Peter
Call it a conspiracy theory but I reckon shutter lag in point and shoots is
one of those annoying little things that the manufacturers will retain to
encourage people to go to SLRs.
Greg Little
-----Original Message-----
From:
On Behalf Of Peter Shute
Sent: Friday, 3 February 2012 9:18 PM
To: Allan Richardson
Cc: ;
Subject: SLR without the mirror
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-every
thing/, 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
>
|
