Small P&S Shutter Lag Times ?

Small P&S Shutter Lag Times ?

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
--
http :// www .bard-hill.co.uk

Re: Small P&S Shutter Lag Times ?

In article <1168041835.4140.0@proxy02.news.clara,net >, Bandicoot
<"insert handle here"@techemail,com > wrote:

> 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

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.

Re: Small P&S Shutter Lag Times ?

On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 20:34:59 -0600, Steve Cutchen wrote:

> In article <1168041835.4140.0@proxy02.news.clara,net >, Bandicoot
> <"insert_handle_here"@techemail,com > wrote:
>
>> 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
>
> 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.

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.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Re: Small P&S Shutter Lag Times ?

In article <eno6hf01iv@news2.newsguy,com >, J. Clarke
<Jclarke.usenet@cox,net > wrote:

> On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 20:34:59 -0600, Steve Cutchen wrote:
>
> > In article <1168041835.4140.0@proxy02.news.clara,net >, Bandicoot
> > <"insert handle here"@techemail,com > wrote:
> >
> >> 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
> >
> > 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.
>
> 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.

2.8 at wide angle... 5.4 or so zoomed out.

Re: Small P&S Shutter Lag Times ?


> technique. Pre-squeezing to set focus and exposure... then waiting
> for the shot. Release of the shutter from this point is instantaneous.

No it is not. Recently a lot of camera's have reduced the shutterlag for
pre-squeezing (pre-focussing and ae) to about or under 1/10 of a second.
But not to long ago there where camera's which to more than 3/10 of
a second using pre-focussing (or even over a second).
The fastest I have seen is 0.06 seconds. Which is still not instantaneous,
but getting close.
I believe that the fastes DSLR now manages in 0.035 seconds.

Old SLR's used to have a shutterlag of around 0.05 seconds, fastest was
a special constructed canon with a shutterlag of 0.008 seconds.

1/10 of a second is for a lot of situations still noticeble, but it is a
real
improvement from the shutterlag of most camera's a few years ago.

ben

Re: Small P&S Shutter Lag Times ?

In article <050120072034596091%maxfaq@earthlink,net >,
Steve Cutchen <maxfaq@earthlink,net > wrote:

>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.

Maybe it is on *your* camera but it certainly isn't on mine. They
only way I've been able to deal with the problem is by pushing
the release button early and that's pretty much a guess.

--
http :// yosemitephotos,net /

Re: Small P&S Shutter Lag Times ?

ellis@no.spam wrote:
> In article <050120072034596091%maxfaq@earthlink,net >,
> Steve Cutchen <maxfaq@earthlink,net > wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Maybe it is on *your* camera but it certainly isn't on mine. They
> only way I've been able to deal with the problem is by pushing
> the release button early and that's pretty much a guess.

Focusing is slow. Most modern digitals have pretty decent time from
end-of-focus to exposure. dpreview,com measures this and related times
and reports them in their reviews, so you can find independently
measured numbers for many cameras.

Re: Small P&S Shutter Lag Times ?

On Fri, 5 Jan 2007 23:08:32 -0000, in rec.photo.digital "Bandicoot"
<"insert_handle_here"@techemail,com > wrote:

>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...

Only if you're not looking in the right place. DPReview gives the lags
times on all it's full reviews.
--
Ed Ruf (Usenet2@EdwardGRuf,com )
http :// edwardgruf,com /Digital_Photography/General/index.html

Re: Small P&S Shutter Lag Times ?

>> 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...
> Only if you're not looking in the right place. DPReview gives
> the lags times on all it's full reviews.

But not on its searchable comparison table. Are we supposed to
scan reviews for every camera in creation to find this out?

This is THE most important feature for me - my usual axes are an
ancient Leica rangefinder and a TLR, I even find film SLRs rather
slow. Second is an optical viewfinder (I'm too presbyopic to use
a screen). Third is low-light performance. I don't give a monkey's
about pixel count or zoom and I want the thing to be cheap as it'll
be going to some fairly rough places and might well not be coming
back. Doesn't need to be new. What is there?

I've never owned a digital, but I've borrowed a few reasonably
expensive point & shoots from friends and they all had unusably
slow response times for anything I wanted to do.

============== j-c ====== @ ====== purr . demon . co . uk ==============
Jack Campin: 11 Third St, Newtongrange EH22 4PU, Scotland | tel 0131 660 4760
< http :// www .purr.demon.co.uk/jack/> for CD-ROMs and free | fax 0870 0554 975
stuff: Scottish music, food intolerance, & Mac logic fonts | mob 07800 739 557

Re: Small P&S Shutter Lag Times ?

Jack Campin - bogus address wrote:
>>> 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...
>> Only if you're not looking in the right place. DPReview gives
>> the lags times on all it's full reviews.
>
> But not on its searchable comparison table. Are we supposed to
> scan reviews for every camera in creation to find this out?
>
> This is THE most important feature for me - my usual axes are an
> ancient Leica rangefinder and a TLR, I even find film SLRs rather
> slow. Second is an optical viewfinder (I'm too presbyopic to use
> a screen). Third is low-light performance. I don't give a monkey's
> about pixel count or zoom and I want the thing to be cheap as it'll
> be going to some fairly rough places and might well not be coming
> back. Doesn't need to be new. What is there?
>
> I've never owned a digital, but I've borrowed a few reasonably
> expensive point & shoots from friends and they all had unusably
> slow response times for anything I wanted to do.

For most new P&S cameras, shutter-lag is not the problem, but rather
very slow focusing. My cameras both separate the focusing from the
shutter-lag by allowing a 'half-press' of the shutter button and an
indicator (green light) to indicate when focusing is done. In low
light, P&S cameras can take a LONG time to achieve focus (if they will
at all), but the actual lag after that is quite short. If there is
enough light for focusing, then I have never had a problem with
shutter-lag on either of my current Kodak P&S cameras. Even a film
camera has some shutter lag since the shutter blades must open and close.

Re: Small P&S Shutter Lag Times ?

http :// www .cameras.co.uk/html/shutter-lag-comparisons.cfm

Re: Small P&S Shutter Lag Times ?


<tnom@mucks,net > wrote in message
news:8aivp2la7ijc2tp0mu5p77vj85gakhu044@4ax,com ...
> http :// www .cameras.co.uk/html/shutter-lag-comparisons.cfm

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.

Re: Small P&S Shutter Lag Times ?


>> http :// www .cameras.co.uk/html/shutter-lag-comparisons.cfm
>
>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 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.

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

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.

>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.
>

Re: Small P&S Shutter Lag Times ?

dennis@home wrote:
> <tnom@mucks,net > wrote in message
> news:8aivp2la7ijc2tp0mu5p77vj85gakhu044@4ax,com ...
>> http :// www .cameras.co.uk/html/shutter-lag-comparisons.cfm
>
> 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.
>
>
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.

Re: Small P&S Shutter Lag Times ?

On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 04:05:10 -0600, Ron Hunter wrote:

> dennis@home wrote:
>> <tnom@mucks,net > wrote in message
>> news:8aivp2la7ijc2tp0mu5p77vj85gakhu044@4ax,com ...
>>> http :// www .cameras.co.uk/html/shutter-lag-comparisons.cfm
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
> Continuous auto-focus can also slow things quite a bit.

Shouldn't. Continuous autofocus means that the image is already focused
when the release is pressed--should be almost as quick as prefocus.

> 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.

< 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.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)