markwilliam1

Maybe look at a different camera? My Sony’s have No display lag or shutter lag what so ever!

jcboy3

Yes, they do.

Read these articles:

http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/shooting-sports.html

https://blog.kasson.com/a9/sony-a9-lcd-lag/

http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/sony-a7rii-finder-lag/

markwilliam1

I don’t need to read I own 2 Sony mirrorless and they have No Lag! How bout you? Have you ever used one to make that statement (I think Not!) or are you just reading reviews and have No experience with Sony Mirrorless cameras?

markwilliam1

So you’re talking about microseconds? Get real nothing my eyes would notice or yours either! Don’t be a mirrorless hater. Move on Man.

jcboy3

Of course you don't need to read test results and usage reports from experienced photographers. You are a sony fanatic.

They have to have a lag; matter of physics and such. It's just a matter of how much. The articles I reference show that it is noticeable and can impact results.

No, I don't own sony mirrorless cameras. But I've used them; they lag.

Please note that I do not capitalize sony. I am not a believer.

markwilliam1

I’m not a Sony fanatic I’m just a Real user! I don’t capitalize anything. Just what Sony cameras have you used that displays lag Please? Or Any modern Mirrorless camera as you think I’m a Sony fanatic. And especially provide some type of personal proof that lag is “noticeable and can impact results.” Are you not a believer in Sony or Mirrorless in general?

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

There is only one reason to buy mirrorless if you are happy with what you already have; because you want to. It really is that simple.
Technobabble aside, a mirrorless camera will give you pretty much the same result as any other camera.
People go on and on about how mirrorless is the future and DSLR'S are dead and blah, blah, blah. Fact is, mirrorless cameras have been around long before the DSLR. WHAT all the fan boys just said! Yes, longer than the DSLR. A mirrorless camera is simply a camera that doesn't have a mirror; it's that simple. All bridge cameras are mirrorless. All point and shoot cameras are mirrorless. You get my point. Then there are the MILC'S; we all know what that stands for and if you don't, look it up.
The Nikon Z7 is a marvelous camera. All the bells and whistles anyone could want and with 45 megapixels (yes, I know, it's almost 46), great IQ also. It's almost like the D850's mini me, though not quite. In many areas it out shines the D850, and in some, not so much. And why is it actually slower in live view (a rhetorical question), weird. For me, if I needed all those millions and millions of pixels I'd just grab my Canon EOS 5DSr.
Then there's the mirror slap argument. With all those megapixels, the mirror slap will degrade your IQ. Again, my 5DSr; more megapixels and no mirror slap. With all the engineering Canon put into eliminating the mirror slap, eliminating the mirror all together seems a bit more practical to me.
Then there's the whole, it's only got one card slot argument. Yeah, one XQD card slot; and I've never heard of one of them failing. Not saying it can't happen but odds are it won't. And if you're that afraid of card failure, tether the camera to a recording device of your choice, that's what many of the Pro's do. And you even have options for tethering, wired or wireless. Take photos with your MILC and send them instantly to your cell phone. Yeah, well, it's battery gives out after around 320 or 330 shots and the D850 is good for up to around 1800 shots. The Z7 is all electronic and the battery is relatively small, buy a bunch of them. They're small, they will fit in your pocket.
Then we have the folks at Canon toss us a curve ball. We have the EF, EF-S, EF-M and the (EF-R?) RF mounts. It's pretty easy to figure out what the M stands for but the R? Really confusing? Right choice? Ridiculous amount of AF points? Will the RF mount make the fledgling EF-M mount obsolete? What the heck, Canon!?
I've read a whole lot on the EOS-R and in print it's a really nice camera. It's auto focus system is pretty darn amazing and its IQ is as good as the 5D mk IV. But why should I rush out and buy one, or any mirrorless interchangeable lens camera?! Well, I do have the Canon EOS M50 and the EF to EF-M adapter.
Eventually I will more than likely get a full frame MILC but I believe I will wait until it matures a bit more. Well, what about Sony, they've been at it, MILC full frame, for a while now?
I don't have any lenses that will directly mount a Sony body. There are adapters but Canon, Nikon and Sony use different protocols in their cameras and lenses. Canon and Nikon both earn large percentages of income from selling cameras and lenses. They are not in the business of giving income to the competition, like Sony. One way they do this is by not sharing their proprietary protocols with the competition. If you are using a Canon lens on a Sony body, that lens isn't necessarily operating as effectively as it could on a Canon body because, Canon didn't share their protocols with Sony, Sony had to figure them out and what if they aren't 100% correct, just close enough to be functional (another rhetorical question)?
Yeah, I have no compelling reason to rush out and buy the first generation of cutting edge (bleeding edge) technology. It's good technology but the next version will be that much better. Remember the Canon 5D mk II, it pretty much started DSLR video that's evolved into the whole vlogosphere we have today.
I will buy another MILC not because DSLR'S are dead, that's perposterous, I will buy because I want to. It's that simple.

jcboy3

I posted links with proof. Read them or don't.

If you had read my post, you would have seen a large number of benefits for mirrorless that I see. I shoot mirrorless 85% of the time.

You don't want to think there are any drawbacks to mirrorless? Fine. Others can make their own decisions.

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

I'm just commenting on the whole lag issue. The current or newest iteration of electronic cameras really have little to no appreciable lag at all. This is not new technology and electricity travels somewhere around 186,000 miles per second, right up there around the speed light traveles. With newer more efficient batteries and circuitry, shutter lag is pretty much a plague of the past. I know from personal experience that on most, if not all, of my newer cameras, you press the shutter button and it goes, click, no waiting, no missed photographs. If there is any lag it's measured in Nths of a second and anyone who has a problem with that is simply Nit picking.

Bill_de Loc: US

I am not a fan of Sony, nor do I have anything against them. Their cheering section is another story. I have a Nikon Z6 on order.

Looking at the three links you posted I'm not certain they were testing the latest models. If not, the reviews are meaningless today. Technology moves fast.

Beyond that, while the test did show some viewfinder lag, the numbers were so small I doubt they would make a difference in actual shooting.

Of course with a DSLR there is a lag between the last thing we see before the mirror flips up and what the sensor sees.

I am happy that with all the turmoil in the world we have time to discuss these time lapses as if they really matter.


---

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

I'm not sure this makes a whole lot of sense. Every EVF I own is basically about the same size as your standard OVF. I'm not talking the mechanics or hardware behind it, I'm talking the size of the viewing port you put your eye up to.
You actually mixed two different aspects of EVF vs OVF. With an EVF, you see the image modified as it will be recorded by the camera based on available light and settings. With OVF you see the image as it is with just available light, no modifications based on camera settings. Both EVF and OVF have that small eye peice you speak of. Its just that the EVF is more like a tiny little TV.

jcboy3

As I said in my original post, these issues were being improved. It's something to consider if it is important. Getting all bent out of shape over the issue is just stupid.

jcboy3

This post shows a total misunderstanding of the issue. There is not a direct connection between the sensor and the display. The sensor RAW output has to be converted to imaging RGB by a computer, and then fed to the display in the display refresh cycle (which takes time). All of this takes time. Newer technology has speeded it up, just a question of whether it's fast enough. But there is NO WAY to eliminate the lag.

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

I'm with you. I'm not a Sony, Canon, Nikon or any other manufacturer fan boy, and I do own cameras made by all three companies mentioned. The whole flipping mirror, electronic view finder, time lag issue is really pretty much irrelevant in the vast number of photo opertunities many of the folks here will encounter. The lag time on any modern camera is so small, most people don't even notice it.

The fan boys just look at statistics and start quoting numbers in an attempt to justify being fan boys. None of it really matters. It's ok that someone owns and likes their Sony, or Nikon or Panasonic without having to justify it by convincing everyone else they made a better choice than I did. You didn't make a better choice, you made a different choice, and that's ok.

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

I will repeat something I mentioned in a prior reply. Electricity travels almost the same speed as light, one hundred and eighty six thousand miles per second, that's 186,000 mps. How far do you believe the circuitry distance is from the shutter release button, through all the circuits, to the shutter mechanism. I'll give you a hint, it's measured in inches which puts it in the realm of nano seconds. Convert that distance to time and you have a very, very small number.
You may not be able to eliminate the lag but you can make it so small it is totally irrelevant.
By the way, it's not technically a computer, it's a micro processor. Yes, there is a difference.
You mean to tell me there isn't a little wire running from the sensor to the display?
That RGB thing, are we talking adode Red Green Blue or sRBG, that would be standard, the RGB standard for the past 20 or so years?!