Small P&S Shutter Lag Times ?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Bandicoot, Jan 5, 2007.

  1. Bandicoot

    Bandicoot Guest

    I have been asked to help buy a compact digital camera, and am currently,
    with the intended purchaser, making our shortlist of models to look at based
    on published spec.s and reviews. But as we all know, published spec.s very
    rarely say anything about shutter lag...

    She wants a camera that can go with her all the time, so it needs to be
    small. Main interests are landscape and - the impetus for buying the thing
    in the first place - a new kitten. So a lens that goes reasonably wide
    (insofar as they do) would be good, and a bit of reach at the other end
    would also help. Something of, say, five or six MP up would be enough.
    And, obviously, for the kitten, minimal shutter lag is absolutely critical.

    I'm sure this has been discussed at regular intervals, but I couldn't see a
    recent thread on it, and anything older is likely to exclude many more
    recent models, so thought I'd ask the question 'afresh'.

    Any comments or experience on models fitting the above criteria that have
    either particularly short (good) or long (bad) shutter lag would be very
    much appreciated. I suppose long start-up time would also be a bad thing,
    so any experience there would be useful as well.

    (Models she's shortlisted so far include Ricoh Caplios, various Pentaxes, a
    Samsung, Olympus, and Fujis, but other suggestions welcome.)

    Very many thanks (and Happy New Year),


    Peter
     
    Bandicoot, Jan 5, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. The only real effective way to account for shutter lag in a P&S is
    technique. Pre-squeezing to set focus and exposure... then waiting
    for the shot. Release of the shutter from this point is instantaneous.
    Can be problematic if the lighting of the composition changes (kitten
    runs from shaddow to sun) or the subject changes distance. But the
    second one is not so bad with many P&Ss because they have decent DoF
    with the wide angle and relatively slow lens.
     
    Steve Cutchen, Jan 6, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Only if you're not looking in the right place. DPReview gives the lags
    times on all it's full reviews.
     
    Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!), Jan 6, 2007
    #3
  4. Bandicoot

    J. Clarke Guest

    Many of them have a "sport mode" that is intended to minimize lag.

    I keep hearing about these P&S cameras with "relatively slow lens" but all
    the ones that I find "interesting" have f/2.8 lenses, which as zooms go
    are quite fast.
     
    J. Clarke, Jan 6, 2007
    #4
  5. 2.8 at wide angle... 5.4 or so zoomed out.
     
    Steve Cutchen, Jan 6, 2007
    #5
  6. Bandicoot

    tnom Guest

  7. David J Taylor, Jan 6, 2007
    #7
  8. That's not really a P&S... it's more of a zlr or whatever they are
    calling them these days.

    The OP said:
    So I'm thinking a traditional P&S.

    I looked into lens speed quite a bit back in the day, 'cause I shoot
    volleyball, and was using an OLY 2020Z when I first started. It was
    pretty good, going from F2 to F2.8, and I was looking to replace it.

    The current version of this camera is the C-7070, which is F2.8-4.8

    This is more typical of today's compact ammeras... the Canon SD900 is
    F2.8 - F4.9.. The A640 is F2.8 - F4.1

    And these are with a max ISO of 400.

    Slow when off wide angle.

    My F5.4 guess at full zoom was a bit off, though.
     
    Steve Cutchen, Jan 6, 2007
    #8
  9. They have an interesting definition of shutter lag.
    "The Shutter Lag Comparison Table shows the amount of time it takes each
    camera to record one shot and five shots"

    It is supposed to be the time taken from pressing the release until the
    shutter operates and has /nothing/ to do with how long it takes to record
    the image.

    The table appears to be meaningless as far as shutter lag goes.


    Anyway most cameras can operate faster if you turn off automatic white
    balance.
    It certainly slows mine down.
    The same is true of auto exposure but its more difficult to live without.
     
    [email protected], Jan 6, 2007
    #9
  10. Bandicoot

    Rich Guest

    Rich, Jan 6, 2007
    #10
  11. Bandicoot

    tnom Guest

    The sites use of the word record is misleading. Shutter lag times
    show ARE for the time taken from pressing the release until the
    shutter operates. If you'd include the record time also then the
    times would be much slower than the fast times stated.
    Not so. The table can be arranged by brand, category of camera,
    five shot, or one shot lag times. Not electronic record times as you
    believe.
     
    tnom, Jan 7, 2007
    #11
  12. Bandicoot

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Continuous auto-focus can also slow things quite a bit. I define
    'shutter lag' as the time between full depression of the shutter button,
    and recording of the image. Unfortunately, the chart referenced seems
    to also consider flash recharge, and write to card, times. Not useful
    for answering the OP's question.
     
    Ron Hunter, Jan 7, 2007
    #12
  13. Bandicoot

    J. Clarke Guest

    Shouldn't. Continuous autofocus means that the image is already focused
    when the release is pressed--should be almost as quick as prefocus.
    <http://www.dpreview.com> has reviews on a large number of digital cameras
    and they measure the lag under several different conditions. However their
    site doesn't make it easy to put together a comparison on that basis, you
    have to read each review and put together a list then sort it yourself.
     
    J. Clarke, Jan 7, 2007
    #13
  14. in memory... i.e. getting the shot. Yes. I'd agree.
    Pre-squeezing reduced the shutter lag to zero, but at the sacrifice of
    locking in the AF and exposure. In some cases, not a bad compromise if
    you are careful at what scene you pre-squeeze.
     
    Steve Cutchen, Jan 7, 2007
    #14
  15. Bandicoot

    tnom Guest

    It does not take flash recharge time, and write to card times into
    account.

    Look at the times. They are lightning fast for many cameras. Much
    faster than a camera can recharge a flash and write to a card. This
    comparison is for shutter lag only. The numbers are matched very
    closely to the numbers that you would have to manually look up at
    http://www.imaging-resource.com
     
    tnom, Jan 7, 2007
    #15
  16. Bandicoot

    Ron Hunter Guest

    I have used that pre-focus/exposure to good purpose when scenes are backlit.
     
    Ron Hunter, Jan 7, 2007
    #16
  17. Bandicoot

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Sorry, but the second column of times are for 5 shots. Many of the
    cameras listed will not take 5 shots without writing to the card, and
    that is obvious in the times.
     
    Ron Hunter, Jan 7, 2007
    #17
  18. Bandicoot

    tnom Guest

    Then the five shot column reflects the "real world" time of the
    particular camera. This hardly make the listing not useful.
     
    tnom, Jan 7, 2007
    #18
  19. Bandicoot

    Ron Hunter Guest

    If the intention is to figure out which cameras can take 5 pictures the
    fastest, it is, indeed, useful, but for purposes of assessing the
    quality of a camera's shutter lag, the second column IS useless.
    The first one is much more pertinent.
     
    Ron Hunter, Jan 7, 2007
    #19
  20. Bandicoot

    Bandicoot Guest

    Thanks to everyone who replied. This table was very interesting - though
    the main point it seems to make is just how awful the lag is for all the
    cameras listed.

    Well, my friend has her new toy now and is very pleased with it: a Ricoh
    Caplio R4. This met her requirements well, and testing one 'hands on' it
    had much shorter lag times than the others we looked at.

    The oft repeated advice to pre-set focus and exposure with a half press,
    incidentally, isn't a complete answer (if it was, I wouldn't have asked the
    question in the first place...) since there is still quite a lot of lag with
    all these cameras even then - the Canon Ixus 65 and Panasonic DMC FX07 being
    particularly bad in this regard when I tested them, for example.

    Thanks again,


    Peter
     
    Bandicoot, Jan 9, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.