The mirror raising and shutter opening is done almost at the same
time, producing a single noise. And no matter how much you try to
argue semantics, it doesn't change the fact that the R1 is slower
than DSLRs. The numbers speak for themselves.
Yes, they do. 7mS shutter lag if prefocused.
So in one single situation that's not very likely to occur, it's fast. In all other cases it's slower.
From the same
imaging resource review that you like to quote:
"Its shutter lag is an astonishing 0.007 second (7 milliseconds) in
that mode"
Heh you forgot one very important fact about that number. It's
PRE-FOCUSED. So not representable of a real world situation.
It's the only difference between the two examples. As you yourself
pointed out, its meter, focus, and fire.
What do you mean? The time for the whole thing is still around 0.48-0.77 seconds.
Raising the mirror takes longer than the update
cycle of an EVF. You're having a lot of trouble with a very, very
simple concept.
You are just in complete denial, aren't you?
Sorry, that's my line. Read the script.
You haven't answered regarding the processing lag yet.
No, the total
delay of using an EVF or LCD is not the refresh rate of the
display. It's the refresh rate PLUS the delay created by the
electronic interpretation of the light on the sensor. It's you who
are having a lot of trouble with this concept.
Poor, poor dinosaur. Did you notice it's getting cold outside?
Hmm here you can't claim to just answer in kind. You answer a real argument with an insult (that, to be fair, I found amusing). Are you going to keep doing that or maybe come up with a counter argument? Again, refresh rate is not equal to the total delay when using an EVF or LCD. It is just the rate at which the image on the EVF or LCD is updated and does not reflect the time it takes for an image to be processed from light on the sensor, through the PCB and finally shown on the LCD/EVF. Are you claiming this processing is instantaneous?
Heh, yes apparently you are. Did you even read Jared Hunter's post?
You are confusing refresh rate with lag. The two have to be added
together. First you have the lag from when the light hits the
sensor, is registered in the electronics, the information altered
and manipulated and finally ready to display on the EVF. On top of
this you have the update/refresh rate of the display.
Did you ever read anything, at all, ever?
Again, I'm wowed by your powers of argumentation. Try reading my
answer again, and maybe you'll see the light.
Again, it's your rude argument, and you've again stepped on my line
for the reply.
My rude argument?
I wrote this:
Did you even read Jared Hunter's post?
You are confusing refresh rate with lag. The two have to be added
together. First you have the lag from when the light hits the
sensor, is registered in the electronics, the information altered
and manipulated and finally ready to display on the EVF. On top of
this you have the update/refresh rate of the display.
Which you answer with this:
"Did you ever read anything, at all, ever?"
I think that speaks for itself.
I'll provide you with another quote from the conclusion:
"We found some of its ergonomics decidedly awkward, and both timing
performance and high-ISO noise levels aren't up to the best of the
digital SLRs currently on the market."
Notice the word "timing".
Note the word "best". I have one of them, a $5000 Nikon D2X.
Good for you, great camera. However I don't see how it should have any relevance as to whether you're right or wrong.
