Anti-shake / Image Stabilization question

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Atreju, Aug 27, 2004.

  1. Atreju

    Atreju Guest

    I am reading about the "Anti-shake" mechanism on the KM DiMAGE Z3. It
    states that the CCD actually gets shifted.

    I am wondering if this is how most camera's accomplish the
    stabilization? I was under the impression that the image is simply
    compensated for by the camera's processor.

    Is shifting the CCD actually a reliable mechanism in the long-run?
    My policy when it comes to electronics has always been: the less
    moving parts, the better.

    But if this is how all the cameras do it, I guess it is a common
    thing. I'm just wondering, that's all.


    ---Atreju---
     
    Atreju, Aug 27, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. "Atreju" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >I am reading about the "Anti-shake" mechanism on the KM DiMAGE Z3. It
    > states that the CCD actually gets shifted.
    >
    > I am wondering if this is how most camera's accomplish the
    > stabilization? I was under the impression that the image is simply
    > compensated for by the camera's processor.


    In the case of Canon, it's in those lenses that offer IS. An element or a
    group of elements move in such a way to cancel camera shake. The sensing is
    done in the lens itself.


    > Is shifting the CCD actually a reliable mechanism in the long-run?
    > My policy when it comes to electronics has always been: the less
    > moving parts, the better.


    I don't have any strong feelings as to where motion cancellation should take
    place. Obviously, though, if it is done in the camera then all lenses are
    covered. Reliable? Don't know about that but it stands to reason that more
    is less when it comes to reliability.
     
    Charles Schuler, Aug 27, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Atreju

    Atreju Guest

    On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 16:13:19 -0400, "Charles Schuler"
    <> wrote:

    >Reliable? Don't know about that but it stands to reason that more
    >is less when it comes to reliability.


    Yeah, I tend to agree with you there. However, I do need stabilization
    in one form or another. I am not a pro, and I know from my own
    experience over many years that I just can't keep a perfectly stable
    hand. I do have a tripod for very far shots, or long exposures at
    night, but for regular shooting I want the feature. Therefore, I have
    to live with whatever fragility comes with the territory.

    Thanks for the input.


    ---Atreju---
     
    Atreju, Aug 27, 2004
    #3
  4. Atreju

    Alan Browne Guest

    Atreju wrote:

    > I am reading about the "Anti-shake" mechanism on the KM DiMAGE Z3. It
    > states that the CCD actually gets shifted.
    >
    > I am wondering if this is how most camera's accomplish the
    > stabilization? I was under the impression that the image is simply
    > compensated for by the camera's processor.


    In still camera systems, usually a lens element is shifted. This
    is the approach in lenses like the Canon IS and Nikon VR lenses.
    This approach is effective, however it is unique to each lens
    assembly, and hence expensive from the SLR system POV.

    In the Panasonic Lumix system, those with stabilization have a
    lens element that is shifted ... it of course is a single lens
    camera.

    The Konica/Minolta approach has its advantages which mostly will
    accrue to the SLR lens owners like myself (still waiting for the
    DSLR body to appear). In a single lens system like the A1/A2 and
    the Z series, the advantage is not that great v. the Lumix
    approach (and I suspect the lens method is better overall).

    >
    > Is shifting the CCD actually a reliable mechanism in the long-run?
    > My policy when it comes to electronics has always been: the less
    > moving parts, the better.


    Absolutely. However over the past 10 - 20 years the performance
    and reliability of electromechanical parts has improved
    dramatically, so it is not that much of a concern IMO.

    An advantage the lens type correction has is that much less mass
    is being moved so smaller, less power hungry actuators/motors can
    be employed.

    Cheers,
    Alan.

    --
    -- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
    -- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
    -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--
     
    Alan Browne, Aug 27, 2004
    #4
  5. Atreju <> wrote in
    news::

    > I am reading about the "Anti-shake" mechanism on the KM DiMAGE Z3. It
    > states that the CCD actually gets shifted.


    Yepp.

    > I am wondering if this is how most camera's accomplish the
    > stabilization?


    Nope - all other move a lens element in the lens.

    > I was under the impression that the image is simply
    > compensated for by the camera's processor.


    That is film cameras. They have image stabilization - frame by frame.
    Still cameras create one sharper frame - camera processor stabilisation
    is then not possible.

    > Is shifting the CCD actually a reliable mechanism in the long-run?
    > My policy when it comes to electronics has always been: the less
    > moving parts, the better.


    That is one of my concerns. Auto focus and image stabilisation
    require rather fragile constructions. An old fashioned camera
    with very stable manual focussing must be more reliable and more
    accurate.

    > But if this is how all the cameras do it, I guess it is a common
    > thing. I'm just wondering, that's all.


    There are lots of auto focus cameras with VERY flimsy mechanics.
    And the image stabilisation thingie also must be rather flimsy.
    But ... that is how they do it ... and it works. Rather good
    actually.

    I have over 100 year old cameras that still can be used - the
    shutter still works - the optics is fit for fight. The only
    problem might be the bellow that is getting stiff. I wonder -
    a 100 year old auto focus camera or image stabilisation lens.
    Will it still be operational?


    /Roland
     
    Roland Karlsson, Aug 27, 2004
    #5
  6. Atreju

    Fred Guest

    As others have stated, most cameras shift a lens element to compensate
    for shake. I believe that KM is the only company using a shifting
    sensor. The system works very well on my Dimage A1 and is also on the
    newer A2.
     
    Fred, Aug 27, 2004
    #6
  7. Atreju

    Alan Browne Guest

    Charles Schuler wrote:
    Reliable? Don't know about that but it stands to reason that
    more
    > is less when it comes to reliability.


    ....usually "less is more" when it comes to reliability, eg: "less
    cmplexity = more reliability"

    Cheers,
    Alan


    --
    -- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
    -- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
    -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--
     
    Alan Browne, Aug 27, 2004
    #7
  8. "Alan Browne" <> wrote in message
    news:O0NXc.22381$...
    > Charles Schuler wrote:
    > Reliable? Don't know about that but it stands to reason that more
    >> is less when it comes to reliability.

    >
    > ...usually "less is more" when it comes to reliability, eg: "less
    > cmplexity = more reliability"


    More complexity = less reliability; thus more is less.
     
    Charles Schuler, Aug 27, 2004
    #8
  9. Atreju

    Atreju Guest

    On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 17:32:43 -0400, "Charles Schuler"
    <> wrote:

    >
    >"Alan Browne" <> wrote in message
    >news:O0NXc.22381$...
    >> Charles Schuler wrote:
    >> Reliable? Don't know about that but it stands to reason that more
    >>> is less when it comes to reliability.

    >>
    >> ...usually "less is more" when it comes to reliability, eg: "less
    >> cmplexity = more reliability"

    >
    >More complexity = less reliability; thus more is less.
    >


    I think it is clear what you meant.
    I agree, but it seems that some kinds of products simply have to be
    complext to offer the features they do.


    ---Atreju---
     
    Atreju, Aug 27, 2004
    #9
  10. Atreju

    Bill Crocker Guest

    Be careful...there are issues using a stabilized lens, on a tripod. Search
    Google.

    Bill Crocker


    "Atreju" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 16:13:19 -0400, "Charles Schuler"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>Reliable? Don't know about that but it stands to reason that more
    >>is less when it comes to reliability.

    >
    > Yeah, I tend to agree with you there. However, I do need stabilization
    > in one form or another. I am not a pro, and I know from my own
    > experience over many years that I just can't keep a perfectly stable
    > hand. I do have a tripod for very far shots, or long exposures at
    > night, but for regular shooting I want the feature. Therefore, I have
    > to live with whatever fragility comes with the territory.
    >
    > Thanks for the input.
    >
    >
    > ---Atreju---
     
    Bill Crocker, Aug 27, 2004
    #10
  11. On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 20:05:27 GMT, Atreju
    <> wrote:

    >I am reading about the "Anti-shake" mechanism on the KM DiMAGE Z3. It
    >states that the CCD actually gets shifted.
    >
    >I am wondering if this is how most camera's accomplish the
    >stabilization? I was under the impression that the image is simply
    >compensated for by the camera's processor.
    >
    >Is shifting the CCD actually a reliable mechanism in the long-run?
    >My policy when it comes to electronics has always been: the less
    >moving parts, the better.
    >
    >But if this is how all the cameras do it, I guess it is a common
    >thing. I'm just wondering, that's all.


    Don't some cameras implement anti-shake without any moving
    elements? I thought they measure the shaking, which is usually
    sinusoidal, and delay the exposure until the shake sinus curve
    is near its extreme.

    Not sure though. Wouldn't work if the shaking were circular.

    Hans-Georg

    --
    No mail, please.
     
    Hans-Georg Michna, Aug 27, 2004
    #11
  12. Atreju

    Nostrobino Guest

    "Hans-Georg Michna" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 20:05:27 GMT, Atreju
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > >I am reading about the "Anti-shake" mechanism on the KM DiMAGE Z3. It
    > >states that the CCD actually gets shifted.
    > >
    > >I am wondering if this is how most camera's accomplish the
    > >stabilization? I was under the impression that the image is simply
    > >compensated for by the camera's processor.
    > >
    > >Is shifting the CCD actually a reliable mechanism in the long-run?
    > >My policy when it comes to electronics has always been: the less
    > >moving parts, the better.
    > >
    > >But if this is how all the cameras do it, I guess it is a common
    > >thing. I'm just wondering, that's all.

    >
    > Don't some cameras implement anti-shake without any moving
    > elements?


    Yes. Many camcorders use electronic (not optical) image stabilization. This
    includes most lower priced Canons and others. The general consensus is that
    optical IS is the better method, but more mechanically complex and therefore
    expensive to implement.


    > I thought they measure the shaking, which is usually
    > sinusoidal, and delay the exposure until the shake sinus curve
    > is near its extreme.


    Interesting idea. Never heard that one before.

    N.
     
    Nostrobino, Aug 27, 2004
    #12
  13. Atreju

    Atreju Guest

    On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 18:07:52 -0400, "Bill Crocker"
    <> wrote:

    >Be careful...there are issues using a stabilized lens, on a tripod. Search
    >Google.
    >
    >Bill Crocker


    SNIP

    In my case, for the camera I'm getting, it is actually a stabilized
    CCD chip, not lens.


    ---Atreju---
     
    Atreju, Aug 27, 2004
    #13
  14. In article <>,
    "Bill Crocker" <> wrote:

    > Be careful...there are issues using a stabilized lens, on a tripod. Search
    > Google.
    >
    > Bill Crocker
    >

    The only problems I've experienced are faster battery drain and drifting
    during long exposures. If you're using a telephoto lens in the wind,
    you still need IS with a tripod.
     
    Kevin McMurtrie, Aug 28, 2004
    #14
  15. Atreju

    mark_digital Guest

    "Atreju" <> wrote in message news:...
    On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 17:32:43 -0400, "Charles Schuler"
    <> wrote:

    >
    >"Alan Browne" <> wrote in message
    >news:O0NXc.22381$...
    >> Charles Schuler wrote:
    >> Reliable? Don't know about that but it stands to reason that more
    >>> is less when it comes to reliability.

    >>
    >> ...usually "less is more" when it comes to reliability, eg: "less
    >> cmplexity = more reliability"

    >
    >More complexity = less reliability; thus more is less.
    >


    I think it is clear what you meant.
    I agree, but it seems that some kinds of products simply have to be
    complext to offer the features they do.


    ---Atreju---
    --------------
    --------------
    --------------
    One option is to buy a service plan if you're that concerned
    about a feature's design being fragile to the point it can become
    unreliable. If you do, the no questions asked kind is the best
    service plan.
    I hate it when a turd points to me and says it's all my fault.

    mark_
     
    mark_digital, Aug 28, 2004
    #15
  16. Atreju

    Skip M Guest

    Only the early designs, like the Canon 28-135, 75-300 and 100-400L. Newer
    designs, like the Canon 70-200, Nikon 80-400 and 70-200, compensate for
    tripod use.

    --
    Skip Middleton
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
    "Bill Crocker" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Be careful...there are issues using a stabilized lens, on a tripod.

    Search
    > Google.
    >
    > Bill Crocker
    >
    >
    > "Atreju" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 16:13:19 -0400, "Charles Schuler"
    > > <> wrote:
    > >
    > >>Reliable? Don't know about that but it stands to reason that more
    > >>is less when it comes to reliability.

    > >
    > > Yeah, I tend to agree with you there. However, I do need stabilization
    > > in one form or another. I am not a pro, and I know from my own
    > > experience over many years that I just can't keep a perfectly stable
    > > hand. I do have a tripod for very far shots, or long exposures at
    > > night, but for regular shooting I want the feature. Therefore, I have
    > > to live with whatever fragility comes with the territory.
    > >
    > > Thanks for the input.
    > >
    > >
    > > ---Atreju---

    >
    >
     
    Skip M, Aug 28, 2004
    #16
  17. Atreju wrote:

    > I am reading about the "Anti-shake" mechanism on the KM DiMAGE Z3. It
    > states that the CCD actually gets shifted.
    >
    > I am wondering if this is how most camera's accomplish the
    > stabilization? I was under the impression that the image is simply
    > compensated for by the camera's processor.
    >
    > Is shifting the CCD actually a reliable mechanism in the long-run?
    > My policy when it comes to electronics has always been: the less
    > moving parts, the better.
    >
    > But if this is how all the cameras do it, I guess it is a common
    > thing. I'm just wondering, that's all.
    >
    >
    > ---Atreju---


    I'm skeptical about moving the sensor. That means moving
    wires, and that means changing capacitance and therefore
    noise. So my guess is that such a system will not be
    able to have noise as low as fixed sensor systems.

    Another way with no moving parts is fast readout of the
    sensor and shift subsequent readouts to match the motion
    of the image, but again you lose with increased noise.

    Roger
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Aug 28, 2004
    #17
  18. I agree, but it seems that some kinds of products simply have to be
    complext to offer the features they do.

    Oh that's for sure. I love advanced features (like image stabilization) and
    am willing to make the tradeoffs of paying more money and having less
    reliability. The reliability issue is not all that bad. I remember when
    color TVs used to average 2+ service calls per year. Today, the mean time
    before failure is 7+ years (at least with quality brands).
     
    Charles Schuler, Aug 28, 2004
    #18
  19. Atreju

    Atreju Guest

    On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 06:40:11 -0400, "mark_digital"
    <> wrote:

    >One option is to buy a service plan if you're that concerned
    >about a feature's design being fragile to the point it can become
    >unreliable. If you do, the no questions asked kind is the best
    >service plan.
    >I hate it when a turd points to me and says it's all my fault.


    No such animal. My experience with "warranty" plans etc. have been all
    negative. No matter what you pay them for a "service plan" once they
    have your money they're not interested in doing any real work for you.
    Even if they agree to fix something, they're not going to do it well,
    nor quickly either. I would expect them to tell me to bring it in and
    come back in 2 weeks or something like that.

    Extended warranties, service plans, et. al. are all a scam to get a
    few extra bucks from you. When it comes time for them to honor their
    end, they stiff you.

    At least, that's the way it has been in my experience. Then again, I
    live in New York where it's all about screwing anyone you can for
    whatever you can get out of them.


    ---Atreju---
     
    Atreju, Aug 29, 2004
    #19
  20. "Atreju" <> wrote in message news:...
    > I am reading about the "Anti-shake" mechanism on the KM DiMAGE Z3. It
    > states that the CCD actually gets shifted.


    Any form of "optical" image stabilization uses some form of mechanical movement.
    It could be the sensor, or it could be part of the lens.

    >
    > I am wondering if this is how most camera's accomplish the
    > stabilization? I was under the impression that the image is simply
    > compensated for by the camera's processor.


    I think you misunderstand. The Z3 is a consumer digital still camera. Most
    contain no image stabilization of any sort. You may be thinking of video
    cameras. I've used 8mm cameras with optical image stabilization and digital
    image stabilization. The optical stabilization was clearly superior to the
    digital stabilization in the cameras I used. Some resolution was thrown away
    to provide the digital stabilization.

    Now dSLRs and SLRs are a different story entirely. Some lenses provide
    image stabilization and some do not.

    >
    > Is shifting the CCD actually a reliable mechanism in the long-run?
    > My policy when it comes to electronics has always been: the less
    > moving parts, the better.


    Good question. Konica-Minolta is the only company (someone correct me if I'm
    wrong here) to go the moving sensor stabilization route. The technology, therefore,
    is pretty new to consumer cameras. While the advantage to a dSLR is clear,
    (no need for expensive, stabilized lenses; all lenses are effectively stabilized), the
    advantage (versus a stabilized lens) in a consumer digital camera is not clear. My
    first guess is that it was matter of economics; KM had the technology, so they
    used it.

    >
    > But if this is how all the cameras do it, I guess it is a common
    > thing. I'm just wondering, that's all.


    In summary, its not common at all. But then stabilization isn't common in this
    class of cameras either.

    >
    >
    > ---Atreju---



    --
    Dan (Woj...) dmaster at lucent dot com
    ----------------------------------
    "Creature comfort goals
    They only numb my soul and make it hard for me to see
    My thoughts all seem to stray, to places far away
    I need a change of scenery"
     
    Dan Wojciechowski, Aug 30, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Rubik

    Anti Camera Shake mechanism

    Rubik, Feb 5, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    36
    Views:
    1,294
    Rodney Myrvaagnes
    Feb 10, 2004
  2. Alan Browne

    Anti shake article at Minolta World

    Alan Browne, Jul 8, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    19
    Views:
    533
    Frank Pittel
    Jul 14, 2004
  3. Anti Shake/ Image Stable

    , Feb 23, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    302
  4. Al Clark

    Lens stabilization vs Camera stabilization

    Al Clark, Nov 30, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    119
    Views:
    1,801
    Dan Sullivan
    Dec 9, 2006
  5. SBFan2000

    Re: "Shake, shake, shake your hard drive..."

    SBFan2000, Aug 17, 2006, in forum: A+ Certification
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    894
    SBFan2000
    Aug 17, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page