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. Advertisements

  2. 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.

    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. Advertisements

  3. Atreju

    Atreju Guest

    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

    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).
    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.
     
    Alan Browne, Aug 27, 2004
    #4
  5. Nope - all other move a lens element in the lens.
    That is film cameras. They have image stabilization - frame by frame.
    Still cameras create one sharper frame - camera processor stabilisation
    is then not possible.
    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.
    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
    ....usually "less is more" when it comes to reliability, eg: "less
    cmplexity = more reliability"

    Cheers,
    Alan
     
    Alan Browne, Aug 27, 2004
    #7
  8. More complexity = less reliability; thus more is less.
     
    Charles Schuler, Aug 27, 2004
    #8
  9. Atreju

    Atreju Guest

    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
     
    Bill Crocker, Aug 27, 2004
    #10
  11. 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
     
    Hans-Georg Michna, Aug 27, 2004
    #11
  12. Atreju

    Nostrobino Guest

    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.

    Interesting idea. Never heard that one before.

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

    Atreju Guest

    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. 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

    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 M, Aug 28, 2004
    #16
  17. 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

    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. 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 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.
    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.
    In summary, its not common at all. But then stabilization isn't common in this
    class of cameras either.
     
    Dan Wojciechowski, Aug 30, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.