Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
I can imagine the pointless holy online wars of metric vs. Imperial, and string vs. cable.
In some people's minds, there can only be one correct answer.
videogamemaker
Well-known
Is the wake to ready time really not published anywhere? As a rough guesstimate, would you you all say it's over 1 second?
krötenblender
Well-known
Thanks for being ontopic again...
I searched a lot through the web (hahaa! I did'n say "I googled"! - Oops...), but found nothing helpful. I think, the question doesn't really matter to the most people. It bothers me, so I did ask here, but obviously, most owners don't know either. The best answer, yet, was the 0.7 seconds wakeup-time.
I really like the quickness of old manual film-cameras and like to have that on a DRF after an hour or longer of not taking a picture. Sometime somethings pops up before my eye and then I just want to press the button without any wakeup-time. So I guess, when I'm buying a M9 or something like that, I also buy some spare batteries and switch power-save-mode off.
The R-D1 can't do that, after max. 20 minutes, it goes to sleep.
250swb
Well-known
Absolutely. If you are so hardcore that wake up time is a problem ( the time taken to half press the button while lifting the camera to your eye) just don't switch the camera off. Its all any sensible person would do in the same circumstance. In that .7 of a second I can't think what I'd be doing other than lifting the camera to my eye and then focusing the image, but you may be able to do it quicker than me. I often find focusing and composing take much longer than that, which makes the wake up time seem inconsequential. There are always good reasons not to buy a camera, maybe you found one that works for you.
Steve
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
It is in the official spec. 0.7 sec. The same for the M8, but that one keeps switching on stuff and blinking for some time after shooting readiness, confusing users and reviewers alike.
sojournerphoto
Veteran
It turns on faster than I focus. It's not as fast as an Ikon or 1Ds3, but it's fast enough for my real world use. I only notice it if I don't half press the shutter when I pick it up - that's annoying and I'm learning to eliminate the bad habit.
krötenblender
Well-known
No, I'm not, but with 15mm on f8 and shooting from the hip sometimes, I don't need time to focus. - If I take a slow picture with composing the frame and focusing, the wakeup-time wouldn't matter.
This issue is not the most essential for me (as I wrote, I love the much slower R-D1), but I'm interested, because the difference here between digital and analog RFs often seem so big to me.
videogamemaker
Well-known
but .7 doesn't seem that long? My dslr is .2 and it might as well be instant on. I know .7 is 3.5x longer, but anything under than a second seems fast-ish, right?
I would have thought it would be over 1 second for how much a few reviews seemed to harp on "slow" wake up time.
Last edited:
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
It is really slightly hilarious - for instance Michael Kamber hammered the M8 in his first "fieldreport" for slow wakeup time,and praised the M9 for being fast in his recent one on the M9. In fact the only difference is that on the M8 he insisted on waiting until the camera stopped blinking to use it -the times are exactly the same.....
krötenblender
Well-known
I have to say, that I have read quite a few articles on the M9, but none of them said something about being slow or fast switched on. My question came from my observation with analog versus digital cameras. Except for DSLRs digital cameras have pretty long wakeup or ready-to-shoot-times compared to the old ones. - The issue will not keep me from buying a camera, when I really want it. I just wondered... And it's a small issue, that bothered me sometimes.
Well, from a technical point of view, there might be no difference. But if I'm holding a camera in my hand, that flickers like crazy after wakeup, I have the feeling, that it's not ready somehow. It doesn't pay full attention to me and my wishes and the blinkenlights irritates me. Whereas the same camera without light might be fast enough.
Reminds me at the times, when I used to carry wristwatches. They were mostly cheap digital ones. The first thing, I did with all of them after buying was to open them and cut the wires to the little piezo-speakers...
Klyment
Member
For me, the M9's startup time is more tolerable than its shot-to-shot time. While it may be faster than shooting, manually winding, and shooting again on something like an M7 at least with the M7 I felt like I wasn't just sitting there pressing the shutter release like crazy waiting on the camera to do its job. I wish that the M9 had manual film advance/shutter cocking. It could lead to slightly better battery life and an overall quieter camera, too. I hate how it sounds like a point and shoot film camera.
The few times that I've used the M9 I'm down to about 25% battery about 300 shots in over a period of about four to six hours. Review is off and I turn off the camera whenever I can. It almost feels as if start up takes a disproportionately large amount of energy. And I feel that its standby mode is far less efficient than any current or even previous generation dSLR.
The few times that I've used the M9 I'm down to about 25% battery about 300 shots in over a period of about four to six hours. Review is off and I turn off the camera whenever I can. It almost feels as if start up takes a disproportionately large amount of energy. And I feel that its standby mode is far less efficient than any current or even previous generation dSLR.