Reading mode: Light Dark

Sony DSC-R1 - Focus speed and response a weakness?

Go to last post
Joe0Bloggs said:
Joe0Bloggs said:
Joe0Bloggs said:
Hehe that's what I call fuzzy logic.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Which you used in reply #1.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=14957317
DocDAT said:
Joseph S. Wisniewski said:
Joe0Bloggs said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yes, they do. 7mS shutter lag if prefocused.
Click to expand...
So in one single situation that's not very likely to occur, it's
fast. In all other cases it's slower.
Click to expand...
Oho, so you mean you just mash the shutter button right down for
most shots, increasing camera shake and capturing your subject
after some long, variable time determined by the focus and shutter
lag?
Click to expand...
No, why would I do that?

I press half down and then full down right after focus lock. However it's misleading to call this pre-focus and then only count the shutter lag. You still have to wait for the focus too. If you want to only count the shutter lag (call it pre-focus or whatever you like) then it has to be unconnected with the focus. IE like if you manually focus at a certain distance you know something is going to pass through later and then click away.

Otherwise you're just doing it in two steps, first waiting for focus to lock and then firing, in which case you still have to include focus time in the total time it takes from you wanting to take the picture and getting it. Clear?
 
DocDAT said:
DocDAT said:
DocDAT said:
DocDAT said:
And no, to most people shutter noise does not matter.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Here you go again, deciding the issue for other people. I haven't
told you that it matters for me, but others have TOLD you that it
matters for them and you've basically told them not to take the
picture.
Click to expand...
I haven't decided anything and I haven't heard ANY DSLR owners
claim that the noise is so bad that they would pick the R1 over
their DSLR. Only you and maybe one other person (all proponents of
the R1) have claimed it makes a difference to them.
Click to expand...
DSLR owners are not 'most people'.
DocDAT said:
DocDAT said:
You say that nature photographers will use SLRs no matter
what. Have you asked what a nature photographer thinks of the R1 or
a possible future removable lens camera using EVF instead of reflex
mirror? What about journalists photographing from concealed
locations?
Click to expand...
Take a look at the various SLR forums here. Notice a trend? 99%
would never consider an EVF until they have multi MP and no lag.
Click to expand...
Well that's what we'd call a self-selecting group isn't it?
DocDAT said:
DocDAT said:
Others have told you how they have utilized swivel LCDs to the
benefit of their shooting and you tell them that they should stop
using the swivel LCD.
Click to expand...
No I haven't. Pure fiction.
Click to expand...
I quote:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=14956958
DocDAT said:
DocDAT said:
Doesn't require you to hold the camera to your face to take
pictures.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
DocDAT said:
You got it wrong, that's a pro, not a con. Holding the camera out in > front of you is probably the worst possible position, as it increases camera > shake immensely.
Click to expand...
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=14957828
DocDAT said:
DocDAT said:
I use tilt and swivel LCDs on fixed lens digitals and I've usd SLRs
for years. I have a very good understanding of the trade-offs.
Enough to know that the issue isn't as simple as assuming that the
function of the tilt/swivel LCD is only or even primarily to hold
the camera at arms length.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
DocDAT said:
Well so have I, and holding the camera to your eye is way superior to any use of the LCD.
Click to expand...
DocDAT said:
DocDAT said:
They tell you they need the LCD to frame
overhead shots and you tell them that they ought to be able to
frame them blind.
Click to expand...
No, I said that if one does not have LCD (which DSLRs don't have
incidentally) then one can frame blind (which practically all
photojournalists do in crowds with celebrities). Of course it would
be nice with a SLR with that option if it didn't mean loosing the
OVF. However it sadly does at the moment.
Click to expand...
You are telling them that they ought not to get a camera with a swivel LCD when they need it for overhead shots and get an SLR instead because of the OVF. If they follow your suggestion they will have to be able to frame overhead shots blind. Have you asked them if they needed the functionality of the OVF?
DocDAT said:
DocDAT said:
If that's not trolling I don't know what is!
Click to expand...
Yes it's hard not being self aware. Looking at your string of posts
one after the other below, trying to insult me instead of actually
considering the issue, it's pretty obvious who's the troll here.
Click to expand...
Suuure. Just keep saying that and that makes it true.
 
Joe0Bloggs said:
Joe0Bloggs said:
Joe0Bloggs said:
Joe0Bloggs said:
Joe0Bloggs said:
And no, to most people shutter noise does not matter.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Here you go again, deciding the issue for other people. I haven't
told you that it matters for me, but others have TOLD you that it
matters for them and you've basically told them not to take the
picture.
Click to expand...
I haven't decided anything and I haven't heard ANY DSLR owners
claim that the noise is so bad that they would pick the R1 over
their DSLR. Only you and maybe one other person (all proponents of
the R1) have claimed it makes a difference to them.
Click to expand...
DSLR owners are not 'most people'.
Click to expand...
They are most people in the group relevant to this discussion. We are discussing the R1 as an alternative to DSLRs are we not?
Joe0Bloggs said:
Joe0Bloggs said:
Joe0Bloggs said:
You say that nature photographers will use SLRs no matter
what. Have you asked what a nature photographer thinks of the R1 or
a possible future removable lens camera using EVF instead of reflex
mirror? What about journalists photographing from concealed
locations?
Click to expand...
Take a look at the various SLR forums here. Notice a trend? 99%
would never consider an EVF until they have multi MP and no lag.
Click to expand...
Well that's what we'd call a self-selecting group isn't it?
Click to expand...
It's people who know what they are talking about, since they have used both OVF and EVF
Joe0Bloggs said:
Joe0Bloggs said:
Joe0Bloggs said:
Others have told you how they have utilized swivel LCDs to the
benefit of their shooting and you tell them that they should stop
using the swivel LCD.
Click to expand...
No I haven't. Pure fiction.
Click to expand...
I quote:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=14956958
Joe0Bloggs said:
Joe0Bloggs said:
Doesn't require you to hold the camera to your face to take
pictures.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Joe0Bloggs said:
You got it wrong, that's a pro, not a con. Holding the camera out in > front of you is probably the worst possible position, as it increases camera > shake immensely.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Quite how you can spin that response into me telling people not to use their LCDs is a mystery. I said holding the camera out in front of you is not a very stable shooting platform. It doesn't mean that LCDs aren't a benefit for awkvard angles.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=14957828
Joe0Bloggs said:
Joe0Bloggs said:
Joe0Bloggs said:
I use tilt and swivel LCDs on fixed lens digitals and I've usd SLRs
for years. I have a very good understanding of the trade-offs.
Enough to know that the issue isn't as simple as assuming that the
function of the tilt/swivel LCD is only or even primarily to hold
the camera at arms length.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Joe0Bloggs said:
Well so have I, and holding the camera to your eye is way superior to any use of the LCD.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
And it is. When it's possible.
Joe0Bloggs said:
Joe0Bloggs said:
Joe0Bloggs said:
They tell you they need the LCD to frame
overhead shots and you tell them that they ought to be able to
frame them blind.
Click to expand...
No, I said that if one does not have LCD (which DSLRs don't have
incidentally) then one can frame blind (which practically all
photojournalists do in crowds with celebrities). Of course it would
be nice with a SLR with that option if it didn't mean loosing the
OVF. However it sadly does at the moment.
Click to expand...
You are telling them that they ought not to get a camera with a
swivel LCD when they need it for overhead shots and get an SLR
instead because of the OVF. If they follow your suggestion they
will have to be able to frame overhead shots blind. Have you asked
them if they needed the functionality of the OVF?
Click to expand...
What a weird logic. I said the benefits of through the lens OVF way outbalances any weaknesses, including the inability to use live preview on an LCD. And that overhead shots are still possible by pointing the camera. Not that overhead shots are easier without LCD. I guess that if most your shooting is overhead you're either someone who yes will benefit better with a P&S or a photojournalist (who still needs the versatility of DSLR no matter it doesn't have LCD)
 
DocDAT said:
DocDAT said:
DSLR owners are not 'most people'.
Click to expand...
They are most people in the group relevant to this discussion. We
are discussing the R1 as an alternative to DSLRs are we not?
Click to expand...
AFAICT most of the people getting excited over the R1, that you are trashing, are P&S users...
DocDAT said:
It's people who know what they are talking about, since they have
used both OVF and EVF
Click to expand...
Ditto above point, and even if there were people that tried both OVF and EVF and preferred EVF in the end you won't see them in the SLR forums would you?
DocDAT said:
DocDAT said:
DocDAT said:
Well so have I, and holding the camera to your eye is way superior to any use of the LCD.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
And it is. When it's possible.
Click to expand...
You said 'any use'. Why is it superior in outdoor lighting, when you have plenty of light and don't have to worry about camera shake? When the LCD would give you 100% frame coverage while the OVF gives you somewhere between 80 and 95%?
DocDAT said:
DocDAT said:
DocDAT said:
DocDAT said:
They tell you they need the LCD to frame
overhead shots and you tell them that they ought to be able to
frame them blind.
Click to expand...
No, I said that if one does not have LCD (which DSLRs don't have
incidentally) then one can frame blind (which practically all
photojournalists do in crowds with celebrities). Of course it would
be nice with a SLR with that option if it didn't mean loosing the
OVF. However it sadly does at the moment.
Click to expand...
You are telling them that they ought not to get a camera with a
swivel LCD when they need it for overhead shots and get an SLR
instead because of the OVF. If they follow your suggestion they
will have to be able to frame overhead shots blind. Have you asked
them if they needed the functionality of the OVF?
Click to expand...
What a weird logic. I said the benefits of through the lens OVF way
outbalances any weaknesses, including the inability to use live
preview on an LCD. And that overhead shots are still possible by
pointing the camera. Not that overhead shots are easier without
LCD.
Click to expand...
Where have I said you claimed that overhead shots are easier without LCD? It is exactly the line of reasoning which you restated that I have problems with. You are deciding for other people that the OVF is worth more than the swivel LCD, so they ought to get an SLR and frame blind for overhead shots. Hello? How about carrying a backup camera? What's wrong with getting a backup camera that allows you to frame those overhead shots? Never mind that some people consider EVFs superior to OVF. You keep telling me to go to SLR forums, why don't you go to a non-SLR camera forum and start bashing EVFs like you do here, see what kind of response you'll get. I suggest the Konica Minolta forum with that horrible EVF on the A2 (ha).
 
I just looked through most of your posts - you're a Sony naysayer who has an amazing capacity to agitate people just like Halpern does. Wait until the bloody R1 comes out - then you can either say "I told you so" or "I was wrong".

Cheers. =8^)
--
Ram

Sony DSC-S85/V3
 
Do you own the 50mm prime they used? Do you have any resolution chart numbers to back that claim up? The aperture was also selected for optimum sharpness on the 50mm.
DocDAT said:
Joe0Bloggs said:
DocDAT said:
DocDAT said:
Are you high again? Do I really have to find the dpreview test of it? OK here it is: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos350d/page27.asp
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
THAT COMPARISON USED 50MM PRIME LENSES

Comparing a 5x zoom to a prime, yeah, you're real smart!
Misrepresenting it as comparing with the Canon kit lens, how honest
of you!
Click to expand...
Nope, I thought it was the kit lens, but then that doesn't really
matter, because there are many zooms that are just as sharp as the
50mm. Actually my inexpensive Tamron 17-35mm f2.8-4 is just as
sharp, if not sharper, all the way down to F2.8.
Click to expand...
 
You keep saying how unstable it is to shoot with the camera held out. I am giving a counterexample. Others can probably chip in with lots more counterexamples. Never mind that it doesn't even matter if available light is sufficient.
DocDAT said:
You got it wrong, that's a pro, not a con. Holding the camera out in front of you is probably the worst possible position, as it increases camera shake immensely.
Click to expand...
 
I like the color EVF and is great for choosing the right WB. I will not buy a camera with a B&W EVF. Maybe is a matter of taste1
--
zeev
 
lingsb said:
Joe0Bloggs said:
Has anyone figured out any other way to do phase detection AF
besides using a mirror, anyway?
Click to expand...
Olympus has a patent where they put a split image prism (like the
manual focussing ones) in front of the CCD to focus.
Click to expand...
I think you'll find that's a Sony patent, the use of which was licenced by Olympus. In digital cameras this first appeared with the Sony DSC-D700/D770 and DKC-FP3. Olympus licensed this and it appeared in several of their models including the E10 and E20.

Lin
 
The price to be paid is resolution limits. On very expensive broadcast TV($100.000) cameras the optional color VF was never a sucess because the cameramen needs sharp images to check focus point and BW monitors are the best .
--
Andre
 
Lin Evans said:
lingsb said:
Joe0Bloggs said:
Has anyone figured out any other way to do phase detection AF
besides using a mirror, anyway?
Click to expand...
Olympus has a patent where they put a split image prism (like the
manual focussing ones) in front of the CCD to focus.
Click to expand...
I think you'll find that's a Sony patent, the use of which was
licenced by Olympus. In digital cameras this first appeared with
the Sony DSC-D700/D770 and DKC-FP3. Olympus licensed this and it
appeared in several of their models including the E10 and E20.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the clarification. I saw a patent which contained this, and assumed it was their idea...
 
Are you sure Sony owns the patent?

http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220020167603%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20020167603&RS=DN/20020167603
Lin Evans said:
lingsb said:
Joe0Bloggs said:
Has anyone figured out any other way to do phase detection AF
besides using a mirror, anyway?
Click to expand...
Olympus has a patent where they put a split image prism (like the
manual focussing ones) in front of the CCD to focus.
Click to expand...
I think you'll find that's a Sony patent, the use of which was
licenced by Olympus. In digital cameras this first appeared with
the Sony DSC-D700/D770 and DKC-FP3. Olympus licensed this and it
appeared in several of their models including the E10 and E20.

Lin
Click to expand...
 
Jared Hunter said:
Are you sure Sony owns the patent?
Click to expand...
Yes - look at the date on this - it's 2002 - the Sony DSC-D700 was released in 1998 with the D770 and DKC-FP3 in 1999. The first digital Olympus to have this type technology was the C2500L in 1999 followed by the E10 in 2000 then the E20 in 2001 - all of which preceed this patent you reference.........

Lin
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top