Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Anti-shake does work

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 8:21:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

I was in a local camera store and they
had an anti-shake demonstration setup
consisting of a vibrating platform
and a WS flat panel split into two
sides. The vibration was clearly demonstrated
with the table on, but the Panasonics they were
using really did remove the vibration, to a large
extent. It was impressive.
Given the 12x zoom of Panasonic's somewhat underbuilt
camera, they probably figured if they didn't provide
this feature, people would be returning the camera
in droves because of blurry shots.
-Rich

More about : anti shake work

Anonymous
April 22, 2005 9:07:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

RichA wrote:

> with the table on, but the Panasonics they were
> using really did remove the vibration, to a large
> extent. It was impressive.

I'd like to see the same test with an A1/A2 or Max 7D... I would bet
that the Panasonic edges out the Minolta's by about a stop of shutter speed.

> Given the 12x zoom of Panasonic's somewhat underbuilt
> camera, they probably figured if they didn't provide


A friend (retired photog) has one. I bumped into him at the store a few
weeks ago. Given the performance of the beastie, it is amazing how
light and unsubstantial feeling it is...

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 9:26:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 17:07:06 -0400, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

>RichA wrote:
>
>> with the table on, but the Panasonics they were
>> using really did remove the vibration, to a large
>> extent. It was impressive.
>
>I'd like to see the same test with an A1/A2 or Max 7D... I would bet
>that the Panasonic edges out the Minolta's by about a stop of shutter speed.
>
>> Given the 12x zoom of Panasonic's somewhat underbuilt
>> camera, they probably figured if they didn't provide
>
>
>A friend (retired photog) has one. I bumped into him at the store a few
>weeks ago. Given the performance of the beastie, it is amazing how
>light and unsubstantial feeling it is...
>
>Cheers,
>Alan

I just couldn't bring myself to buy something that seemed like it was
made of the cheapest polystyrene available. But, some of the lenses
on these camera seem pretty good and the results are decent.
-Rich
Related resources
Anonymous
April 23, 2005 1:26:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 17:07:06 -0400, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> RichA wrote:
>
>> Given the 12x zoom of Panasonic's somewhat underbuilt
>> camera, they probably figured if they didn't provide [anti-shake ...]
>
> A friend (retired photog) has one. I bumped into him at the store a few
> weeks ago.

And, did the anti-shake work?

--
Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
--Josh Micah Marshall
Anonymous
April 23, 2005 2:06:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Ben Rosengart wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 17:07:06 -0400, Alan Browne
> <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>> RichA wrote:
>>
>>> Given the 12x zoom of Panasonic's somewhat underbuilt
>>> camera, they probably figured if they didn't provide [anti-shake
>>> ...]
>>
>> A friend (retired photog) has one. I bumped into him at the store a
>> few weeks ago.
>
> And, did the anti-shake work?

Yes, the anti-shake on the Panasonics works very well indeed.

David
Anonymous
April 23, 2005 2:10:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Alan Browne wrote:
> RichA wrote:
>
>> with the table on, but the Panasonics they were
>> using really did remove the vibration, to a large
>> extent. It was impressive.
>
> I'd like to see the same test with an A1/A2 or Max 7D... I would bet
> that the Panasonic edges out the Minolta's by about a stop of shutter
> speed.

Alan, I'm unsure what you mean here - are you saying you think the
Panasonic anti-shake is better than the Minolta? I do wonder if the range
of the anti-shake on in-the-lens implementation might cover a greater
offset at the long end of the zoom range than the in-the-camera
implementation, because of the limited movement of the CCD.

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
April 23, 2005 2:10:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

David J Taylor wrote:

>
> Alan, I'm unsure what you mean here - are you saying you think the
> Panasonic anti-shake is better than the Minolta? I do wonder if the range
> of the anti-shake on in-the-lens implementation might cover a greater
> offset at the long end of the zoom range than the in-the-camera
> implementation, because of the limited movement of the CCD.

I do believe the Panasonic image stab is better than Minolta for the
simple reason that it (like Canon and Nikon) use an optical element to
acheive the correction during movement, whereas Minolta move the CCD
around. I don't believe the Minolta A-S is optically correct during
correction, where the optical methods are. Since most camera shake is
pitch and yaw (rotation), moving the CCD in a plane cannot be optically
correct (IMLTAO). It's also more mass to move (a CCD) so possibly
bandwidth limited v. the shake being given.

It has been shown that the Canon and Nikon IS/VR are good for about 2.5
to 3 stops under "rule-of-thumb" handholding. The Minolta A-S goes to
about 2 stops. IAC magazine tests have shown mixed results at 2 and 3
stops slower than "rule of thumb", and more consistant results with the
Canon and Nikon approach. I do assume that the Panasonic is as good in
this respect as the Canon and Nikon IS/VR systems.

A-S is a compromise. I'm happy to have it (though I really haven't
exercised it fully to find the limits).

Cheers,
Alan



--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
April 23, 2005 3:05:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Alan Browne wrote:
[]
> I do believe the Panasonic image stab is better than Minolta for the
> simple reason that it (like Canon and Nikon) use an optical element to
> acheive the correction during movement, whereas Minolta move the CCD
> around. I don't believe the Minolta A-S is optically correct during
> correction, where the optical methods are. Since most camera shake is
> pitch and yaw (rotation), moving the CCD in a plane cannot be
> optically correct (IMLTAO). It's also more mass to move (a CCD) so
> possibly bandwidth limited v. the shake being given.

Thanks, Alan, we are in agreement, then. I do wonder if the A-S in the
smaller cameras may be even more effective because of the smaller mass of
the elements. Doubtless they use smaller motors, though! As to moving
the CCD being optically incorrect, isn't it just a matter of designing the
lenses to have a larger image circle? You almost get this automatically
on a less-than-full-frame DSLR.

I'm completely convinced by A-S, I would not buy a camera without it
unless there was a very good reason.

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
April 23, 2005 11:33:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

You just got me thinking. (Ouch!) Would an IS lens coupled to an IS body
provide essentially twice the image stabilization? They might enhance each
other, but they might also be fighting each other. I think they're inertial
based, but I'm not sure. Some CCDs provide image stabilization by keeping
the image stable. ie, it's not inertial.

Any thoughts?

I took some hand held shots of glowing coals with my 7D. SS 1/4". I was
sitting and well braced with the lens at about 70mm. Most came out very
sharp with no discernable shake.

mike

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:D 4buhl$qa2$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
> David J Taylor wrote:
>
>>
>> Alan, I'm unsure what you mean here - are you saying you think the
>> Panasonic anti-shake is better than the Minolta? I do wonder if the
>> range of the anti-shake on in-the-lens implementation might cover a
>> greater offset at the long end of the zoom range than the in-the-camera
>> implementation, because of the limited movement of the CCD.
>
> I do believe the Panasonic image stab is better than Minolta for the
> simple reason that it (like Canon and Nikon) use an optical element to
> acheive the correction during movement, whereas Minolta move the CCD
> around. I don't believe the Minolta A-S is optically correct during
> correction, where the optical methods are. Since most camera shake is
> pitch and yaw (rotation), moving the CCD in a plane cannot be optically
> correct (IMLTAO). It's also more mass to move (a CCD) so possibly
> bandwidth limited v. the shake being given.
>
> It has been shown that the Canon and Nikon IS/VR are good for about 2.5 to
> 3 stops under "rule-of-thumb" handholding. The Minolta A-S goes to about
> 2 stops. IAC magazine tests have shown mixed results at 2 and 3 stops
> slower than "rule of thumb", and more consistant results with the Canon
> and Nikon approach. I do assume that the Panasonic is as good in this
> respect as the Canon and Nikon IS/VR systems.
>
> A-S is a compromise. I'm happy to have it (though I really haven't
> exercised it fully to find the limits).
>
> Cheers,
> Alan
>
>
>
> --
> -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
> -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
> -- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
> -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
> -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
April 23, 2005 3:53:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Alan Browne wrote:
> David J Taylor wrote:
>
>>
>> Alan, I'm unsure what you mean here - are you saying you think the
>> Panasonic anti-shake is better than the Minolta? I do wonder if the
>> range of the anti-shake on in-the-lens implementation might cover a
>> greater offset at the long end of the zoom range than the
>> in-the-camera implementation, because of the limited movement of the CCD.
>
>
> I do believe the Panasonic image stab is better than Minolta for the
> simple reason that it (like Canon and Nikon) use an optical element to
> acheive the correction during movement, whereas Minolta move the CCD
> around. I don't believe the Minolta A-S is optically correct during
> correction, where the optical methods are. Since most camera shake is
> pitch and yaw (rotation), moving the CCD in a plane cannot be optically
> correct (IMLTAO). It's also more mass to move (a CCD) so possibly
> bandwidth limited v. the shake being given.
>
> It has been shown that the Canon and Nikon IS/VR are good for about 2.5
> to 3 stops under "rule-of-thumb" handholding. The Minolta A-S goes to
> about 2 stops. IAC magazine tests have shown mixed results at 2 and 3
> stops slower than "rule of thumb", and more consistant results with the
> Canon and Nikon approach. I do assume that the Panasonic is as good in
> this respect as the Canon and Nikon IS/VR systems.
>
> A-S is a compromise. I'm happy to have it (though I really haven't
> exercised it fully to find the limits).
>
> Cheers,
> Alan
>


It doesn't matter what you believe. What is the actual situation? From
the reviews of the KM 7D that I've read, they say it works as well as
Canon's and Nikon's.

Clyde
Anonymous
April 23, 2005 4:27:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

mike regish wrote:
> You just got me thinking. (Ouch!) Would an IS lens coupled to an IS
> body provide essentially twice the image stabilization? They might
> enhance each other, but they might also be fighting each other. I
> think they're inertial based, but I'm not sure. Some CCDs provide
> image stabilization by keeping the image stable. ie, it's not
> inertial.
> Any thoughts?
>
> I took some hand held shots of glowing coals with my 7D. SS 1/4". I
> was sitting and well braced with the lens at about 70mm. Most came
> out very sharp with no discernable shake.
>
> mike

First reaction is that they would fight each other like crazy, as they are
both inertial systems. However, as you hint, adding electronic image
stabilisation on top of an inertial system should certainly be possible.
Who's going to be first to demonstrate this?

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
April 23, 2005 6:17:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

David J Taylor wrote:
> Alan Browne wrote:
> []
>
>>I do believe the Panasonic image stab is better than Minolta for the
>>simple reason that it (like Canon and Nikon) use an optical element to
>>acheive the correction during movement, whereas Minolta move the CCD
>>around. I don't believe the Minolta A-S is optically correct during
>>correction, where the optical methods are. Since most camera shake is
>>pitch and yaw (rotation), moving the CCD in a plane cannot be
>>optically correct (IMLTAO). It's also more mass to move (a CCD) so
>>possibly bandwidth limited v. the shake being given.
>
>
> Thanks, Alan, we are in agreement, then. I do wonder if the A-S in the
> smaller cameras may be even more effective because of the smaller mass of
> the elements. Doubtless they use smaller motors, though! As to moving
> the CCD being optically incorrect, isn't it just a matter of designing the
> lenses to have a larger image circle? You almost get this automatically
> on a less-than-full-frame DSLR.

I'm not convinced of this argument because the plane of the sensor is
being tilted wrt the desired scene focus plane. So moving the sensor
keeps the image components in the right place but the focus field cannot
be right. I believe the optical method is more accurate in correction
in this sense. Also of course, A/S works well at shorter focla lengths
and not at long. The IS/VR (Canon/Nikon) has the IS for that particular
lens and its focal lenght(s).

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
April 23, 2005 6:26:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

mike regish wrote:

> You just got me thinking. (Ouch!) Would an IS lens coupled to an IS body
> provide essentially twice the image stabilization? They might enhance each
> other, but they might also be fighting each other. I think they're inertial
> based, but I'm not sure. Some CCDs provide image stabilization by keeping
> the image stable. ie, it's not inertial.

It is inertial. The sensors are not accelerometers, but gyros, but that
is because the shake is mainly pitch and yaw. The A/S (Minolta) travels
in a plane movement, however.

Potentially, if the IS (lens) was rotation correctiong only (gyros), and
the A/S (body) was plane correcting only (accelerometers) then an
optimum could be reached as they would be de-coupled (or vert carefully
coupled).


>
> Any thoughts?
>
> I took some hand held shots of glowing coals with my 7D. SS 1/4". I was
> sitting and well braced with the lens at about 70mm. Most came out very
> sharp with no discernable shake.

Try it on a contrasty/detailled subject in brighter light where your
shutter speed is at 1/4 of the focal length. (eg: 1/25 for a 100mm
lens). Shoot 10 frames with A/S.

I bet your hit rate will be about 50 - 75% for shots that will print at
8x10.

Then take that shutter speed down to 1/13 and try again.

Hit rate will be about 10 - 20% (I'm guessing, haven't tried it).

Maybe we should have a compiment to the shoot-in, call it the "shake
down" and see who can produce the sharpest VR/IS/A-S images...

Cheers,
Alan.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
April 23, 2005 6:27:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Clyde wrote:

>
> It doesn't matter what you believe. What is the actual situation? From
> the reviews of the KM 7D that I've read, they say it works as well as
> Canon's and Nikon's.

Please indicate the reviews with links. 'Cause every review I've read
has put IS/VR about 1 stop better than A-S. My own (less than careful)
tests with A/S (Max 7D) have shown it to be hit and miss at 3 stops or
more slower than rule-of-thumb speed.

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 11:55:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Alan Browne wrote:
> David J Taylor wrote:
[]
>> Thanks, Alan, we are in agreement, then. I do wonder if the A-S in
>> the smaller cameras may be even more effective because of the
>> smaller mass of the elements. Doubtless they use smaller motors,
>> though! As to moving the CCD being optically incorrect, isn't it
>> just a matter of designing the lenses to have a larger image circle?
>> You almost get this automatically on a less-than-full-frame DSLR.
>
> I'm not convinced of this argument because the plane of the sensor is
> being tilted wrt the desired scene focus plane. So moving the sensor
> keeps the image components in the right place but the focus field
> cannot be right. I believe the optical method is more accurate in
> correction in this sense. Also of course, A/S works well at shorter
> focla lengths and not at long. The IS/VR (Canon/Nikon) has the IS
> for that particular lens and its focal lenght(s).
>
> Cheers,
> Alan

I don't understand what you mean by "tiilted". Isn't it just that the
image circle of the lens needs to be bigger than the diameter of the
sensor by the amount of offset that the A/S might produce? And isn't that
rather neatly achieved by using a less than 35mm full frame sensor, but
restricting the camera to 35mm lenses? With the optical method, don't you
have a lens with deliberate optical mis-alignment, i.e. one which will not
be as sharp unless the offset required for VR is zero?

If you are seeing about 3 stops allowable speed difference, that's about
as good as the other methods.

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 3:13:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

David J Taylor wrote:
> I don't understand what you mean by "tiilted". Isn't it just that the
> image circle of the lens needs to be bigger than the diameter of the
> sensor by the amount of offset that the A/S might produce? And isn't that

If the 'shake movement' was translational and not rotational, I'd agree.
But most shake is rotation in pitch and yaw where the the A/S is
correction in translation (y,z [lens axis being x]).

> rather neatly achieved by using a less than 35mm full frame sensor, but
> restricting the camera to 35mm lenses? With the optical method, don't you
> have a lens with deliberate optical mis-alignment, i.e. one which will not
> be as sharp unless the offset required for VR is zero?

Not sure. Look at how IS is achieved: a concave-flat lens group is
inserted in the lens near the nodal point (I believe). It moves in y
and z [v. lens axiz x], but because of its lens surfaces it naturally
corrects for a rotational movement. (I think).

> If you are seeing about 3 stops allowable speed difference, that's about
> as good as the other methods.

a) I haven't done a controlled study of this. b) the reviews top out
the Minolta A/S at about 2 stops v. about 3 stops for Canon/Nikon.

Cheers,
Alan.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 7:20:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Alan Browne wrote:
> David J Taylor wrote:
>> I don't understand what you mean by "tiilted". Isn't it just that
>> the image circle of the lens needs to be bigger than the diameter of
>> the sensor by the amount of offset that the A/S might produce? And
>> isn't that
>
> If the 'shake movement' was translational and not rotational, I'd
> agree. But most shake is rotation in pitch and yaw where the the A/S
> is correction in translation (y,z [lens axis being x]).
>
>> rather neatly achieved by using a less than 35mm full frame sensor,
>> but restricting the camera to 35mm lenses? With the optical method,
>> don't you have a lens with deliberate optical mis-alignment, i.e.
>> one which will not be as sharp unless the offset required for VR is
>> zero?
>
> Not sure. Look at how IS is achieved: a concave-flat lens group is
> inserted in the lens near the nodal point (I believe). It moves in y
> and z [v. lens axiz x], but because of its lens surfaces it naturally
> corrects for a rotational movement. (I think).

Alan, I've not looked into the optical details as deeply as you have. I
would expect that the angles corrected were so small that rotation and
translation amounted to the same thing. You have me slightly worried
about wide-angle A/S (compared to telephoto) though now!

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 7:20:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

David J Taylor wrote:

> Alan, I've not looked into the optical details as deeply as you have. I

I haven't looked that deeply. Just my perception of the Canon drawings
I've seen.

> would expect that the angles corrected were so small that rotation and
> translation amounted to the same thing. You have me slightly worried
> about wide-angle A/S (compared to telephoto) though now!

Be less worried as wide angle, as always, allows for a fairly low
shutter speed in the first place...

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 7:28:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:D 4gd2r$f1d$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
>
> If the 'shake movement' was translational and not rotational, I'd agree.
> But most shake is rotation in pitch and yaw where the the A/S is
> correction in translation (y,z [lens axis being x]).
>

How do you figure that 'most shake is rotation in pitch and yaw'?

If you have one hand under the lens and one on the camera, wouldn't the
camera be moving up/down left/right at the same rate at front and back so
the shake would infact be translational?

I could understand the shake being 'pitch/yaw' if you were talking about a
compact camera where the hands are on each side so the shake would be a
tilting and swigning motion
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 7:28:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

werdan wrote:

> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:D 4gd2r$f1d$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
>
>>If the 'shake movement' was translational and not rotational, I'd agree.
>>But most shake is rotation in pitch and yaw where the the A/S is
>>correction in translation (y,z [lens axis being x]).
>>
>
>
> How do you figure that 'most shake is rotation in pitch and yaw'?
>
> If you have one hand under the lens and one on the camera, wouldn't the
> camera be moving up/down left/right at the same rate at front and back so
> the shake would infact be translational?

No matter how well braced, pitch is the least controlled movement
followed by yaw. If you are very well braced, then they both might move
together as you say, but if you're very well braced you're going to get
fairly good shots anyway. Try shooting a 28-200 f/2.8 free hand for any
length of time and you will be pitchin' and yawin' like crazy as your
muscles fatique.

Cheers,
Alan



--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 8:03:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:D 4gf7u$n38$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
>
> No matter how well braced, pitch is the least controlled movement followed
> by yaw. If you are very well braced, then they both might move together
> as you say, but if you're very well braced you're going to get fairly good
> shots anyway. Try shooting a 28-200 f/2.8 free hand for any length of
> time and you will be pitchin' and yawin' like crazy as your muscles
> fatique.
>

I also suppose a lot of that comes from body sway which I didn't consider
before. Your feet are fixed to the ground but your upper body and head
aren't fixed to anything. Stiff hands & arms are one thing but unless you
can brace your body, you tend to swing inducing the pitch & yaw.

Oh well.
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 8:48:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Alan Browne wrote:
> David J Taylor wrote:
[]
>> would expect that the angles corrected were so small that rotation
>> and translation amounted to the same thing. You have me slightly
>> worried about wide-angle A/S (compared to telephoto) though now!
>
> Be less worried as wide angle, as always, allows for a fairly low
> shutter speed in the first place...

Yes, this is certainly true, but when I tested my first anti-shake system
(on a Minolta, by the way) I was most disappointed to find that it
wouldn't help in one area where I find I do take pictures - interiors with
around 1/10 .. 1/2 second exposure. These tend to be wide-angle, but the
A/S system simply indicated "sorry, I don't work at that shutter speed".
Perhaps with the relatively constant exit pupil of the optics it doesn't
matter for a sensor-based A/S system whether the true focal length is 20mm
or 200mm. Or perhaps it does as the short lenses are the ones with most
problems at the edge of the field (where the A/S system may move the
sensor).

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 8:48:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

David J Taylor wrote:

> Alan Browne wrote:

>>Be less worried as wide angle, as always, allows for a fairly low
>>shutter speed in the first place...
>
>
> Yes, this is certainly true, but when I tested my first anti-shake system
> (on a Minolta, by the way) I was most disappointed to find that it
> wouldn't help in one area where I find I do take pictures - interiors with
> around 1/10 .. 1/2 second exposure. These tend to be wide-angle, but the

I would hope interiors with 1/10 .. 1/2 s you are using a tripod,
shutter cable and 2s mirror up in any case?

> A/S system simply indicated "sorry, I don't work at that shutter speed".

Was it that polite? ;-)

> Perhaps with the relatively constant exit pupil of the optics it doesn't
> matter for a sensor-based A/S system whether the true focal length is 20mm
> or 200mm. Or perhaps it does as the short lenses are the ones with most
> problems at the edge of the field (where the A/S system may move the
> sensor).

eh? The sensor area is significantly smaller (1.5x cropped and a bit)
than the image circle, so I don't get what you're driving at.

AFAIK the Minolta A/S system does need to know the FL as part of the
overall A/S solution ... that little focus routine when the camera
starts up for exampe. (I wish they would do that only the first time
the A/S switch is on).

Cheers,
Alan.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
April 25, 2005 12:33:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Alan Browne wrote:
> David J Taylor wrote:
>
>> Alan Browne wrote:
>
>>> Be less worried as wide angle, as always, allows for a fairly low
>>> shutter speed in the first place...
>>
>>
>> Yes, this is certainly true, but when I tested my first anti-shake
>> system (on a Minolta, by the way) I was most disappointed to find
>> that it wouldn't help in one area where I find I do take pictures -
>> interiors with around 1/10 .. 1/2 second exposure. These tend to be
>> wide-angle, but the
>
> I would hope interiors with 1/10 .. 1/2 s you are using a tripod,
> shutter cable and 2s mirror up in any case?

Nope, I don't carry a tripod around and my cameras don't have mirrors. I
rely on being able to brace the camera somewhere but that's not always
possible.

>> A/S system simply indicated "sorry, I don't work at that shutter
>> speed".
>
> Was it that polite? ;-)

It was a Minolat, Alan, so of course it was polite! <G>

>> Perhaps with the relatively constant exit pupil of the optics it
>> doesn't matter for a sensor-based A/S system whether the true focal
>> length is 20mm or 200mm. Or perhaps it does as the short lenses are
>> the ones with most problems at the edge of the field (where the A/S
>> system may move the sensor).
>
> eh? The sensor area is significantly smaller (1.5x cropped and a bit)
> than the image circle, so I don't get what you're driving at.
>
> AFAIK the Minolta A/S system does need to know the FL as part of the
> overall A/S solution ... that little focus routine when the camera
> starts up for exampe. (I wish they would do that only the first time
> the A/S switch is on).

Meaning that at the telephoto end of the range the image circle is likely
to be in excess of the 35mm frame, but with wide angle lenses the image
circle is likely to be not as much in excess of the 35mm frame. I.e. you
might be able to move the sensor more when using a telephoto lens (to
stabilise the image) than you would when using a wide-angle lens. As you
said, you probably need less movement in any case, so the more limited
movement is OK.

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
April 25, 2005 12:33:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

David J Taylor wrote:

> Alan Browne wrote:
>>AFAIK the Minolta A/S system does need to know the FL as part of the
>>overall A/S solution ... that little focus routine when the camera
>>starts up for exampe. (I wish they would do that only the first time
>>the A/S switch is on).
>
>
> Meaning that at the telephoto end of the range the image circle is likely
> to be in excess of the 35mm frame, but with wide angle lenses the image
> circle is likely to be not as much in excess of the 35mm frame. I.e. you
> might be able to move the sensor more when using a telephoto lens (to
> stabilise the image) than you would when using a wide-angle lens. As you
> said, you probably need less movement in any case, so the more limited
> movement is OK.

That may be so. I have no idea. However, from a practical standpoint,
the min width of a film frame is 24mm. Of the digital frame: 16mm. So
that's a hefty 4mm on each side to work with for anti shake. Franky I
doubt, except at low frequency that they could move the sensor +/- 4mm
fast enough to cover those extremes. ... it would be +/- 6mm in the
other direction...

(I would prefer a full frame sensor to A/S, frankly).

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
April 25, 2005 10:31:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Alan Browne wrote:
> David J Taylor wrote:
>
>> Alan Browne wrote:
>>> AFAIK the Minolta A/S system does need to know the FL as part of the
>>> overall A/S solution ... that little focus routine when the camera
>>> starts up for exampe. (I wish they would do that only the first
>>> time the A/S switch is on).
>>
>>
>> Meaning that at the telephoto end of the range the image circle is
>> likely to be in excess of the 35mm frame, but with wide angle lenses
>> the image circle is likely to be not as much in excess of the 35mm
>> frame. I.e. you might be able to move the sensor more when using a
>> telephoto lens (to stabilise the image) than you would when using a
>> wide-angle lens. As you said, you probably need less movement in
>> any case, so the more limited movement is OK.
>
> That may be so. I have no idea. However, from a practical
> standpoint, the min width of a film frame is 24mm. Of the digital
> frame: 16mm. So that's a hefty 4mm on each side to work with for
> anti shake. Franky I doubt, except at low frequency that they could
> move the sensor +/- 4mm fast enough to cover those extremes. ... it
> would be +/- 6mm in the other direction...
>
> (I would prefer a full frame sensor to A/S, frankly).
>
> Cheers,
> Alan

I recall reading that the movement was 10mm, so if that was a total of
10mm, it's 5mm peak, which is entirely consistent with the smaller sensor.
Personally, I want a larger sensor, but in a sealed point and shoot format
with half-sized lenses, so a 18mm x 12mm sensitive area. Having now used
A/S, it is not something I would give up lightly. I would also like a
24 - 288mm zoom range (rather than the 36 - 432mm currently offered).

Cheers,
David
!