Is A95 as slow as the test model in store?

[tgrllyct]

Am trying to decide between the A95, Sony DSC-W1 or a Kodak DC camera. One thing turning me off from the A95 is when testing it in the store, it takes 3 seconds from time of pushing shutter to actually take the picture. Does anyone have any experience with this? The A95 seems slower to actually take the picture than the other cameras I've tried (which are rather "instant" shots).

I love the reputation of Canon, but this is something that I'm concerned with, as I don't want closed eyes and "deer in headlights" grins from people who are holding their smile for so long just to have a picture taken!

Please advise..........and thank you in advance! :)

[Newbie]

I doubt its the fastest, but it is FAR from being as slow as you say it is, unless the shutter speed was set to something like 1 second or even worst, below 1.5sec(since it takes 2 exposures for noise reduction).

I own the A95 and it suits my needs, takes great pictures. As most digicams, its not the best in dim light, but its performance are still pleasing me.

[Jon]

I had exactly the same experience when I tested them in the shop. I compared Canon A95, Sony w1, Nikon 5200, Casio Exlim 350?. Sadly, the A95 was by far the worst at autofocus time. I don't care what the reviews say, it took longer than the 0.85 second I saw quoted. I would say 2-3 secs to AF and take the picture was accurate. I tried all the AF modes to see if some were slower than others - they all seem the same. Absolutely no chance of taking pics of kids, which is what I wanted it for. Shame. I liked everyhting else about it. I went for the W1 in the end - you can't beat the speed and responsiveness. I thought the Nikon 5200 and Casio were also responsive; again, reviews said the Nikon was worse than average shutter lag - well I thought it was a close 2nd= along with the Casio.