digital camera question

[colin1]

With point and click film cameras, like disposables or whatever, you press the button and it takes the picture that second.

Why is it that with digital cameras, the hand held ones all seem to have a delay before the picture is taken, so you cant capture the moment ?

I know that SLR digital cameras take a picture instantly, but I dont want one.

I just want a cheap digital camera that takes an instant snap. I'm thinking £50 or less. Any suggestions ?
____________________
colin1 is officially faster than god

[Fawbish]

Its not that they dont, its that most people dont take into account the focus part of the photograph.

A throwaway has one focus point, no motors to make sure its autofocused or whatever.

If you want to 'capture the moment' most cameras will need semi depressing and then pointing at what u want to 'wait for the moment'. Then you should pretty much get an instant photo when needed.
____________________
"Oh....it looks like Average Joe's is forfeiting the match!" - "Yeah, its a risky strategy but lets see if it pays off for 'em Cotton."

[Ichy]

Film cameras use light to burn the image onto the film. Digital cameras obviously use a lot of electronics to replicate the same effect. A number of automatic processes, exposure, focus, etc take place before the image is captured, then you have a chunk of data to process. The extra cost of expensive digital cameras may not improve the image but may be aimed at speeding up the entire process.

I'm using a Samsung ES15 as a point and shoot at the moment, works well enough and sells for around £50 - £60.

[colin1]

[Itchy]

I have a samsung thing, you can considerably increase the speed (as long as it's switched on) by turning all of the automatic things off autofocus/flash/face recognition etc. Still takes about half a second to take the snap though.

You just have to be ready and anticipate things to happen.
____________________
Spain 2008France 2007Big one 2009 We all die. The goal isn't to live forever, the goal is to create something that will. In the end, your life will flash before your eyes. Make sure it is worth watching.

[Ichy]

[G]

As above - cheap cameras can be instant because they don't have to 'do' anything bar the mechanical action. Older film SLRs and various compacts did have autofocusing mechanisms which did take a bit of time.

Most not-silly-cheap cameras these days are much better, but I can remember being frustrated using Dusty's Fuji/minolta thing that was around a second - which was terrible for bike photography!

You might find this list helpful, it seems quite up to date:
https://www.cameras.co.uk/html/shutter-lag-comparisons.cfm

[MarJay]

I bought a cheap Sony camera a few years back because it has the shortest shutter lag. Its pretty good, I can't remember what model it is though.

Downside is you have to use Memory Stick instead of SD cards. You also still have to pre-focus with a partial button press to get the best results.
____________________
British beauty: Triumph Street Triple R; Loony stroker: KR1S; Track fun: GSXR750 L1; Commuter Missile: GSX-S1000F; Cheap project: CBR900RR FireBlade
Remember kids, bikes aren't like lego. You can't easily take a part from one bike and then fit it to another.

[_Will_]

An SLR is instant as its a mechanical action - Single lens reflex, the shutter exposes the image onto a sensor the shutter speed is usually dictated by the user or part of a pre programmed set.

Focus speed depends on lens/camera quality, if not half depressed or in continuous focus mode/manual/lock the camera will have to apply focus to the set of tasks.

Cheap digi cameras choose their settings for what they think is best, this means it has to meter and focus before choosing shutter speed which all creates shutter lag.

This will worsen in poor light as if is uses an af lamp it needs to light its subject before the line of tasks above.

A dslr in auto will not be instant if it has to focus and meter itself.
____________________
Past -Honda qr50 | 2004 Peugeot Tkr s 50| | 1996 Yamaha XJ600s Diversion|

[The View Askew]

The shutter opening time is the time needed to take a picture, after the shutter closes, the photo has been taken, the only other variable is the time taken to focus.

Film cameras have a delay if AF is selected, manually focused lenses will shoot instantly with manual flash.

£50 will buy you rubbish, use your phone, at least it ain't 35mm.
____________________
"Do what you always did, get what you always got"

[colin1]

[flat spot]

I've got a Panasonic FX550. From DPreview.com ..........

"The multi-task image-processing engine Venus Engine V supports super-fast response time. The shutter release time lag is as short as approx. 0.007 second and the camera's quick response makes it easier to capture sudden, spur-of-the-moment photo opportunities. In burst shooting mode, the DMC-FX550 can snap approx. 2.3 shots per second at 12.1-megapixel large full resolution. And in High-Speed Burst shooting mode, it fires off an incredible approx. 10 shots per second. You also get unlimited consecutive shooting which lets you keep shooting until the memory card is full. Flash Burst mode makes it possible to take continuous shooting with continuous emission of flash."

It's the '98 R1 of the camera world.

[Frost]

Thats pants. It takes the picture AFTER you have pressed the button, what if your not quick enough? Some modern cameras now constantly take in data and buffer it. When you press the button it can take a still from the instant you press it, or any time before. Some fancy image processing can even pick the best frame for you.

There's clever isn't it?!

[Silver]

Shutter lag is not caused by the camera focusing, choosing exposure settings etc. You can prove that by half pressing the button on a digital camera so all of those calculations are performed prior to taking the final picture. That's not to say that these calculations don't introduce lag too, it's just that they can often be avoided. It's more to do with the electronics within the camera processing the information. That's why SLRs and, to a lesser degree, digital SLRs don't suffer as badly because the mechanism is mechanical and not electronic.

Basically, you get what you pay for. You really want to spend £50? Even if you find something with low shutter lag you'll find it lacking in other (more important areas), be that a poor lens, bad image quality, terrible low light performance etc.

[colin1]

That does indeed sound the bollocks, but probably out of my price range. Particularly frosty's.
____________________
colin1 is officially faster than god

[colin1]

[Silver]

Just don't get caught up in the "more megapixels is better" marketing ploy - it's not (necessarily).

Anyway, if you want an excellent reference for prices from various websites have a look here:
https://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/

[Clanger]

That's why in any action shots, I sit there and snap away loads of times in anticipation of getting the decent shot...and more often than not got some brilliant pictures...!! Including dolphins leaping out of the water, lazers shows, fireworks...
____________________
Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter, and those who matter won't mind - Dr. Seuss

[The View Askew]

Yeah ignore megapixels, its the size of the image, and has literally nothing to do with the quality of it.

Think of it as a borderline, and the megapixel figure contributes nothing to within that border, it would just be black.

Cramming huge images onto a tiny sensor is just idiotic, and panders to conning the ignorant public who are just too happy to masturbate over MEGAPIXELLZ!!!ONE!!1.

I blame mobile phones for this.
____________________
"Do what you always did, get what you always got"

[Frost]

Megapixels can be good depending on what you want. But they are certainly not the gold standard for determining how good a camera is. Generally speaking anything 5+ is as good as you will ever need it to be. The only advantage to lots of megapixels is that it gives you greater digital zoom (zoom without moving the optics like a telescope).

[flat spot]

[Kickstart]

Hi

Another vote for ignore megapixel count. No point having twice the number of pixels if the lens is so bad that light from a point can randomly be on several of them.

Seen decent A2 size prints taken from under 3mp images.

All the best

Keith
____________________
Traxpics, track day and racing photographs - Bimota Forum - Bike performance / thrust graphs for choosing gearing