I have been getting into time lapse photography, initially with a home brew intervalometer and now with a commercial unit.

Because there is a very high frame count (a 5 minute scene @ 25 fps = 7500 frames), I have been wondering if I should use mirror lock up to help conserve the mechanical wear & tear of the camera.

The down side that I can see is that with the mirror locked up, the sensor is exposed to the image between shots (frames) ....Will this damage (burn) the sensor to have prolonged exposure to a static scene?

For example, 7500 frames with intervals of say 5 seconds between frames = nearly 10.5 hours

This throws up further questions such as battery power: I am using a Canon 20D as the platform. I an wondering if the battery will last for up to 10 hours with power dedicated to holding up the mirror...Any comments? ( cannot justify the cost of a battery pack)

So the real question is: Which is the lesser of the two evils; Suffer the wear & tear of mirror flip-flop OR risk sensor burn if any?

Just curious - why do such an extremely high FPS for the time-lapse? I would imagine you could cut it down to around 15 fps and save some shutter life.

As for the sensor burn, I've never really heard of that unless you're doing something crazy like photographing the sun without appropriate filters.

As for battery power, I would be extremely surprised to hear of a camera actually holding up the mirror for 10 hours and exposing shots without some sort of external source.

I know I'm not much help, just throwing in my 2 cents Also, have you considered using a compact camera for the time-lapse? On projects like these, where you're on tripod, etc, it might make sense to place the wear on a cheaper camera instead of a DSLR.

Good luck!

Donald Gray wrote:
The down side that I can see is that with the mirror locked up, the sensor is exposed to the image between shots (frames) ....Will this damage (burn) the sensor to have prolonged exposure to a static scene?

Not really. You know the shitter is colosed, right? As mentioned nelow the sun might be damaging over time.

EBH

I was wondering that also about the frames in 5 mins. That works out at about 1 frame every 2.5 seconds. (or have I got my Maths wrong)

As for sensor burn. As the 20D does not have live view , in mlu the shutter blades will still be closed and the sensor inactive.

As for the amount of power needed I can't see that even without mlu a 20D could sustain 7500 shots on 1 battery. A grip and a pair of good ones may help but even then I still doubt you could get that many shots.

Donald Gray wrote:
I have been getting into time lapse photography, initially with a home brew intervalometer and now with a commercial unit.

Because there is a very high frame count (a 5 minute scene @ 25 fps = 7500 frames), I have been wondering if I should use mirror lock up to help conserve the mechanical wear & tear of the camera.

The down side that I can see is that with the mirror locked up, the sensor is exposed to the image between shots (frames) ....Will this damage (burn) the sensor to have prolonged exposure to a static scene?

For example, 7500 frames with intervals of say 5 seconds between frames = nearly 10.5 hours

This throws up further questions such as battery power: I am using a Canon 20D as the platform. I an wondering if the battery will last for up to 10 hours with power dedicated to holding up the mirror...Any comments? ( cannot justify the cost of a battery pack)

So the real question is: Which is the lesser of the two evils; Suffer the wear & tear of mirror flip-flop OR risk sensor burn if any?

Hi Donald,
Just to check with you, I don't own a 20D, but are you sure it is capable of keeping the mirror locked up while continuing to take separate exposures? Or are you using your intervalometer to control the mlu aswell?
Obviously you have mlu on board the camera but as far as I know, the mirror goes back to default position after each exposure. Promote Intervalometers will allow control over the mirror but at a cost.

First of all, Many thanks to each of you for your comments. they have woken up my other brain cell and clarified the process somewhat.

@cpueq: I have only produced a couple of timelapse, the longest runs to 2 minutes.

In reality, I am a complete tyro to t/l but learning fast - I have yet to figure out the best/recommended fps et al. No, I have no intentions of shooting the sun!

@ EB-1: OK, that has made me thing closer to the camera's mechanics. Because of locking up the mirror when sensor cleaning, I was assuming that the sensor was exposed. I was not even thinking of the 'shitter' ( ) being closed...

@ Ian:
1) I wasn't even thinking right - of course, it wouldn't give me 7000+ frames on one battery. The video I link to was shot over two days @ approx 1 minute per day. I cant remember the actual frame rate I created it with.

2) I have just re-read the manual re mirror lock up - It would appear that when set via (C.Fn) the mirror lock up is a two stage affair. One press of the shutter button locks up the mirror. A second pressing of the shutter button takes the photograph and the drops the mirror... Not what I needed...

So, I need to revisit my maths and think things through a bit more...

I do have a pair of Canon A610s strapped together for stereo photography. Maybe cputec's suggestion is the better option.

I don't even think of T/L with my 5DMK2!

Again, thanks...

Hi MisterPhil

I think we cross-posted... You are correct re MLU. I have discovered that it will not stay up between exposures.

My homebrew intervalometer works very well. It uses a 555 interval timer, powered by a PP9 battery with 12 preset timings. The trouble is that it is in a rather large & ugly box:


I have just purchased a Canon look-a-like intervalometer that will allow for long exposures as well as interval timing.

I guess I now have to modify the A610 to take it!

Donald,
Are you familiar with CHDK to tweak your A610 to add time lapse functionality?

Thanks for the idea. Yes - I have both A610s fired via a Ricoh CA1 remote with both cameras running CHDK software. I have thought of that but rather like the functionality of the Canon look-a-like thing.

I am about to strip down an A610 to figer the best way of connecting the two together without having to run CHDK