Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Shutter lag

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 1:58:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I was in India a couple of months ago. We were driving down the highway
when some cow/bull/steer came running across the road in front of us and
knocked an oncoming Indian couple off a motorcycle right in front of us. I
grabbed my Sony DSC-F828 to quickly snap a photo but before the camera
turned itself on to the photo ready state, the couple had righted their
motorcycle and were back on it. I timed my camera then and it takes
probably 6 or 7 seconds from switch on to photo ready. A lot can happen
during that period of time. Is this time lag typical of most digital
cameras?

More about : shutter lag

Anonymous
February 2, 2005 1:58:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ed Mullikin" <edmull2@cox.net> wrote in message
news:TdYLd.80336$Tf5.16062@lakeread03...
>I was in India a couple of months ago. We were driving down the highway
>when some cow/bull/steer came running across the road in front of us and
>knocked an oncoming Indian couple off a motorcycle right in front of us. I
>grabbed my Sony DSC-F828 to quickly snap a photo but before the camera
>turned itself on to the photo ready state, the couple had righted their
>motorcycle and were back on it. I timed my camera then and it takes
>probably 6 or 7 seconds from switch on to photo ready. A lot can happen
>during that period of time. Is this time lag typical of most digital
>cameras?
>
It's typical of a lot of digital P&S cameras and some older ZLR and SLR
digital cameras, but most of the new DSLRs have very quick start up times,
and there are a lot of P&S types, too, that do, like the Casio, Kyocera and
Nikon lines...

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 4:10:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Geee, I hope the camera wasn't too shaken.. Did you ask them to do it
again only slower? |O:

Anyway, Sony F828 start-up-time is approximately 1.6 seconds. Get a
new stopwatch, or take it back, it's VERY faulty. (Don't believe me? -
check www.dpreview.com and there are other sources..)

The 828 has one of the fastest startup times of any prosumer, and its
(bright-light) shutter lag is also towards the best of the bunch. I
use this camera regularly in my work. It's not perfect by a long shot,
but if you want closer to instantaneous, forget prosumer and go SLR.
Related resources
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 11:46:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ed Mullikin" <edmull2@cox.net> wrote in message
news:TdYLd.80336$Tf5.16062@lakeread03...
> I was in India a couple of months ago. We were driving down the highway
> when some cow/bull/steer came running across the road in front of us and
> knocked an oncoming Indian couple off a motorcycle right in front of us.
I
> grabbed my Sony DSC-F828 to quickly snap a photo but before the camera
> turned itself on to the photo ready state, the couple had righted their
> motorcycle and were back on it. I timed my camera then and it takes
> probably 6 or 7 seconds from switch on to photo ready. A lot can happen
> during that period of time. Is this time lag typical of most digital
> cameras?
>
>

So kind of you to help the Indian couple in distress.
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 11:46:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Harvey wrote:
> "Ed Mullikin" <edmull2@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:TdYLd.80336$Tf5.16062@lakeread03...
>
>>I was in India a couple of months ago. We were driving down the highway
>>when some cow/bull/steer came running across the road in front of us and
>>knocked an oncoming Indian couple off a motorcycle right in front of us.
>
> I
>
>>grabbed my Sony DSC-F828 to quickly snap a photo but before the camera
>>turned itself on to the photo ready state, the couple had righted their
>>motorcycle and were back on it. I timed my camera then and it takes
>>probably 6 or 7 seconds from switch on to photo ready. A lot can happen
>>during that period of time. Is this time lag typical of most digital
>>cameras?
>>
>>
>
>
> So kind of you to help the Indian couple in distress.
>
>
Yes, it is typical of P&S cameras of a couple of years ago. The average
is coming down, and you can find cameras like the Kodak DX7590 that get
ready in only a couple of seconds. It is typical of current models. If
you want a camera that is ready to go almost instantly, you will need to
spend a bit of money for a DSLR, or just buy a cheap film camera for
that purpose.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 1:37:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ed Mullikin" <edmull2@cox.net> wrote in message
news:TdYLd.80336$Tf5.16062@lakeread03...
>I was in India a couple of months ago. We were driving down the highway
>when some cow/bull/steer came running across the road in front of us and
>knocked an oncoming Indian couple off a motorcycle right in front of us. I
>grabbed my Sony DSC-F828 to quickly snap a photo but before the camera
>turned itself on to the photo ready state, the couple had righted their
>motorcycle and were back on it. I timed my camera then and it takes
>probably 6 or 7 seconds from switch on to photo ready. A lot can happen
>during that period of time. Is this time lag typical of most digital
>cameras?
>
That's funny, my 828 takes about 1.2 seconds from switch on to really on,
were you trying to use a flash? Have you upgraded the firmware yet? It
actually boots up faster then my 10D does, but not by much.

Jim
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 4:48:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ed Mullikin <edmull2@cox.net> wrote:

>A lot can happen
>during that period of time. Is this time lag typical of most digital
>cameras?

Start-up time and shutter lag are the main reasons I moved to dSLR,
especially for taking pictures of my infant son (and I suppose later
when he starts falling of his bike). I no longer have any gripes
whatsoever on start-up (instant) and lag. Only the autofocus is
sometimes a bit slow (hunting), but with the AF-S lens this is
not much of a problem. Sadly in low-light I tend to favour my
50mm f1.8 but that's not AF-S. Still, it's MILES different than
our other digital.

--
Ken Tough
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 4:48:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

For those of you who think of me as callous, I was in a moving van and in
six seconds or so they were up and back on the cycle. What would you asses
have me do?

"Ken Tough" <ken@objectech.co.uk> wrote in message
news:$h$skEBD4LACFwGP@objectech.co.uk...
> Ed Mullikin <edmull2@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>A lot can happen
>>during that period of time. Is this time lag typical of most digital
>>cameras?
>
> Start-up time and shutter lag are the main reasons I moved to dSLR,
> especially for taking pictures of my infant son (and I suppose later
> when he starts falling of his bike). I no longer have any gripes
> whatsoever on start-up (instant) and lag. Only the autofocus is
> sometimes a bit slow (hunting), but with the AF-S lens this is
> not much of a problem. Sadly in low-light I tend to favour my
> 50mm f1.8 but that's not AF-S. Still, it's MILES different than
> our other digital.
>
> --
> Ken Tough
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 4:48:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ed Mullikin wrote:
> For those of you who think of me as callous, I was in a moving van and in
> six seconds or so they were up and back on the cycle. What would you asses
> have me do?
>

>
>
Think of your first aid kit before thinking of the camera, I would
suspect....


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 4:48:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ed Mullikin" <edmull2@cox.net> wrote in message
news:Ga5Md.80358$Tf5.67939@lakeread03...
> For those of you who think of me as callous, I was in a moving van and in
> six seconds or so they were up and back on the cycle. What would you
asses
> have me do?

It's sort of complicated. If the people were Untouchables, you did exactly
the right thing, but if they were of the Brahmin caste, you should have
stopped and offered to help. The humans were absolutely inconsequential,
though, as you really should have been concerned about the poor cow!

You're a marked man now in the sight of Vishnu. Good luck with that!
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 6:01:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ed Mullikin wrote:

> A lot can happen during that period of time. Is this time lag typical of most digital
> cameras?

Only in point&shoot type of cameras, because of its design. DSLRs are
just like film cameras in shutter lag terms.

--
chidalgo
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 7:01:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

chidalgo wrote:
> Ed Mullikin wrote:
>
>> A lot can happen during that period of time. Is this time lag typical
>> of most digital cameras?
>
>
> Only in point&shoot type of cameras, because of its design. DSLRs
> are just like film cameras in shutter lag terms.
>
> --
> chidalgo
>
Even the new P&S cameras have very short shutter lags now. I have no
problem with it at all on my Kodak DX6440, and it is a year old.
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 9:11:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ed Mullikin <edmull2@cox.net> wrote:

>For those of you who think of me as callous, I was in a moving van and in
>six seconds or so they were up and back on the cycle. What would you asses
>have me do?

Hey, mine was just a mild joke, I know there's nothing you
could have done in six seconds. I was giving an honest
reply about camera performance.

>"Ken Tough" <ken@objectech.co.uk> wrote
>> Ed Mullikin <edmull2@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>A lot can happen
>>>during that period of time. Is this time lag typical of most digital
>>>cameras?
>>
>> Start-up time and shutter lag are the main reasons I moved to dSLR,
>> especially for taking pictures of my infant son (and I suppose later
>> when he starts falling of his bike). I no longer have any gripes
>> whatsoever on start-up (instant) and lag. Only the autofocus is
>> sometimes a bit slow (hunting), but with the AF-S lens this is
>> not much of a problem. Sadly in low-light I tend to favour my
>> 50mm f1.8 but that's not AF-S. Still, it's MILES different than
>> our other digital.

--
Ken Tough
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 10:33:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

chidalgo wrote:
> Ed Mullikin wrote:
>
>> A lot can happen during that period of time. Is this time lag typical
>> of most digital cameras?
>
>
> Only in point&shoot type of cameras, because of its design. DSLRs
> are just like film cameras in shutter lag terms.
>
> --
> chidalgo
>
Not even P&S cameras have the long shutter lags we saw only 2 years ago.
Most come in quite fast these days.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 11:50:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 07:26:06 -0600, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
wrote:

>Harvey wrote:
>> "Ed Mullikin" <edmull2@cox.net> wrote in message
>> news:TdYLd.80336$Tf5.16062@lakeread03...
>>
>>> I timed my camera then and it takes
>>>probably 6 or 7 seconds from switch on to photo ready. A lot can happen
>>>during that period of time. Is this time lag typical of most digital
>>>cameras?
>>
>Yes, it is typical of P&S cameras of a couple of years ago. The average
>is coming down, and you can find cameras like the Kodak DX7590 that get
>ready in only a couple of seconds. It is typical of current models. If
>you want a camera that is ready to go almost instantly, you will need to
>spend a bit of money for a DSLR, or just buy a cheap film camera for
>that purpose.

Depends what you mean by "almost instantly". My Minolta Z10 switches on
quicker than I get the lens cap off and the camera to my eye. I can't
see much need for a camera to be quicker than that.

--
Stephen Poley
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 11:50:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Stephen Poley wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 07:26:06 -0600, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Harvey wrote:
>>
>>>"Ed Mullikin" <edmull2@cox.net> wrote in message
>>>news:TdYLd.80336$Tf5.16062@lakeread03...
>>>
>>>
>>>>I timed my camera then and it takes
>>>>probably 6 or 7 seconds from switch on to photo ready. A lot can happen
>>>>during that period of time. Is this time lag typical of most digital
>>>>cameras?
>>>
>>Yes, it is typical of P&S cameras of a couple of years ago. The average
>>is coming down, and you can find cameras like the Kodak DX7590 that get
>>ready in only a couple of seconds. It is typical of current models. If
>>you want a camera that is ready to go almost instantly, you will need to
>>spend a bit of money for a DSLR, or just buy a cheap film camera for
>>that purpose.
>
>
> Depends what you mean by "almost instantly". My Minolta Z10 switches on
> quicker than I get the lens cap off and the camera to my eye. I can't
> see much need for a camera to be quicker than that.
>

You can save a lot of time by leaving that lens cap on. Grin.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 11:57:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ed Mullikin wrote:
> I was in India a couple of months ago. We were driving down the highway
> when some cow/bull/steer came running across the road in front of us and
> knocked an oncoming Indian couple off a motorcycle right in front of us. I
> grabbed my Sony DSC-F828 to quickly snap a photo but before the camera
> turned itself on to the photo ready state, the couple had righted their
> motorcycle and were back on it. I timed my camera then and it takes
> probably 6 or 7 seconds from switch on to photo ready. A lot can happen
> during that period of time. Is this time lag typical of most digital
> cameras?
>
>
The Ricoh Caplio R1 and R1V are a LOT faster, 1-2 seconds max.

Tony M
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 1:19:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Well, you could return to the topic - there was actually some useful
information posted thereamong the mild/jocular reprimands. Plus I and
at least one other are disputing those 6-7 seconds you claim. The only
way it could take that long was if you had the flash up and the battery
was very low indeed, or you were fumbling with the mode dial in Play
mode.

I repeat, the Sony startup time is about 1.6 seconds, and in daylight
the shutter lag is not more than .7 seconds, usually about .3 to .5.
That adds up to around 2 seconds.

Those figures are not up to sports photography standards, but they are
among the best of the prosumers. Yet you are saying that yours takes
6-7 seconds...????
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 1:29:03 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ed Mullikin" <edmull2@cox.net> wrote in message
news:TdYLd.80336$Tf5.16062@lakeread03...
>I was in India a couple of months ago. We were driving down the highway
>when some cow/bull/steer came running across the road in front of us and
>knocked an oncoming Indian couple off a motorcycle right in front of us. I
>grabbed my Sony DSC-F828 to quickly snap a photo but before the camera
>turned itself on to the photo ready state, the couple had righted their
>motorcycle and were back on it. I timed my camera then and it takes
>probably 6 or 7 seconds from switch on to photo ready. A lot can happen
>during that period of time. Is this time lag typical of most digital
>cameras?
The problems you had are the reason I moved up to a DSLR. Startup time is
instant, and it has "no" shutter lag. (Nikon D70). Of course, you pay
quite a bit more for this luxury. <BG>

Like you, both the startup times and the shutter lag drove me nuts on my old
p and s camera. Now they are starting to publish the startup and lag times
on many cameras.

If you happen to see Elvis, The Lochness Monster and Bigfoot all having a
picnic, turn your camera on early and sneak up slowly. You wouldn't want to
miss that one.
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 6:06:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

chrlz@go.com wrote:
> Well, you could return to the topic - there was actually some useful
> information posted thereamong the mild/jocular reprimands. Plus I and
> at least one other are disputing those 6-7 seconds you claim. The only
> way it could take that long was if you had the flash up and the battery
> was very low indeed, or you were fumbling with the mode dial in Play
> mode.
>
> I repeat, the Sony startup time is about 1.6 seconds, and in daylight
> the shutter lag is not more than .7 seconds, usually about .3 to .5.
> That adds up to around 2 seconds.
>
> Those figures are not up to sports photography standards, but they are
> among the best of the prosumers. Yet you are saying that yours takes
> 6-7 seconds...????
>
I can imagine 6-7 seconds with a battery that was about ready for
charge, and a flash that defaults on (as most will). It seems to be the
flash that takes the most time to get ready on my camera, but then I
don't have a lithium ion battery, either.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 12:18:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I finally got an answer from Sony (below) Mine runs close to the 5 seconds:

"The camera will take 2-5 seconds to make itelf ready for taking photo once
power button is turned on. If the delay is too long, please ensure that you
are using fully-charged batteries."


<chrlz@go.com> wrote in message
news:1107411577.282188.242070@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Well, you could return to the topic - there was actually some useful
> information posted thereamong the mild/jocular reprimands. Plus I and
> at least one other are disputing those 6-7 seconds you claim. The only
> way it could take that long was if you had the flash up and the battery
> was very low indeed, or you were fumbling with the mode dial in Play
> mode.
>
> I repeat, the Sony startup time is about 1.6 seconds, and in daylight
> the shutter lag is not more than .7 seconds, usually about .3 to .5.
> That adds up to around 2 seconds.
>
> Those figures are not up to sports photography standards, but they are
> among the best of the prosumers. Yet you are saying that yours takes
> 6-7 seconds...????
>
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 12:20:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Sheldon wrote:
> "Ed Mullikin" <edmull2@cox.net> wrote in message

snippage

Is this time lag typical of most digital
> >cameras?


> The problems you had are the reason I moved up to a DSLR. Startup
time is
> instant, and it has "no" shutter lag. (Nikon D70). Of course, you
pay
> quite a bit more for this luxury. <BG>
>


Not really. Everywhere I look the Sony is around $900 US. I bought a
D70 w/kit lens in December for a net of $1015 US shipped, after rebate.
I think you could get a Digital Rebel for even less than the Sony, so
it's not quite a bit more anymore, it's about the same. I can only
contribute one thing to the present topic from personal experience. I
turn on the D70 and shoot and I can shoot over and over again with
virtually no wait when I compare it to may old Nikon FG. Since I had
to focus and advance the film manually on the FG, I'd guess the D70 is
a lot faster shooting frame to frame, never mind burst rates. So, if
all you're looking at is cost and raw speed, I really can't see any
argument at all for the high end pro-sumer models unless they get to
the point were there is no wait at all.
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 3:29:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <LTlMd.24937$xa7.9709@fe06.lga>, Ron Hunter
<rphunter@charter.net> wrote:

> chrlz@go.com wrote:
> > Well, you could return to the topic - there was actually some useful
> > information posted thereamong the mild/jocular reprimands. Plus I and
> > at least one other are disputing those 6-7 seconds you claim. The only
> > way it could take that long was if you had the flash up and the battery
> > was very low indeed, or you were fumbling with the mode dial in Play
> > mode.
> >
> > I repeat, the Sony startup time is about 1.6 seconds, and in daylight
> > the shutter lag is not more than .7 seconds, usually about .3 to .5.
> > That adds up to around 2 seconds.
> >
> > Those figures are not up to sports photography standards, but they are
> > among the best of the prosumers. Yet you are saying that yours takes
> > 6-7 seconds...????
> >
> I can imagine 6-7 seconds with a battery that was about ready for
> charge, and a flash that defaults on (as most will). It seems to be the
> flash that takes the most time to get ready on my camera, but then I
> don't have a lithium ion battery, either.

Go here late... Y'all have mentioned presqueezing the shutter halfway
as a work around, right?
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 8:51:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 19:34:22 -0600, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
wrote:

>Stephen Poley wrote:
>> On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 07:26:06 -0600, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
>> wrote:
>>
....
>>>Yes, it is typical of P&S cameras of a couple of years ago. The average
>>>is coming down, and you can find cameras like the Kodak DX7590 that get
>>>ready in only a couple of seconds. It is typical of current models. If
>>>you want a camera that is ready to go almost instantly, you will need to
>>>spend a bit of money for a DSLR, or just buy a cheap film camera for
>>>that purpose.
>>
>>
>> Depends what you mean by "almost instantly". My Minolta Z10 switches on
>> quicker than I get the lens cap off and the camera to my eye. I can't
>> see much need for a camera to be quicker than that.
>>
>
>You can save a lot of time by leaving that lens cap on. Grin.

"Off" I assume you mean? Yes, but if I'm expecting a good photo to come
along any moment, I leave the camera switched on too ...

--
Stephen Poley
February 4, 2005 2:00:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Kitt wrote:

> Sheldon wrote:
>
>>"Ed Mullikin" <edmull2@cox.net> wrote in message
>
>
> snippage
>
> Is this time lag typical of most digital
>
>>>cameras?
>
>
>
>>The problems you had are the reason I moved up to a DSLR. Startup
>
> time is
>
>>instant, and it has "no" shutter lag. (Nikon D70). Of course, you
>
> pay
>
>>quite a bit more for this luxury. <BG>
>>
>
>
> Not really. Everywhere I look the Sony is around $900 US. I bought a
> D70 w/kit lens in December for a net of $1015 US shipped, after rebate.
> I think you could get a Digital Rebel for even less than the Sony, so
> it's not quite a bit more anymore, it's about the same. I can only
> contribute one thing to the present topic from personal experience. I
> turn on the D70 and shoot and I can shoot over and over again with
> virtually no wait when I compare it to may old Nikon FG. Since I had
> to focus and advance the film manually on the FG, I'd guess the D70 is
> a lot faster shooting frame to frame, never mind burst rates. So, if
> all you're looking at is cost and raw speed, I really can't see any
> argument at all for the high end pro-sumer models unless they get to
> the point were there is no wait at all.
>
On the D100, shutter-lag is a menu option. It allows the mirror
vibration to dampen out so the pics can be sharper.

Jan
Anonymous
February 4, 2005 6:26:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hmm, very odd. Take a look here at the timings table:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydscf828/page10.asp

Even with a low battery the worst I could get was 4 seconds, but only
with the inbuilt flash up and fillflash set on - which is very unwise
for *any* camera if you are after quick response.
February 4, 2005 10:07:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <eqGdnZdo3es6K5zfRVn-jQ@comcast.com>, sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net
says...
> >I was in India a couple of months ago. We were driving down the highway
> >when some cow/bull/steer came running across the road in front of us and
> >knocked an oncoming Indian couple off a motorcycle right in front of us. I
> >grabbed my Sony DSC-F828 to quickly snap a photo but before the camera
> >turned itself on to the photo ready state, the couple had righted their
> >motorcycle and were back on it. I timed my camera then and it takes
> >probably 6 or 7 seconds from switch on to photo ready. A lot can happen
> >during that period of time. Is this time lag typical of most digital
> >cameras?
>

The longest delay that Ive seen from off to taking a picture with my 828 is 2
seconds.

If it took longer than 2 seconds I would have returned it right away.

Even with a half used battery 2 seconds is as long as I can get it to take.

If someone at Sony told you 5 seconds, then they ignored all their own
printed material, and all of the review sites on the web.

Im not a great defender of the 828, it has a lot of faults, but startup time
is not among them.

Anyone claiming 5 seconds is normal is full of BULLSHIT, whether they work
for Sony or not.


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
!