Image Stabilization vs Noise

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by jpc, Dec 21, 2006.

  1. jpc

    jpc Guest

    Based on some published information from a review site, IS point and
    shoot camera seem to be more noisy than non IS camera. This I'm
    blaiming on electrical pickup from the piezo motors used to move
    either a lens element or the sensor.

    Anyone have any experience or comments on this topic

    jpc
    jpc, Dec 21, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. jpc wrote:
    > Based on some published information from a review site, IS point and
    > shoot camera seem to be more noisy than non IS camera. This I'm
    > blaiming on electrical pickup from the piezo motors used to move
    > either a lens element or the sensor.
    >
    > Anyone have any experience or comments on this topic
    >
    > jpc


    My immediate reaction is, no, that cannot be. But did the extra noise
    disappear when the IS was switched off? If, by noise, you mean image
    "grain", I think it extremely unlike that motor interference would be
    sufficiently random in nature to look like noise.

    David
    David J Taylor, Dec 21, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. jpc

    Phil Wheeler Guest

    jpc wrote:
    > Based on some published information from a review site, IS point and
    > shoot camera seem to be more noisy than non IS camera. This I'm
    > blaiming on electrical pickup from the piezo motors used to move
    > either a lens element or the sensor.
    >
    > Anyone have any experience or comments on this topic
    >


    It would help if you provided a link to the review
    site.

    And: Audio noise in movies or video noise in
    images or noise you hear from the camera with
    your ears? Unclear.

    I have three IS cameras and four IS lenses for my
    DSLR. None of these types of noise has been an issue.

    Phil
    Phil Wheeler, Dec 21, 2006
    #3
  4. jpc

    just bob Guest

    "jpc" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Based on some published information from a review site, IS point and
    > shoot camera seem to be more noisy than non IS camera. This I'm
    > blaiming on electrical pickup from the piezo motors used to move
    > either a lens element or the sensor.
    >
    > Anyone have any experience or comments on this topic
    >


    I would like to read the reviews, too, but I'm guessing the newer IS models
    have more megapixles and thus more noise(?).
    just bob, Dec 21, 2006
    #4
  5. "jpc" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Based on some published information from a review site, IS point and
    > shoot camera seem to be more noisy than non IS camera. This I'm
    > blaiming on electrical pickup from the piezo motors used to move
    > either a lens element or the sensor.


    I Googled it and found some references to acoustic noise with some IS
    cameras.

    As the other poster said, cranking up the pixel count without increasing the
    sensor size will cause more noise.
    Charles Schuler, Dec 21, 2006
    #5
  6. jpc

    Skip Guest

    "jpc" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Based on some published information from a review site, IS point and
    > shoot camera seem to be more noisy than non IS camera. This I'm
    > blaiming on electrical pickup from the piezo motors used to move
    > either a lens element or the sensor.
    >
    > Anyone have any experience or comments on this topic
    >
    > jpc


    I'm guessing it's because the p&s IS cameras have "digital" stabilization,
    which, in many cases, is merely a bump up for ISO and shutter speed, which,
    of course, results in more noise...

    --
    Skip Middleton
    www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
    www.pbase.com/skipm
    Skip, Dec 21, 2006
    #6
  7. jpc

    DougL Guest

    Skip wrote:
    > "jpc" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > Based on some published information from a review site, IS point and
    > > shoot camera seem to be more noisy than non IS camera. This I'm
    > > blaiming on electrical pickup from the piezo motors used to move
    > > either a lens element or the sensor.
    > >
    > > Anyone have any experience or comments on this topic
    > >
    > > jpc

    >
    > I'm guessing it's because the p&s IS cameras have "digital" stabilization,
    > which, in many cases, is merely a bump up for ISO and shutter speed, which,
    > of course, results in more noise...
    >
    > --
    > Skip Middleton
    > www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
    > www.pbase.com/skipm


    Exactly right, as finally concluded in this long thread over the last
    two days.

    http://tinyurl.com/yj7mpq

    Turn it off, if you can, if you don't need it.

    Note too that digital image stabilization (DIS) has neither a
    stabilization sensor, nor does any image motion. Just ISO bump up,
    which amplifies system noise as well. We finally concluded that calling
    this IS was quite misrepresentative.

    Optical image stabilization (OIS) has a tilt sensor, and a moving
    mirror to shift the image.

    Charge motion image stabilization has a tilt sensor, and shifts the
    image digitally in the pixels electronically.

    Inexpensive consumer cameras just have DIS. No sensor, no piezo motors,
    no nothing.
    DougL, Dec 21, 2006
    #7
  8. jpc

    J. Clarke Guest

    On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 14:43:06 -0800, DougL wrote:

    > Skip wrote:
    >> "jpc" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >> > Based on some published information from a review site, IS point and
    >> > shoot camera seem to be more noisy than non IS camera. This I'm
    >> > blaiming on electrical pickup from the piezo motors used to move
    >> > either a lens element or the sensor.
    >> >
    >> > Anyone have any experience or comments on this topic
    >> >
    >> > jpc

    >>
    >> I'm guessing it's because the p&s IS cameras have "digital" stabilization,
    >> which, in many cases, is merely a bump up for ISO and shutter speed, which,
    >> of course, results in more noise...
    >>
    >> --
    >> Skip Middleton
    >> www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
    >> www.pbase.com/skipm

    >
    > Exactly right, as finally concluded in this long thread over the last
    > two days.
    >
    > http://tinyurl.com/yj7mpq
    >
    > Turn it off, if you can, if you don't need it.
    >
    > Note too that digital image stabilization (DIS) has neither a
    > stabilization sensor, nor does any image motion. Just ISO bump up,
    > which amplifies system noise as well. We finally concluded that calling
    > this IS was quite misrepresentative.
    >
    > Optical image stabilization (OIS) has a tilt sensor, and a moving
    > mirror to shift the image.
    >
    > Charge motion image stabilization has a tilt sensor, and shifts the
    > image digitally in the pixels electronically.
    >
    > Inexpensive consumer cameras just have DIS. No sensor, no piezo motors,
    > no nothing.


    Oh, GAWD.

    First most point and shoot cameras with image stabilization have optical
    image stabilization just like Canon and Nikon DSLRs. It's only the Fuji
    and possibly some other other cheap POS cameras that pretend that they
    do by increasing the ISO. Second, optical image stabilization does not
    use a "moving mirror", one of the elements in the lens moves, those
    elements all being lenses unless its a catadioptric.

    --
    --John
    to email, dial "usenet" and validate
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
    J. Clarke, Dec 21, 2006
    #8
  9. jpc

    Skip Guest

    "J. Clarke" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 14:43:06 -0800, DougL wrote:
    >
    >> Skip wrote:
    >>> "jpc" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:...
    >>> > Based on some published information from a review site, IS point and
    >>> > shoot camera seem to be more noisy than non IS camera. This I'm
    >>> > blaiming on electrical pickup from the piezo motors used to move
    >>> > either a lens element or the sensor.
    >>> >
    >>> > Anyone have any experience or comments on this topic
    >>> >
    >>> > jpc
    >>>
    >>> I'm guessing it's because the p&s IS cameras have "digital"
    >>> stabilization,
    >>> which, in many cases, is merely a bump up for ISO and shutter speed,
    >>> which,
    >>> of course, results in more noise...
    >>>
    >>> --
    >>> Skip Middleton
    >>> www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
    >>> www.pbase.com/skipm

    >>
    >> Exactly right, as finally concluded in this long thread over the last
    >> two days.
    >>
    >> http://tinyurl.com/yj7mpq
    >>
    >> Turn it off, if you can, if you don't need it.
    >>
    >> Note too that digital image stabilization (DIS) has neither a
    >> stabilization sensor, nor does any image motion. Just ISO bump up,
    >> which amplifies system noise as well. We finally concluded that calling
    >> this IS was quite misrepresentative.
    >>
    >> Optical image stabilization (OIS) has a tilt sensor, and a moving
    >> mirror to shift the image.
    >>
    >> Charge motion image stabilization has a tilt sensor, and shifts the
    >> image digitally in the pixels electronically.
    >>
    >> Inexpensive consumer cameras just have DIS. No sensor, no piezo motors,
    >> no nothing.

    >
    > Oh, GAWD.
    >
    > First most point and shoot cameras with image stabilization have optical
    > image stabilization just like Canon and Nikon DSLRs. It's only the Fuji
    > and possibly some other other cheap POS cameras that pretend that they
    > do by increasing the ISO. Second, optical image stabilization does not
    > use a "moving mirror", one of the elements in the lens moves, those
    > elements all being lenses unless its a catadioptric.
    >
    > --
    > --John
    > to email, dial "usenet" and validate
    > (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)


    The Oly FE-170 I was flummoxed into buying for my daughter for Christmas has
    "digital image stabilization," not an expensive camera, at $150, but from a
    respected mfr.
    I won't argue your other points, (moving mirror?), but some of them move the
    sensor, don't they?

    --
    Skip Middleton
    www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
    www.pbase.com/skipm
    Skip, Dec 22, 2006
    #9
  10. jpc

    Phil Wheeler Guest

    DougL wrote:
    >
    > Optical image stabilization (OIS) has a tilt sensor, and a moving
    > mirror to shift the image.
    >
    > Charge motion image stabilization has a tilt sensor, and shifts the
    > image digitally in the pixels electronically.
    >
    > Inexpensive consumer cameras just have DIS. No sensor, no piezo motors,
    > no nothing.
    >


    My Canons (S3 IS and SD700IS) do it with optical
    elements in the lens system .. just as with the
    Canon SLR lenses.

    Phil
    Phil Wheeler, Dec 22, 2006
    #10
  11. jpc

    jpc Guest

    On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 10:44:48 -0800, Phil Wheeler <>
    wrote:

    >jpc wrote:
    >> Based on some published information from a review site, IS point and
    >> shoot camera seem to be more noisy than non IS camera. This I'm
    >> blaiming on electrical pickup from the piezo motors used to move
    >> either a lens element or the sensor.
    >>
    >> Anyone have any experience or comments on this topic
    >>

    >
    >It would help if you provided a link to the review
    >site.
    >


    Yesterday was a busy day, so I didn't get a change to get back to
    anyone's post.

    The review site I'm using is imaging-resource.com. While I believe
    they mentioned high noise in a review of a Canon IS P&S, what I've
    done is use the DaveBox images to do my own noise analysis. If you
    take the trouble to extract the information, these images are a
    treasure trove of information on camera performance since the
    imaging-resource people have been taking pictures of the same target
    under the same lighting conditions for the last 12 years.

    Here is my procedure if you want to duplicate the data I have on my
    screen right now.

    Go to the Canon 5D, Canon S3IS and Oly SP350 reviews. Download the
    200 and 400 ISO low light (11lumen) davebox images of all three
    cameras. These are at the end of the review and are the one's I've
    been using since 11 lumens is roughly the light level you'd see at
    night on a lighed city street.

    Next Google ImageJ and go to the NIH website for a free download.
    ImageJ is an excellent image analysis package that will do many things
    but the only thing you have to do is hit the line icon on the tool bar
    and drag a line down the grey scale section on the right central part
    of your davebox images. Then hit Cnrl-K and a staircase graph will pop
    up. You'll see the value (0-255) for each step in the grey scale with
    the noise superimposed on the steps.

    The Canon5D is our standard. Notice how all the noise is low and all
    the steps are easily seen. (The bumpiness near the bottom is a target
    problem). Also notice how the noise stays constant.

    Next look at at SP350 graph--one of the tiny pixel (5 square microns)
    camera that many in the news group like to trash. It's noise is 3 time
    worse than the 5D, which is exactly what you'd expect since the sensor
    area is 9 times smaller. And like the 5D the noise is pretty much
    constant as you move down the graph

    Now look at the S3IS graph. Not only is the noise not even close to
    being constant, it's over 10 time worse than the 5D in the dark area
    of the grey scale and 3-4 times worse that the SP350.

    Note--I'd argue that since ISO numbers are just gain settings to
    compare the sensor noise in cameras, you should start at lowest and X1
    gain-- no matter what the marketing folks decided to call that setting
    -- and count up gain steps. So my numbers are from comparing the 200
    ISO graphs of the 5D and Sp350 (both cameras start at ISO50) with the
    400 ISO of the S3IS. If you disagree and compare graphs labeled with
    the same ISO numbers, the results are the same, just a little less
    obvious.

    So what going on? Since Canon does know how to make good low
    noise cameras, I'm guessing the problem is caused by electrical pickup
    from the piezo motors. With the sensor ouputs measured in microvolts
    and the piezo motors being hit continiously at much higher voltages
    the design must be a noise-engineer's nightmare.


    >I have three IS cameras and four IS lenses for my
    >DSLR. None of these types of noise has been an issue.
    >


    I wouldn't expect to see this on a DSLR using IS lens since the
    piezo motors are much farther away from the sensor electronics.


    Any comments?

    jpc
    jpc, Dec 22, 2006
    #11
  12. jpc

    Aaron Guest

    And lo, Skip <> emerged from the ether
    and spake thus:
    > "J. Clarke" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 14:43:06 -0800, DougL wrote:
    >>
    >>> Skip wrote:
    >>>> "jpc" <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:...
    >>>> > Based on some published information from a review site, IS point and
    >>>> > shoot camera seem to be more noisy than non IS camera. This I'm
    >>>> > blaiming on electrical pickup from the piezo motors used to move
    >>>> > either a lens element or the sensor.
    >>>> >
    >>>> > Anyone have any experience or comments on this topic
    >>>> >
    >>>> > jpc
    >>>>
    >>>> I'm guessing it's because the p&s IS cameras have "digital"
    >>>> stabilization,
    >>>> which, in many cases, is merely a bump up for ISO and shutter speed,
    >>>> which,
    >>>> of course, results in more noise...
    >>>>
    >>>> --
    >>>> Skip Middleton
    >>>> www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
    >>>> www.pbase.com/skipm
    >>>
    >>> Exactly right, as finally concluded in this long thread over the last
    >>> two days.
    >>>
    >>> http://tinyurl.com/yj7mpq
    >>>
    >>> Turn it off, if you can, if you don't need it.
    >>>
    >>> Note too that digital image stabilization (DIS) has neither a
    >>> stabilization sensor, nor does any image motion. Just ISO bump up,
    >>> which amplifies system noise as well. We finally concluded that calling
    >>> this IS was quite misrepresentative.
    >>>
    >>> Optical image stabilization (OIS) has a tilt sensor, and a moving
    >>> mirror to shift the image.
    >>>
    >>> Charge motion image stabilization has a tilt sensor, and shifts the
    >>> image digitally in the pixels electronically.
    >>>
    >>> Inexpensive consumer cameras just have DIS. No sensor, no piezo motors,
    >>> no nothing.

    >>
    >> Oh, GAWD.
    >>
    >> First most point and shoot cameras with image stabilization have optical
    >> image stabilization just like Canon and Nikon DSLRs. It's only the Fuji
    >> and possibly some other other cheap POS cameras that pretend that they
    >> do by increasing the ISO. Second, optical image stabilization does not
    >> use a "moving mirror", one of the elements in the lens moves, those
    >> elements all being lenses unless its a catadioptric.
    >>
    >> --
    >> --John
    >> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
    >> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

    >
    > The Oly FE-170 I was flummoxed into buying for my daughter for Christmas has
    > "digital image stabilization," not an expensive camera, at $150, but from a
    > respected mfr.
    > I won't argue your other points, (moving mirror?), but some of them move the
    > sensor, don't they?


    Some of them move the sensor, but not for $150 they don't. In-camera
    mechanical image stabilization is a relatively new feature, too.

    --
    Aaron
    http://www.fisheyegallery.com
    http://www.singleservingphoto.com
    Aaron, Dec 22, 2006
    #12
  13. jpc wrote:
    []
    > So what going on? Since Canon does know how to make good low
    > noise cameras, I'm guessing the problem is caused by electrical pickup
    > from the piezo motors. With the sensor ouputs measured in microvolts
    > and the piezo motors being hit continiously at much higher voltages
    > the design must be a noise-engineer's nightmare.


    How does the noise you have measured compare to the pixel area?

    David
    David J Taylor, Dec 22, 2006
    #13
  14. jpc

    jpc Guest

    On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 18:53:39 GMT, "David J Taylor"
    <-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> wrote:

    >jpc wrote:
    >[]
    >> So what going on? Since Canon does know how to make good low
    >> noise cameras, I'm guessing the problem is caused by electrical pickup
    >> from the piezo motors. With the sensor ouputs measured in microvolts
    >> and the piezo motors being hit continiously at much higher voltages
    >> the design must be a noise-engineer's nightmare.

    >
    >How does the noise you have measured compare to the pixel area?
    >
    >David
    >


    The 5D has a pixel area of about 70 sq microns where about 25 sq
    microns of the silicon rea lestate is used by the pixel electronics
    the keeps the noise so low. It has an active sensor area of about 45
    sq microns.

    Ths SP350 has a 5 sq micron sensor; the S3IS has a 4 sq micron sensor

    So the S3IS should have slightly more noise than the SP350, but it
    should be nowhere near the 3-4 times more noise in the dark areas It
    the noise was photon shot noise, the only noise source where pixel
    area is important, the noise would stay roughly constant as long as
    the camera has a default gamma curve somewhere near 2.2.

    The excess noise has to be coming from inside the camera and not from
    the light entering the camera. My guess is the piezo motors, but I
    maybe wrong.

    If there is anyone reading this thread who owns a IS P&S and wants to
    prove me wrong I have a procedure to test your camera. Just snapping
    a picture with IS on and then off and eyeballing the results
    will not reveal that much. Because of the physics of photon shot noise
    and gamma correction, the excess noise will showup in the near total
    black areas where it would be difficult to eyeball accurately

    jpc
    jpc, Dec 22, 2006
    #14
  15. jpc

    DougL Guest

    J. Clarke wrote:
    > On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 14:43:06 -0800, DougL wrote:
    >
    > > Skip wrote:
    > >> "jpc" <> wrote in message
    > >> news:...
    > >> > Based on some published information from a review site, IS point and
    > >> > shoot camera seem to be more noisy than non IS camera. This I'm
    > >> > blaiming on electrical pickup from the piezo motors used to move
    > >> > either a lens element or the sensor.
    > >> >
    > >> > Anyone have any experience or comments on this topic
    > >> >
    > >> > jpc
    > >>
    > >> I'm guessing it's because the p&s IS cameras have "digital" stabilization,
    > >> which, in many cases, is merely a bump up for ISO and shutter speed, which,
    > >> of course, results in more noise...
    > >>
    > >> --
    > >> Skip Middleton
    > >> www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
    > >> www.pbase.com/skipm

    > >
    > > Exactly right, as finally concluded in this long thread over the last
    > > two days.
    > >
    > > http://tinyurl.com/yj7mpq
    > >
    > > Turn it off, if you can, if you don't need it.
    > >
    > > Note too that digital image stabilization (DIS) has neither a
    > > stabilization sensor, nor does any image motion. Just ISO bump up,
    > > which amplifies system noise as well. We finally concluded that calling
    > > this IS was quite misrepresentative.
    > >
    > > Optical image stabilization (OIS) has a tilt sensor, and a moving
    > > mirror to shift the image.
    > >
    > > Charge motion image stabilization has a tilt sensor, and shifts the
    > > image digitally in the pixels electronically.
    > >
    > > Inexpensive consumer cameras just have DIS. No sensor, no piezo motors,
    > > no nothing.

    >
    > Oh, GAWD.
    >
    > First most point and shoot cameras with image stabilization have optical
    > image stabilization just like Canon and Nikon DSLRs. It's only the Fuji
    > and possibly some other other cheap POS cameras that pretend that they
    > do by increasing the ISO. Second, optical image stabilization does not
    > use a "moving mirror", one of the elements in the lens moves, those
    > elements all being lenses unless its a catadioptric.
    >
    > --
    > --John
    > to email, dial "usenet" and validate
    > (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)


    Oh gawd?

    We spend several days and a lot of words trying to establish exactly
    who has what. As far as the thread participants were concerned, we
    ended up concluding that point and shoot cameras did NOT have OIS. Can
    you supply a pointer that says otherwise?

    Would be interesting to know who really does image stabilization
    (either CCD-shift or optical) in a point-and-shoot.

    Yes, "moving mirror" was my shorthand. "Moving optic" would have been
    more accurate.
    DougL, Dec 22, 2006
    #15
  16. jpc

    DougL Guest

    Skip wrote:
    > "J. Clarke" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 14:43:06 -0800, DougL wrote:
    > >
    > >> Skip wrote:
    > >>> "jpc" <> wrote in message
    > >>> news:...
    > >>> > Based on some published information from a review site, IS point and
    > >>> > shoot camera seem to be more noisy than non IS camera. This I'm
    > >>> > blaiming on electrical pickup from the piezo motors used to move
    > >>> > either a lens element or the sensor.
    > >>> >
    > >>> > Anyone have any experience or comments on this topic
    > >>> >
    > >>> > jpc
    > >>>
    > >>> I'm guessing it's because the p&s IS cameras have "digital"
    > >>> stabilization,
    > >>> which, in many cases, is merely a bump up for ISO and shutter speed,
    > >>> which,
    > >>> of course, results in more noise...
    > >>>
    > >>> --
    > >>> Skip Middleton
    > >>> www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
    > >>> www.pbase.com/skipm
    > >>
    > >> Exactly right, as finally concluded in this long thread over the last
    > >> two days.
    > >>
    > >> http://tinyurl.com/yj7mpq
    > >>
    > >> Turn it off, if you can, if you don't need it.
    > >>
    > >> Note too that digital image stabilization (DIS) has neither a
    > >> stabilization sensor, nor does any image motion. Just ISO bump up,
    > >> which amplifies system noise as well. We finally concluded that calling
    > >> this IS was quite misrepresentative.
    > >>
    > >> Optical image stabilization (OIS) has a tilt sensor, and a moving
    > >> mirror to shift the image.
    > >>
    > >> Charge motion image stabilization has a tilt sensor, and shifts the
    > >> image digitally in the pixels electronically.
    > >>
    > >> Inexpensive consumer cameras just have DIS. No sensor, no piezo motors,
    > >> no nothing.

    > >
    > > Oh, GAWD.
    > >
    > > First most point and shoot cameras with image stabilization have optical
    > > image stabilization just like Canon and Nikon DSLRs. It's only the Fuji
    > > and possibly some other other cheap POS cameras that pretend that they
    > > do by increasing the ISO. Second, optical image stabilization does not
    > > use a "moving mirror", one of the elements in the lens moves, those
    > > elements all being lenses unless its a catadioptric.
    > >
    > > --
    > > --John
    > > to email, dial "usenet" and validate
    > > (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

    >
    > The Oly FE-170 I was flummoxed into buying for my daughter for Christmas has
    > "digital image stabilization," not an expensive camera, at $150, but from a
    > respected mfr.
    > I won't argue your other points, (moving mirror?), but some of them move the
    > sensor, don't they?
    >
    > --
    > Skip Middleton
    > www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
    > www.pbase.com/skipm


    As I said, these inexpensive cameras just have DIS, and there isn't
    anything moving in this "stabiliztion system". Not even electrons
    between pixels.

    Never heard of moving the sensor. As in moving the CCD?
    Engineering-wise, that would be pretty challenging.
    DougL, Dec 22, 2006
    #16
  17. DougL wrote:
    []
    > We spend several days and a lot of words trying to establish exactly
    > who has what. As far as the thread participants were concerned, we
    > ended up concluding that point and shoot cameras did NOT have OIS. Can
    > you supply a pointer that says otherwise?
    >
    > Would be interesting to know who really does image stabilization
    > (either CCD-shift or optical) in a point-and-shoot.
    >
    > Yes, "moving mirror" was my shorthand. "Moving optic" would have been
    > more accurate.



    You concluded incorrectly.

    Plenty of non-SLR cameras have pure optical image stabilsation, for
    example lens-based in many of the Panasonic cameras (FZ20, FZ5, FZ30,
    FZ50, FZ7 and many of their compact cameras as well), and Canon S1-IS,
    S2-IS, S3-IS, and Minolta have (had?) moving sensor (Z3 etc.).

    Some pointers:

    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicfz20/

    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonictz1/

    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canons3is/

    http://www.dpreview.com/news/0407/04070703dimagez3.asp

    David
    David J Taylor, Dec 22, 2006
    #17
  18. jpc

    jpc Guest

    On 22 Dec 2006 12:53:21 -0800, "DougL" <> wrote:

    >
    >Skip wrote:
    >> "J. Clarke" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >> > On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 14:43:06 -0800, DougL wrote:
    >> >
    >> >> Skip wrote:
    >> >>> "jpc" <> wrote in message
    >> >>> news:...
    >> >>> > Based on some published information from a review site, IS point and
    >> >>> > shoot camera seem to be more noisy than non IS camera. This I'm
    >> >>> > blaiming on electrical pickup from the piezo motors used to move
    >> >>> > either a lens element or the sensor.
    >> >>> >
    >> >>> > Anyone have any experience or comments on this topic
    >> >>> >
    >> >>> > jpc
    >> >>>
    >> >>> I'm guessing it's because the p&s IS cameras have "digital"
    >> >>> stabilization,
    >> >>> which, in many cases, is merely a bump up for ISO and shutter speed,
    >> >>> which,
    >> >>> of course, results in more noise...
    >> >>>
    >> >>> --
    >> >>> Skip Middleton
    >> >>> www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
    >> >>> www.pbase.com/skipm
    >> >>
    >> >> Exactly right, as finally concluded in this long thread over the last
    >> >> two days.
    >> >>
    >> >> http://tinyurl.com/yj7mpq
    >> >>
    >> >> Turn it off, if you can, if you don't need it.
    >> >>
    >> >> Note too that digital image stabilization (DIS) has neither a
    >> >> stabilization sensor, nor does any image motion. Just ISO bump up,
    >> >> which amplifies system noise as well. We finally concluded that calling
    >> >> this IS was quite misrepresentative.
    >> >>
    >> >> Optical image stabilization (OIS) has a tilt sensor, and a moving
    >> >> mirror to shift the image.
    >> >>
    >> >> Charge motion image stabilization has a tilt sensor, and shifts the
    >> >> image digitally in the pixels electronically.
    >> >>
    >> >> Inexpensive consumer cameras just have DIS. No sensor, no piezo motors,
    >> >> no nothing.
    >> >
    >> > Oh, GAWD.
    >> >
    >> > First most point and shoot cameras with image stabilization have optical
    >> > image stabilization just like Canon and Nikon DSLRs. It's only the Fuji
    >> > and possibly some other other cheap POS cameras that pretend that they
    >> > do by increasing the ISO. Second, optical image stabilization does not
    >> > use a "moving mirror", one of the elements in the lens moves, those
    >> > elements all being lenses unless its a catadioptric.
    >> >
    >> > --
    >> > --John
    >> > to email, dial "usenet" and validate
    >> > (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

    >>
    >> The Oly FE-170 I was flummoxed into buying for my daughter for Christmas has
    >> "digital image stabilization," not an expensive camera, at $150, but from a
    >> respected mfr.
    >> I won't argue your other points, (moving mirror?), but some of them move the
    >> sensor, don't they?
    >>
    >> --
    >> Skip Middleton
    >> www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
    >> www.pbase.com/skipm

    >
    >As I said, these inexpensive cameras just have DIS, and there isn't
    >anything moving in this "stabiliztion system". Not even electrons
    >between pixels.
    >
    >Never heard of moving the sensor. As in moving the CCD?
    >Engineering-wise, that would be pretty challenging.


    Agree with that 100 %.

    Here's my version of camera shake correction---AKA IS

    Take a five foot length of light chain, attach it to a 1/4-20 bolt
    and screw into the tripod mounting hole of the camera. Wrap the camera
    strap around your neck and arm like it is a rifle sling. Frame your
    shot, step on the chain, and pull the camera taunt.

    Instant tripod.

    After some practice, I been able to take some reasonable hand held
    pictures with 1/4 to 1/2 exposure times. Don't know how this stacks up
    against the fancier version but I bet it's in the ball park.

    jpc
    jpc, Dec 22, 2006
    #18
  19. jpc

    Bill Funk Guest

    On 22 Dec 2006 12:53:21 -0800, "DougL" <> wrote:

    >As I said, these inexpensive cameras just have DIS, and there isn't
    >anything moving in this "stabiliztion system". Not even electrons
    >between pixels.
    >
    >Never heard of moving the sensor. As in moving the CCD?
    >Engineering-wise, that would be pretty challenging.


    "In-camera IS", as opposed to "in-lens IS", moves the sensor to
    counter camera shake/movement.
    There are some DSLRs that use this system.
    --
    Bill Funk
    replace "g" with "a"
    Bill Funk, Dec 22, 2006
    #19
  20. jpc

    Mark² Guest

    jpc wrote:
    > Based on some published information from a review site, IS point and
    > shoot camera seem to be more noisy than non IS camera. This I'm
    > blaiming on electrical pickup from the piezo motors used to move
    > either a lens element or the sensor.
    >
    > Anyone have any experience or comments on this topic



    Comments? Yes:
    Complete bollocks.


    --
    Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
    www.pbase.com/markuson
    Mark², Dec 23, 2006
    #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. James E Kropp

    Re: Appropriate Use of Image Stabilization

    James E Kropp, Jul 31, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    438
    John Navas
    Aug 2, 2003
  2. JJVandJMB

    Which cameras have image stabilization??

    JJVandJMB, Oct 20, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    18
    Views:
    990
    Jupiter
    Oct 22, 2003
  3. kjk

    Long Zooms with Image Stabilization

    kjk, Dec 27, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    313
    Hans-Georg Michna
    Dec 28, 2003
  4. Al Clark

    Lens stabilization vs Camera stabilization

    Al Clark, Nov 30, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    119
    Views:
    1,703
    Dan Sullivan
    Dec 9, 2006
  5. John Navas

    Noise Reduction software (Neat Image, Noise Ninja, etc.)

    John Navas, Oct 19, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    418
    John Navas
    Oct 19, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page