Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital Cameras (Point and Shoot) > Konica Minolta

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Aug 12, 2004, 4:08 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 19
Default

The Z3 uses an anti shake system called ccd shift which as i understand it doesn't use an additional lens so is more compact and lighter, but is one system better than the other or is it down to other factors such as build quality?
redmikee is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Aug 13, 2004, 2:43 AM   #2
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 94
Default

According to Z3 owners, the anti-shake works fine and they can gain 3 f-stops with it, similarly to lens-based stabilization.

The only problem could be overheating, as the Z3 manual says. The LCD, AS mechanism and the CCD are too close to each other.
James Bond 007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 13, 2004, 3:47 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 120
Default

For a fixed lens camera like the Z3 or FZ20 it doesn't really matter whether you put the IS in the lens or the body. The Minolta mechanism comes into its own with the dSLR and interchangeable lenses. You don't have to put the IS in every lens. Also you get a simple mechanism to shake the CCD to get rid of dust, like the Oly E1.
Technophile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 13, 2004, 1:20 PM   #4
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Technophile wrote:
Quote:
Also you get a simple mechanism to shake the CCD to get rid of dust, like the Oly E1.
Actually, if you read the recent interview concerning the new DSLR withKeiichi Ishizuka (General Manager of the Konica Minolta Development Center), he indicated thatanti-shake would not work for dust removal. See page 3:

"Helberg: It is often a concern of Digital SLR users that dust on the CCD can cause a problem. Is it possible to shake off the dust with the Anti-Shake function?

[align=left]Ishizuka:
The mechanism for CCD shift type Anti-Shake is not for dust reduction, however we tested to check its effect for dust reduction. We concluded that it's not suitable to use it as a dust reduction feature. Instead we will employ anti-statistic treatment for parts used inside, like a shutter unit."[/align]
[align=left]http://www.steves-digicams.com/pdf/dynax7_interview.pdf[/align]
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 15, 2004, 4:30 PM   #5
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 6
Default

It is spelled "Patents"

It was a work around to avoid infringing on patents held by Canon and Panasonic and others.

However K-M got a nice thing going and noone else can follow.

This gives them the upper hand for the next 70 years or so.

/F


microsaftcom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 16, 2004, 3:05 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 120
Default

So, he's saying the Olympus mechanism dust removal mechanism doesn't work. Interesting.
Technophile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 16, 2004, 7:19 AM   #7
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

The difference can be attributed to the E1's CCD staying fixed, whereas the Minolta's CCD is moving rubbing one surface against another "creating" static...

ie the E1 is more like a vibration instead of true X-Y displacements as in the Minolta.
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 16, 2004, 8:32 AM   #8
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Technophile wrote:
Quote:
So, he's saying the Olympus mechanism dust removal mechanism doesn't work. Interesting.
It's totally different. The Olympus uses an ultrasonic system designed specifically for dust removal from it's stationary CCD.


JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 16, 2004, 8:37 AM   #9
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

microsaftcom wrote:
Quote:
It is spelled "Patents"

It was a work around to avoid infringing on patents held by Canon and Panasonic and others.

However K-M got a nice thing going and noone else can follow.

This gives them the upper hand for the next 70 years or so.

/F


Chances are, IS and mechanical anti-shake will be virtually obsolete within the next 5-7 years anyway. I think we'll be seeing systems designed to reduce motion blur electronically, as we are already seeing in some video cameras.It's only a matter of sampling multiple frames from the CCD at a high rate for a single still photo, then using the same type of algorithms already developed for video cams (which will continue to improve).


JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 17, 2004, 3:31 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 120
Default

I'd be very surprised if that technique would ever work for still cameras. Video cameras are a different animal.All the still camera can do is try to account for camera motion - the operative word being camera - and that's all IS does. Trying to look at the image (which may be of a moving subject) and apply algorithms to itmight be a bit tricky.
Technophile 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 12:35 PM.