Velocity Reviews

Velocity Reviews (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/index.php)
-   Digital Photography (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/f37-digital-photography.html)
-   -   Image Stabilization (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t528725-image-stabilization.html)

Raoul 08-13-2007 12:14 AM

Image Stabilization
 
Can someone tell me, or give me a link to a discussion of, which type
of image stabilization is better; optical or digital?

I'm trying to get up to speed on all the changes in the technology in
the 4 years since i bought my last camera.

thanks

ASAAR 08-13-2007 12:55 AM

Re: Image Stabilization
 
On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 20:14:27 -0400, Raoul wrote:

> Can someone tell me, or give me a link to a discussion of, which type
> of image stabilization is better; optical or digital?
>
> I'm trying to get up to speed on all the changes in the technology in
> the 4 years since i bought my last camera.


Subscribe to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems if you haven't already
done so and start retrieving messages from the following date.
While the message ID is compatible with your version of Agent, I've
found that the messages from googlegroups don't always download.

> Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
> Subject: Image stabilization - which works better, sensor or lens shift?
> Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 06:04:16 -0700
> Message-ID: <1186059856.078286.207360@d30g2000prg.googlegroups .com>


BTW, did you really mean "digital" image stabilization? I think
that that's generally used for video cameras, whereas digital still
cameras normally use the two types mentioned in the Subject line.


Somebody 08-13-2007 01:07 AM

Re: Image Stabilization
 
"Raoul" <1234@456.com> wrote in message
news:c18vb35vlqqsig0t75tdcpi19nrmnn64c6@4ax.com...
> Can someone tell me, or give me a link to a discussion of, which type
> of image stabilization is better; optical or digital?
>
> I'm trying to get up to speed on all the changes in the technology in
> the 4 years since i bought my last camera.
>
> thanks



Don't need a link. Optical is better. Digital simply ups the ISO on the
camera. It fakes it, just like Digital Zoom fakes optical zoom. Do not
decided on a camera because it has Digital Image Stabilization. If it isn't
in the lens or on the sensor it is **** plain and simple.

Somebody!


Pete D 08-13-2007 06:58 AM

Re: Image Stabilization
 

"Somebody" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:46bfaeef$0$14088$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> "Raoul" <1234@456.com> wrote in message
> news:c18vb35vlqqsig0t75tdcpi19nrmnn64c6@4ax.com...
>> Can someone tell me, or give me a link to a discussion of, which type
>> of image stabilization is better; optical or digital?
>>
>> I'm trying to get up to speed on all the changes in the technology in
>> the 4 years since i bought my last camera.
>>
>> thanks

>
>
> Don't need a link. Optical is better. Digital simply ups the ISO on the
> camera. It fakes it, just like Digital Zoom fakes optical zoom. Do not
> decided on a camera because it has Digital Image Stabilization. If it
> isn't in the lens or on the sensor it is **** plain and simple.
>
> Somebody!



Got some links to some testing on this?

Thanks



Irwin Peckinloomer 08-13-2007 07:55 AM

Re: Image Stabilization
 
In article <46c00129$0$22612$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-
01.iinet.net.au>, no@email.com says...
>
> "Somebody" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:46bfaeef$0$14088$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> > "Raoul" <1234@456.com> wrote in message
> > news:c18vb35vlqqsig0t75tdcpi19nrmnn64c6@4ax.com...
> >> Can someone tell me, or give me a link to a discussion of, which type
> >> of image stabilization is better; optical or digital?
> >>
> >> I'm trying to get up to speed on all the changes in the technology in
> >> the 4 years since i bought my last camera.
> >>
> >> thanks

> >
> >
> > Don't need a link. Optical is better. Digital simply ups the ISO on the
> > camera. It fakes it, just like Digital Zoom fakes optical zoom. Do not
> > decided on a camera because it has Digital Image Stabilization. If it
> > isn't in the lens or on the sensor it is **** plain and simple.
> >
> > Somebody!

>
>
> Got some links to some testing on this?
>

You don't need any testing. "Digital" image stabilization is pure
marketing bullshit, just like digital zoom. You want real optical image
stabilization, it is great on long zooms. Many cameras have it (all
Panasonic, some Canon (designated "IS" in model #), some Kodak, Nikon,
and others).
>
>
>


Stephen Henning 08-13-2007 11:59 AM

Re: Image Stabilization
 
Raoul <1234@456.com> wrote:

> Can someone tell me, or give me a link to a discussion of, which type
> of image stabilization is better; optical or digital?


This one is a no brainer.

Digital stabilization takes a series of blurry images and tries to
recover something from them, or even worse just increases the ASA and
shutter speed and introduces digital noise. It is common on movie
cameras. In still cameras it is mainly advertising hype.

Optical stabilization prevents blurry images in the first place. It is
by far the best and found on your better cameras.

It comes in two forms, in-the-lens and at-the-sensor. I have
at-the-sensor and it is great because it will work with any lens. I
have a 35 mm to 420 mm (equiv) zoom and it works flawlessly. I used it
on safari in Africa while shooting animal photos and didn't have one
blurry photo.

Purists like in-the-lens stabilization since in each lens the
stabilization is optimized. The down sides are that it makes you older
lenses obsolete, makes lenses heavier, and is very expensive.

If you are using a zoom lens, then it really doesn't matter since the
stabilization in-the-lens has the same compromises that the
stabilization at-the-sensor has. The difference being that at-the-sensor
is less expensive and more reliable.

Typically either optical system will give you about 3 stops more range.

--
Pardon my spam deterrent; send email to rhodyman@earthlink.net
Cheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA USA
http://rhodyman.net

Pete D 08-13-2007 12:08 PM

Re: Image Stabilization
 

"Irwin Peckinloomer" <spam@trash.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.2129ae5420ebdadb989711@news.verizon.net.. .
> In article <46c00129$0$22612$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-
> 01.iinet.net.au>, no@email.com says...
>>
>> "Somebody" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:46bfaeef$0$14088$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>> > "Raoul" <1234@456.com> wrote in message
>> > news:c18vb35vlqqsig0t75tdcpi19nrmnn64c6@4ax.com...
>> >> Can someone tell me, or give me a link to a discussion of, which type
>> >> of image stabilization is better; optical or digital?
>> >>
>> >> I'm trying to get up to speed on all the changes in the technology in
>> >> the 4 years since i bought my last camera.
>> >>
>> >> thanks
>> >
>> >
>> > Don't need a link. Optical is better. Digital simply ups the ISO on the
>> > camera. It fakes it, just like Digital Zoom fakes optical zoom. Do not
>> > decided on a camera because it has Digital Image Stabilization. If it
>> > isn't in the lens or on the sensor it is **** plain and simple.
>> >
>> > Somebody!

>>
>>
>> Got some links to some testing on this?
>>

> You don't need any testing. "Digital" image stabilization is pure
> marketing bullshit, just like digital zoom. You want real optical image
> stabilization, it is great on long zooms. Many cameras have it (all
> Panasonic, some Canon (designated "IS" in model #), some Kodak, Nikon,
> and others).


You are correct of course, I was thinking of the other method that works, in
camera sensor shift.

Cheers.

Pete



codey45 08-13-2007 01:48 PM

Re: Image Stabilization
 
On Aug 12, 5:55 pm, ASAAR <cau...@22.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 20:14:27 -0400, Raoul wrote:
> > Can someone tell me, or give me a link to a discussion of, which type
> > of image stabilization is better; optical or digital?

>
> > I'm trying to get up to speed on all the changes in the technology in
> > the 4 years since i bought my last camera.

>
> Subscribe to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems if you haven't already
> done so and start retrieving messages from the following date.
> While the message ID is compatible with your version of Agent, I've
> found that the messages from googlegroups don't always download.
>
> > Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
> > Subject: Image stabilization - which works better, sensor or lens shift?
> > Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 06:04:16 -0700
> > Message-ID: <1186059856.078286.207...@d30g2000prg.googlegroups .com>

>
> BTW, did you really mean "digital" image stabilization? I think
> that that's generally used for video cameras, whereas digital still
> cameras normally use the two types mentioned in the Subject line.




Somebody 08-13-2007 10:04 PM

Re: Image Stabilization
 
"Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote in message
news:46c00129$0$22612$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
> "Somebody" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:46bfaeef$0$14088$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>> "Raoul" <1234@456.com> wrote in message
>> news:c18vb35vlqqsig0t75tdcpi19nrmnn64c6@4ax.com...
>>> Can someone tell me, or give me a link to a discussion of, which type
>>> of image stabilization is better; optical or digital?
>>>
>>> I'm trying to get up to speed on all the changes in the technology in
>>> the 4 years since i bought my last camera.
>>>
>>> thanks

>>
>>
>> Don't need a link. Optical is better. Digital simply ups the ISO on the
>> camera. It fakes it, just like Digital Zoom fakes optical zoom. Do not
>> decided on a camera because it has Digital Image Stabilization. If it
>> isn't in the lens or on the sensor it is **** plain and simple.
>>
>> Somebody!

>
>
> Got some links to some testing on this?
>
> Thanks
>


Don't need testing on this. digital is faked. Only a moron would think that
faked IS is anywhere close to being real optical IS.

Somebody!


Anoni Moose 08-15-2007 11:35 PM

Re: Image Stabilization
 
On Aug 13, 3:04 pm, "Somebody" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:

> Don't need testing on this. digital is faked. Only a moron would think that
> faked IS is anywhere close to being real optical IS.


I know that in camcorders the alternative digital is *not* faked.
But in a camcorder the objective is different (cutting down of
jiggling rather than cutting down of blur). I don't think the video
cam electronic method would work for stills. But this may
be the reason one might think it would work properly -- rather
than because one is a moron. They may be camcorder users
where the electronic version DOES really work, even if not as
well as optical.



All times are GMT. The time now is 03:47 AM.

Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.