I once used an R/C servo rigged up with a somewhat flexible flat nylon tab affixed to the end of the servo arm. The servo was mounted on a bracket from the camera stand in manner so as to have the flexible tab be able to push down in the camera shutter button when the servo was activated. Worked rather well within the operating range of the R/C controller unit.
Will you be able to use the servo on the two position "shutter release"? And will there be a noise problem for nature photography (especially owls)?
[...]
Jim,
Here's your chance to do an R/C servo _encoder_ chip (just add die and serve ).
By the way: there's an item in the latest Make magazine (#23) from someone who used a 556-based design to drive a DC motor with a cam to periodically trip a camera shutter. Not an on-demand kind of gdget, but his goal was to able take aerial photos from a kite.
As for the mechanical stuff, a 'web search with the following:
camera shutter operate|press|release motor|servo
turns up a lot of stuff, including the following:
KAP | Building a Shutter Release Servo Bracket
You may or may not want to follow up on those suggesting attaching the servo to the camera with epoxy or caulking compound.
[...]
David,
Good questions (the questions are always the fun part ).
An R/C (radio control) servo is a "proportional movement" kind of thing: depending on the pulses it receives, it rotates CW or CCW some amount (up to a limit). It is capable, given the proper electronic and mechanical attachments, of letting you use (e.g.) a joystick to press a shutter partway or full down. What it does not provide is any feedback, so you need to measure (and mark) how far you would need to push the joystick in order to execute a "half-push" or "full-push".
On your second question, I understand your problem. Deer and hawks are remarkably sensitive to the sounds my Panasonic FZ-50 makes when focussing and snapping; I can disable the latter, but only if I don't forget.
Most of the R/C servos I'm aware of are based on tiny DC motors, and have a slight "whine" to them as they operate. From what I've heard of owls, I'd expect that one would be able to hear a servo operating; whether this would affect them you'd have to read up on or test out.
Frank McKenney
A-holes should suffer appropriate retaliatory pain :-) ...Jim Thompson
Let me clarify the consequences of 'two wrongs': in this case all you accomplish is additional harm to the country you live in.
"Appropriate retaliatory pain" might be an equivalent reverse boycott although I note that any 'state' boycotting another 'state' is a violation of the Commerce Clause in principle and spirit even if not in law. It's also another harm to the country, which is why the Commerce Clause is there to begin with.
If Obama had any (even if 'wrong') intellectual consistency, fat chance, he'd be condemning so called 'boycotts' as much as anything else since that, too, is a state taking 'federal immigration enforcement' on it's own.
The correct way is a court challenge and we better stop kicking each other in the ass or we'll destroy this Nation.
No, but three lefts do.
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required