It can prove frustrating, but it seems DSLRs generally have a delay of a third of a second or less and also have a quicker startup and shot-to-shot capability as well - in fact some can take up to three frames or so a second.
Here's a Pentax User link:
www.pentaxuser.co.uk/pages/news/pentax_istd_spec.h...m
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What's for you won't pass you by
|
|
|
I've got a Nikon D70s which has no shutter delay and gives wonderful pictures! I chose ir because of its superb translation from the RGB of the sensor to Jpeg. I also have a high regard for Nikon lenses gained from a lifetime spent in televison, ending up as a Lighting Cameraman. (if anyone wants to know what eProf did in his yoof!)
--
e Prôf - Another Recycled Teenager
|
|
I must admit Nikon make the best DSLRs, but someone like myself who's used Canon EOS cameras for a while would only consider buying a DSLR with the same lens mount as my current EOSs, which limits me to the 400D unless I want to part with serious money. Anyway, my Canon Powershot compact digicam has a very short delay which isn't noticeable enough so as to be annoying - I find using red-eye reduction vastly increases the delay - maybe OP currently uses camera with RER on?
|
|
|
|
When I moved from traditional SLR to digital compact I found the half second delay between pressing the button and taking a picture rather irksome
What on earth did you get? I have a compact camera (a "traveler dc-86008.1 P" from Aldi, of all things) and there's no discernable shutter lag time, let alone half a second! It takes very good pictures, too, and has lots and lots of features.
|
Now I think about it, the impression of a long delay just might arise from the camera writing to the memory card after taking a shot.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
hmm - it's probably a lot less than half a second really, probably the autofocus , unless it's just accumulating enough charge for the flash it may or may not use.
Reading to the memory card is most likely why I can't take a lot of pictures in close succession, I used to always want a motor-wind for those "Taggart" type stake outs.
Sturatli - thanks for the Pentax users link.
|
Some cameras really do have a significant delay. In response to the "What on earth.." question, this is with some premium brands. E.g. I bought a Nikon Coolpix and under some circumstances, lowish light, prefocussed but ever such a tiny change required in focus, the delay can be a couple of seconds (I kid you not!). Normally it's about 0.5 sec. That sort of delay is a well-reported "feature" of many digital compacts and makes them all but unusable for catching moments. I use it as a pocket camera for when I can't take the SLR.
I've moved onto an EOS400D and it's instant, exactly the same as my old film SLR.
It takes 3 frames per second. It officially will take 25 of these in a row at high resolution, but with a fast card in mine I did 31 before it overtook the cache. Though that was just a feature I was testing, of course. How many times do you want to take 30 or so photos over 10 seconds? I do use the feature when taking photos of kids - take half a dozen over a couple of second and generally one of them will catch a better look than all the others.
V
|
|
I have used a D70 and not only was there no perceptable shutter delay it was also ready to shoot within half a second of switching on from cold. The newer and cheaper D40 is supposed to be as good in this regard, I have also read good thinks about the Pentax in respect of shutter delay.
|
I used Yashica and Contax film SLRs for many years before going digital and I found the shutter delay of the early digitals a real pain. I changed to the Nikon D70 and recently to the D80 which are both superb. I would expect the newer digital compacts will have improved in all respects including shutter lag. Be wary of getting sucked into the megapixel race - more aren't always better. You may find this link to a good test site useful.
www.dpreview.com/
Steve
|
|
|
|
the impression of a long delay just might arise from the camera writing to the memory card after taking a shot.
I've been thinking, too - the OP said "When I moved from traditional SLR to digital compact, I found the half second delay between pressing the button and taking a picture rather irksome" - well, the thing's got to auto-focus as well as take the picture, probably. If the thing is already focussed, then the delay in taking the picture ought to be very small. I have an old (2001!) Olympus film camera, which also needs time to focus. Perhaps that's the issue? WRT red-eye reduction, well - there must be a time lag, to allow the "reduction" to happen!
|
Its perception,
While all the autofocus and light avergin stuff is goin on , on most digital cameras you loose the picture of the image you are taking on the screen. Add to that the RE reduction feature sending flashes of light to mess up your eyeball, the delay can seem to be very long indeed.
IF you have a good digital camera that you set automanually (ie preset the focus and exposure say for example by half pressing the shutter button) the actual picture take can be just as fast as a 35mm. If it wasnt sports photographers wouldnt be using them.
------------------------------
< Ex RF, Ex TVM >
|
|
|
FT: "If the thing is already focussed, then the delay in taking the picture ought to be very small."
Yes, but it isn't on some cameras, Nikon Coolpix 3200 included. Half a second is an age if you have the right picture in the viewfinder. I threw hundreds of shots out that showed people blurred, who had moved thinking the photo had been taken. As for taking pictures of moving objects, you needed to plan where it might be when the shutter finally reacted. Well-known problem, now resolved (at least in SLRs).
V
|
|
|
I've used TLR and SLR cameras over a period of about 50 years - there's a delay in any case with SLR cameras after releasing the shutter to allow the instant return mirror to move upwards first.
The comment about not being too worried about megapixels is also sound; a lower MP camera with a top class lens will produce superior shots to one with plenty of MPs but an average lens.
My own digital camera is around six years old now (a 2MP Minolta E203), but it happily produces quality that's more than good enough for 10x8 prints. I still prefer my Pentax Spotmatic or Nikon F401 with a Tamron 28-200mm zoom though for important occasions...:-)
One day I'll hopefully be able to afford a top notch DSLR but, up to now, I've always found digital cameras far too small to be used comfortably, despite their photographic ability.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
One difference between a DSLR and a point and shoot digital camera is how fast it takes to focus. DSLR typically a lot quicker.
Someone above said about pressing the shutter half way to lock focus, exposure and shutter speed. This will then let you take the shot with no delay but only useful if taking a picture of a shot already composed.
A DSLR will also take time to focus, the Sony Alpha for example has the option of continually focusing and starts doing so as soon as you put the camera to your eye. A sensor detects the proximity of your face - or anything else.
My DSLR will take about 3 frames per second with JPEGs on their highest quality setting and keep taking pictures until the memory card is full still at 3fps, providing it's a fast card. Not much use most of the time to me though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was brought up with SLR's (and TLR's) but I find the portability of a compact digicam the overriding best feature. The camera you've got with you takes the best pictures!
WRT delay, as has already been mentioned, a half-press of the shutter when composing the shot will remove most of it, and the remaining delay when you press the button home should be of the order of 0.1s (my Casio Z750, a delightfully small camera, manages 0.01s, shaming SLR's that have to get their mirrors out of the way). There is a lot of variation between makes and models, though, so worth looking for reviews before buying.
Where DSLR's do score heavily is WRT noise, thanks to their much larger sensors. The only compacts that do well in low light seem to be made by Fuji - the F30 is supposed to be very good, although I still prefer cameras that have a viewfinder!
|
>>I still prefer cameras that have a viewfinder!>>
Absolutely agree..:-)
I use the Minolta mentioned earlier in the way you describe i.e. pre-focussing using the shutter button and then grabbing a quick shot at the right moment.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
|
|
only compacts that do well in low light seem to be made by Fuji -
>>
To the contrary in my experience, Canon and Nikon to name but two general produce less noise at higher ISOs.
|
Canon (I have one) and Nikon are both improving their low light performance, but Fuji have their own sensor that really does seem to work better. See here:
www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilmf30/page12.asp
|
|
I have a Canon SLR (400D) and am delighted with it. You can set it to multi frame shooting which answers the OP's question. For low light conditions - you can very easily adjust the ISO setting which I've found to be very effective.
|
|
|
|
|
|
