Shooting time lag is the time from when you turn on the camera until you can take the first picture (could be wrong though)
 |
  |
 |
Thanks useful information: 194
Shooting time lag is the time from when you turn on the camera until you can take the first picture (could be wrong though)
Last edited by MissionMan; 10-02-2015 at 7:15pm.
Install a browser-plugin to read the full exif info (depending on which platform and which browser you use) or download the image and use a standalone exif-reader like Phil Harvey's exiftool (google for it to find its download location).Originally Posted by agb
The exif will also show what lens was used (in this case the standard Fuji kitlens: Fujinon 18-55/2.8-4 R LM OIS), what length was used etc.
Ciao, Joost
All feedback is highly appreciated!
Threadstarter
I think that is 'startup time'. Lag time generally is time from pressing the shutter to the camera starting to record the picture.
Shooting time lag is the time from when you press the shutter release to start the exposure, to when the exposure actually starts.
The ISO standard for this measurement is available in the ISO 15781:2013 document.
As they are now measured in 1/100s of a second the difference between 0.01s and 0.011s is an insignificant measurement.
Start up time is what MM was referring to as: the time from when you first turn the camera on - to ready to shoot conditions in the camera.
(again this is part of the ISO 15781:2013 document).
What's curious about Olympus's measurements is why that lens(14-40/2.8) at the telephoto end(??????) and again why only single focus point mode.
IS off is understandable to a degree. All the specifics with question marks don't make sense.
Note too tho that the spec does specifically state that this Shooting time lag is dependent on the camera autofocusing and metering to take the shot.
ie. if IS takes 0.1s to activate and allow the camera to make the exposure, then this makes sense(why Olympus says that IS should be off .. etc)
Other obvious assumptions could be made that the 14-40/2.8 lens is their fastest focusing lens.
..... Start up time will be a different kettle of fish tho.
Nikon D800E, D300, D70s
{Nikon}; -> 50/1.2 : 500/8 : 105/2.8VR Micro : 180/2.8 ais : 105mm f/1.8 ais : 24mm/2 ais
{Sigma}; ->10-20/4-5.6 : 50/1.4 : 12-24/4.5-5.6II : 150-600mm|S
{Tamron}; -> 17-50/2.8 : 28-75/2.8 : 70-200/2.8 : 300/2.8 SP MF : 24-70/2.8VC
{Yongnuo}; -> YN35/2N : YN50/1.8N
Seriously -- " I think " simply does not cut it other than for advertising purposes.
Give us some links to the CIPA standard and then show us some comparison figures.
At the moment we have some "promotional blurb" which really tells everybody nothing.
AndrewNikon, Fuji, Nikkor, Sigma, Tamron, Tokina and too many other bits and pieces to list.
Threadstarter
I never said in yesterday's post that I have proof it's right. In fact I said the opposite: it's promotional blurb; it uses terminology that could be misinterpreted (and promptly was misinterpreted herein); it's arguable.
Nevertheless, I disagree with you, I think it tells everybody something. It is clear to me that they want to boast about it, so they have made an effort to make this camera very fast to acquire focus and shoot. Which is something claimed earlier in this thread to be a weakness of DSLM cameras -- hence worth a mention today. I was also criticized earlier for not reading the disclaimers, and that claims of fastest shooting lag specifically excluded full-frame DSLR cameras from the comparison. Well, this latest claim specifically includes all interchangeable-lens cameras.
I don't care if it is the fastest in the world or under what exact conditions, so I won't be investigating it: like Arthur, I think it only needs to be sufficiently fast that we don't notice any lag. Exactly as I said in yesterday's post, "the message is it ain't slow". And for the purposes of this thread, my message to readers of this thread is that shooting time lag (including AF acquisition time) need not be a reason to stay away from DSLM cameras.
Threadstarter
An opinion piece in DPR today, by the former editor of Amateur Photographer Magazine, Damien Demolder.
Basically he maintains that industry confusion still reigns as to who is attracted to DSLM cameras, and that Canikon, particularly Canon, have blundered. The new Canon M3 and its not being marketed into the USA only serves to indicate that the confusion continues.
From sitting on the outside with no particular axe to grind (I use Canon, but I am not emotionally tied to them), I would say that mirrorless cameras still have a way to go to be a viable alternative for the serious photographer. I would happily use a mirrorless as shutter counts then become irrelevant and, for me, that may be important. Of course, you can always get shutters replaced, so the mirrorless camera would have to be superior in other respects too. I'll wait until they are, but there is a way to go yet. I think it would be very easy for Canon and Nikon to move to them if they wish. After all, video doesn't use a mirror so the technology is familiar to all the major manufacturers.
Hi Steve,
Couple of points.
Define "Serious photographer" ?
Where do you perceive the short comings to be?
Mirrorless still have mechanical shutters with a finite life, 150,000 for the EM1 I believe, that is one of the criterion for being a top range camera as compared to mid or low range.
Regards
David
Define "Serious photographer" - me
Where do you perceive the short comings to be? - resolution, weather proofing, lens options, autofocus.
Mirrorless still have mechanical shutters with a finite life, 150,000 for the EM1 I believe, that is one of the criterion for being a top range camera as compared to mid or low range. - I didn't realise that, so they just lost their one major advantage.
Weather sealing is as good as any dslr, my experience not conjecture, lens line up for m4/3 is as good as dslr esp if your happy to use an adapter http://www.birdsinaction.com https://www.flickr.com/photos/124733969@N06/sets/ for example ( some sony some m4/3) http://www.ausphotography.net.au/for...enses-for-m4-3. Auto focus works fine if you choose the correct camera, certainly not up to dslr for bif but it is possible with a little practice , I don't deny it is a short coming but not as bad as some people suggest. As for resolution that has been discussed earlier and it has nothing to do with "mirrorless" but is sensor related and limits the choice of brand if you want ff, even then the gap is not as big as it once was for smaller sensored cameras, but I accept it will never be equal. I'm not trying to convince or convert anyone just pointing out reality. Maybe the problem is that a lot of mirrorless users are beginners and don't produce great results whereas most top line dslr users are experienced shooters so the results are better.http://roelh.zenfolio.com http://pen3.de/Stacken_wie_____/stacken_wie_____.html have a look at these sites then tell me the photo's a no good because they not ff ( Some fungi in the last one because I know they interest you ) more fungi http://pen3.de/Pilze/pilze.html
Last edited by davsv1; 12-02-2015 at 6:06pm.
You know what? That doesn't sound very good to me. I'm really not into buying something that seems to need work. If someone wants to give me one, then I'll happily try it out, but if I have to pay for it, then I'll stick to the tried and trusted. Why change for something that, by your own assessment isn't quite as good yet. Things have to be better to get people to move.
I think this is exactly the problem. It's not that mirrorless is bad, it just doesn't offer a compelling reason to switch, much the same as Canon doesn't offer a compelling reason to switch from Nikon or the other way around. Established photographers have a considerable investment in glass so there needs to be a substantial reason to switch and right now there is none.
This obviously isn't an issue for new photographers which is why we see a greater take on.
"Seems to need to work"
Sure Steve stick the tried and tested....nothing ventured nothing lost eh
So I guess you looked at the links and weren't even remotely impressed
And I never said it "wasn't quite good yet", I said it wasn't as good resolution wise as ff and never will be (smaller) sensor wise but it is good enough for plenty of "serious photographers" as shown in the links provided.
Anyway thanks for taking the time to reply to my post.
I don't want to lose anything for no gain. Who would?
I think that mirrors make little sense in the long run, but I don't really care about technology. I just care about the results now.
I've never lost anything and not gained something, it's called experience, knowledge, wisdom, learning.....it always cost something, time, money, patience, pain even life sometimes!
No right no wrong just opinion, yours and mine
as a friend told me once there are pioneers and settlers in life, both are redundant without each other
Threadstarter
Nice encapsulation of the two 'teams'.
Whether you gain or loose anything largely depends on what you shoot. But as you've noted, if there are no/little gains for you but lots of losses currently it would make no sense for you whatsoever.
But I think one thing this thread has shown is that there are quite a number of misconceptions about mirrorless cameras as a whole.
Anyways, not trying to sway you one way or another but here's something that may be of interest to you. I understand that you shoot macro, fungi in particular?
If I can make some assumptions that you use a tripod and your subject is largely static, you manual focus and that pixel density is an advantage?
If so, then perhaps the sensor shift high resolution mode of the newly announced E-M5 II might be of interest. ''Might'' - cos its new and I don't know enough about how it works so far.
But you can continue to use your existing macro lenses via adapter. The sensor shift mode uses electronic shutter and shifts the sensor a half pixel 8 times to yield a 64MP RAW file on m43 sensor size. You can work out the pixel density but it would be roughly equivalent to 256MP sensor on FF. Of course it depends on your framing and subject whether the extra pixel density helps you or not.
Note I'm not saying its equivalent to a 256MP FF sensor, I'm just saying it has similar pixel density but only in a sensor area roughly a quarter the size of a FF sensor.
On top of this you get full sampling of all colours at each pixel, not just demosiacing colour info from adjacent pixels.
Nikon FX + m43
davophoto.wordpress.com
Sounds great. I'll let someone else try it and report back. Or, maybe I'll let 10,000 people try it and report back. That way it has a chance of working. As Gartner always says, don't be a bleeding edge adopter unless you enjoy problems.
This new his res mode that the Olympus has, is just an ephemeral advantage 'in a matter of speaking' that the Olympus currently has over other cameras(in the affordable range).
It sounded like a cool new feature, but seeing the sample images on DPR, I think it's 'ok-ish' in one sense .. but not particularly eye catching in another sense .. but then fantastic in another manner too.
Look at the raw files posted on DPR .. vs the lower resolution D810 .. the D810 wins hands down in terms of actual detail rendering.(nothing outstanding)
Look at the moire comparison tho, the Olympus has zero/none/zip .... awesome stuff! (fantastic)
Jpg images .... 'ok-ish' good detail.
Extrapolate this tech into Canon's 50Mp sensor one day into the near future, and you get a 200Mp raw file.
Who knows what Sony have up their sleeve in terms of both new hi res sensors, and well as camera tech(and hence Nikon to follow too).
Rumours abound that Pentax may have this same technology in their up coming FF DSLR soon too.
About the only really interesting part of this technology is the lack of moire effect with such high resolution(because of the full colour info per pixel.
Of course the application potential is severely limited.
Apart from the inability to do full colour info at each pixel(and hence moire results from this deficiency) to get 64Mp resolution from a full frame sensor is (or should be pretty easy) .. and then you get this resolution capability without conditional usage.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
