gdanmitchell wrote:
It is technically impossible for a video monitor system, no matter how good, to have "no lag," or no latency. It always takes _some_ time to detect and sample the image, capture the data, transfer to the camera's software, generate a frame of video, and display it. This time can be reduced in many ways, but a video signal will always lag the real-world subject by at least some small amount.
This is the Achilles' heel of digital viewfinder systems.
To be sure, latencies exist in all camera systems: the physical activation of mechanical shutters, the flipping mirrors of DSLRs, the time to close down apertures, etc.
In the end, the total latencies of mirrorless cameras may end up being shorter than those of mechanically-based camera systems. (I don't know where we stand in regard to the total sum of latencies in the systems at this point.
Because the visual display of EVF systems necessarily includes at least some minimal visual delay (as the image is captured and displayed), the point in the operation where the latency occurs is not insignificant. There is always going to be at least a small delay between what the subject does and when you see it happen, and this is what I think I'm seeing in some of the videos of more active subjects.
This is not to say that video/EVF displays are bad. It is just to be objective about where they are stronger and/or weaker.
I am confused - latency of mirrorless may be shorter than mechanically-based ... ??
I assume you mean plain old optical view finder with mirror - how is electronic latency ever going to be shorter than OVF ?
Sheesh - now we are talking faster than the speed of light - so electronic view finder will some day show you the future - I like that - no need for pre-shooting then
duncang wrote:
I am confused - latency of mirrorless may be shorter than mechanically-based ... ??
I assume you mean plain old optical view finder with mirror - how is electronic latency ever going to be shorter than OVF ?
Sheesh - now we are talking faster than the speed of light - so electronic view finder will some day show you the future - I like that - no need for pre-shooting then
You really want to have an argument about this don't you? ;-)
There are several kinds of latency that delay the actual point of exposure from the point where the thing happens that we want to capture.
Electronic viewfinder latency delays the presentation of the image to the photographer by whatever short increment is required to register the image at the sensor, convert it into a frame of video, transmit it to a monitor (viewfinder), and draw it on the display.
For this reason, in with an electronic viewfinder the displayed image is always at least slightly behind the "real thing." This has potential effects on things like tracking fast-moving subjects since the object has already moved ahead of where it is shown in the display. It isn't an issue with stationary or slower subjects and even with most normally moving subjects, but it is real and it has an effect.
The latency in a SLR, DSLR, or traditional rangefinder camera is not in the displayed viewfinder image. That is, for all intents and purposes, in exact sync with the subject. (As you jokingly point out, I suppose that there is a delay related to the speed of light... but we can safely ignore that.)
The flipping mirror of the SLR/DSLR is one element of what we might call mechanical latency — the time it takes the camera to do physical operations before the exposure. There are several parts to it: the time to press the shutter release (also on mirrorless), the time to flip the mirror out of the way (not on mirrorless), the time to close the lens aperture and potentially make a final focus adjustment and potentially do image stabilization.
The difference here, in comparison to what I'm talking about with the video monitors of mirrorless cameras is that in the former case (mirrorless cameras with EVF) the delay affects the photographer's ability to see the action as its happens, while in the latter cases the delays don't affect the photographers ability to see the subject in perfect real time.
All of these kinds of latency are consequential, but they have different effects on the process of making a picture.
duncang wrote:
Thanks, I was wondering about the X-H2S but that is not very impressive when compared to R7.
Light does look terrible though.
R7 won't be able to get anything under extreme low contrast. Already test it couple weeks ago. It was Foggy to nearly zero visibility and the distance was around 200 feet away.
duncang wrote:
Glad you cleared that up for me - still my latency is around 0.25 seconds which makes camera latency a rounding error in the grand scheme of things.
It all depends on where in the system the latency occurs... and on what subject you are photographing.
Photographing rocks with the camera on a tripod? Latency isn't an issue. Photographing fast moving subjects where precise timing is critical? Latency presents more of a challenge.
Viewfinder latency potentially affects your ability to track a fast-moving object, particularly if its path is somewhat unpredictable. The effect is different than the kinds of latency found in SLR style cameras (and even rangefinder cameras) where there is not viewfinder latency that affects tracking, but there are other kinds of latency that affect the delay between the decision to take the photo and the point of the actual exposure.
In the first case the effect might be to make it more difficult to follow the subject. In the second case it might mean that the peak instant has already happened when the exposure is made.
Even this can't be see in complete isolation. For example, if blackout is eliminated it may be possible to track more smoothly.
gdanmitchell wrote:
It all depends on where in the system the latency occurs... and on what subject you are photographing.
Photographing rocks with the camera on a tripod? Latency isn't an issue. Photographing fast moving subjects where precise timing is critical? Latency presents more of a challenge.
Viewfinder latency potentially affects your ability to track a fast-moving object, particularly if its path is somewhat unpredictable. The effect is different than the kinds of latency found in SLR style cameras (and even rangefinder cameras) where there is not viewfinder latency that affects tracking, but there are other kinds of latency that affect the delay between the decision to take the photo and the point of the actual exposure.
In the first case the effect might be to make it more difficult to follow the subject. In the second case it might mean that the peak instant has already happened when the exposure is made.
Even this can't be see in complete isolation. For example, if blackout is eliminated it may be possible to track more smoothly....Show more →
Given the huge numbers of highly successful birders and action photographers on mirrorless, this whole obsession with latency is pointless.
You adapt to the new tech and you move on with life.
The benefits of EVFs outweigh a few ms latency by an enormous margin.
I dumped my 5Dmk2 and 7D when I got my hands on the GH1. Even with that early attempt it was obvious that EVFs (and MILC in general) were the future, and while it took a few years we’re now past the point that DSLRs are completely obsolete.
What gdanmitchell is saying is that all kinds of lags happen from when the subject enters the frame to when the sensor is exposed.
The EVF lag is just one of those and it's pretty small. Your own reaction time is far far longer than the EVF lag, as is the lag from pressing the shutter button to the actual shutter actuation.
While not a birding photographer, I would imagine that AF accuracy and high drive rate is a lot more important to getting good shots than EVF lag rate.
liggy wrote:
Anyone who has *actually shot* BIF with an A1 would tell you that the notion of EVF latency being a hinderance to getting good images is laughable.
I don’t even run mine at full speed (240fps) I run it at 120fps to maintain full EVF resolution with the big .9x view.
Some people here love to pontificate endlessly on gear they have never seen, let alone used... and yes, it's most often quite laughable.
Pointing out that something exists doesn't mean that the thing it exists in is a bad thing. Latency exists, in many forms, in all cameras. It is worth recognizing and understanding it, particularly if your understanding helps your photography. Understanding where and how it occurs is useful information for photographers.
This isn't an attack on Fujifilm (the situation is the same in all brands that use similar technology), mirrorless cameras (I like them, currently use one for half my photography, and will almost certainly move from my DSLR to mirrorless for the other half eventually), or the XH2/XH2s, which seems like well made and designed cameras that mark advances for Fujifilm.
Talking about this is like talking about any other limit or characteristic of a camera — its burst rate, its ISO range, its resolution, whether or not it has a flapping mirror, pluses and minuses of formats, etc. It doesn't have to be a battle.
Alex Phan wrote:
R7 won't be able to get anything under extreme low contrast. Already test it couple weeks ago. It was Foggy to nearly zero visibility and the distance was around 200 feet away.
gdanmitchell wrote:
Some of y'all really, really want to be angry.
Pointing out that something exists doesn't mean that the thing it exists in is a bad thing. Latency exists, in many forms, in all cameras. It is worth recognizing and understanding it, particularly if your understanding helps your photography. Understanding where and how it occurs is useful information for photographers.
This isn't an attack on Fujifilm (the situation is the same in all brands that use similar technology), mirrorless cameras (I like them, currently use one for half my photography, and will almost certainly move from my DSLR to mirrorless for the other half eventually), or the XH2/XH2s, which seems like well made and designed cameras that mark advances for Fujifilm.
Talking about this is like talking about any other limit or characteristic of a camera — its burst rate, its ISO range, its resolution, whether or not it has a flapping mirror, pluses and minuses of formats, etc. It doesn't have to be a battle....Show more →
I guess I missed anyone being mad about this.
IMO you're missing the point, Dan.
Pointing out that something exists that is completely a non-issue for anyone using a newer generation EVF is ahhhh... pointless.
No one here is arguing that there is zero latency. It just doesn't matter in a high quality EVF/high performance camera.
The net impact of EVF latency is *not* the same as burst rate, ISO range, resolution etc.
FM forums are turning into DP Review now. I don't understand for the life of me how anyone can evaluate photography gear without using it. I understand that is not practical for all and that is why I have way too much gear. That said, anyone who's never used it and reviewed files on their own can't really make a judgement call on how good it is. I have one. The image quality is pretty much the same as the last generation sensor. If you used any one of those bodies and like the image quality you'll like this one, if you didn't you won't like this one. The XT4 Auto focus was unreliable. That is why I had an A9 and then an A1. Even my A7C was much better. The XH2S Is not better than them at tracking, but it is much more reliable than previous bodies. If you need world class auto focus this isn't it but if you can deal with a small notch below that, but more reliable than previous Fujis, this is it. If you shoot video I would definitely recommend it compared to anything else out there as an equal.
To that point, I have an X-H2S and 150-600 arriving tomorrow. I’m already happy with my kit, but I want to see what Fuji can do, because I suspect this will be the high water mark from Fuji for quote a while.
Unfortunately I won’t have much time to shoot until next week, but I intend to chase down some songbirds and hopefully the odd duck. As seems to be a truism, new camera gear only shows up when you have no time to use it!
I agree it’s really hard to get straight opinions on the Internet. I don’t think it’s necessarily any particular forum, but I agree, the phenomena is that the rare hands-on report is generally shouted down (or at least drowned out) as people climb over each other to share their own narrative.
I’m going to reserve judgement until I have the gear in hand.
Nick Dakota wrote:
FM forums are turning into DP Review now. I don't understand for the life of me how anyone can evaluate photography gear without using it...
There are _some_ judgments that one can't make without using thing, but the notion that there is nothing concrete or accurate that one can say about a thing without physically using it is a photography forum myth. It isn't that black and white. I could give you plenty of examples, but let's see if you can come up with some on your own. (Do you hold any opinion about photographic equipment or techniques that you don't personally use?)
In addition, using a thing does not always ensure a clear, unbiased view of the thing — especially if the purchase was recent and involved some sort of emotional attachment to the gear. Here there is a real risk of motivated reasoning and confirmation bias. (If this were not true, how do we explain the number of folks who constantly buy new gear that they believe will be The Greatest Thing, only to turn around and chase a replacement a year later?)
Again, no one is saying that these aren't good cameras or that they are incompetent for photographing active subjects. They do some things better than DSLRs. (Which, AGAIN, is why I wrote about my own use of mirrorless equipment earlier.) Also again, no one needs to feel threatened by an objective discussion of how the gear works and of where its relative strengths and weaknesses lie. (The point someone made earlier about low light shooting — e.g. seeing the subject, not the camera's ability. to make an exposure — points out one of the pluses of EVF cameras.)
