Image Stabilisation - How many extra f stops?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by zxcvar, Sep 25, 2004.

  1. zxcvar

    zxcvar Guest

    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.
     
    zxcvar, Sep 25, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. zxcvar

    GT40 Guest

    Canon says about 2 stops

    On 25 Sep 2004 07:49:06 -0700, (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.
     
    GT40, Sep 25, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. zxcvar

    Skip M Guest

    Canon claims 3 stops for the new generation, which includes the 70-200 and
    17-85 EF-S mount lens.
    I generally get 3 stops with my older 28-135 and 100-400 (Canon claims 2 for
    those lenses), and I'm no paragon of stability. So more than that may be
    possible for others.

    --
    Skip Middleton
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
    "GT40" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Canon says about 2 stops
    >
    > On 25 Sep 2004 07:49:06 -0700, (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.

    >
     
    Skip M, Sep 25, 2004
    #3
  4. zxcvar

    Phil Wheeler Guest

    Usual estimate is 2-3 stops

    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.
     
    Phil Wheeler, Sep 25, 2004
    #4
  5. zxcvar

    Mark M Guest

    "zxcvar" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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.


    2-3 stops both according to Canon, and also in my experience.
    It is amazingly useful.
     
    Mark M, Sep 25, 2004
    #5
  6. How does stabilization work anyway?


    "zxcvar" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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.
     
    Gene Palmiter, Sep 25, 2004
    #6
  7. zxcvar

    Phil Wheeler Guest

    Read here:

    http://www.websiteoptimization.com/speed/tweak/stabilizer/

    Phil

    Gene Palmiter wrote:
    > How does stabilization work anyway?
    >
    >
    > "zxcvar" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    >>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.

    >
    >
    >
     
    Phil Wheeler, Sep 25, 2004
    #7
  8. "Gene Palmiter" <> wrote in news:0nl5d.2970$r%
    4.648@trndny05:

    > How does stabilization work anyway?


    A stabalized lens contains a lens element that can
    move sideways. Rotation sensors meassure how much the
    lens element must move to keep the picture steady at
    the sensor.

    Konica-Minolta also has a similar system where they move
    the entire sensor.

    For movie cameras you also may stabalize from picture
    to picture. This stabilization is made by doing analyzis
    of the actual recorded pictures. This will not make each
    picture sharper, it will only improve a shaky film.


    /Roland
     
    Roland Karlsson, Sep 25, 2004
    #8
  9. zxcvar

    Drifter Guest

    On 25 Sep 2004 21:58:01 GMT, Roland Karlsson
    <> wrote:

    >"Gene Palmiter" <> wrote in news:0nl5d.2970$r%
    >4.648@trndny05:
    >
    >> How does stabilization work anyway?

    >
    >A stabalized lens contains a lens element that can
    >move sideways. Rotation sensors meassure how much the
    >lens element must move to keep the picture steady at
    >the sensor.
    >
    >Konica-Minolta also has a similar system where they move
    >the entire sensor.
    >
    >For movie cameras you also may stabalize from picture
    >to picture. This stabilization is made by doing analyzis
    >of the actual recorded pictures. This will not make each
    >picture sharper, it will only improve a shaky film.
    >
    >
    >/Roland


    Yeah, I have the WORST time getting people to understand that "IS"
    does NOT stop the motion of the subject, but only corrects for the
    motion of your hands as you hold the camera.


    Drifter
    "I've been here, I've been there..."
     
    Drifter, Sep 26, 2004
    #9
  10. zxcvar

    Tony Morgan Guest

    In message <Ywl5d.20464$>, Phil Wheeler
    <> writes
    >Read here:
    >
    >http://www.websiteoptimization.com/speed/tweak/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
    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.
    --
    Tony Morgan
    http://www.camcord.info
     
    Tony Morgan, Sep 26, 2004
    #10
  11. zxcvar

    Mark M Guest

    "Tony Morgan" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In message <Ywl5d.20464$>, Phil Wheeler
    > <> writes
    > >Read here:
    > >
    > >http://www.websiteoptimization.com/speed/tweak/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
    > 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.


    Uh...
    Earth to Doofus...
    Come in...Doofus...

    We're not talking about VIDEO here.
    We are talking about optical image stabilization in 35mm still photo LENSES.
    Said lenses have no CCDs and none of the things you mention.

    PAY ATTENTION before you mock other's posts.
    It just might prevent you making a fool of yourself NEXT time...
     
    Mark M, Sep 26, 2004
    #11
  12. zxcvar

    Phil Wheeler Guest

    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.

    Phil

    Tony Morgan wrote:

    > In message <Ywl5d.20464$>, Phil Wheeler
    > <> writes
    >
    >> Read here:
    >>
    >> http://www.websiteoptimization.com/speed/tweak/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
    > 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.
     
    Phil Wheeler, Sep 26, 2004
    #12
  13. zxcvar

    Jer Guest

    Phil Wheeler wrote:

    > 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.
    >
    > Phil



    It sure as hell doesn't apply to Minolta's A2 either.


    --
    jer email reply - I am not a 'ten'
    "All that we do is touched with ocean, yet we remain on the shore of
    what we know." -- Richard Wilbur
     
    Jer, Sep 26, 2004
    #13
  14. zxcvar

    Mark M Guest

    "Phil Wheeler" <> 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.**
    :)
     
    Mark M, Sep 26, 2004
    #14
  15. zxcvar

    ThomasH Guest

    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?section_id=2&article_id=1039&page_number=1

    Both Canon and Nikon lenses provide a gain of up to 3 stops.

    Thomas
     
    ThomasH, Sep 26, 2004
    #15
  16. zxcvar

    Skip M Guest

    "Tony Morgan" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In message <Ywl5d.20464$>, Phil Wheeler
    > <> writes
    > >Read here:
    > >
    > >http://www.websiteoptimization.com/speed/tweak/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
    > 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.
    > --
    > Tony Morgan
    > http://www.camcord.info


    Before one derides another's statements, one should make sure one's own
    statements are not deserving of derision.
    What you describe is most decidedly NOT how Canon's image stabilization
    works, otherwise it would not work on film cameras. Nor is it the way
    Nikon's works, nor Sigma's, which both work the same way as described for
    Canon. Minolta's works by moving the entire sensor to keep it on a plane
    with the image.
    Next time, it would be advisable to do one's own homework before commenting
    on other's.

    --
    Skip Middleton
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
     
    Skip M, Sep 26, 2004
    #16
  17. 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".
    sorry, there ain't no free lunch...
    "Mark M" <> wrote in message
    news:tyj5d.335175$Oi.95433@fed1read04...
    >
    > "zxcvar" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > 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.

    >
    > 2-3 stops both according to Canon, and also in my experience.
    > It is amazingly useful.
    >
    >
     
    Yehuda Paradise, Sep 26, 2004
    #17
  18. zxcvar

    Mark M Guest

    "Yehuda Paradise" <> wrote in message
    news:cj5ng4$nee$...
    > 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".
    > sorry, there ain't no free lunch...


    I would suggest you go pick up a 400mm 2.8 IS L lens, and watch through the
    viewfinder as IS engages. :)

    I don't mean to be rude, but you simply don't know what you're talking
    about.
    -When/if you DO look through that lens at high tele extensions, the folly of
    your statement will be incredibly obvious.

    I've taken shots at 400mm that are VERY nice right down to 1/30th of a
    second, hand-held (and slower). -And I'm very picky! That's WAY WAY slower
    than the general rule of focal length=shutter speed dictates for acceptable
    hand-held steadiness.

    As you move up to tele extension, your limitations increase, yes...but the
    benefits of IS stay proportionally beneficial along side those naturally
    present limitations as you go up as well.

    I own and use four different IS lenses from 28-400mm, utilizing three
    generations of IS technology. I am speaking from both experience and
    understanding of the technology. I don't know where you're coming from, but
    you are simply incorrect here.

    > "Mark M" <> wrote in message
    > news:tyj5d.335175$Oi.95433@fed1read04...
    > >
    > > "zxcvar" <> wrote in message
    > > news:...
    > > > 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.

    > >
    > > 2-3 stops both according to Canon, and also in my experience.
    > > It is amazingly useful.
    > >
    > >

    >
    >
     
    Mark M, Sep 26, 2004
    #18
  19. zxcvar

    Tony Morgan Guest

    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 bollocks.
    >
    >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
     
    Tony Morgan, Sep 26, 2004
    #19
  20. Tony Morgan <> wrote in
    news::

    > You blind or something. Here, I'll help you:
    > Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
    > Digital cameras have no CCD? You're talking bollocks.
    > ROFL.... Try honing you reading skills and powers of comprehension.


    Tony - why don't you just admit you were wrong and
    get over it?

    What you described was video stabilization usually
    found in camcorders.

    The original question was regarding image stabilization
    for still cameras. A totally different task.


    /Roland
     
    Roland Karlsson, Sep 26, 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. David J Taylor

    Canon 86X f/1.7 zoom with image stabilisation....

    David J Taylor, Jul 16, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    387
    David J Taylor
    Jul 17, 2005
  2. MichaelM

    image stabilisation ~ how does it work?

    MichaelM, Jun 23, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    56
    Views:
    1,073
    Neil Harrington
    Jun 26, 2006
  3. Justin C

    Image Stabilisation - why?

    Justin C, Jan 5, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    109
    Views:
    1,667
    David Dyer-Bennet
    Jan 19, 2007
  4. David J Taylor

    Optical image stabilisation internals ....

    David J Taylor, Aug 2, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    293
    David J Taylor
    Aug 2, 2007
  5. Carpe Diem

    Image stabilisation on Panasonic DMC FZ18

    Carpe Diem, Mar 28, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    628
    Carpe Diem
    Mar 28, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page