«

Yehuda Paradise wrote:
> please bear in mind that image stabilisation depends a lot on focal length:
> The more you zoom in (i.e., towards tele), the less you can depend on it. As
> a rule of thumb, I'd say you can gain about 2 stops when in "wide", but only
> 1 stop (or even none) when in "tele".

Not my experience. I always get at least two stops, even at 300 mm on a
1.6 crop DSLR if I am careful.

You are wrong, Tony, plain and simple. Canon IS lenses (still, not
movie cameras) have gyros and actuators in the lenses.

Tony Morgan wrote:

> In message <oIp5d.335243$Oi.250996@fed1read04>, Mark M
> <> writes
> Snipped....
>
>> We're not talking about VIDEO here.
>> We are talking about optical image stabilization in 35mm still photo
>> LENSES.
>
>
> You blind or something. Here, I'll help you:
>
> Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
>
>> Said lenses have no CCDs and none of the things you mention.
>
>
> Digital cameras have no CCD? You're talking *******s.
>
>>
>> PAY ATTENTION before you mock other's posts.
>> It just might prevent you making a fool of yourself NEXT time...
>
>
> ROFL.... Try honing you reading skills and powers of comprehension.
>

Yes, and now he is defending his ignorance

Mark M wrote:

> "Phil Wheeler" <w6tuh-> wrote in message
> news:wTp5d.21443$...
>
>>I'm afraid you are very wrong re Canon IS. There are sensors and
>>actuators in the lens which do the job; that's why only some lenses are
>>IS. You can actually hear them operated if you try.
>>
>>Your discussion may apply to some other company.
>
>
> The dork was describing **video camcorders.**
>
>
>
>

Phil Wheeler <w6tuh-> wrote in
news:J%z5d.32506$:

> Yehuda Paradise wrote:
>> please bear in mind that image stabilisation depends a lot on focal
>> length: The more you zoom in (i.e., towards tele), the less you can
>> depend on it. As a rule of thumb, I'd say you can gain about 2 stops
>> when in "wide", but only 1 stop (or even none) when in "tele".
>
> Not my experience. I always get at least two stops, even at 300 mm on
> a 1.6 crop DSLR if I am careful.

You are both aware of I hope that it takes rather serious
made tests for determining what you gain. You have to take
long series with and without IS and the doing some reliable
comparisons (A/B tests or meassurements) to really know.

It is highly unlikely that an owner of an IS lens knows
what he gains.


/Roland

"Phil Wheeler" <w6tuh-> wrote in message
news:Q0A5d.32513$...
> You are wrong, Tony, plain and simple. Canon IS lenses (still, not
> movie cameras) have gyros and actuators in the lenses.

....and no CCD at all!!!




>
> Tony Morgan wrote:
>
> > In message <oIp5d.335243$Oi.250996@fed1read04>, Mark M
> > <> writes
> > Snipped....
> >
> >> We're not talking about VIDEO here.
> >> We are talking about optical image stabilization in 35mm still photo
> >> LENSES.
> >
> >
> > You blind or something. Here, I'll help you:
> >
> > Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
> >
> >> Said lenses have no CCDs and none of the things you mention.
> >
> >
> > Digital cameras have no CCD? You're talking *******s.
> >
> >>
> >> PAY ATTENTION before you mock other's posts.
> >> It just might prevent you making a fool of yourself NEXT time...
> >
> >
> > ROFL.... Try honing you reading skills and powers of comprehension.
> >
>

"Roland Karlsson" <> wrote in message
news:Xns9570AB3F195CBklotjohan@130.133.1.4...
> Phil Wheeler <w6tuh-> wrote in
> news:J%z5d.32506$:
>
> > Yehuda Paradise wrote:
> >> please bear in mind that image stabilisation depends a lot on focal
> >> length: The more you zoom in (i.e., towards tele), the less you can
> >> depend on it. As a rule of thumb, I'd say you can gain about 2 stops
> >> when in "wide", but only 1 stop (or even none) when in "tele".
> >
> > Not my experience. I always get at least two stops, even at 300 mm on
> > a 1.6 crop DSLR if I am careful.
>
> You are both aware of I hope that it takes rather serious
> made tests for determining what you gain. You have to take
> long series with and without IS and the doing some reliable
> comparisons (A/B tests or meassurements) to really know.
>
> It is highly unlikely that an owner of an IS lens knows
> what he gains.

I know what I can get away with, and it's often more than 2-3.
You are right about how to compare.
-I've done this, and it remains effective regardless of focal length, since
it's always relative to non-IS...**at that focal length.

"Mark M" <> wrote in
news:2NA5d.335352$Oi.261848@fed1read04:

> I know what I can get away with, and it's often more than 2-3.
> You are right about how to compare.
> -I've done this, and it remains effective regardless of focal length,
> since it's always relative to non-IS...**at that focal length.
>

OK - then you are a rare being indeed.
One of those IS nerds
I stand corrected.


/Roland

"Tony Morgan" <> wrote in message
news:...
> In message <oIp5d.335243$Oi.250996@fed1read04>, Mark M
> <> writes
> Snipped....
>
> >We're not talking about VIDEO here.
> >We are talking about optical image stabilization in 35mm still photo
> >LENSES.
>
> You blind or something. Here, I'll help you:
>
> Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
>
> > Said lenses have no CCDs and none of the things you mention.
>
> Digital cameras have no CCD? You're talking *******s.
> >
> >PAY ATTENTION before you mock other's posts.
> >It just might prevent you making a fool of yourself NEXT time...
>
> ROFL.... Try honing you reading skills and powers of comprehension.
>
> --
> Tony Morgan
> http://www.camcord.info

You are the one who needs to brush up his reading comprehension. LENSES do
not have CCD SENSORS!!!!! Some CAMERAS do! Point of fact, FILM CAMERAS do
NOT have CCDs!!! On a technicality, Canon digital cameras DON'T either,
they have CMOS sensors.
The LENSES being discussed are Canon LENSES, NOT CAMERAS, and thus, DO NOT
have sensors. Even if we were talking about Canon CAMERAS, you would be
WRONG, because Canon does their stabilization in their still cameras in the
LENSES!!!
Do I have your attention, now?

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

Tony Morgan wrote:

> In message <Ywl5d.20464$>, Phil Wheeler
> <w6tuh-> writes
>
>> Read here:
>>
>> http://www.websiteoptimization.com/s...ak/stabilizer/
>>
> I nearly fell off my chair with laughter when I read this:
>
> "Image stabilized lenses and cameras use tiny gyroscopes to counteract
> camera motion for sharper shots."
>
> With the exception of the dolly's that are used to track shots taken by
> large heavy professional video cameras (which do use gyros), image

Gyros come in many forms. They can be used to stabilize ships for example:

MASSIVE GYROS that prevent roll through resistance OR

tiny gyros that are measured and used to activate control planes in the water to
prevent roll.

Same for most modern aircraft: gyros to MEASURE, control surfaces to correct.

The same applies to A/S, VR, IS. tiny gyros to MEASURE, other means to correct.

The "counteracting" does not have to be direct force but rather via feedback.

In Canon, Nikon and Panisonic lens/bodies an optical element is moved to correct
for the motion. In Minolta's a/s, the image senor is moved.

Cheers,
Alan



> stabilisation works like this:
>
> Firstly, the image is taken from a window within the CCDs area
> (unfortunately reducing the maximum possible resolution), and this
> window is moved around to compensate for camera shake. Some of the more
> expensive pro and semi-pro video cameras sometimes use, instead,
> electrical servos control the optics to move the window about. The spec
> usually tells you that the camera uses digital or optical image
> stabilisation.
>
> Window movement is controlled by a signal processor which detects "edge
> movement" (that occurs with camera shake) within the CCD image area, and
> then drives the window to compensate.
>
> Unfortunately, where there is a fast moving object within the overall
> image area, the signal processor tries to "chase" (by a small amount)
> that moving object before it detects that it isn't camera shake. This
> results in the introduction of edge artefacts in the resulting picture.
>
> You might notice that cameras that offer image stabilisation give one
> figure for the "maximum pixel area" and a lower figure for "image area".
> This is to provide the "image area" window that moves within the
> "maximum pixel area".
>
> There is one product (using gyros) called "Steady-Cam" that can be used
> for shoulder mounted professional video cameras. This is often used by
> the shoulder-mounted video camera operators seen on the back of
> motor-bikes following athletes in marathons and the like.


--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

ThomasH wrote:

> zxcvar wrote:
>
>>Greetings!How many extra f stop advantage one gets when one takes
>>pictures with a camera with image stabilisation compared to a camera
>>with no image stabilisation in taking pictures of stationary objects
>>like inside of a church or a museum without flash? With thanks.
>
>
> Popular Photography made recently a nice test of IS
> by Canon, Nikon, Panasonic (Lumix) and Minolta.
>
> "Blur Busters!" By Dan Richards August 2004
> http://www.popphoto.com/article.asp?...&page_number=1

One of the important conclusions there is that the Nikon/Canon in-lens stab is
useful to the shooter in that he actually sees the improvement and this helps
him steady even more or choose least shaky moments to shoot

..... with the the Minolta A/S, there is no such feedback for the shooter (in the
DSLR version to come, not sure about A1/A2 for feedback).

Cheers,
Alan



--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--