|
![]() |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
![]() |
#1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 208
|
![]()
I was reading about the "anti-shake" as they call it, in the Konica-Minolta DiMAGE Z3. It indicates 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. |
![]() |
![]() |
Sponsored Links |
|
![]() |
#2 | |
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
|
![]()
DanielT2 wrote:
Quote:
Canon's IS(Image Stabilized) lenses contain small gyro sensors and servo actuated optical elements which correct for camera shake. The Panasonic models with stabilized lenses use a similar technique. Konica-Minolta's anti-shake technology works by shifting the CCD to compensate for camera shake (this method is unique to Konica-Minolta, with the first camera to incorporate being the DiMAGE A1). Since then, the DiMAGE A2 (and now the DiMAGE Z3) incorporate this same technique. Konica-Minolta will also incorporate this technology into their soon to be released Dynax / Maxxum 7 Model (a Digital SLR). This will allow DSLR users the ability to have anti-shake with any of their lenses. In contrast, Canon SLR and DSLR users must use Canon's IS lenses to accomplish the same thing. Nikon also offers lenses with a similar technology for it's SLR and DSLR users. Nikon lenses designed to compensate for camera shake are designed VR (Vibration Reduction). |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,599
|
![]()
DanielT2 wrote:
Quote:
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Indian Rocks Beach, FL
Posts: 4,036
|
![]()
From tests I've seen both methods are about equal in effect.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 544
|
![]()
My old Canon Pro90 uses Canon's image stabilization (gyroscopes that control the lens). While this seems like a fragile approach, it has held up perfectly for three years for me. My old Pro90 has been a great camera, but is slow to focus and doesn't do well in low light. I rarely use a tripod... it's really a pain to drag one around.
I'm going to buy a DSLR in the near future (probably a Canon EOS 20D)and have been so impressed with my experience with Canon's IS, I will buy IS lenses for my new camera. The 17-85IS EFS lens looks good, but is pretty expensive. That's the bullet I plan to bite. I'll probably buy a long zoom IS lens when my budget allows. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 | |
Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 78
|
![]()
Wildman wrote:
Quote:
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|