Drawbacks to a super high shutter speed?

[jake337]

The drawback is you cant use a manual flash. It needs to be HSS(canon) or FP(nikon) mode. At 1/8000, you only catch small portion of the tail of the light while on this mode so the flash barely does anything.

I use my sb600, off camera, in manual past 1/200 all the time. I need to double them up while outdoors to get any decent power though.

 

[table1349]

Hmmm thats interesting (about the noise)

Right the obvious drawback about it is the lack of light, but assuming that for some reason its so bright the you're PRESSED to use something that high, is there anything.

NO.. it is ok! Light still moves a lot faster than even 1/8000 of a second!

Speed of light = 186,000 mi/sec. I do believe that you are correct and that light is just a hair faster.

 

[TCampbell]

Hmmm thats interesting (about the noise)

Right the obvious drawback about it is the lack of light, but assuming that for some reason its so bright the you're PRESSED to use something that high, is there anything.

NO.. it is ok! Light still moves a lot faster than even 1/8000 of a second!

Speed of light = 186,000 mi/sec. I do believe that you are correct and that light is just a hair faster.

I'm waiting for when we have quantum entangled shutters ... that can move at least 4 orders of magnitude faster than the speed of light! There's a rumor they'll release that this fall.

Chinese Physicists Measure Speed of "Spooky Action At a Distance" | MIT Technology Review

(yes... I was totally kidding about the rumor.)

We could also have camera shutters with quantum super-positions... the shutter is neither opened nor closed... until it's OBSERVED. :mrgreen:

 

[bratkinson]

No scientific data here, but I recall the issues of "reciprocity failure" with film. I wonder if the same is true, but, perhaps, to a lesser degree, with digital.

For those unfamiliar with film...if the proper exposure was, say, f22 @ 1/1000 for the film you had loaded in the camera (eg, ISO speed), speeding up the exposure time by 4 and making the f-stop 4 times larger to get the same 'exposure' on the film would actually come out underexposed. Why? Because there is an amount of time for the film to 'react' to the incoming light. If the light doesn't hit the film 'long enough', it just doesn't get the whole intended exposure. Think of it like a small stream of very hot water hitting your hand. If I pour 8 oz of hot water on your hand slowly (long exposure time), it will really HURT! But if I were to squirt 8 oz of hot water from a hose for 1/4 second, it would hurt a bit, but certainly not HURT!. The same is true with film.

So I wonder, do individual sensels have a 'ramp up' and 'ramp down' time that if exposed less than that time, won't get the 'full picture'? Or is that ramp up/ramp down speed in the less-than-micro-second speed as to not be a problem?