Need a low shutter lag point and shoot digital

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Nov 14, 2004.

  1. Hi. I need some help. I want to get a small
    point and shoot digital camera, but I am concerned
    about the shutter lag. Please do not recommend a
    DSLR, as I have a Canon 1D Mark II and 10D cameras
    and plenty of lenses to go with them. I'm looking
    for something small, some specs that are important
    to me:

    5 megapixels or larger,
    auto, manual, aperture priority modes,
    3x optical zoom minimum, with autofocus,
    built in flash,
    compact flash I (and type II would be nice) cards,
    under about $500,
    reasonably low shutter lag for this type of camera.

    Nice but not necessary: raw mode output.

    The question is, what is a reasonably low shutter
    lag on such cameras these days? I can't seem to find
    many specs. Lag only seems to be mentioned rarely
    in reviews, and the manufacturers do not seem to
    give it. Does someone know of a site (especially a
    table that compares the lag times, measured in a uniform
    way) with lag times? I want lag time from shutter press,
    autofocus, exposure calculation to release of the shutter,
    and I do not consider lag time with manual focus to be
    relevant for my purposes.

    I have a Canon G1 and shutter lag is awful. It often seems
    to take 0.5 to 1 second or longer to acquire focus and shoot.
    (Of course this is quite maddening after using the 1D Mark II
    with its 40 millisecond lag ;-).

    One camera that I am looking at is the Canon A95, but I
    can not find shutter lag info. It also only uses
    compact flash type I.

    Any help would be appreciated,
    Thanks in advance,

    Roger
    photography, digital info at: http://www.clarkvision.com
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Nov 14, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)

    Ed Ruf Guest

    On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 12:24:10 -0700, in rec.photo.digital "Roger N. Clark
    (change username to rnclark)" <> wrote:

    >The question is, what is a reasonably low shutter
    >lag on such cameras these days? I can't seem to find
    >many specs. Lag only seems to be mentioned rarely
    >in reviews, and the manufacturers do not seem to
    >give it. Does someone know of a site (especially a
    >table that compares the lag times, measured in a uniform
    >way) with lag times? I want lag time from shutter press,
    >autofocus, exposure calculation to release of the shutter,
    >and I do not consider lag time with manual focus to be
    >relevant for my purposes.


    Table no, but I believe all the reviews at http://www.dpreview have the
    results of lag time tests.
    ________________________________________________________
    Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 ()
    http://EdwardGRuf.com
     
    Ed Ruf, Nov 14, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)

    Steven Gray Guest

    "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <> wrote
    in news::

    > Hi. I need some help. I want to get a small
    > point and shoot digital camera, but I am concerned
    > about the shutter lag. Please do not recommend a
    > DSLR, as I have a Canon 1D Mark II and 10D cameras
    > and plenty of lenses to go with them. I'm looking
    > for something small, some specs that are important
    > to me:


    I'm no expert on any of this, but one thing to make sure of is that you
    can turn off the flash. If you need to make multiple sequential shots,
    charging a flash can be a limiting factor rather than shutter lag.
    Likewise, if you _need_ the flash, make sure that you check the specs for
    flash charge time.

    --
    Steve Gray
     
    Steven Gray, Nov 14, 2004
    #3
  4. Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)

    Alain Guest

    In article <>, says...
    > Hi. I need some help. I want to get a small
    > point and shoot digital camera, but I am concerned
    > about the shutter lag. Please do not recommend a
    > DSLR, as I have a Canon 1D Mark II and 10D cameras
    > and plenty of lenses to go with them. I'm looking
    > for something small, some specs that are important
    > to me:
    >
    > 5 megapixels or larger,
    > auto, manual, aperture priority modes,
    > 3x optical zoom minimum, with autofocus,
    > built in flash,
    > compact flash I (and type II would be nice) cards,
    > under about $500,
    > reasonably low shutter lag for this type of camera.
    >
    > Nice but not necessary: raw mode output.
    >
    > The question is, what is a reasonably low shutter
    > lag on such cameras these days? I can't seem to find
    > many specs. Lag only seems to be mentioned rarely
    > in reviews, and the manufacturers do not seem to
    > give it. Does someone know of a site (especially a
    > table that compares the lag times, measured in a uniform
    > way) with lag times? I want lag time from shutter press,
    > autofocus, exposure calculation to release of the shutter,
    > and I do not consider lag time with manual focus to be
    > relevant for my purposes.
    >
    > I have a Canon G1 and shutter lag is awful. It often seems
    > to take 0.5 to 1 second or longer to acquire focus and shoot.
    > (Of course this is quite maddening after using the 1D Mark II
    > with its 40 millisecond lag ;-).
    >
    > One camera that I am looking at is the Canon A95, but I
    > can not find shutter lag info. It also only uses
    > compact flash type I.
    >
    > Any help would be appreciated,
    > Thanks in advance,
    >
    > Roger
    > photography, digital info at: http://www.clarkvision.com
    >
    >

    Not really what you're specs are but you could also look at the
    KonicaMinolta G530 or (G500 or G600). The shutter lag is almost
    unnoticable after focus. No CF card, but SD...
    Also quite a nr of manual setting possible, no RAW output.

    Alain
     
    Alain, Nov 14, 2004
    #4
  5. "Roger N. Clark wrote:
    >
    > I have a Canon G1 and shutter lag is awful. It often seems
    > to take 0.5 to 1 second or longer to acquire focus and shoot.
    > (Of course this is quite maddening after using the 1D Mark II
    > with its 40 millisecond lag ;-).


    Even if you can find the specs, the formal definition of shutter lag
    excludes the AF time.

    The P&S cameras use the CCD for AF and have to read out several frames to
    focus. So the fastest P&S is going to be a lot slower than the slowest dSLR.

    Even worse, the CCD-based AF systems often focus on something contrasty in
    the background instead of your subject. This makes the EVF cameras
    attractive, since you can see when the AF is messing up.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Nov 14, 2004
    #5
  6. Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)

    Roy Smith Guest

    In article <cn8rbk$oj5$>,
    "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote:

    >
    > Even worse, the CCD-based AF systems often focus on something contrasty in
    > the background instead of your subject.


    I've seen my Canon PS-400 do exactly the opposite; focus on something in
    the foreground when my subject was further away.
     
    Roy Smith, Nov 15, 2004
    #6
  7. "Roy Smith" <> wrote:
    > "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote:
    > >
    > > Even worse, the CCD-based AF systems often focus on something contrasty

    in
    > > the background instead of your subject.

    >
    > I've seen my Canon PS-400 do exactly the opposite; focus on something in
    > the foreground when my subject was further away.


    Well, yes. I should have said "focus on something other than the subject
    when the subject has relatively low contrast". It's _really_ irritating.

    As I understand it, the dSLRs can do that also, but the AF sensors are quite
    a bit smaller so it's much less of a problem (if you select the AF sensor
    manually<g>).

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Nov 15, 2004
    #7
  8. Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)

    YAG-ART Guest

    On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 19:11:46 -0500, Roy Smith <> wrote:

    >In article <cn8rbk$oj5$>,
    > "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> Even worse, the CCD-based AF systems often focus on something contrasty in
    >> the background instead of your subject.

    >
    >I've seen my Canon PS-400 do exactly the opposite; focus on something in
    >the foreground when my subject was further away.



    Remember the camrera doent know what the subject is, only the
    photogrpaher does.
     
    YAG-ART, Nov 15, 2004
    #8
  9. "YAG-ART" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 19:11:46 -0500, Roy Smith <> wrote:
    >
    > >In article <cn8rbk$oj5$>,
    > > "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote:
    > >
    > >>
    > >> Even worse, the CCD-based AF systems often focus on something contrasty

    in
    > >> the background instead of your subject.

    > >
    > >I've seen my Canon PS-400 do exactly the opposite; focus on something in
    > >the foreground when my subject was further away.


    Come to think of it, My S85 used to do that for landscape shots. It would
    focus on the pavement at my feet even though the center 1/3 of the image was
    all a long way away.

    > Remember the camrera doent know what the subject is, only the
    > photogrpaher does.


    Yes, but that's not the only/major problem. You careful place the (single)
    AF point over the subject but the camera finds something in the background
    or foreground to focus on. The focus area in a lot of P&S cameras is just
    too large.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Nov 15, 2004
    #9
  10. Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)

    YAG-ART Guest

    On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 10:28:33 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
    <> wrote:

    >
    >"YAG-ART" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 19:11:46 -0500, Roy Smith <> wrote:
    >>
    >> >In article <cn8rbk$oj5$>,
    >> > "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote:
    >> >
    >> >>
    >> >> Even worse, the CCD-based AF systems often focus on something contrasty

    >in
    >> >> the background instead of your subject.
    >> >
    >> >I've seen my Canon PS-400 do exactly the opposite; focus on something in
    >> >the foreground when my subject was further away.

    >
    >Come to think of it, My S85 used to do that for landscape shots. It would
    >focus on the pavement at my feet even though the center 1/3 of the image was
    >all a long way away.
    >
    >> Remember the camrera doent know what the subject is, only the
    >> photogrpaher does.

    >
    >Yes, but that's not the only/major problem. You careful place the (single)
    >AF point over the subject but the camera finds something in the background
    >or foreground to focus on. The focus area in a lot of P&S cameras is just
    >too large.


    I didn't know that. Shooting a DSLR I guess the p&s just don't come
    close.
     
    YAG-ART, Nov 15, 2004
    #10
  11. David J. Littleboy wrote:
    []
    > The P&S cameras use the CCD for AF and have to read out several
    > frames to focus. So the fastest P&S is going to be a lot slower than
    > the slowest dSLR.
    >
    > Even worse, the CCD-based AF systems often focus on something
    > contrasty in the background instead of your subject. This makes the
    > EVF cameras attractive, since you can see when the AF is messing up.


    The Nikon 8400 includes an additional focus sensor in addition to contrast
    detection and is much faster in focussing.

    In the Nikon 990 (IIRC) the logic is to focus on the nearer part of the
    scene. On the Nikon 5700 and 8400 you can get a red rectangle showing to
    highlight the actual area of the scene which has been used for focus - I
    always have this enabled and find it invaluable.

    Later cameras offer you the optional choice of scene area to focus on,
    just like an SLR.

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Nov 15, 2004
    #11
  12. "David J Taylor" <> wrote:
    > David J. Littleboy wrote:
    > []
    > > The P&S cameras use the CCD for AF and have to read out several
    > > frames to focus. So the fastest P&S is going to be a lot slower than
    > > the slowest dSLR.
    > >
    > > Even worse, the CCD-based AF systems often focus on something
    > > contrasty in the background instead of your subject. This makes the
    > > EVF cameras attractive, since you can see when the AF is messing up.

    >
    > The Nikon 8400 includes an additional focus sensor in addition to contrast
    > detection and is much faster in focussing.


    It seems you are wrong on this.

    "A half-press of the shutter release results in focus lock in just under
    half a second in most cases. It can take around a second or so in more
    difficult focusing situations. Low light focusing was better than average
    (thanks to the AF-assist lamp), but not the best I've seen."

    In other words, a lot slower than the slowest dSLR.

    > In the Nikon 990 (IIRC) the logic is to focus on the nearer part of the
    > scene.


    That only works if some sensor area actually finds the nearest part of the
    scene. The problem is that contrast detection finds contrast in the
    sensitive area, and the sensitive areas tend to be too large. The general
    recommendation (even with dSLRs) is to only use one AF sensor, point at the
    subject, half press, and recompose.

    > On the Nikon 5700 and 8400 you can get a red rectangle showing to
    > highlight the actual area of the scene which has been used for focus - I
    > always have this enabled and find it invaluable.
    >
    > Later cameras offer you the optional choice of scene area to focus on,
    > just like an SLR.


    If you think there is _anything_ about small-sensor cameras that is "just
    like an SLR", I've got a bridge to sell you.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Nov 15, 2004
    #12
  13. Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)

    C J Campbell Guest

    When I bought my Minolta Dimage A1 it was reviewed as having the shortest
    lag of any digital non-SLR. I was very disappointed with it. Although it was
    indeed faster than any other camera I had owned to that point, it focuses
    too softly, defaults to 72 dpi for jpeg compression, and has a lot of
    digital noise. The A2 supposedly corrected all these faults and was even
    faster.

    The smallest cameras are going almost entirely to SD cards. I really love
    Jane's Nikon 5200. It is very fast, too, but uses only the SD cards.
     
    C J Campbell, Nov 15, 2004
    #13
  14. David J. Littleboy wrote:
    []
    >> The Nikon 8400 includes an additional focus sensor in addition to
    >> contrast detection and is much faster in focussing.

    >
    > It seems you are wrong on this.


    I have the camera in front of me and can see the additional sensor! The
    8400 is faster in focussing than comparable cameras, in my experience.

    []
    >> Later cameras offer you the optional choice of scene area to focus
    >> on, just like an SLR.

    >
    > If you think there is _anything_ about small-sensor cameras that is
    > "just like an SLR", I've got a bridge to sell you.


    David, are you saying that SLRs do /not/ offer you a choice of focus area?
    If that's the case, then they are less versatile than I thought.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Nov 15, 2004
    #14
  15. "David J Taylor" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > David J. Littleboy wrote:
    > []
    > >> The Nikon 8400 includes an additional focus sensor in addition to
    > >> contrast detection and is much faster in focussing.

    > >
    > > It seems you are wrong on this.

    >
    > I have the camera in front of me and can see the additional sensor! The
    > 8400 is faster in focussing than comparable cameras, in my experience.


    How about a pointer to a page in a review that discusses this. The best I
    could find was "spot AF" which didn't sound like a separate sensor.

    > >> Later cameras offer you the optional choice of scene area to focus
    > >> on, just like an SLR.

    > >
    > > If you think there is _anything_ about small-sensor cameras that is
    > > "just like an SLR", I've got a bridge to sell you.

    >
    > David, are you saying that SLRs do /not/ offer you a choice of focus area?
    > If that's the case, then they are less versatile than I thought.


    I was talking about _performance_.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Nov 15, 2004
    #15
  16. Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)

    Guest

    "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <> wrote:

    I got my wife an Olympus 5060 last year for Christmas. B&H has 'em now for
    $500. She's really happy with it. I'm impressed with it. I really like
    that it can remember my settings. With a twist of a knob, I can get it off
    the regular settings, zoom to 50mm equivalent, put gridlines on the screen,
    and set the flash exposure compensation.

    Compared to a 1 series Canon, the shutter lag is horrendous. Compared to
    other P&S digitals, it's ok. You can partially depress the shutter to set
    exposure and focus, and then the lag isn't so bad...probably on the order of
    100-200 mS. Short enough to sometimes capture a quick-moving child. Long
    enough to make me long for a Mark II. :)

    Here are a couple examples, using the built-in flash in both:

    http://canid.com/pics/christmas2003.jpg
    http://canid.com/pics/jbm_boiler_hat.jpg

    --
    Eric
    http://canid.com/
     
    , Nov 15, 2004
    #16
  17. Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)

    T.N.T. Guest

    Re: Need a low shutter lag point and shoot digital - Repost

    <I posted this earlier, but didn't see it on any outside servers.>


    On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 19:24:10 GMT, you, "Roger N. Clark (change username
    to rnclark)" <>, wrote in news:4197B0DA.6020907
    @qwest.net:

    > Hi. I need some help. I want to get a small
    > point and shoot digital camera, but I am concerned
    > about the shutter lag.


    Hope it's not too late, but you may want to take a look at the Sony V3
    here: http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/V3/V3A7.HTM

    The V3 and several other Sony cameras appear to to have shutter lag
    arround 9-11ms, which is 4 times shorter than that of your 1D-II. They
    also have some of the fastest focusing and shot to shot cycle times among
    P&S digicams too. It's just Sony's JPEG quality is not up to Canon's
    level, however, IMO. It meets all of your requirements except priced at
    more than $500.

    You can also compare lag times of many cameras on www.imaging-
    resource.com which I think has the best time measurements out there.



    --
    T.N.T.

    Lbh xabj jung gb qb vs lbh rire jnag gb rznvy zr.
     
    T.N.T., Dec 14, 2004
    #17
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. stacey

    Low shutter lag P&S?

    stacey, Dec 18, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    786
    Ron Hunter
    Dec 19, 2003
  2. Sammiel

    Canon Digital Rebel: a low-light point and shoot?

    Sammiel, Dec 11, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    349
    alienduce
    Jan 13, 2005
  3. small camera with very low shutter lag

    , May 24, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    559
    Roger
    May 25, 2005
  4. jilliesmother

    looking for high quality point and shoot with short lag time

    jilliesmother, Aug 16, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    906
  5. henry
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    354
    James Silverton
    Jun 4, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page