Anti-shake / Image Stabilization

[DanielT2]

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.

[JimC]

DanielT2 wrote:

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.

Both techniques used in Still Cameras involve movement.

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).

[NHL]

DanielT2 wrote:

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.

... Some video cameras do this electronically, but are usually not the best approach (for example electronic zoom), but an easy sell

[slipe]

From tests I've seen both methods are about equal in effect.

[Wildman]

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.

[judell74]

Wildman wrote:

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.

Geez! You got a BIG budget! Hehehe!!!