I ran some more tests today. Last night's trial was 5 shots for each
category. Today I did 10 shots each, and added the Leica M8 just for
fun. Averages were:
E-M5, EVF on "Normal" frame rate (120 fps):-----319 ms
E-M5, EVF on "Fast" frame rate (240 fps):-------255 ms
E-M5, Bare-eyed:--------------------------------223 ms
Leica M8:---------------------------------------206 ms
There is less difference between the categories than last night, but it
does seem that the Fast EVF frame rate does help significantly. What's
also interesting is that the Leica M8 timings varied more widely than
any of the E-M5 timings. I attribute this to the M8's "notchy" shutter
release.
I had no problem with watching the clock to "count up" to each shot,
because I wasn't trying to measure my reaction time. I was trying to
give myself the best chance of hitting the shutter at the right instant
so I would be measuring the camera's contribution as much as possible.
I don't think the absolute numbers tell us much, because my variable
reaction time is one of the components. However, I think it's safe to
say that the E-M5 Fast EVF does win over the Normal frame rate, and it's
not much worse than viewing the scene bare-eyed. And while the Leica M8
wins on average overall, sometimes it doesn't when we get down to
individual shots.
--Peter
> Thank you, C.H.! I had tried an LCD stopwatch/calculator I had, but
it only has 1/10 second granularity, so it
> wasn't useful. So I used the metronome. What I've just learned makes
me think that the metronome's flashing light
> is too "fuzzy" a cue. I didn't think of an online stopwatch.
>
> I just did a few quick trials after I read your message. I started
the online stopwatch, then watched the screen > either through the
viewfinder or bare-eyed, and pressed the shutter the instant I saw the
10-second mark appear. > The averages of a few shots apiece were:
>
> EVF on "standard" frame rate (120 fps): 394 ms
> EVF on "Fast" frame rate (240 fps): 266 ms
> Bare-eyed: 238 ms
>
> And the individual scores within a category were very close. So it
looks like the Fast frame rate *does* help a > lot. It's late here, so
I'll confirm this with more trials soon. Supposedly fast frame rate can
have some
> consequences re. grainy EVF images and autofocus accuracy in dim
light, so I'll have to see how well it does in
> real-live shooting. But if the numbers above hold up, the Fast frame
rate could be the solution. Evidently the
> metronome's flashing light was too "fuzzy" a cue.
>
> --Peter
>
>
> C.H. wrote:
>
> > I use a simple way to check the system response time, run a online
stopwatch
> > like this one:
> >
> > http://stopwatch.onlineclock.net/
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|