Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Why Aren't Shake Warnings Based on Camera Movement?

Reply
Thread Tools

Why Aren't Shake Warnings Based on Camera Movement?

 
 
jim evans
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-13-2006
I learned today that the "shake" warning on Canon cameras is simply
based on reaching shutter speeds less than 1/60th second.

The old 1/60th rule is based on an average person with steady hands
using a 35mm camera with a normal lens. It applied to cameras pressed
against the face, using good practice. I'm an old guy with shaky
hands and with a submini camera you pretty much have to hold it out
from your body and use the LCD display, sometimes at 100mm equivalent.
The 1/60th rule is meaningless under such conditions.

Does someone know why they don't base the shake warning on data from
the IS system combined with shutter speed and focal length?

-- jim
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Rudy Benner \(All_Thumbs\)
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-14-2006

"jim evans" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>I learned today that the "shake" warning on Canon cameras is simply
> based on reaching shutter speeds less than 1/60th second.
>
> The old 1/60th rule is based on an average person with steady hands
> using a 35mm camera with a normal lens. It applied to cameras pressed
> against the face, using good practice. I'm an old guy with shaky
> hands and with a submini camera you pretty much have to hold it out
> from your body and use the LCD display, sometimes at 100mm equivalent.
> The 1/60th rule is meaningless under such conditions.
>
> Does someone know why they don't base the shake warning on data from
> the IS system combined with shutter speed and focal length?
>
> -- jim


Makes me wonder how we ever managed back in the olde days, no autofocus,
autoexposure, auto color balance, antishake, did I miss anything?


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
muisyle@gmail.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-14-2006
There is a reason they call the shift warning on some manual cars "the
idiot light."

 
Reply With Quote
 
Roy G
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-14-2006

"jim evans" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>I learned today that the "shake" warning on Canon cameras is simply
> based on reaching shutter speeds less than 1/60th second.
>
> The old 1/60th rule is based on an average person with steady hands
> using a 35mm camera with a normal lens. It applied to cameras pressed
> against the face, using good practice. I'm an old guy with shaky
> hands and with a submini camera you pretty much have to hold it out
> from your body and use the LCD display, sometimes at 100mm equivalent.
> The 1/60th rule is meaningless under such conditions.
>
> Does someone know why they don't base the shake warning on data from
> the IS system combined with shutter speed and focal length?
>
> -- jim


Your Camera would need to have an IS system before data could be collected
from it.

Roy G


 
Reply With Quote
 
jim evans
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-14-2006
On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 00:57:42 GMT, "Roy G"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>Your Camera would need to have an IS system before data could be collected
>from it.


Yes, of course. I'm talking about cameras with IS.

I learned that they don't do it while investigating my Canon SD700 IS.
And, I have long zoom prosumer with IS.

-- jim
 
Reply With Quote
 
John McWilliams
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-14-2006
jim evans wrote:
> I learned today that the "shake" warning on Canon cameras is simply
> based on reaching shutter speeds less than 1/60th second.
>
> The old 1/60th rule is based on an average person with steady hands
> using a 35mm camera with a normal lens. It applied to cameras pressed
> against the face, using good practice. I'm an old guy with shaky
> hands and with a submini camera you pretty much have to hold it out
> from your body and use the LCD display, sometimes at 100mm equivalent.
> The 1/60th rule is meaningless under such conditions.
>
> Does someone know why they don't base the shake warning on data from
> the IS system combined with shutter speed and focal length?


Cost. Few would understand. Fewer still would use it. And, as someone
already mentioned, you'd need IS to begin with.

--
John McWilliams
 
Reply With Quote
 
JohnR66
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-14-2006
"jim evans" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>I learned today that the "shake" warning on Canon cameras is simply
> based on reaching shutter speeds less than 1/60th second.
>
> The old 1/60th rule is based on an average person with steady hands
> using a 35mm camera with a normal lens. It applied to cameras pressed
> against the face, using good practice. I'm an old guy with shaky
> hands and with a submini camera you pretty much have to hold it out
> from your body and use the LCD display, sometimes at 100mm equivalent.
> The 1/60th rule is meaningless under such conditions.
>
> Does someone know why they don't base the shake warning on data from
> the IS system combined with shutter speed and focal length?
>
> -- jim


The camera would have to have an accelerometer of some sort making it more
expensive. Given the cost of some IS models these days, you might as well go
full IS. Also if you were still and moved the camera at the last second
(most people move the camera when pressing the shutter button), the warning
would be too late. I can see the warning going on an off all the time -
annoying. Just doesn't make sense. Much better to give the warning depending
on focal length and shutter speed combo.

John


 
Reply With Quote
 
jim evans
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-14-2006
On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 17:45:51 -0800, John McWilliams
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>Few would understand. Fewer still would use it. And, as someone
>already mentioned, you'd need IS to begin with.


That argument would apply equally to the current Shake warnings.

I'm only talking about what appears to be a far superior way determine
when the shake is too great. The warning light/signal would not
change from what it is now.

-- jim
 
Reply With Quote
 
jim evans
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-14-2006
On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 01:53:16 GMT, "JohnR66" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>The camera would have to have an accelerometer of some sort making it more
>expensive.


It doesn't have to have anything more than it does now. I'm
suggesting the existing IS sensor system be used as the signal.

>Given the cost of some IS models these days, you might as well go
>full IS.


I don't understand what you're trying to say by "full IS", but IS does
not overcome all shake only maybe 2-3 stops worth.

>Also if you were still and moved the camera at the last second
>(most people move the camera when pressing the shutter button), the warning
>would be too late. I can see the warning going on an off all the time -
>annoying. Just doesn't make sense.


They have shake warnings now. All of your objections would apply to
the present shake warnings.

-- jim
 
Reply With Quote
 
Jim
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-14-2006

"Rudy Benner (All_Thumbs)" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> "jim evans" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>I learned today that the "shake" warning on Canon cameras is simply
>> based on reaching shutter speeds less than 1/60th second.
>>
>> The old 1/60th rule is based on an average person with steady hands
>> using a 35mm camera with a normal lens. It applied to cameras pressed
>> against the face, using good practice. I'm an old guy with shaky
>> hands and with a submini camera you pretty much have to hold it out
>> from your body and use the LCD display, sometimes at 100mm equivalent.
>> The 1/60th rule is meaningless under such conditions.
>>
>> Does someone know why they don't base the shake warning on data from
>> the IS system combined with shutter speed and focal length?
>>
>> -- jim

>
> Makes me wonder how we ever managed back in the olde days, no autofocus,
> autoexposure, auto color balance, antishake, did I miss anything?
>

You missed no rangefinder.
Jim


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
findcontrol("PlaceHolderPrice") why why why why why why why why why why why Mr. SweatyFinger ASP .Net 2 12-02-2006 03:46 PM
Re: "Shake, shake, shake your hard drive..." SBFan2000 A+ Certification 0 08-17-2006 09:58 PM
use warnings; and use Warnings; give different results Ted Sung Perl Misc 1 08-30-2004 10:22 PM
How does digital camera efl effect camera shake? Digital Photography 0 12-17-2003 10:30 PM
Re: Camera shake - clarification PhotoMan Digital Photography 7 11-10-2003 08:36 PM



Advertisments