Re: All image stabilization created equal?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Ofnuts, Aug 3, 2010.

  1. Ofnuts

    Ofnuts Guest

    On 03/08/2010 22:25, Eric wrote:
    > I've noticed that most Canon cameras use their "Digic 4" processor.
    > Presumably that is powering their image stabilization. If so, it seems
    > logical that the IS in all their digital cameras would be equally
    > effective (or ineffective, as the case may be).


    No, the IS is done in the lens, without help from the camera. A recent
    lens will du as much good on an old camera body with a "lesser"
    processor than on the shiny new ones with the latest processing marvel.

    > Does anyone know more about this? Any other brands have more
    > effective IS systems?


    There are basically two kinds of stabilization: lens-based (Canon,
    Nikon, Panasonic, plus Tamron and Sigma for lenses) as described above
    and sensor-based (sensor is moved behind the lens)(Pentax, Olympus...).
    In currently available cameras, the so-called "software" stabilization
    is likely pushing the ISOs to crank up the shutter speed (there are
    de-shake algorithms, including some that are based on acceleration
    measurement) but I doubt they can run on the processors found in
    entry-level cameras (and the other cameras already have one of the two
    "hardware" IS).

    > BTW, one of the reasons that I ask: I've had a Canon SLR zoom lens for
    > quite a while, and the image stabilization was great. Seems to be some
    > kind of intertial-sensing mechanism though--almost a gyro feel to it.
    > Obviously the P&S digitals are doing this in software.


    No, they use lens-based or sensor-based IS. But the accelerometers are
    really tiny chips, not gyroscopes. The "gyro feel" is really from the IS
    lens mechanism, when it's big.

    > My first test
    > of their digital IS was with an SD1200. It seemed to do almost
    > nothing.


    Check the specs, it's a lens-based IS (but on a tiny lens)

    --
    Bertrand
     
    Ofnuts, Aug 3, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. "Eric" <> wrote in message
    []
    > The next logical question is: How much difference is there between the
    > IS in the SX120 and the G11? Those are the two cameras I had been
    > considering. I just got to try them briefly, and it's difficult to
    > discern the finer points in a short test in a camera store.


    DPReview do some tests on the effectiveness of camera stabilisation:

    http://www.dpreview.com/

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Aug 4, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Ofnuts

    Dave Cohen Guest

    Eric wrote:
    > On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 23:28:36 +0200, Ofnuts <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> On 03/08/2010 22:25, Eric wrote:
    >>> I've noticed that most Canon cameras use their "Digic 4" processor.
    >>> Presumably that is powering their image stabilization. If so, it seems
    >>> logical that the IS in all their digital cameras would be equally
    >>> effective (or ineffective, as the case may be).

    >> No, the IS is done in the lens, without help from the camera. A recent
    >> lens will du as much good on an old camera body with a "lesser"
    >> processor than on the shiny new ones with the latest processing marvel.
    >>
    >>> Does anyone know more about this? Any other brands have more
    >>> effective IS systems?

    >> There are basically two kinds of stabilization: lens-based (Canon,
    >> Nikon, Panasonic, plus Tamron and Sigma for lenses) as described above
    >> and sensor-based (sensor is moved behind the lens)(Pentax, Olympus...).
    >> In currently available cameras, the so-called "software" stabilization
    >> is likely pushing the ISOs to crank up the shutter speed (there are
    >> de-shake algorithms, including some that are based on acceleration
    >> measurement) but I doubt they can run on the processors found in
    >> entry-level cameras (and the other cameras already have one of the two
    >> "hardware" IS).
    >>
    >>> BTW, one of the reasons that I ask: I've had a Canon SLR zoom lens for
    >>> quite a while, and the image stabilization was great. Seems to be some
    >>> kind of intertial-sensing mechanism though--almost a gyro feel to it.
    >>> Obviously the P&S digitals are doing this in software.

    >> No, they use lens-based or sensor-based IS. But the accelerometers are
    >> really tiny chips, not gyroscopes. The "gyro feel" is really from the IS
    >> lens mechanism, when it's big.
    >>
    >>> My first test
    >>> of their digital IS was with an SD1200. It seemed to do almost
    >>> nothing.

    >> Check the specs, it's a lens-based IS (but on a tiny lens)

    >
    > That makes sense. I got the original info from two different Canon
    > techs who said that the IS system was related to their Digic 4 chip,
    > and that therefore the IS in all their digital cameras would be the
    > same. In fact, one of the very knowledgable SLR guys had me on hold
    > for a while to confirm that with another (a third) tech.
    >
    > Your comments sound logical, and that would make some sense of why the
    > IS systems seemed different (ie nonexistent) in the SD1200.
    >
    > The next logical question is: How much difference is there between the
    > IS in the SX120 and the G11? Those are the two cameras I had been
    > considering. I just got to try them briefly, and it's difficult to
    > discern the finer points in a short test in a camera store.
    >

    I can't speak for the SD1200, but the IS on the A3100 definitely works.
    Any stabilization is better than nothing and most of us spent many years
    without such a luxury. I wouldn't worry too much in selecting between
    the models you're looking at.
     
    Dave Cohen, Aug 4, 2010
    #3
  4. Ofnuts

    Peter Guest

    "SneakyP" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns9DCA84D35EF048umofa02sneakemailc@127.0.0.1...
    > Eric <> wrote in
    > news::
    >
    >
    >> The next logical question is: How much difference is there between the
    >> IS in the SX120 and the G11? Those are the two cameras I had been
    >> considering. I just got to try them briefly, and it's difficult to
    >> discern the finer points in a short test in a camera store.
    >>
    >>

    >
    > Take your own memory storage device and use that in those two cameras, or
    > use two separate memories to test the cameras for whatever you want to
    > test
    > for.
    >
    >
    > Then go home and compare the photos you took with both cameras.
    >


    Good suggestion:
    One test I like to do is shoot a brick wall at various zoom lengths and
    ISOs. Then shoot some known solid colors with defined edges.


    --
    Peter
     
    Peter, Aug 4, 2010
    #4
    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. Replies:
    6
    Views:
    5,035
  2. Al Clark

    Lens stabilization vs Camera stabilization

    Al Clark, Nov 30, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    119
    Views:
    1,930
    Dan Sullivan
    Dec 9, 2006
  3. Unclaimed Mysteries

    All image stabilization is a HOAX!

    Unclaimed Mysteries, Aug 13, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    47
    Views:
    1,200
    John Turco
    Aug 23, 2007
  4. =?Utf-8?B?TkpU?=

    Internet Sharing: Equal upload speeds but un-equal download speeds

    =?Utf-8?B?TkpU?=, Sep 14, 2007, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,075
    =?Utf-8?B?TkpU?=
    Sep 15, 2007
  5. dumbrock
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    623
    dumbrock
    Oct 21, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page