[Maxxum 7D] -shutter lag

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by Alan Browne, Mar 10, 2005.

  1. Alan Browne

    Alan Browne Guest

    Yeah you can build or buy such devices...

    Cheers,
    Alan
     
    Alan Browne, Mar 11, 2005
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. Alan Browne

    Alan Browne Guest

    It occurs to me that given the low variance of the 6 shots I took, that
    if I repeat the test with the Maxxum 9, then the human variable will be
    eliminated. I know the technical shutter lag of the Maxxum 9 is about
    50 - 60 ms, so the difference between the two plus that will give me the
    Maxxum 7D lag. The difference above 55ms will give me the human lag.

    Cheers,
    Alan.
     
    Alan Browne, Mar 11, 2005
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. Alan Browne

    Roxy d'Urban Guest

    Hold on to your bandwidth, people...

    Here comes Annika the Second.
     
    Roxy d'Urban, Mar 11, 2005
    #23
  4. Alan Browne

    Owamanga Guest

    Yes, typical. It's useless due to the extra delay at '0'. Both
    Explorer and Opera do it too.

    The only way to use this is one hand on the trigger, one on the mouse
    and hit them at the same time.

    Seriously, the 45rpm test is sounding better.
    Hmm, so the first tick position might be missing, anyway - suspicious.
    Of course. You have to hide them nowadays.
     
    Owamanga, Mar 11, 2005
    #24
  5. Alan Browne

    Owamanga Guest

    Ah, but often, this is what we do. Sometimes you react to a situation
    in which case shutter lag needs to be minimal, because you will
    already have got the minimum 110ms human reaction time built in. Often
    (ok, I'll clarify, when shooting a moving bird for example) we are
    predicting a point of sweet focus, composition etc and so need to be
    as good as your method of prediction testing shows it.

    Reading that website 'eawckyegcy' [what is it with people and stupid
    names? :)] mentioned:
    http://biae.clemson.edu/bpc/bp/Lab/110/reaction.htm

    Take a look at the 'arousal' graph. It demonstrates that Alan's
    reactions could be improved simply by flicking through playboy for a
    few minutes before doing the test (but not too long, otherwise it
    slows down again)...

    <g>
     
    Owamanga, Mar 11, 2005
    #25
  6. Alan Browne

    dylan Guest

    surely you don't need anything complicated to remove the reaction time if
    Alan is going to compare the time with his film camera which he knows is
    50-55ms. just compare the 2 results.
     
    dylan, Mar 11, 2005
    #26
  7. Alan Browne

    Alan Browne Guest

    Somebody suggested the simple expedient of using, for example, the 6
    O'clock position as the start point...
     
    Alan Browne, Mar 11, 2005
    #27
  8. Alan Browne

    ian lincoln Guest

    play quake 3 for a couple of weeks and try the test again. Also have some
    coffee.
     
    ian lincoln, Mar 11, 2005
    #28
  9. Alan Browne

    ian lincoln Guest

    hasn't someone somewhere done all this. Like an independent magazine or
    something?
     
    ian lincoln, Mar 11, 2005
    #29
  10. Alan Browne

    Clyde Guest

    Cool Web site. Thanks.

    I happen to have only my Canon SD10 next to me. It was .1 seconds. No
    bad for the tiny little camera. Then again, I did know that it was
    acceptable for what I do.

    Now I'm curious to try my other cameras.

    Clyde
     
    Clyde, Mar 11, 2005
    #30
  11. Alan Browne

    Owamanga Guest

    Independent magazine? It's an oxymoron.

    ...or do any exist that don't accept advertising, gifts, keep-the-kit
    etc?
     
    Owamanga, Mar 11, 2005
    #31
  12. Alan Browne

    David Clark Guest

    David Clark, Mar 11, 2005
    #32
  13. Alan Browne

    Bandicoot Guest

    That probably is a better mimic of what you are doing when you use the
    camera for sports anyway - you follow the action and pick your moment,
    rather than suddenly having player and ball magically appear before you when
    a moment ago there was nothing. The revolving disc isn't quite the same as
    following the players, but it's probably closer to a 'real life' experiment
    than having a light come on or triggering electronically. The latter would
    give results that are more truly comparable between different testers, but
    what you are doing probably allows you to compare between your own use of
    different cameras, so is probably more useful _to you_.

    My ha'pennyworth.



    Peter
     
    Bandicoot, Mar 11, 2005
    #33
  14. Alan Browne

    Alan Browne Guest

    Except that I'm used to the one and I don't want two programs in my
    head. (Not that bad, I don't shoot that much sports, and at least with
    digital I get good feedback on my timing other than what I see in the
    shutter.

    Cheers,
    Alan
     
    Alan Browne, Mar 11, 2005
    #34
  15. Alan Browne

    ian lincoln Guest

    okay funny guy you know what i mean.
     
    ian lincoln, Mar 11, 2005
    #35
  16. Yes, of course they do. Or at least *it* does :). Consumer Reports
    magazine accepts no advertising, gifts, etc. They obtain their test
    samples anonymously through normal retail channels. And they even
    examine *multiple samples* of the things they rate, so they can get
    some idea of the consistency of manufacture. All of those things are,
    of course, rather expensive to do.

    I don't know of any specifically photo magazine that does, though,
    no.
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Mar 12, 2005
    #36
    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.