Re: Shutter reaction time/ was Leica bashing ...

[Bill Welch <Bill.Welch@pressroom.com>]

Ted Grant wrote:
> 
> <<<<<<<The number of 100 milliseconds that I quoted related to non-autofocus
> SLR's.
> The Leica-R exposes approximately 90 milliseconds after pressing the button,
> they are between the fastest non-autofocus SLR's on the market.
> 
> The time parrallax of autofocus reflex camera's is far more than 100
> milliseconds and depends on autofocus system and lensconstruction. Delays of
> 150 - 250 milliseconds are usual.>>>>>>
> 
> Hey guys I'm sorry I guess I'm really stupid or something. But could someone
> explain to me what the delay in the camera has to do with the Gold medal winner
> crossing the finish line of the 100 meter final at the Olympics ? :)
> 
> This is interesting all the techie stuff, as in all my years I never thought
> about how long it took for my mind to transfer to my finger to push the release
> to how long it takes the camera to go click and whether I would miss the shot or
> not.
> 
> Or is the shutter release time crutial to capturing the Gold Medal runner, who
> takes approximately 9.79 secs to run the 100 meters.
> 
> Confusing? Could someone enlighten me? Thanks a bunch.  And please use real time
> picture taking and not theoretical. thankyou.
> 
> ted
> Victoria, Canada
> http://www.islandnet.com/~tedgrant

Actually Ted, I believe it does make a difference. Without dipping into techno-speak, I 
think many M users who also use an SLR system find a faster shutter response with our 
Ms. That is one element of its appeal. And I believe for me that response can make a 
difference in capturing the instant I want.

I shoot a lot of sports with Nikons. Nice as the N90s is, I find its shutter response a 
trifle sluggish compared with my F3 with MD4 motor drive. That is using manual focus for 
both, and is aside from the issue of frames per second. I've chatted with other shooters 
who find this too, including one who mentioned it to me on a sideline just last 
Saturday. I've not used the F5 or the Leica Rs you use, so I can't compare them.

But I will give you a real-life shooting example. I was in Hawaii recently and stumbled 
across a lacrosse festival including some teams from back east that I knew. I was 
traveling on vacation and only had my Ms, but I stuck around and shot a few games. I 
used the 135 f2.8 and 90 f/2. Both are too short for big field games such as this, and 
I'm not wild about the 135 anyway. But that's all I had. I of course had to crop a lot 
and sacrifice print quality, but I got usable images, including one that ran full page 
in a sports magazine. But examining the negatives and chromes, I was immediately struck 
by one interesting thing -- I was catching some of the shots and passes earlier than I 
was accustomed to. The ''levitating player'' shot -- flying through the air in the act 
of shooting or passing -- was caught earlier in his leap.

Of course you can run a fast motor drive and hope for the best. I had no winder for my 
Leicas. And anticipation is what it's all about anyway in this kind of 
shooting. But yes, I found it did make a difference in my shooting. That's not to say 
you will or should find such a difference.

Bill Welch