birding-aus

SLR without the mirror

To: Allan Richardson <>
Subject: SLR without the mirror
From: Peter Shute <>
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 21:17:34 +1100
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
>



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Admin

The University of NSW School of Computer and Engineering takes no responsibility for the contents of this archive. It is purely a compilation of material sent by many people to the birding-aus mailing list. It has not been checked for accuracy nor its content verified in any way. If you wish to get material removed from the archive or have other queries about the archive e-mail Andrew Taylor at this address: andrewt@cse.unsw.EDU.AU