A camera with the characteristics you describe would be utterly useless to me.
Many of the scenes I photograph do not stay still long enough for a 1/4 sec.
delay (EVF+shutter shock, as you say below).
My prejudices against cameras with no optical finder continue to be confirmed.
Cheers,
Nathan
Nathan Wajsman
Alicante, Spain
http://www.frozenlight.eu
http://www.greatpix.eu
PICTURE OF THE WEEK: http://www.fotocycle.dk/paws
Blog: http://nathansmusings.wordpress.com/
YNWA
On Feb 15, 2014, at 9:15 AM, Peter Klein wrote:
> A while back we had a discussion of the EVF delay in the OM-D E-M5. I
> found that it lagged significantly behind real life--enough that it was
> very difficult to nab a fleeting "decisive moment." Example: I could
> not catch the instant of ball meeting the raquet in a very gentle family
> game of duffer tennis. I have no trouble doing such things with a Leica
> RF or a DSLR. I also found that if I put an external optical viewfinder
> in the hot shoe, the problem went away, and results were similar to a
> Leica RF. So the problem is not *shutter* lag, but the EVF. I later
> confirmed that the viewfinder had lag by photographing an electronic
> metronome with the sound turned off.
>
> Someone (I believe Moose) suggested that that there was a custom menu
> option to speed up the viewfinder refresh rate. This week I tried using
> this. I do not believe it helped.
>
> The setting is in Custom Menu J (EVF). The item is Frame Rate. "Normal"
> is 120 frames per second, and "High" is 240 frames/sec. The manual says
> that High reduces viewfinder lag. Fooling around with photographing the
> metronome, I got pretty much the same results with High as with Normal.
> Yes, my fallible human reaction time is part of the measurement, but
> things average out to about the same.
>
> My guess is that the "viewfinder" lag they refer to is image tearing in
> video, not the lag behind the action in front of the lens. Also, the
> delay I'm experiencing appears to be something like 1/8 of a second, or
> 125 ms, as seen on my metronome. The difference between 120 and 240
> frames/sec is 8.3 vs. 4.2 milliseconds. Nowhere near enough to account
> for what I'm seeing. So the lag has nothing to do with the refresh
> rate--it's built into the chain between the sensor and the EVF.
>
> So my question now is: Has the E-M1 improved on this significantly?
> This subject is rarefied enough that no reviews I've read address it.
> Steve Huff says that everything about the camera is faster, but I'd like
> to know what and how much. I'd also like to know how much if any the
> shutter shock has been mitigated, because this means I must add yet
> another 1/8 second delay if I want sharp pictures.
>
> Sometimes all this doesn't matter--often actions and expressions "peak
> and hold." But somtimes the E-M5 doesn't cut it for fast "people
> photography." A pity, because it is so very, very good at so much else.
>
> --Peter
>
>
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|