How to tell a rank amateur from a seasoned one, or a pro
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Winter is near
Next: CMOS sensors worthless for video?
From: Ray Fischer on 1 Jul 2010 03:37 John Navas <jncl1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > SMS >>The need for extreme wide-angle is probably #3 in the reasons why >>digital SLRs continue to increase in sales faster than P&S cameras (#1 >>being low-light/high ISO capability, and #2 being AF lag). > >Why do you persist is making claims that only serve to make you look >ignorant and foolish? Is it because you really don't know the facts? >Well here you go: > >FZ28 ><http://www.ephotozine.com/article/Panasonic-Lumix-DMCFZ28-10658> > > Shutter lag times started off looking promising at 0.04sec but it > turned out I was being over eager as I started to get consistent > results of 0.08sec which is the standard for any compact up to bridge > and prosumer status. How does Navas lie? By pretending that "shutter lag" is the only delay involved in taking a picture. By ignoring the glacial autofocus times and the sluggish rate at which such cameras process and save photos. In other words, a "shutter lag" of zero wouldn't help in the slightest if the camera took 800msec to focus and save the picture. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: Ben Dover on 1 Jul 2010 04:32 On 01 Jul 2010 07:37:25 GMT, rfischer(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: >John Navas <jncl1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >> SMS > >>>The need for extreme wide-angle is probably #3 in the reasons why >>>digital SLRs continue to increase in sales faster than P&S cameras (#1 >>>being low-light/high ISO capability, and #2 being AF lag). >> >>Why do you persist is making claims that only serve to make you look >>ignorant and foolish? Is it because you really don't know the facts? >>Well here you go: >> >>FZ28 >><http://www.ephotozine.com/article/Panasonic-Lumix-DMCFZ28-10658> >> >> Shutter lag times started off looking promising at 0.04sec but it >> turned out I was being over eager as I started to get consistent >> results of 0.08sec which is the standard for any compact up to bridge >> and prosumer status. > >How does Navas lie? By pretending that "shutter lag" is the only delay >involved in taking a picture. By ignoring the glacial autofocus times >and the sluggish rate at which such cameras process and save photos. > >In other words, a "shutter lag" of zero wouldn't help in the slightest >if the camera took 800msec to focus and save the picture. To the readers of the world: We sincerely apologize for Ray Fischer's ignorance and lack of talent and skill. You see, he can only use cameras in fully automatic modes like any beginner snapshooter and crapshooter. He has no basic concepts of pre-focusing a camera to a hyperfocal setting or any other of the most basic of tasks that any real photographer masters in his first year. He's still trying to pretend to be a photographer while still using any camera, DSLR or not, in fully automated P&S modes. If he's ever used any real cameras at all that is.
From: SMS on 1 Jul 2010 08:14 On 01/07/10 12:37 AM, Ray Fischer wrote: > In other words, a "shutter lag" of zero wouldn't help in the slightest > if the camera took 800msec to focus and save the picture. Surely you realize that "shutter lag" is often used to describe the sum of AF lag and shutter lag. In reality it's the contrast detect focusing of the P&S that causes the AF lag, and while it's not as bad as it was in the past, it still is much slower than phase-detect AF, especially in challenging situations. It's of little consequence when shooting landscapes in good light. It's of major concern when photographing children or wild life, or when shooting in low light.
From: John Navas on 1 Jul 2010 10:45 On 01 Jul 2010 07:37:25 GMT, in <4c2c45b5$0$1581$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>, rfischer(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: >John Navas <jncl1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >> SMS > >>>The need for extreme wide-angle is probably #3 in the reasons why >>>digital SLRs continue to increase in sales faster than P&S cameras (#1 >>>being low-light/high ISO capability, and #2 being AF lag). >> >>Why do you persist is making claims that only serve to make you look >>ignorant and foolish? Is it because you really don't know the facts? >>Well here you go: >> >>FZ28 >><http://www.ephotozine.com/article/Panasonic-Lumix-DMCFZ28-10658> >> >> Shutter lag times started off looking promising at 0.04sec but it >> turned out I was being over eager as I started to get consistent >> results of 0.08sec which is the standard for any compact up to bridge >> and prosumer status. > >How does Navas lie? By pretending that "shutter lag" is the only delay >involved in taking a picture. By ignoring the glacial autofocus times >and the sluggish rate at which such cameras process and save photos. > >In other words, a "shutter lag" of zero wouldn't help in the slightest >if the camera took 800msec to focus and save the picture. The lie here is your selective quotation. The part you snipped: FZ8 <http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicfz8/page5.asp> Again focus (using the high speed AF mode) is very fast. Shutter lag is marginally slower than the FZ7 - the difference is down to the video lag on the live preview (the actual delay between pressing the button and the shot being taken is almost instantaneous). -- Best regards, John "I would like to take you seriously, but to do so would affront your intelligence." [William F. Buckley, Jr]
From: John Navas on 1 Jul 2010 10:47
On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 05:14:27 -0700, in <4c2c86a2$0$22165$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>, SMS <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote: >On 01/07/10 12:37 AM, Ray Fischer wrote: > >> In other words, a "shutter lag" of zero wouldn't help in the slightest >> if the camera took 800msec to focus and save the picture. > >Surely you realize that "shutter lag" is often used to describe the sum >of AF lag and shutter lag. In reality it's the contrast detect focusing >of the P&S that causes the AF lag, and while it's not as bad as it was >in the past, it still is much slower than phase-detect AF, especially in >challenging situations. > >It's of little consequence when shooting landscapes in good light. It's >of major concern when photographing children or wild life, or when >shooting in low light. My post proves with factual citations that there is no lag issue. Your post as usual is just unsupported claims to the contrary. What to believe, what to believe, what to believe ... ;) -- Best regards, John "It is better to sit in silence and appear ignorant, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." -Mark Twain "A little learning is a dangerous thing." -Alexander Pope "Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn." -Benjamin Franklin |