Does "Start up time" matter anymore?

[EcoRick]

As I read reviews on cameras, I see this stat and wonder why it even exists anymore. Do you think with todays cameras it makes difference? I haven't seen one thread that complains about start up time being too slow. Does anyone have an idea why this exists?

[opus13]

i think with the lower end models, yes. when i can 'jump into action' with my cam, and instantly just hit the button and snap away, i can get shots that a 1.5 second model just cant. sometimes its just that little pause that makes the difference between 'awesome' and 'almost'.

[Davidoff]

Still, even low end dslr's are well below 1.5 seconds. I think this is more relevant on p&s, although buyers still want to know all the specs on the DSlr's.

[lungdoc]

Only an issue with P&S as far as I'm aware.

[EcoRick]

I was reading a review of Nikon's D3 (just bored) in Shutterbug and noticed that they pointed out a start up time of .12 seconds. Who cares? I've never checked what Canon's start up times are and probably never will.

[bieber]

I remember it very much mattering when I was working with a 10D. With the 20D or newer, seems to me the camera's ready before I can go from finger-on-switch to eye-at-viewfinder...

[DStanic]

This is one of the reasons I went from P&S to DSLR.. lol

[watchtherocks]

If you're shooting sports, then yeah, the startup time matters. I've missed a few shots here and there with the 20D, so I've got to remember to depress the shutter slightly as the surfer stands up, and not when he's going for the lip. But the only other two times I could imagine start-up time being a problem would be street photography and wildlife shots. But even then, 0.2 of a second shouldn't matter all that much.

[bieber]

Heh, I probably should have mentioned that I compulsively half-press my shutter button...frequently...