLR.

The closest to that which I have ever had was the Zeiss
Contaflex -- which had only the front element of the lens
interchangeable, because it had a between-the-lens leaf shutter. The
Kodak Retina had the leaf shutter, but just behind the interchangeable
lens. The medium format SLRs like the Hasselblad have interchangeable
lenses with shutters included in each lens -- the expensive way to go.

Normally -- the major benefit of the reflex design is to allow
focusing and accurate framing with interchangeable lenses. No parallax
problems, unlike with a rangefinder -- or with a TLR (Twin Lens Reflex)
such as the Rolliflex.

Even the earliest SLR which I have known of -- the Graphflex --
had interchangeable lenses (just as the Speed and Crown Graphics had,
mostly for 4x5 film. The Graphflex was far from the most convenient
camera to use -- but it did get around the parallax problem at least.

If you go into newsgroups such as rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,
you will have to work to find anyone who would be willing to call a ZLR
a SLR.

Enjoy,
DoN.

--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

On 3 Jan 2008 04:50:41 GMT, "DoN. Nichols"
wrote:



So -- it may do what is needed here -- but it is not (and does
not claim to be) a DSLR. Two physical differences:

1) A SLR (digital or non) has a moving mirror which redirects
the image to the viewfinder. From the location of the
viewfinder eyepiece, I don't think that this is the case here.

I *think* that what it has is an internal display in the
viewfinder, which could slow it down as much as using the
external display.

2) A SLR has interchangeable lenses. This one has only a fixed
zoom lens.

[ ... ]

O.K. Just don't call it a DSLR. :-)

See
http://www.steves-digicams.com/c2500.html

The viewfinder does indeed view optically thru the lens. When I press
the shutter I can hear the mirror slap within if I put my ear right on
the camera. It's a quiet "tic tic", and the viewfinder goes
momentarily dark when that happens.

O.K. So it has the mirror -- but most would not call this an
SLR. Instead they would call it a "ZLR" (zoom lens reflex).

Olympus called it an SLR. Steves'digicams called it an SLR. Wikipedia
defines a DSLR as: "A digital single-lens reflex camera (digital SLR
or DSLR) is a digital camera that uses an automatic mirror system and
pentaprism to direct light from the lens through the viewfinder."
Nowhere does it mention interchangable lenses. I still regard the
C2500L as an SLR, albeit a rather early digital model. You may call
it whatever you like!

Heck, if it has only one lens, that really makes it an SLR, right? Not
a MLR -- multiple lens reflex, or ILR -- interchangable lens reflex.
It may be the only true digital single lens reflex! G

(snip)

If you go into newsgroups such as rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,
you will have to work to find anyone who would be willing to call a ZLR
a SLR.

Well there ya go! It's so hard to be correct...

If you put a zoom lens on your SLR, is it not then a ZLR? Maybe an
SLR(Z) or an IZLR?

Perhaps the parlance has evolved among the cognoscenti in the 8 years
since the C2500L was a current model.

On 2008-01-03, Don Foreman wrote:
On 3 Jan 2008 04:50:41 GMT, "DoN. Nichols"
wrote:

[ ... ]

O.K. Just don't call it a DSLR. :-)

See
http://www.steves-digicams.com/c2500.html

The viewfinder does indeed view optically thru the lens. When I press
the shutter I can hear the mirror slap within if I put my ear right on
the camera. It's a quiet "tic tic", and the viewfinder goes
momentarily dark when that happens.

O.K. So it has the mirror -- but most would not call this an
SLR. Instead they would call it a "ZLR" (zoom lens reflex).

Olympus called it an SLR.

Olympus is guilty of "advertising-speak", just like we know that
those "titanium" drill bits are really (hopefully) HSS coated with
Titanium Nitride.

I know that you know better than to want a drill bit made
of titanium. And I usually consider your optical information to be
good, too. But I do have to disagree with you on this one thing.

Steves'digicams called it an SLR.

Steves' is probably taking the maker's advertising-speak as
gospel. And they may be getting an advertising kickback from the
manufacturer, or may have been doing so at the time that was written.
This is something which some web based camera testers are accused of
these days. In any case, this would make Steve -- or anyone else in a
similar position -- a bit less likely to argue the point.

Wikipedia
defines a DSLR as: "A digital single-lens reflex camera (digital SLR
or DSLR) is a digital camera that uses an automatic mirror system and
pentaprism to direct light from the lens through the viewfinder."

At which precise time did it say that? You know how likely to
change Wikipedia's definitions (especially those which may be
controversial) can be. :-)

Note that the collection of newsgroups aimed at digital cameras
is currently:

rec.photo.digital 0001456307 0001435796 y
rec.photo.digital.point+shoot 0000002230 0000002082 y
rec.photo.digital.rangefinder 0000000356 0000000341 y
rec.photo.digital.slr-systems 0000118052 0000109228 y
rec.photo.digital.zlr 0000003880 0000003516 y

Note that the ZLR cameras have their own separate newsgroup.

Nowhere does it mention interchangable lenses. I still regard the
C2500L as an SLR, albeit a rather early digital model. You may call
it whatever you like!

Heck, if it has only one lens, that really makes it an SLR, right? Not
a MLR -- multiple lens reflex, or ILR -- interchangable lens reflex.
It may be the only true digital single lens reflex! G

The "Single lens" is in contrast to a rangefinder (which had
separate optics for the viewfinder) or a TLR (Twin Lens Reflex) such as
the Rolli which had two lenses of identical focal length one above the
other. Sometimes the two were also the same maximum aperture, other
times the taking lens would be a bit faster than the viewfinding lens
(e.g. f:2.8 for the taking lens and f:3.5 for the viewfinder lens. The
benefit of this is that you had a better idea of what you were getting
in terms of depth of field.

There were even some interchangeable lens TLRs -- such as the
Mamyia -- aimed for professional photographers. There was a manual
cover plate inside to protect the film while the lens pair was being
changed. This, of course, made the ability to change lenses cost more,
since you had to change two at once.

(snip)

If you go into newsgroups such as rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,
you will have to work to find anyone who would be willing to call a ZLR
a SLR.

Well there ya go! It's so hard to be correct...

If you put a zoom lens on your SLR, is it not then a ZLR? Maybe an
SLR(Z) or an IZLR?

No. A ZLR has *no* choice of lenses. It has *only* the single
zoom lens, with no provisions for changing to another lens which might
be faster, or longer focal length, or shorter focal length. You are
stuck with the range of the zoom (3:1 IIRC in this one). Not that this
matters for the planned use which triggered this discussion.

And don't claim more by "digital" or "electronic" zoom. That
gains you nothing which you cannot get by using a computer program to
crop the image and blow it up -- and loses a bit of flexibility in
fixing framing errors.

Perhaps the parlance has evolved among the cognoscenti in the 8 years
since the C2500L was a current model.

Or the cognoscenti were not willing to accept advertiser-speak
from the start. :-)

I would not want something which *claimed* to be an SLR which
did not offer interchangeable lenses. I like to be able to use the
older lenses from the same maker, and to mount the camera on a
Catadioptric telescope for a really serious telephoto lens. (And yes, I
do know that is a mis-use of "telephoto", as it really refers to a long
focal length lens combined with a secondary cluster of lens elements
near the back to allow the lens to be physically shorter than its
nominal focal length. :-)

Enjoy,
DoN.

--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

On 4 Jan 2008 03:37:35 GMT, "DoN. Nichols"
wrote:



At which precise time did it say that?

Yesterday, 1-3-08. I'm not sure what precise time.

You know how likely to
change Wikipedia's definitions (especially those which may be
controversial) can be. :-)

I do.

I would not want something which *claimed* to be an SLR which
did not offer interchangeable lenses.

Understood. I'm not trying to sell anyone anything!