Steve's Digicams Forums

Steve's Digicams Forums (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/)
-   General Discussion (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/general-discussion-11/)
-   -   [Recovered Thread: 120926] (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/general-discussion-11/%5Brecovered-thread-120926%5D-118064/)

rkesselring Mar 29, 2007 2:50 PM

I have seen tests (though, admittadly not scientific) of shake reduction systems that show very little to no improvement in image sharpness. These results apply to sensor shift as well as lens element shift systems. I have also seen tests that indicate both systems are quite effective. Is anyone aware of an objective measurement for these systems. If not, I guess I would ask for experienced users recommendations.

Bob Nichol Mar 29, 2007 4:14 PM

I am able to hand hold my Nikon AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 IF-ED at 300mm and 1/60 with the VR turned on.

ac.smith Mar 29, 2007 4:37 PM

Based on my experience with the Kodak Z612 it works and its effectiveness is about as claimed - 2 stops reduction in shutter speed seems to be a good estimate. That's after you applied all the good technique you can bring to bear under the circumstances. I've also seen enough examples in this forum to believe it's generally effective.

It won't help with subject motion, only camera motion.

On the theoretical side I prefer lens based stabilization vs. sensor based stabilization.

TCav Mar 29, 2007 4:44 PM

Three years ago, I went around my neighborhood on Christmas Evetaking pictures of the decorations for the community newsletter. I was using my Nikon CoolPix 880.

80-90% of the shots were unuseable.

Last year, I did the same thing with my Konica-Minolta Maxxum 5D (with Anti-Shake).

90% of the shots were perfect.

How's that?

Greg Chappell Mar 30, 2007 1:26 AM

rkesselring wrote:
Quote:

I have seen tests (though, admittadly not scientific) of shake reduction systems that show very little to no improvement in image sharpness. These results apply to sensor shift as well as lens element shift systems. I have also seen tests that indicate both systems are quite effective. Is anyone aware of an objective measurement for these systems. If not, I guess I would ask for experienced users recommendations.
If you have good hand-holding technique, either type of image stabilization, lens or sensor, will be of benefit. If you don't, either can equally ineffective.Here's something I just posted that shows how good sensor stablization can work, up to 850mm..

http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...mp;forum_id=36

I've also owned a 100-400L Canon zoom with in-lens stabilization that was a beauty (and a brute)of a lens that could produce equally good results.

As I mentioned above, results are not 100% dependent on just the image stabilization system.The bestimage stabilization systemin the world can be ruined if the user pokes at a shutter release button or cannot hold a camera even relativelysteady.

Hayward Mar 30, 2007 3:34 AM

rkesselring wrote:
Quote:

I have seen tests (though, admittadly not scientific) of shake reduction systems that show very little to no improvement in image sharpness. These results apply to sensor shift as well as lens element shift systems. I have also seen tests that indicate both systems are quite effective. Is anyone aware of an objective measurement for these systems. If not, I guess I would ask for experienced users recommendations.
I am very happy with the SR on my Pentax K10D, especially using long lens in low light.

Like just before and after sunset. 1/90th sec @ 630mm (effectiveFL) no problem, without the SR it would be quite blured at that FL and low speed hand held. Even 300mm (effective) at 1/4 sec is not impossible.

But as stated SR/IS is NOT a cure all.... but can be very effective for those with good skills to begin with.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:47 AM.