Why Aren't Shake Warnings Based on Camera Movement?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by jim evans, Nov 13, 2006.

  1. jim evans

    jim evans Guest

    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
     
    jim evans, Nov 13, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. "jim evans" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >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?
     
    Rudy Benner \(All_Thumbs\), Nov 14, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. jim evans

    Guest

    There is a reason they call the shift warning on some manual cars "the
    idiot light."
     
    , Nov 14, 2006
    #3
  4. jim evans

    Roy G Guest

    "jim evans" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >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
     
    Roy G, Nov 14, 2006
    #4
  5. jim evans

    jim evans Guest

    On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 00:57:42 GMT, "Roy G"
    <> 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
     
    jim evans, Nov 14, 2006
    #5
  6. 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
     
    John McWilliams, Nov 14, 2006
    #6
  7. jim evans

    JohnR66 Guest

    "jim evans" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >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
     
    JohnR66, Nov 14, 2006
    #7
  8. jim evans

    jim evans Guest

    On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 17:45:51 -0800, John McWilliams
    <> 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
     
    jim evans, Nov 14, 2006
    #8
  9. jim evans

    jim evans Guest

    On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 01:53:16 GMT, "JohnR66" <> 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
     
    jim evans, Nov 14, 2006
    #9
  10. jim evans

    Jim Guest

    "Rudy Benner (All_Thumbs)" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > "jim evans" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >>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
     
    Jim, Nov 14, 2006
    #10
  11. jim evans

    timeOday Guest

    Roy G wrote:
    > "jim evans" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    >>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
    >
    >


    Maybe, maybe not. Compact cameras already show a preview on the screen,
    so they are clearly already capturing the image. Some clever processing
    might enable them to detect and warn about camera shake.

    If not, a shake warning could still be issued with a crude
    accelerometer, with no directional feedback and no corrective mechanism.
    Even hard drives have accelerometers in them now. So I don't think a
    full IS mechanism would be necessary.
     
    timeOday, Nov 14, 2006
    #11
  12. jim evans

    jim evans Guest

    On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 03:27:54 GMT, "Jim" <> wrote:

    >
    >"Rudy Benner (All_Thumbs)" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >>
    >> "jim evans" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>>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.


    Then there was that awful flash powder and the messy wet plates

    -- jim
     
    jim evans, Nov 14, 2006
    #12
  13. jim evans

    Neil Ellwood Guest

    Jim wrote:

    >> 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
    >
    >

    There were rangefinders in the 1930's or doesn't this qualify as the
    olden days?

    --
    Neil
    swap 'ra' and delete 'l' for email
     
    Neil Ellwood, Nov 14, 2006
    #13
  14. jim evans

    Roy G Guest

    "jim evans" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    > On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 01:53:16 GMT, "JohnR66" <> 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


    What, exactly, would be the point of a "Shake" warning on a Camera which was
    equipped with full IS.

    Would it come on as soon as the IS detected some "Shake"? But then the IS
    would cancel out that "Shake", which makes the warning redundant.

    Or would it only come on when the IS system calculated that its "Anti-Shake"
    abilities were going to be exceeded? So that you would then switch the IS
    off, and mount the camera on a tripod.

    Mind you that last one is a bit unlikely.

    I can quite easily hand hold my camera at 1 - 30th with the lens at the 35
    equivalent of 600mm, and get perfectly sharp photos, because of the IS,
    (Nikon VR actually).

    I rather suspect you are not overfamiliar with IS or VR.

    Roy G
     
    Roy G, Nov 14, 2006
    #14
  15. jim evans

    jim evans Guest

    On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 11:18:02 GMT, "Roy G"
    <> wrote:
    >What, exactly, would be the point of a "Shake" warning on a Camera which was
    >equipped with full IS.


    So, you feel the shake warnings currently on cameras with IS are
    stupid?

    > would it only come on when the IS system calculated that its "Anti-Shake"
    >abilities were going to be exceeded?


    Yes.

    >So that you would then switch the IS off, and mount the camera on a tripod.


    Or, you'd increase the ISO or use flash or brace yourself more or . .
    ..

    >I can quite easily hand hold my camera at 1 - 30th with the lens at the 35
    >equivalent of 600mm, and get perfectly sharp photos, because of the IS,


    And at 600mm?

    >I rather suspect you are not overfamiliar with IS or VR.


    You're prescribing to me? Photographer, heal thyself.

    -- jim
     
    jim evans, Nov 14, 2006
    #15
  16. jim evans

    bugbear Guest

    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?


    Well, IS would be tricky if the camera hasn't got it,
    but focal length *should* be factored in - easy to do.

    BugBear
     
    bugbear, Nov 14, 2006
    #16
  17. jim evans

    POHB Guest

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


    My Konica Minolta certainly uses data from the IS system, there's a
    little bar chart showing how hard it is working to keep the image
    steady. You can see it go up when you move the camera and down when you
    hold it still.
     
    POHB, Nov 14, 2006
    #17
  18. jim evans

    Bill Funk Guest

    On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 20:14:58 -0600, jim evans
    <> wrote:

    >On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 01:53:16 GMT, "JohnR66" <> 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


    Another thing I'm unaware of - shake warnings.
    I have three cameras with IS; a Canon 30D (IS lenses), an S2IS, and a
    Lumix FX01. None of these have any "shake warning."
    What form do these shake warnings take?
    --
    Bill Funk
    replace "g" with "a"
     
    Bill Funk, Nov 14, 2006
    #18
  19. Bill Funk wrote:
    > On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 20:14:58 -0600, jim evans
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 01:53:16 GMT, "JohnR66" <> 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.
    >>

    > Another thing I'm unaware of - shake warnings.
    > I have three cameras with IS; a Canon 30D (IS lenses), an S2IS, and a
    > Lumix FX01. None of these have any "shake warning."
    > What form do these shake warnings take?


    An obnoxious, fast repeating voice booms out:

    "Warning! Apply directly to tripod!"
    "Warning! Apply directly to tripod!"
    "Warning! Apply directly to tripod!"

    etc, etc,

    --
    john mcwilliams
     
    John McWilliams, Nov 14, 2006
    #19
  20. jim evans

    JC Dill Guest

    On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 07:35:44 -0600, jim evans
    <> wrote:

    >>So that you would then switch the IS off, and mount the camera on a tripod.

    >
    >Or, you'd increase the ISO or use flash or brace yourself more or . .


    Another option is to take several shots - hoping that you are well
    braced enough for one of them to have an acceptable image.

    jc

    --

    "The nice thing about a mare is you get to ride a lot
    of different horses without having to own that many."
    ~ Eileen Morgan of The Mare's Nest, PA
     
    JC Dill, Nov 14, 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. Hodge
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    468
    Hodge
    Nov 4, 2003
  2. jonathan

    post processing techniques for camera movement

    jonathan, Oct 16, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    1,141
  3. Guest

    How does digital camera efl effect camera shake?

    Guest, Dec 17, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    691
    Guest
    Dec 17, 2003
  4. Jax
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    1,078
  5. SBFan2000

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

    SBFan2000, Aug 17, 2006, in forum: A+ Certification
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    897
    SBFan2000
    Aug 17, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page