shutter time lag

Discussion in 'Digital Cameras' started by Spiderman, Jul 24, 2003.

  1. Spiderman

    Spiderman Guest

    Hi, all experts...

    what is shutter time lag?

    ignorant spiderman
     
    Spiderman, Jul 24, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Spiderman

    adam Guest

    I believe it's the delay between fully pressing down the shutter button and
    the shutter responding by opening, mostly noticable on lower-end digital
    cameras, but still existant on all(?) cameras, even if it's in the degree of
    a few milliseconds.

    -Adam
     
    adam, Jul 24, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Spiderman

    Scott Coutts Guest

    Yep, that's it. It's also incorporates flipping the mirror out of the
    way on SLR cameras.
     
    Scott Coutts, Jul 24, 2003
    #3
  4. Yepp - and the reason for high lag in consumer digital cameras is
    that both focussing and exposure meassuring data is taken directly
    from the CCD/CMOS sensor. Faster system has specially dedicated
    hardware using more sofisticated meassuring methods.



    Roland
     
    Roland Karlsson, Jul 24, 2003
    #4
  5. Spiderman

    Tiny Tim Guest

    While I'm sure that's true, I struggle to understand how/why the camera can
    display a sharp and well exposed image on the viewfinder and yet can take up
    to a second to capture that same image. I appreciate that it may take time
    to write the information to memory but why can't the cameras simply freeze
    the displayed image there and then at the moment you press the shutter?

    It's a good job that camcorders don't take a second to capture each and
    every frame of a video image ! :)
     
    Tiny Tim, Jul 24, 2003
    #5
  6. Spiderman

    John Navas Guest

    [POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <bfoh19$h4ajb$-berlin.de> on Thu, 24 Jul 2003 12:47:51
    Camcorders use continuous focusing and exposure metering, which is a rapid
    consumer of the battery, but necessary for the intended purpose. In general,
    digicams have much smaller batteries, and cannot afford that luxury. So they
    focus and meter when you press the shutter (at least part way), not all the
    time.
     
    John Navas, Jul 24, 2003
    #6
  7. Yepp - and digicams also have more pixels and need
    therefore better focusing than camcorders.


    Roland
     
    Roland Karlsson, Jul 24, 2003
    #7
  8. Spiderman

    John Navas Guest

    [POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <bfosjd$grpfv$-berlin.de> on Thu, 24 Jul 2003 16:05:12
    Perhaps, but it's probably lithium ion with much greater capacity.
    Digicam battery life is an issue even without continuous focusing and metering
    -- just spend some time on review sites.
    Those images aren't really "beautifully crisp" -- they don't even come close
    to a good digicam with comparable resolution. Compare some individual frames.
    Nothing except cost and battery life. Nonetheless, there are a few digicams
    with that capability.
     
    John Navas, Jul 24, 2003
    #8
  9. Spiderman

    JPS Guest

    In message <bfoh19$h4ajb$-berlin.de>,
    Because the resulting picture would be crap; about 320*240 pixels, low
    contrast, and lots of noise.
    --
     
    JPS, Jul 24, 2003
    #9
  10. Spiderman

    JPS Guest

    In message <3yRTa.4904$>,
    They can get away with more noise, too, because each pixel is re-read
    every 1/25 or 1/30 of a second, and the successive noise dithers over
    time to an average of no noise, with a slight loss in contrast.
    --
     
    JPS, Jul 24, 2003
    #10
  11. Spiderman

    JPS Guest

    In message <bfosjd$grpfv$-berlin.de>,
    Because the ISO is tremendously high in video mode, in poor lighting,
    with *lots* of noise.
    --
     
    JPS, Jul 24, 2003
    #11
  12. Spiderman

    John Navas Guest

    [POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <bfouuj$gm7gm$-berlin.de> on Thu, 24 Jul 2003 16:45:18
    Indeed -- go with what you prefer. I'm one of those that prefers inexpensive,
    non-proprietary NiMH AA batteries, as well as the ability to fall back to
    alkaline AA in an emergency.
    Of course.
    My reference was to capacity, not service life. Regardless, your original
    battery is probably nearing the end of its service life.
    And that's the point. Different characteristics for different purposes, so
    they aren't really comparable.
     
    John Navas, Jul 24, 2003
    #12
  13. Spiderman

    John Navas Guest

    [POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <bfp4i0$hfauh$-berlin.de> on Thu, 24 Jul 2003 18:21:01
    Be warned that the estimate is fairly crude and can be wildly misleading --
    I've had IL batteries indicate hours of runtime only to fail within a few
    minutes.
     
    John Navas, Jul 24, 2003
    #13
  14. Spiderman

    Mark B. Guest

    Totally agree, but the question was in reference to shutter time lag, not
    shutter noise.

    Mark
     
    Mark B., Jul 25, 2003
    #14
  15. Spiderman

    Rico Tudor Guest

    Charlie, you are a wicked! Point-blank fisheye, right?

    --------
     
    Rico Tudor, Jul 25, 2003
    #15
    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.