Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Sony Alpha dSLR / Konica Minolta dSLR, Sony SLT

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 7, 2006, 9:35 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
BillDrew's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Hay River Township, WI
Posts: 2,512
Default

After a bit of testing, my conclusion is that Minolta's antishake system cuts the probability of ruining a shot with shake in half. That means if you have shake 20% of the time without AS, you will have it 10% of the time with AS at the same focal length and shutter speed.

When thinking of shake, I tend to think of how many shots I have to take to be pretty sure (Fussyness Factor) of getting at least one shake free image. Cutting the probability of failure in half does not mean the number of shots needed to get a shake free image is cut in half. The table below shows the number needed with antishake vs without.

The "Fussyness Factor" is how certain you have to be about getting at least one shake free image. Since it is not possible to shoot 1.5 times, the numbers should be rounded up, though you might consider 2.1 close enough.

For critical shots where you take 4-5 shots to be very sure – Fussyness Factor – of getting at least one shake free, antishake doesn't really do very much for you, you still need 2-4 shots. A decrease, but not an astonishing decrease.

Where the big gain of antishake shows its power is where you would need an absurd number of shots to be sure of getting one shake free. Not many folks would shoot 50-100 times to be fairly sure (Fussyness Factor) of getting at least one good one. But in that situation you could shoot 4-6 shots and stand a very good chance of getting at least one shake free image.

In short, if you need 3-5 shots to get one without shake, shoot the same number or one less with antishake for the same results. If you are in a situation where you wouldn't even try without antishake because the light is 2-4 stops to dim, 3-5 shots stand a good chance of getting at least one shake free image.
_______________________________
The numbers in the table are dependant on the reduction of bad shots with antishake. I came to the conclusion that is a 50% reduction. I would be interested in other folks have to say about that s without.

Attached Images
 
BillDrew is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Mar 7, 2006, 10:06 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
bernabeu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 990
Default

superb, my 'gut' agrees with you
bernabeu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 7, 2006, 10:56 AM   #3
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Bill:

Just to let you know, if you change text colors, it can make a post unreadable, depending on the Board Theme a member has selected in their Preferences (under My Account).

I keep mine set to the "Default" board theme, and your text is pretty much unreadable without highlighting it first.

If you change your Board Theme to "Default" (versus "Shades" which we default new members to so that it matches the colors of the main site), you'll see what I mean:

http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/m..._preferences=1

So, as a General Rule, I always leave text at the default color so that it's readable, regardless of the way a member decides to set their Board Theme.


JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 7, 2006, 11:15 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 448
Default

Bill,
half an hour ago I could read your message. Now you seemed to have changed the text color to the backgraound color and it is unreadable.
kassandro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 7, 2006, 11:23 AM   #5
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

kassandro wrote:
Quote:
Bill,
half an hour ago I could read your message. Now you seemed to have changed the text color to the backgraound color and it is unreadable.
It's the forum software. If you try to change the default text color (which if memory serves is just blank with some themes like Shades), it can mess up readability for other Board Themes.

Then, if you try to change it back to something like Black, it won't work either.

Fun.

JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 7, 2006, 11:30 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
bernabeu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 990
Default

if you assume the (invisible) text is present and highlight it with a left mouse click-------------------------> VOILA ! it appears
bernabeu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 7, 2006, 11:35 AM   #7
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

I fixed it. It should be readable now regardless of the Board Theme selected.

JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 7, 2006, 2:55 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
tmoreau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 477
Default

BillDrew wrote:
Quote:
If you are in a situation where you wouldn't even try without antishake because the light is 2-4 stops to dim, 3-5 shots stand a good chance of getting at least one shake free image.
That seems about right based on my limited expirience (well, around 7,000 antishake frames between my A1 and 5D... but I'm still working with a keeper rate in fractions of a percent overall). I was taking night shots of Las Vegas from the Eifel tower, I braced my A1 on the hand rail and the best shutter I could do was 1/4 second. I came home with several great sharp pictures, out of a couple dozen.
tmoreau is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 16, 2006, 2:33 PM   #9
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 11
Default

Nice work Bill,
One more aspect of the "greatness" of AntiShake is knowing it's there I tend to "shake" less:-). I got pictures that when I was shooting them others would laugh and say:"and you'd expect this to come out right? right?"

With this oportun ity, I'd like to thank all the people on this forum who indoctrinate me to the KM dSLRs (we've been a Canon family to this point going since back from the late 60s) and for that matter to film SLRs. Your analytic comparisons and non-passionate support (not always of a product vs another and the answers to my probing questions helped me decide with what camera I enter the dSLR era: KM 5D

It's something else! it can even outsmart me in settings :?.
Using the suggestions on the forum and cross referencing with the different sites mentioned, I got a collection of lenses (and couple of film cameras to boot) that can handle everything I want to shoot; total cost $950 incl.brand new 5D kit.

Comparing this and the results I get with my friend's Canon top of the line Rebel, I'm ahead by 4:1. Thank you again and as my wife says: "All it matters you're happy and ...that's not easy"
optikos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 16, 2006, 3:02 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Indian Rocks Beach, FL
Posts: 4,036
Default

I find that using a good burst mode and taking 3-5 shots improves your chances over taking 3-5 individual shots. It might be that you are securing the camera and not messing with the shutter on the subsequent shots. That might not be true if you use a full shutter press and have the delay time to stabilize the camera. But I always shoot after a half-press.

I don't agree with your percentages though. If I am shooting at 420mm equivalent and can only generate 1/30 second I can often get a really sharp image with stabilization and burst if I work at it. My percentages go down to zero if I turn the stabilization off.

slipe 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 12:55 AM.