EVF lag in Canon miror-less cameras

For those of you who are shooting with RF mount cameras how bad is the lag between what the sensor is picking up and what you see in the EVF, or is it pretty much instantaneous? The reason I ask is that I shoot a lot of critters that are in motion, so any lag between what the sensor is gonna record and what I see in the EVF is gonna be a buzz kill. This female Sweat Bee isn't sleeping, she's using her mandibles to strip pollen out of a Sourgrass anther and then she pushes it back to her abdomen. If I switch to mirror-less I still want to get these kind of shots:

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2iSp​G86

Think about this process...

1. Sensor gets light striking sensels
   
2. A readout of the lines of sensels has to occur
   
3. Conversion of the sensel data to RGB pixel JPG data has to be done by the processor in order to have a presentable image
   
4. RGB JPG data is sent to the LCD display memory
   
5. image appears on the EVF (or the Live View LCD)
   

Wilt wrote in post #19069894
Think about this process...

1. Sensor gets light striking sensels
   
2. A readout of the lines of sensels has to occur
   
3. Conversion of the sensel data to RGB pixel JPG data has to be done by the processor in order to have a presentable image
   
4. RGB JPG data is sent to the LCD display memory
   
5. image appears on the EVF (or the Live View LCD)
   

...that whole sequence is repeated about 60 Hz or 120Hz, depending upon the brand & model of camera.

One brand of camera reads alternating lines on one pass and it updates those lines in the display, and then the other set of alternating lines it reads and it then updates those second set of lines, so the apparent EVF reflesh rate is better than the true actual rate of one full screen refresh.
So the real answer, once again, is 'It depends'.

And then you also have another characteristic which varies from camera brand & model to another...whether there is viewfinder blackout at the time of exposure, and whether or not the camera is made so that the last frame is frozen on the EVF for any period of time...further obscuring the realtime nature of the EVF image. Once again, 'It depends'.

None of that sounds good.

Having used a few evf cameras now, I believe that the delay between the photographers eyes and getting the signal to the finger to press the shutter along with general shutter delay is significantly longer than any delay introduced via the evf. I was never able to see any delay at all but try it. Put your current camera in LV mode and see if the delay is a deal breaker.

gjl711 wrote in post #19069912
Having used a few evf cameras now, I believe that the delay between the photographers eyes and getting the signal to the finger to press the shutter along with general shutter delay is significantly longer than any delay introduced via the evf. I was never able to see any delay at all but try it. Put your current camera in LV mode and see if the delay is a deal breaker.

Good idea.

I don't have any RF camera. (Yet. My history says that I'll end up with one, but haven't pulled that trigger yet.)

I *do* have an M5, which is an early version and presumably stripped down in every way compared to an RF body.

In weak light, there is a perceptible delay which is worse with movement in the entire frame (like shifting the camera) compared to movement of something within the frame. I don't know if the delay is a deal-breaker or not.

In good light, the latency is very low and I wouldn't assume any problem at all.

If the RF bodies are an improvement over the M5, then it seems your concerns would be eased.

Can’t talk for RF, but my experience with Sony has been only positive.

ECC233 wrote in post #19069938
Can’t talk for RF, but my experience with Sony has been only positive.

Sony makes some 120Hz EVF, and some 60Hz (or unspecified refresh rate) EVF...it would be more useful to know WHICH Sony you have.
Your kind of response from an A9 owner is 'not surprising' (at 120Hz); your kind of response from an A6000 owner is, on the other hand, informative.

Yes .. sorry!

I use an a92 and a7r4. The majority of macro work is with the a7r4. My instinct (and I have no timings) is that in the way I work, the biggest delays are (i) between my brain and shutter finger and (ii) the delay between pressing the shutter release and the flash firing. The latter is probably the greatest, especially if I have a wireless connection to a twin flash or off camera flash.

Hope this helps a bit. Looking forward to seeing what you decide.

Both the A9 and the A7RIII (and IV) have 120 Hz refresh rate for the EVF.

The last A7R with 60 Hz EVF refresh was the A7RII. The A6600 EVF can work at 120Hz (100Hz if you are in PAL mode) but the A7 has a refresh rate of about 60Hz. Just some examples of 'It depends'.

ECC233 wrote in post #19070074
Yes .. sorry!

I use an a92 and a7r4. The majority of macro work is with the a7r4. My instinct (and I have no timings) is that in the way I work, the biggest delays are (i) between my brain and shutter finger and (ii) the delay between pressing the shutter release and the flash firing. The latter is probably the greatest, especially if I have a wireless connection to a twin flash or off camera flash.

Hope this helps a bit. Looking forward to seeing what you decide.

That's very helpful, thanks! The lag between starting to press the shutter to the flash firing has bit me a few times as well, especially when shooting above 2x with a thin depth of field.

dasmith232 wrote in post #19069919
I don't have any RF camera. (Yet. My history says that I'll end up with one, but haven't pulled that trigger yet.)

I *do* have an M5, which is an early version and presumably stripped down in every way compared to an RF body.

In weak light, there is a perceptible delay which is worse with movement in the entire frame (like shifting the camera) compared to movement of something within the frame. I don't know if the delay is a deal-breaker or not.

In good light, the latency is very low and I wouldn't assume any problem at all.

If the RF bodies are an improvement over the M5, then it seems your concerns would be eased.

It hadn't occurred to me the delay might increase with low light levels but it makes sense; that is a major issue for macro potentially.