1/16,000” shutter speed...

Messages
688
Name
Tom
Edit My Images
Yes
I’ve just read that the Nikon D1 (from like, the 90s) had a 1/16,000” max shutter speed. All subsequent Dx cameras were 1/8,000. Anyone know why modern cameras max out at 1/8000? We’re there drawbacks to 1/16,000?? Seems weird...
 
Messages
6,270
Edit My Images
Yes
How often have you ever genuinely needed 1/16,000 shutter speed from your camera? What speed do you need, and how much are you willing to pay for it? It's simple economics, a manufacture will only consistently add the bells and whistles if they'll make them good money on their investment.
 
Last edited:
Messages
16,307
Name
Toni
Edit My Images
No
How often have you ever genuinely needed 1/16,000 shutter speed from your camera? What speed do you need, and how much are you willing to pay for it? It's simple economics, a manufacture will only consistently add the bells and whistles if they'll make them good money on their investment.
If you ever want to work with a fast lens wide open on a bright day then you might wish for a faster shutter.
 
OP
Tom Pinchenzo
Messages
688
Name
Tom
Edit My Images
Yes
If you ever want to work with a fast lens wide open on a bright day then you might wish for a faster shutter.
I see Mr B’s point. It’s increasingly taxing on the resources of the manufacturer to increase shutter speed by a stop - and if you can shoot f/1.4 at 1/8,000 In bright daylight then few people will need 1/16,000.
 
Messages
18,226
Edit My Images
No
I see Mr B’s point. It’s increasingly taxing on the resources of the manufacturer to increase shutter speed by a stop - and if you can shoot f/1.4 at 1/8,000 In bright daylight then few people will need 1/16,000.
Not really, not with mirrorless because its electronic. Fuji also does 1/32000 and over 1/8000 does come in handy sometimes as @ancient_mariner said.
 

LongLensPhotography

Th..th..that's all folks!
Messages
15,468
Name
[Censored]
Edit My Images
No
Not really, not with mirrorless because its electronic. Fuji also does 1/32000 and over 1/8000 does come in handy sometimes as @ancient_mariner said.
I'd like to see examples of that. I hardly ever touch 1/8000s or even 1/2000s. I'm not saying no to extra features I'm just not convinced 99% of users would list it in top 3 of their wishlist / requirements.
 

Canon Bob

Loves the Enemy
Messages
10,664
Name
Bob
Edit My Images
Yes
If it's simply to control the exposure and not freeze action then I would imagine that offering 1-stop lower iso would be far easier for the manufacturer.
 
Messages
14,866
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
I'd like to see examples of that. I hardly ever touch 1/8000s or even 1/2000s. I'm not saying no to extra features I'm just not convinced 99% of users would list it in top 3 of their wishlist / requirements.
Often topped out at 1/8000, ISO 100 with an F2 lens, if you're using a 1.4/1.2 lens in bright sunny weather you will hit 1/16000 with an ES easily
 
Messages
6,270
Edit My Images
Yes
At my last Wedding (last Friday) I couldn't shoot wide open on my 24mm as it was just too bright

Even at 50 ISO and f1.4 as the D750's max shutter speed is only 1/4000th

Given the option I'd ignore the 'Lo' 50 ISO and shoot at 100 and then 1/16,000th may well come in useful

Dave
Blimey, I know a lot of marriages don't seem to last long these days, but do you really need a shutter speed that fast to catch them while they're still together? ;)
 
Messages
18,226
Edit My Images
No
I'd like to see examples of that. I hardly ever touch 1/8000s or even 1/2000s. I'm not saying no to extra features I'm just not convinced 99% of users would list it in top 3 of their wishlist / requirements.
Great, if you (and others) dont need it then thats fine. Doesnt mean its not useful with 1.4 lenses wide open in summer.
 
Last edited:
Messages
16,307
Name
Toni
Edit My Images
No
Or use an ND filter. I think I know what might be cheaper to produce and buy DSLR wise.
Sure, one can stop, rummage in the bag & find the filter, screw it in place, then go back and find the shot you wanted..... or you can just set the aperture and take it. A manually focussed SLR is also cheaper to produce and they worked really well for years and years. ;)
 

LongLensPhotography

Th..th..that's all folks!
Messages
15,468
Name
[Censored]
Edit My Images
No
Sure, one can stop, rummage in the bag & find the filter, screw it in place, then go back and find the shot you wanted..... or you can just set the aperture and take it. A manually focussed SLR is also cheaper to produce and they worked really well for years and years. ;)
I personally would rather see a true and useable ISO 50 or even 25. It would be useful for running slow exposures without ND too.
 
Messages
6,270
Edit My Images
Yes
Sure, one can stop, rummage in the bag & find the filter, screw it in place, then go back and find the shot you wanted..... or you can just set the aperture and take it. A manually focussed SLR is also cheaper to produce and they worked really well for years and years. ;)
You (and some others) might find a need for a really fast shutter speed, and be willing to pay a premium for it, but I don't think the majority of photographers would, apart from those pro/semi-pro niche photographers who want waffery thin DoF. There have been useful innovations in camera technology that have been swiftly discontinued due to them costing money and not being hugely appreciated by the majority (and/or criticised by a vocal minority).

Take Canon's incredibly useful eye-controlled AF point selection feature in the 1990s for instance. For those who don't remember that; you just looked at the AF point you wanted to choose and the camera tracked what you were looking at and selected it instantly for you. How cool was that? And that was around in the 1990s! However, some people couldn't get it to work for them (although you could easily turn it off and use the camera as normal), and moaned about it. It cost Canon a lot of money to develop and wasn't cheap to include in a camera, so they dropped the feature completely.

As I said above, if a feature costs money and doesn't significantly sell more cameras, then a manufacture just won't continue to include it as standard, but might include it as an option for a premium price on a pro-grade camera for those willing to shoulder the cost and who actually need and appreciate such a feature. Although, if mirrorless technology reduces the cost enough, they'll probably throw it in, providing it doesn't significantly reduce the working life or durability of the camera.
 
Messages
18,226
Edit My Images
No
You (and some others) might find a need for a really fast shutter speed, and be willing to pay a premium for it, but I don't think the majority of photographers would, apart from those pro/semi-pro niche photographers who want waffery thin DoF. There have been useful innovations in camera technology that have been swiftly discontinued due to them costing money and not being hugely appreciated by the majority (and/or criticised by a vocal minority).

Take Canon's incredibly useful eye-controlled AF point selection feature in the 1990s for instance. For those who don't remember that; you just looked at the AF point you wanted to choose and the camera tracked what you were looking at and selected it instantly for you. How cool was that? And that was around in the 1990s! However, some people couldn't get it to work for them (although you could easily turn it off and use the camera as normal), and moaned about it. It cost Canon a lot of money to develop and wasn't cheap to include in a camera, so they dropped the feature completely.

As I said above, if a feature costs money and doesn't significantly sell more cameras, then a manufacture just won't continue to include it as standard, but might include it as an option for a premium price on a pro-grade camera for those willing to shoulder the cost and who actually need and appreciate such a feature. Although, if mirrorless technology reduces the cost enough, they'll probably throw it in, providing it doesn't significantly reduce the working life or durability of the camera.
The faster electronic shutters arent dramatically adding cost, its kind of a thrown in feature they just do with certain brands of MILC cameras. All the manufacturers that have included 1/8000+ ES have done so for years. It cant reduce the lifespan, no moving parts, unlike a DSLR and a MS (which are the parts most prone to failure). Its another reason manufacturers are losing the mirror box (manufacturing and warranty / servicing costs).
 
Last edited:
OP
Tom Pinchenzo
Messages
688
Name
Tom
Edit My Images
Yes
It was the Nikon Dx line that I was looking at - which is a top end pro body. But their applications tend to be sports and wildlife, which are generally more concerned about gathering light rather than reducing it. And I can’t think of much that 1/8000 wouldn’t freeze. As others have said, the application this would be useful for would be portraits and weddings, where f/1.4 in bright sunshine is normal. I’m very surprised the D750 maxes out at 1/4000 it’s so popular with wedding togs. All very interesting discussion though. As someone said, ISO 50 or lower would probably be easier to engineer than a 1/16,000 shutter speed! And less likely to cause premature failure
 
Messages
18,226
Edit My Images
No
It was the Nikon Dx line that I was looking at - which is a top end pro body. But their applications tend to be sports and wildlife, which are generally more concerned about gathering light rather than reducing it. And I can’t think of much that 1/8000 wouldn’t freeze. As others have said, the application this would be useful for would be portraits and weddings, where f/1.4 in bright sunshine is normal. I’m very surprised the D750 maxes out at 1/4000 it’s so popular with wedding togs. All very interesting discussion though. As someone said, ISO 50 or lower would probably be easier to engineer than a 1/16,000 shutter speed! And less likely to cause premature failure
Not really, the cameras that do offer iso 50 etc are top level bodies. You're paying more for the sensor than the shutter... If you're thinking of older technology like MS only dslr then yes, its unlikely to be implemented and imo won't as before it happens dslr will be long gone and it would cause additional wear. You can buy a used milc that does 1/32000 for less than £200 and that shutter speed won't reduce its lifespan. ES does have its own issues though.
 
Last edited:

LongLensPhotography

Th..th..that's all folks!
Messages
15,468
Name
[Censored]
Edit My Images
No
Probably even fewer people interested in slow exposures than faster SS.
I would probably disagree (i.e. lots of landscape photographers that currently have to use ND filters), but the lack of it hardly causes me to lose any sleep at all.

in fact I think the video crowd might appreciate ISO 50... I'm not in that boat at the moment so don't care much either.

ES does have its own issues though.
Moving subjects? I hope we get global e shutter not long from now. It will open so many doors.
 
Messages
5,124
Name
Dave
Edit My Images
Yes
I’m very surprised the D750 maxes out at 1/4000 it’s so popular with wedding togs.
It surprised the Hell out of me too when I first got one !!!

But, it's so rarely an issue and the rest of what it does is so good for the money I can forgive it :D

Dave
 

LongLensPhotography

Th..th..that's all folks!
Messages
15,468
Name
[Censored]
Edit My Images
No
It surprised the Hell out of me too when I first got one !!!

But, it's so rarely an issue and the rest of what it does is so good for the money I can forgive it :D

Dave
It almost as it you car was limited by software at 100mph. Hardly an issue on a normal day but go to Germany and it might seriously p*** you off.
 
Messages
16,307
Name
Toni
Edit My Images
No
But sadly supercar performance doesn't come cheap.... once again, that balance between supply and demand. :(
I don't get your problem with this. Sure the type of people that take photos using their phone camera don't need this, but as part of the feature set for advanced enthusiast and pro level cameras it's such an obvious thing to include that NOT doing so (like in the D750) seems like an oversight. There are many features that most people won't use - I've never shot video on my full-frame bodies, for example, never used continuous high-speed capture, never adjust colour temperature in camera, probably a dozen other things I can't remember right now. The thing is, many DO use those features, so they get included in order to make the camera a rounded instrument instead of a niche-specific one.
 
Last edited:
Messages
6,270
Edit My Images
Yes
I don't get your problem with this. Sure the type of people that take photos using their phone camera don't need this, but as part of the feature set for advanced enthusiast and pro level cameras it's such an obvious thing to include that NOT doing so (like in the D750) seems like an oversight. There are many features that most people won't use - I've never shot video on my full-frame bodies, for example, never used continuous high-speed capture, never adjust colour temperature in camera, probably a dozen other things I can't remember right now. The thing is, many DO use those features, so they get included in order to make the camera a rounded instrument instead of a niche-specific one.
I don't have a problem about this at all, as I don't need ultra-fast shutter speeds. I was just suggesting why it is, to date, likely that some (or many?) camera manufacturers don't include this feature as standard. If you aren't happy about that, then send an email to your preferred camera manufacturer and make your views known, or find one that does 'go up to 11'. Don't bend my ear about it, as I'm not bothered either way. :)
 
Last edited:
Messages
16,307
Name
Toni
Edit My Images
No
Don't bend my ear about it, as I'm not bothered either way.
How often have you ever genuinely needed 1/16,000 shutter speed from your camera? What speed do you need, and how much are you willing to pay for it? It's simple economics, a manufacture will only consistently add the bells and whistles if they'll make them good money on their investment.
Or use an ND filter. I think I know what might be cheaper to produce and buy DSLR wise.
You (and some others) might find a need for a really fast shutter speed, and be willing to pay a premium for it, but I don't think the majority of photographers would, apart from those pro/semi-pro niche photographers who want waffery thin DoF. There have been useful innovations in camera technology that have been swiftly discontinued due to them costing money and not being hugely appreciated by the majority (and/or criticised by a vocal minority).

Take Canon's incredibly useful eye-controlled AF point selection feature in the 1990s for instance. For those who don't remember that; you just looked at the AF point you wanted to choose and the camera tracked what you were looking at and selected it instantly for you. How cool was that? And that was around in the 1990s! However, some people couldn't get it to work for them (although you could easily turn it off and use the camera as normal), and moaned about it. It cost Canon a lot of money to develop and wasn't cheap to include in a camera, so they dropped the feature completely.

As I said above, if a feature costs money and doesn't significantly sell more cameras, then a manufacture just won't continue to include it as standard, but might include it as an option for a premium price on a pro-grade camera for those willing to shoulder the cost and who actually need and appreciate such a feature. Although, if mirrorless technology reduces the cost enough, they'll probably throw it in, providing it doesn't significantly reduce the working life or durability of the camera.
But sadly supercar performance doesn't come cheap.... once again, that balance between supply and demand. :(
Yes, but when in a car doing 140mph, with things beginning to buzz and rattle, and someone effortlessly overtakes you at 160mph, whilst appearing to be chatting to their passenger, you are also going to want to do that. It's a common human trait. So when does fast become fast enough, and how much are you willing to pay for 'faster'? Performance and features come at a cost, and in a mass-produced item, the majority vote and demands will dictate the desired spec and features.
No, I can see you're not bothered at all. Not a bit. In the least. ;)
 
Last edited:
Messages
6,270
Edit My Images
Yes
True

But then an awful lot of 'normal' cars these days will go well past 100mph

Allegedly ;)

Dave
Yes, but when in a car doing 140mph, with things beginning to buzz and rattle, and someone effortlessly overtakes you at 160mph, whilst appearing to be chatting to their passenger, you are also going to want to do that. It's a common human trait. So when does fast become fast enough, and how much are you willing to pay for 'faster'? Performance and features come at a cost, and in a mass-produced item, the majority vote and demands will dictate the desired spec and features.
 
Messages
6,270
Edit My Images
Yes
No, I can see you're not bothered at all. Not a bit. In the least. ;)
:ROFLMAO: No, I'm not bothered, I genuinely couldn't care less either way. I was just explaining (then discussing) the reason I thought likely for manufacturers not providing this feature. It's you that seems to have taken something of an obsessive dislike to that? If you have an alternative point of view then fine.
 
Last edited:
Top