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: SMS on 1 Jul 2010 11:48 On 01/07/10 5:14 AM, SMS 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. Sorry about that post, I read the part "How does Navas lie" as if you were implying that he wasn't lying (when is he _not_ lying?). BTW, there's a web site in the UK that lists the lag of many P&S cameras, "http://www.cameras.co.uk/html/shutter-lag-comparisons.cfm". Also, Imaging Resource always prominently displays both the shutter lag and the AF lag of the cameras they test. I.e. the Panasonic FZ-35 has a full lag time of around .35 second. The
From: SMS on 1 Jul 2010 11:53 On 01/07/10 8:48 AM, SMS wrote: > On 01/07/10 5:14 AM, SMS 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. > > Sorry about that post, I read the part "How does Navas lie" as if you > were implying that he wasn't lying (when is he _not_ lying?). > > BTW, there's a web site in the UK that lists the lag of many P&S > cameras, "http://www.cameras.co.uk/html/shutter-lag-comparisons.cfm". > Oops, hit send too soon. Also, Imaging Resource always prominently displays both the shutter lag and the AF lag of the cameras they test. I.e. the Panasonic FZ-35 has a full lag time of around 0.35 second which is one of the faster lag times for a P&S. The Canon EOS-50D has a full lag time of about 0.13 seconds. The slowest D-SLR is probably close to the fasted P&S, when you're not using live view. If you use live view then the D-SLR uses contrast-detection AF and the AF times worsen to those comparable to a P&S.
From: John Navas on 1 Jul 2010 12:10 On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 08:53:27 -0700, in <4c2cb9f6$0$22125$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>, SMS <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote: >On 01/07/10 8:48 AM, SMS wrote: >> On 01/07/10 5:14 AM, SMS 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. >> >> Sorry about that post, I read the part "How does Navas lie" as if you >> were implying that he wasn't lying (when is he _not_ lying?). >> >> BTW, there's a web site in the UK that lists the lag of many P&S >> cameras, "http://www.cameras.co.uk/html/shutter-lag-comparisons.cfm". > >Oops, hit send too soon. > >Also, Imaging Resource always prominently displays both the shutter lag >and the AF lag of the cameras they test. I.e. the Panasonic FZ-35 has a >full lag time of around 0.35 second which is one of the faster lag times >for a P&S. The Canon EOS-50D has a full lag time of about 0.13 seconds. >The slowest D-SLR is probably close to the fasted P&S, when you're not >using live view. If you use live view then the D-SLR uses >contrast-detection AF and the AF times worsen to those comparable to a P&S. Your citation actually lists the FZ-38 (same as FZ-35) at 0.25 -- oops! And that's at default settings -- in fast focus mode, the camera is much faster, on par with dSLR cameras, along with focusing that can be more accurate than dSLR cameras. You might know that if you had any actual experience with these cameras, but you don't -- you're just misinterpreting whatever you can find on the Internet, as usual. -- 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
From: Outing Trolls is FUN! on 1 Jul 2010 17:24 On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 08:48:31 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote: >On 01/07/10 5:14 AM, SMS 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. > >Sorry about that post, I read the part "How does Navas lie" as if you >were implying that he wasn't lying (when is he _not_ lying?). > >BTW, there's a web site in the UK that lists the lag of many P&S >cameras, "http://www.cameraidiots.co.uk/html/imaginary-shutter-lag-comparisons.cfm". Each and every timing on that page is in total error. That whole page has been proved wrong innumerable times on every timing listed. But then you're too much of an inexperienced and ignorant fool to know that that because you've never used ANY cameras. YOU'RE the only one that refers to that page today. People with the least bit of experience know that that whole page is a sham. One of your own web-pages again perhaps? I wouldn't doubt it. Just like the one you put up trying to explain how you helped to install a computer-controlled geyser in Yellowstone Nat. Park.
From: Paul Furman on 1 Jul 2010 19:01
Outing Trolls is FUN! wrote: > YOU'RE the only one that refers to that page dejavu |