I'd forgotten about lag since I got a DSLR. I must admit I always thought lag
was the time from pressing the shutter to taking the picture, and that you
could eliminate it by half pressing first, but after googling it, it seems
there's more to it.
It appears it's quite common for compact cameras to have lags of half a second
or more, but according to
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2011/06/olympus-pen-ep3-improves-almost-everything/,
the Olympus E-P3 has "a lag of just 60 milliseconds. Compare that to Nikon’s
official lag for the D700 — 40 milliseconds ..."
Whether manufacturers will bother to keep lag low is another matter, but at
least it seems possible.
Peter Shute
________________________________________
From: Allan Richardson
Sent: Friday, 3 February 2012 6:17 PM
To: Peter Shute
Cc: ;
Subject: SLR without the mirror
The problem with this type of design is that you are using the picture
capturing sensor to generate an image on the rear screen of the camera. When
you push the shutter release the camera must then switch form display mode to
picture taking mode. This is why the compact cameras (even those with an
electronic viewfinder) have an inherent delay between the pressing of the
shutter and when the photo is captured.
As a consequence anybody photographing active subjects, such as people
(especially children), pets, flowers, on anything but a dead calm day, and you
guessed it, birds, will likely encounter grief during the photographic process.
Some birds are so fast in their reactions that they can move into a poor
position when they hear the shutter on an SLR release, let alone a camera that
shares it's sensor with viewing capability.
Allan Richardson
Morisset NSW.
On 03/02/2012, at 4:26 PM, Peter Shute wrote:
> I do think that mirrorless cameras is where photography is heading, and it's
> good to see a manufacturer maintaining compatibility with current and legacy
> lenses. But this camera has neither optical nor electronic viewfinder, not
> even as an option, so I hope it's not where bird photography is heading.
>
> I think an electronic viewfinder is potentially better than an optical one if
> the resolution is good enough, but it's disappointing that there are so many
> photographers who don't need one at all that manufacturers can simply leave
> it out.
>
> I suspect that some time in the future the viewfinder/no viewfinder divide
> may be bigger than the mirror/no mirror one.
>
> Peter Shute
>
>
> --------------------------
> Sent using BlackBerry
>
|
