> > Wrong. I have an Optio S. And although I can measure the times at > different settings, I'm still speculating on what's going on inside, and > so are you. AFAIK, there is no data in the camera that tells me what > the timing breakdown is. If there is such a way, please point it out to us. > > I don't understand why there are such defensive responses such as this > one when members question "expertise" which really amounts to guestimation.
You aren't questioning expertise - you are attempting to put forward your own opinion in the teeth of all the evidence being presented to you, even when your own experimentation proves the point you are arguing against. I'll try again, just one more time: The objectionable shutter lag on point-and-shoot digital cameras is an artifact of the auto-focus system. Turn off auto-focus, and the delay all but goes away. The camera is capable of performing all the other calculations and operations (metering, sensor pre-clear, etc.) quite fast enough for it to be unmeasurable except on a lab bench. True, we aren't privy to what goes on inside the camera. But we can measure the total time being spent on everything except auto-focus, and show that it is insignificant as a contributor to the total delay. I'll repeat that, because it's an important point: absolutely everything else except auto-focus is 'almost instantaneous', even in a digital P&S. So - what *does* cause the shutter lag? Answer - turning on the auto- focus system. We're not trying to break it down any further than that; it might be becuse the camera processor is too slow; it might be because the auto-focus motor can't move the lens fast enough; it might be because the auto-focus software uses a poor algorithm; it might even be because the software writer has put in an idle loop to deliberately waste time. It doesn't matter. It's very simple - turn on the AF; get shutter lag. > I also have the *istD, and shutter lag is all but nil there, so I can't > even begin to speculate on the timing breakup there. On the *ist-D (and all other DSLRs with which I am familiar) the AF system is the same as that used in a typical film-based SLR, and is very fast. That is what is missing from a digital point-and-shoot. But, in any case, that's irrelevant. We don't need to know the breakdown of the timing of the *ist-D. We're not trying to allocate the finest details of timing - just pointing out where the P&S spends it's time. > John Francis wrote: > >>Yes, I know we can measure the whole thing. But we know diddly squat > >>about how that time is broken up. > > > > > > It's obvious at this point that you don't have first-hand experience. > > I suggest you get your hands on a mid-range or higher digital camera > > and try it for yourself. Until then I don't really think any purpose > > is being served by you continuing to speculate about subjects outside > > your field of experience, especially when your opinion is at odds with > > that being expressed by everyone who has actually done the experiment. > > > > > >
