Shutter Lag on digital camera...

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

We have a old canon A20 which must be getting on for three years old -
currently mostly using it for 6x4 pictures so 2MP isn't a massive issue,
although the option to print bigger or crop would be useful, hence more mega
pixels. One thing we have found to be a continual annoyance is the shutter
lag as it is used a lot to take family pictures and kids don't stay still
for long.

Are the modern digital compact cameras much improved in terms of shutter
lag, or would you only notice a big improvement by going for a dSLR?

Considering the Canon A95 as a possible replacement - anyone have any
experieince of the shutter lag on this?
Also considering the value of getting something with a larger zoom such as
the DiMAGE Z5 which according to the website has a very small shutter lag
(0.06) which I find hard to believe as reviews don't seem to mention this.

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

erics wrote:
> Are the modern digital compact cameras much improved in terms of
shutter
> lag, or would you only notice a big improvement by going for a dSLR?

For lots of info on shutter lag look here
http://www.imaging-resource.com/
Shutter lag on non-DSLRs can be very good if you pre-focus (by pushing
the shutter button part way) But a good DSLR has a feel to it that has
not been met by any non-DSLR cameras that I know of. With the 20D you
push the shutter and you get the photo, over and over again, no waiting
for the photo to get stored. With a non-DSLR you will normally have to
wait some period of time between shots, this may only be on the order
of a second but this can still be a pain.

> Considering the Canon A95 as a possible replacement - anyone have any

> experieince of the shutter lag on this?
> Also considering the value of getting something with a larger zoom
such as
> the DiMAGE Z5 which according to the website has a very small shutter
lag
> (0.06) which I find hard to believe as reviews don't seem to mention
this.
The 0.06 shutter lag is for pre-focus. The A95 takes just under a
second to focus and shoot a photo, but there is a two second delay then
to the next photo.

You should at least go to a camera store and try a DLSR, it is a pretty
neat feeling to use one.

Scott

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

"Scott W" <biphoto@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1109348054.771908.199560@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> erics wrote:
> > Are the modern digital compact cameras much improved in terms of
> shutter
>> lag, or would you only notice a big improvement by going for a dSLR?
>
> For lots of info on shutter lag look here
> http://www.imaging-resource.com/
> Shutter lag on non-DSLRs can be very good if you pre-focus (by pushing
> the shutter button part way) But a good DSLR has a feel to it that has
> not been met by any non-DSLR cameras that I know of. With the 20D you
> push the shutter and you get the photo, over and over again, no waiting
> for the photo to get stored. With a non-DSLR you will normally have to
> wait some period of time between shots, this may only be on the order
> of a second but this can still be a pain.
>
>> Considering the Canon A95 as a possible replacement - anyone have any
>
>> experieince of the shutter lag on this?
>> Also considering the value of getting something with a larger zoom
> such as
>> the DiMAGE Z5 which according to the website has a very small shutter
> lag
>> (0.06) which I find hard to believe as reviews don't seem to mention
> this.
> The 0.06 shutter lag is for pre-focus. The A95 takes just under a
> second to focus and shoot a photo, but there is a two second delay then
> to the next photo.
>
> You should at least go to a camera store and try a DLSR, it is a pretty
> neat feeling to use one.
>
> Scott


Thanks for the info. I am tempted by a dSLR but need to justify the extra
cost in my own mind (and the persuade the wife!). I also don't want to
needlessly pay for more camera than I require.

I intend to go to a store to get a feeling for a few cameras, just want to
be a little informed before I go so I can tell a sales gimmick from the
truth!

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

Perhaps the Sony DSC-W1 suits your needs.
It's one of the speediest compact camera's around.
And since it's successors (DSC-W5 and DSC-W7) have been announced
recently, the DSC-W1 prices are likely to drop.

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

Ron Hunter wrote:

>
> I think you need to update your information. I have a Kodak DX6440
> (last year's model), and the shutter lag is minimal. It has never
been
> a problem, and newer models are even faster. As for multiple shots,
I
> can take up to 6 shots before having to write to the card. Look for
a
> camera with a large buffer ram. As for feel, if you mean heavy and
> bulky, yes, the DSLR has that 'advantage'.
>

> Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Here is a link to a review of the DX6440
http://www.steves-digicams.com/200 [...] 0_pg5.html
If might be fast for a non-DSLR but it is not in the same class as a
DSLR.
It has 0.3 seconds of shutter lag if you are pre-focused and 0.6 if you
are not pre-focused.

The 20D has a shutter lag of 0.15 seconds including focus time and is
0.077 seconds if it is pre-focused.

The 20D will take 24 photos at a rate of 4.8/second.

So no by feel I do not mean heavy and bulky, I mean something that is
fast and responsive to the photographer.

If you don't feel you wnat that kind of responsiveness that is find
but there are those who do and you simply don't getting from a camera
like yours.

Scott

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

Go try for yourself - nothing beats 'hands on'...

Going from my previous CP4500 to a D70 was a revalation, a near religious
experience...
No P+S I have tried has anything near the response and feel of a DSLR.

Anyone used to 35mm SLRs cannot help but be frustrated by the slow response
of P+S cameras... if you're new to photography you may not notice (or assume
it's a fault of the user).
Great for outdoor, sunny days, lanscapes etc... lousy for low light, candids
or action shots... I took my old Fuji S3000 to the Superbikes and got lots
of shots of tailpipes leaving shot!!

I've been taking pictures for 30 years so luckily I knew the fault was not
with me ;-)

Love my D70 - push the button and it takes the shot you see in the
viewfinder - kind of what photography is about I feel...
Any good shots I took with the CP5400 were 70% chance!!

Go to your nearest camera store and try some DSLRs... take your own CF card
if 'poss and take the results home.

I still take the CP5400 on walks and travelling for snaps and 'covert' shots
but for anything serious its the D70.

A few D70 pics from around town
http://www.guytittley.pwp.blueyond [...] index.html


Guy

erics wrote:
> We have a old canon A20 which must be getting on for three years old -
> currently mostly using it for 6x4 pictures so 2MP isn't a massive
> issue, although the option to print bigger or crop would be useful,
> hence more mega pixels. One thing we have found to be a continual
> annoyance is the shutter lag as it is used a lot to take family
> pictures and kids don't stay still for long.
>
> Are the modern digital compact cameras much improved in terms of
> shutter lag, or would you only notice a big improvement by going for
> a dSLR?
> Considering the Canon A95 as a possible replacement - anyone have any
> experieince of the shutter lag on this?
> Also considering the value of getting something with a larger zoom
> such as the DiMAGE Z5 which according to the website has a very small
> shutter lag (0.06) which I find hard to believe as reviews don't seem
> to mention this.

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

> The fastest camera in small cameras is the Ricoh R1 which is 4Mp and
> there is a 5Mp (model?) have a look at these specs yes they are correct
> not a sales pitch.

5Mp - R1v, release in UK next month, price approx £230. (interestingly,
it was on the QVC shoppoing channel this morning as pick of the day)

Tony M

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

Scott W wrote:
> Rob wrote:
> > The fastest camera in small cameras is the Ricoh R1 which is 4Mp and
>
>
>>there is a 5Mp (model?) have a look at these specs yes they are
>
> correct
>
>>not a sales pitch.
>
> Could you post a link to the spec for this camera?
>
> Acott
>

http://www.ricoh.com.au/products/v [...] RangeID=10

High resolution 4.0 megapixels CCD
Advanced precision technology
4.8x magnification wide angle 28-135mm optical zoom lens
3.6x digital zoom (combined 17x magnification)
World leading 0.8 second start-up time
World's fastest shutter response time before focus lock - 0.05 seconds
World's fastest shutter response time after focus lock - 0.003 of a second
Quick performance 0.9 second interval shooting



Link to the R1V 5Mp camera at the above URL

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

Rob wrote:
> Scott W wrote:
> > Rob wrote:
> > > The fastest camera in small cameras is the Ricoh R1 which is 4Mp
and
> >
> >
> >>there is a 5Mp (model?) have a look at these specs yes they are
> >
> > correct
> >
> >>not a sales pitch.
> >
> > Could you post a link to the spec for this camera?
> >
> > Acott
> >
>
>
http://www.ricoh.com.au/products/v [...] RangeID=10
>
> High resolution 4.0 megapixels CCD
> Advanced precision technology
> 4.8x magnification wide angle 28-135mm optical zoom lens
> 3.6x digital zoom (combined 17x magnification)
> World leading 0.8 second start-up time
> World's fastest shutter response time before focus lock - 0.05
seconds
> World's fastest shutter response time after focus lock - 0.003 of a
second
> Quick performance 0.9 second interval shooting
>
>
>
> Link to the R1V 5Mp camera at the above URL

0.8 seconds startup time is fast but not as fast as the 20D at 0.25
seconds
The slow part is the interval time of 0.9 seconds, The 20D has a cycle
time of 0.43 seconds, less then half the time.

Scott

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

Tony Hwang wrote:

> Hi,
> Film is instant total exposure vs. sensor is scaned. It takes
fraction
> of a second to complete image and send it to buffer. Also when you
turn
> the camera on, the firmware has to do self check, go to ready, etc.,
> another fraction of seconds, etc. They all adds up.
> It's like computer OS(Windows, Linux, OS X, etc.) boot up time.
> Tony

I don't think you fully understand how a CCD works, its exposure is
just like film. And the time it takes to send the image to the butter
is less then it take for the film to advance in a 35mm camera, or can
your film camera shoot faster then 5 frame/sec.

Boot time, yeah waiting for that quarter second to boot up is a real
drag.

Scott

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

Tony Hwang wrote:
> Scott W wrote:
> Hi,
> Really?
> So how CCD works? Care to run down?
The CCD integrates at all the photo-sits at the same time, one the
image is captured all the integrated level are transfer, at the same
time, to the CCD part of the chip, the CCD then clocks the values to
the charge amplifier and then from there the signal goes to the A/D
converter. The image is not scanned in the sense that a scanner scans
a photograph, the photo-site work in the same way as film does, looking
a the whole scene at the same time.

Scott

> Let's start with logic block diagram of any digital camera.
> Of course mechanical movement is SLOWER than the speed of electrons.
> Movie films shoots how many fps? It can even catch a bullet flying.
> Ever caught a fired bullet on film in a physics lab?

If you are going to catch a flying bullet you will do so with a fast
flash, it does not matter if you use a film or digital camera, both
will get the photo.

And do you really want to use a movie camera to get stills?

Scott

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

Tony Hwang wrote:
> erics wrote:
>
>> We have a old canon A20 which must be getting on for three years old -
>> currently mostly using it for 6x4 pictures so 2MP isn't a massive
>> issue, although the option to print bigger or crop would be useful,
>> hence more mega pixels. One thing we have found to be a continual
>> annoyance is the shutter lag as it is used a lot to take family
>> pictures and kids don't stay still for long.
>>
>> Are the modern digital compact cameras much improved in terms of
>> shutter lag, or would you only notice a big improvement by going for a
>> dSLR?
>>
>> Considering the Canon A95 as a possible replacement - anyone have any
>> experieince of the shutter lag on this?
>> Also considering the value of getting something with a larger zoom
>> such as the DiMAGE Z5 which according to the website has a very small
>> shutter lag (0.06) which I find hard to believe as reviews don't seem
>> to mention this.
>>
> Hi,
> Film is instant total exposure vs. sensor is scaned. It takes fraction
> of a second to complete image and send it to buffer. Also when you turn
> the camera on, the firmware has to do self check, go to ready, etc.,
> another fraction of seconds, etc. They all adds up.
> It's like computer OS(Windows, Linux, OS X, etc.) boot up time.
> Tony

I am certainly glad it isn't THAT slow. Unix can take twenty minutes to
boot!


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

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

Ron Hunter wrote:
>
> I can't imagine why anyone would worry about a .8 second startup
time,
> as opposed to .25 seconds. I don't think I can raise the camera to
> shooting position from turnon that fast. One second between shots is

> enough, unless you want a 'burst mode', which many moderately priced
> cameras offer.
It is another trick that the 20D does that makes the 0.25 startup time
useful,
it can turn itself on when you push the shutter button. The camera will
turn itself off after a short period of not being used, but just push
the
shutter and you get the photo, pretty neat. In effect this camera is
always ready
to get the shot.

Scott

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

"erics" <eric_NewsGrps@SpaMthe-stannards.co.ukTraP> writes:

>I have since read that one way of reducing shutter lag is pre-focusing, or
>using a camera with manual focus, as the AF is the majority of the delay? I
>guess there must have also been shutter lag with my old 35mm point and shoot
>camera, but because it was typically weeks before the pictures come back it
>wasn't immediately obvious. I would hate to think the number of pictures we
>have "missed" because the camera didn't fire when we first hit the button!

Actually, your film P&S camera was probably faster. Most of these use
an infrared system, sweeping a dot of IR light across the subject and
seeing when it is brightest as seen from a sensor located in another
position on the camera front. It's basically an automated rangefinder,
and it can be made to work pretty fast.

Camera manufacturers *could* put the same sort of system in digital P&S
cameras, but nobody seems to. I guess it's just too attractive to use
the video output of the main CCD for focusing. But DSLRs are fast to
focus because they use the same sort of focusing systems as film SLRs.
These measure through the taking lens, but they do *not* use the main
CCD.

Dave

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

Scott W wrote:
> Rob wrote:
>
>>Scott W wrote:
>>
>>>Rob wrote:
>>> > The fastest camera in small cameras is the Ricoh R1 which is 4Mp
>
> and
>
>>>
>>>>there is a 5Mp (model?) have a look at these specs yes they are
>>>
>>>correct
>>>
>>>
>>>>not a sales pitch.
>>>
>>>Could you post a link to the spec for this camera?
>>>
>>>Acott
>>>
>>
>>
> http://www.ricoh.com.au/products/v [...] RangeID=10
>
>>High resolution 4.0 megapixels CCD
>>Advanced precision technology
>>4.8x magnification wide angle 28-135mm optical zoom lens
>>3.6x digital zoom (combined 17x magnification)
>>World leading 0.8 second start-up time
>>World's fastest shutter response time before focus lock - 0.05
>
> seconds
>
>>World's fastest shutter response time after focus lock - 0.003 of a
>
> second
>
>>Quick performance 0.9 second interval shooting
>>
>>
>>
>>Link to the R1V 5Mp camera at the above URL
>
>
> 0.8 seconds startup time is fast but not as fast as the 20D at 0.25
> seconds
> The slow part is the interval time of 0.9 seconds, The 20D has a cycle
> time of 0.43 seconds, less then half the time.
>
> Scott
>
Were not talking DSLR camera here but small compact cameras - don't do
a comparison with a DSLR.

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

In article <Mt8Ud.515484$Xk.426617@pd7tw3no>,
Tony Hwang <dragon40@shaw.ca> wrote:
>Scott W wrote:
>>
>> I don't think you fully understand how a CCD works, its exposure is
>> just like film. And the time it takes to send the image to the butter
>> is less then it take for the film to advance in a 35mm camera, or can
>> your film camera shoot faster then 5 frame/sec.
>>
>> Boot time, yeah waiting for that quarter second to boot up is a real
>> drag.
>>
>> Scott
>>
>Hi,
>Really?
>So how CCD works? Care to run down?

The exposure of a CCD and film is pretty similar - they both start capturing
light across their whole surface the moment they are exposed to light. The
earlier suggestion that the image is somehow "scanned" by the CCD is
incorrect. The CCD is read out using a scanning-like process, but the actual
capture occurs simultaneously in every cell.

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

Rob wrote:
> Were not talking DSLR camera here but small compact cameras - don't
do
> a comparison with a DSLR.
Did you read the OP post?, he wanted to know is a DSLR would be much
faster then a p&s digital, so the whole point of this thread is to
compare with a DSLR.

Scott

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

Scott W wrote:
> Rob wrote:
>
>> Were not talking DSLR camera here but small compact cameras - don't
>
> do
>
>>a comparison with a DSLR.
>
> Did you read the OP post?, he wanted to know is a DSLR would be much
> faster then a p&s digital, so the whole point of this thread is to
> compare with a DSLR.
>
> Scott
>
The simple answer for the OP is that he should check the specs. on the
P&S camera relative to startup times, and time between shots as these
vary widely on P&S cameras. Many approach, or exceed, the figures for
some DSLRs.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

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

Dave Martindale wrote:
> "David J Taylor"
> <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> writes:
>
>> The Nikon 8400 includes such a dual auto-focus system, only using
>> contrast detection on the video output if the IR system fails. This
>> helps to make it a very fast camera to use.
>
> Good for it. That makes more sense than relying on contrast from the
> main CCD. But I think it's still a minority of P&S cameras that do
> this.
>
> Dave

Indeed it is only a small minority of cameras which offer this feature,
and it's one feature I didn't mind paying a slightly higher price for.
The main reason for getting the Nikon 8400 was its 24mm wide-angle,
though.

David

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

T.N.T. wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 07:56:12 GMT, davem@cs.ubc.ca (Dave Martindale),
> wrote in news:cvuiqs$hve$1@mughi.cs.ubc.ca:
>
>> "David J Taylor"
>> <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> writes:
>>
>>> The Nikon 8400 includes such a dual auto-focus system, only using
>>> contrast detection on the video output if the IR system fails.
>>> This helps to make it a very fast camera to use.
>>
>> Good for it. That makes more sense than relying on contrast from
>> the main CCD. But I think it's still a minority of P&S cameras
>> that do this.
>
> Most if not all Sony cameras can achieve focus in around 0.3s or
> less, which is as fast or faster than the Nikon 8400/8800 and
> getting into DSLR territory. All other Nikon digicams as well as
> all Canons are much more slower. Some Casio and Ricoh are very fast
> also.
>
> I really like the operational aspect of Sony digicams, which very
> fast in focusing, very short shutter lag and very short
> shot-to-shot cycle time. But I think the default image quality from
> Canon digicams as well as the Nikon 8400/8800 are much better than
> Sony's.

The Sony F-828 takes more than 1 second and sometimes almost 3 seconds
to focus, as reported in the review at www.dpreview.com.

--

Travis in Shoreline Washington
Uses a Kodak DC4800

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

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 01:16:35 GMT, "Travis"
<Travis.ShorelineWa@invalid.invalid>, wrote in
news:TnPUd.70394$uc.51054@trnddc04:

> T.N.T. wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 07:56:12 GMT, davem@cs.ubc.ca (Dave Martindale),
>> wrote in news:cvuiqs$hve$1@mughi.cs.ubc.ca:
>>
>>> "David J Taylor"
>>> <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> writes:
>>>
>>>> The Nikon 8400 includes such a dual auto-focus system, only using
>>>> contrast detection on the video output if the IR system fails.
>>>> This helps to make it a very fast camera to use.
>>>
>>> Good for it. That makes more sense than relying on contrast from
>>> the main CCD. But I think it's still a minority of P&S cameras
>>> that do this.
>>
>> Most if not all Sony cameras can achieve focus in around 0.3s or
>> less, which is as fast or faster than the Nikon 8400/8800 and
>> getting into DSLR territory. All other Nikon digicams as well as
>> all Canons are much more slower. Some Casio and Ricoh are very fast
>> also.
>>
>> I really like the operational aspect of Sony digicams, which very
>> fast in focusing, very short shutter lag and very short
>> shot-to-shot cycle time. But I think the default image quality from
>> Canon digicams as well as the Nikon 8400/8800 are much better than
>> Sony's.
>
> The Sony F-828 takes more than 1 second and sometimes almost 3 seconds
> to focus, as reported in the review at www.dpreview.com.
>

You must be joking. Here's the shutter lag time table from this page:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydscf828/page10.asp

Action Details Time,seconds
Half-press Lag (0->S1) Wide angle (Multi / Center AF Area) 0.4 - 0.6
Half-press Lag (0->S1) Telephoto (Multi / Center AF Area) 0.6 - 1.2
Half to Full-press Lag (S1->S2) Wide angle (LCD / EVF) 0.1
Full-press Lag (0->S2) Wide angle (LCD / EVF) 0.2

According to dpreview, in Multi AF mode it'd take 0.4s to 0.6s for
focusing. Plus 0.1s of shutter lag for a total of just 0.2s.... (must be
either fuzzy math or the focus is not locked yet).

Anyway, for a greater acuracy level of time measurement go to
imaging-resource, here for the F828:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/F828/F82A7.HTM
They have: Shutter lag, full autofocus ranging from 0.25s for wide to 0.44s
for medium to 0.69s for telephoto. 0.25s is quite fast for any autofocus
cameras and is the fastest number for the 8 megapixel prosumer bunch.


--
T.N.T.

Lbh xabj jung gb qb vs lbh rire jnag gb rznvy zr.

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

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 11:26:32 GMT, Graham Holden <look@bottom.of.post>,
wrote in news:nmj821ph9uud2titie8km8k3fakak4nh2d@4ax.com:

> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 08:55:06 +1100, Rob <mesa@mine.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>http://www.ricoh.com.au/products/viewproduct.asp?productid=559&range=Ri
>>coh+Digital+Cameras&RangeID=10
>>
>>High resolution 4.0 megapixels CCD
>>Advanced precision technology
>>4.8x magnification wide angle 28-135mm optical zoom lens
>>3.6x digital zoom (combined 17x magnification)
>>World leading 0.8 second start-up time
>>World's fastest shutter response time before focus lock - 0.05 seconds
>>World's fastest shutter response time after focus lock - 0.003 of a
>>second
>
> Is it just the "marketing department cynic" in me, or do these figures
> give absolutely no information about how fast the camera takes a shot?
> Unless I'm misinterpreting them, they say: it takes 1/20th of a
> second to realise you _want_ to take a shot, at which point it starts
> getting focus. Some unspecified amount of time later, after focus
> lock has been acquired, it then takes next to no time to fire the
> shutter. Both the figures are about what I would expect from the main
> "has the user pressed a button yet" loop in the firmware and the "time
> to call the SHOOT subroutine". What is not mentioned is how long it
> takes to get focus lock.
>
> I've nothing against the camera (I've never seen it); it just seems to
> be a case of marketing throwing out effectively meaningless figures to
> look impressive.

As I understand it, "shutter response time before focus lock" means the
total time of focusing and shutter release lag. Subtract the shutter
release lag of "next to no time" and you get 0.017s for focusing.


--
T.N.T.

Lbh xabj jung gb qb vs lbh rire jnag gb rznvy zr.

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

T.N.T. wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 11:26:32 GMT, Graham Holden <look@bottom.of.post>,
> wrote in news:nmj821ph9uud2titie8km8k3fakak4nh2d@4ax.com:
>
>
>>On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 08:55:06 +1100, Rob <mesa@mine.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>http://www.ricoh.com.au/products/viewproduct.asp?productid=559&range=Ri
>>>coh+Digital+Cameras&RangeID=10
>>>
>>>High resolution 4.0 megapixels CCD
>>>Advanced precision technology
>>>4.8x magnification wide angle 28-135mm optical zoom lens
>>>3.6x digital zoom (combined 17x magnification)
>>>World leading 0.8 second start-up time
>>>World's fastest shutter response time before focus lock - 0.05 seconds
>>>World's fastest shutter response time after focus lock - 0.003 of a
>>>second
>>
>>Is it just the "marketing department cynic" in me, or do these figures
>>give absolutely no information about how fast the camera takes a shot?
>> Unless I'm misinterpreting them, they say: it takes 1/20th of a
>>second to realise you _want_ to take a shot, at which point it starts
>>getting focus. Some unspecified amount of time later, after focus
>>lock has been acquired, it then takes next to no time to fire the
>>shutter. Both the figures are about what I would expect from the main
>>"has the user pressed a button yet" loop in the firmware and the "time
>>to call the SHOOT subroutine". What is not mentioned is how long it
>>takes to get focus lock.
>>
>>I've nothing against the camera (I've never seen it); it just seems to
>>be a case of marketing throwing out effectively meaningless figures to
>>look impressive.
>
>
> As I understand it, "shutter response time before focus lock" means the
> total time of focusing and shutter release lag. Subtract the shutter
> release lag of "next to no time" and you get 0.017s for focusing.
>
>
There are a lot of factors which affect the shot to shot time. For
instance, if I set my camera for 'landscape', then the focus is set at
infinity. If there is sufficient light, then the flash won't fire, and
I won't have to wait for it to recharge before the next shot, giving a
VERY fast shot to shot time for however many shots the camera can store
in its internal ram before it has to write one to the flash card. In
full resolution mode, I can do 6 shots as fast as I can press the
shutter button in that mode. If I have it on Auto, and I am inside
where flash is required, the time depends largely on the recharge speed
of the flash, which, in turn, depends on the charge state of the batteries.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

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

T.N.T. <tnt@localhost.ca> wrote:
>
> Anyway, for a greater acuracy level of time measurement go to
> imaging-resource, here for the F828:
> http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/F828/F82A7.HTM
> They have: Shutter lag, full autofocus ranging from 0.25s for wide to 0.44s
> for medium to 0.69s for telephoto. 0.25s is quite fast for any autofocus
> cameras and is the fastest number for the 8 megapixel prosumer bunch.

Why do you say imaging-resource.com measures timings more accurately
than dpreview.com? Not that I doubt it: imaging-resource is great.

Have you ever seen a table summarizing imaging-resource's timings?
I can't find one on that website.