Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Aug 27, 2004, 4:08 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 208
Default

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.
DanielT2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Aug 27, 2004, 5:23 PM   #2
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

DanielT2 wrote:
Quote:
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).


JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 27, 2004, 5:39 PM   #3
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

DanielT2 wrote:
Quote:
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
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 27, 2004, 7:17 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Indian Rocks Beach, FL
Posts: 4,036
Default

From tests I've seen both methods are about equal in effect.
slipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 27, 2004, 8:21 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 544
Default

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.
Wildman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 28, 2004, 3:26 AM   #6
Member
 
judell74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 78
Default

Wildman wrote:
Quote:
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!!!
judell74 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 2:11 PM.