All image stabilization created equal?
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: ugly bugs
Next: SX120 as point and shoot
From: Eric on 3 Aug 2010 16:25 I've noticed that most Canon cameras use their "Digic 4" processor. Presumably that is powering their image stabilization. If so, it seems logical that the IS in all their digital cameras would be equally effective (or ineffective, as the case may be). Does anyone know more about this? Any other brands have more effective IS systems? BTW, one of the reasons that I ask: I've had a Canon SLR zoom lens for quite a while, and the image stabilization was great. Seems to be some kind of intertial-sensing mechanism though--almost a gyro feel to it. Obviously the P&S digitals are doing this in software. My first test of their digital IS was with an SD1200. It seemed to do almost nothing.
From: Ofnuts on 3 Aug 2010 17:28 On 03/08/2010 22:25, Eric wrote: > I've noticed that most Canon cameras use their "Digic 4" processor. > Presumably that is powering their image stabilization. If so, it seems > logical that the IS in all their digital cameras would be equally > effective (or ineffective, as the case may be). No, the IS is done in the lens, without help from the camera. A recent lens will du as much good on an old camera body with a "lesser" processor than on the shiny new ones with the latest processing marvel. > Does anyone know more about this? Any other brands have more > effective IS systems? There are basically two kinds of stabilization: lens-based (Canon, Nikon, Panasonic, plus Tamron and Sigma for lenses) as described above and sensor-based (sensor is moved behind the lens)(Pentax, Olympus...). In currently available cameras, the so-called "software" stabilization is likely pushing the ISOs to crank up the shutter speed (there are de-shake algorithms, including some that are based on acceleration measurement) but I doubt they can run on the processors found in entry-level cameras (and the other cameras already have one of the two "hardware" IS). > BTW, one of the reasons that I ask: I've had a Canon SLR zoom lens for > quite a while, and the image stabilization was great. Seems to be some > kind of intertial-sensing mechanism though--almost a gyro feel to it. > Obviously the P&S digitals are doing this in software. No, they use lens-based or sensor-based IS. But the accelerometers are really tiny chips, not gyroscopes. The "gyro feel" is really from the IS lens mechanism, when it's big. > My first test > of their digital IS was with an SD1200. It seemed to do almost > nothing. Check the specs, it's a lens-based IS (but on a tiny lens) -- Bertrand
From: Eric on 3 Aug 2010 21:08 On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 23:28:36 +0200, Ofnuts <o.f.n.u.t.s(a)la.poste.net> wrote: >On 03/08/2010 22:25, Eric wrote: >> I've noticed that most Canon cameras use their "Digic 4" processor. >> Presumably that is powering their image stabilization. If so, it seems >> logical that the IS in all their digital cameras would be equally >> effective (or ineffective, as the case may be). > >No, the IS is done in the lens, without help from the camera. A recent >lens will du as much good on an old camera body with a "lesser" >processor than on the shiny new ones with the latest processing marvel. > >> Does anyone know more about this? Any other brands have more >> effective IS systems? > >There are basically two kinds of stabilization: lens-based (Canon, >Nikon, Panasonic, plus Tamron and Sigma for lenses) as described above >and sensor-based (sensor is moved behind the lens)(Pentax, Olympus...). >In currently available cameras, the so-called "software" stabilization >is likely pushing the ISOs to crank up the shutter speed (there are >de-shake algorithms, including some that are based on acceleration >measurement) but I doubt they can run on the processors found in >entry-level cameras (and the other cameras already have one of the two >"hardware" IS). > >> BTW, one of the reasons that I ask: I've had a Canon SLR zoom lens for >> quite a while, and the image stabilization was great. Seems to be some >> kind of intertial-sensing mechanism though--almost a gyro feel to it. >> Obviously the P&S digitals are doing this in software. > >No, they use lens-based or sensor-based IS. But the accelerometers are >really tiny chips, not gyroscopes. The "gyro feel" is really from the IS >lens mechanism, when it's big. > >> My first test >> of their digital IS was with an SD1200. It seemed to do almost >> nothing. > >Check the specs, it's a lens-based IS (but on a tiny lens) That makes sense. I got the original info from two different Canon techs who said that the IS system was related to their Digic 4 chip, and that therefore the IS in all their digital cameras would be the same. In fact, one of the very knowledgable SLR guys had me on hold for a while to confirm that with another (a third) tech. Your comments sound logical, and that would make some sense of why the IS systems seemed different (ie nonexistent) in the SD1200. The next logical question is: How much difference is there between the IS in the SX120 and the G11? Those are the two cameras I had been considering. I just got to try them briefly, and it's difficult to discern the finer points in a short test in a camera store.
From: SneakyP on 4 Aug 2010 01:49 Eric <Eric(a)sorry---nospam---.com> wrote in news:10fh56d5hq335mbm5qneo2e19ucsr5cf5s(a)4ax.com: > The next logical question is: How much difference is there between the > IS in the SX120 and the G11? Those are the two cameras I had been > considering. I just got to try them briefly, and it's difficult to > discern the finer points in a short test in a camera store. > > Take your own memory storage device and use that in those two cameras, or use two separate memories to test the cameras for whatever you want to test for. Then go home and compare the photos you took with both cameras. -- SneakyP To email me, you know what to do.
From: David J Taylor on 4 Aug 2010 03:18
"Eric" <Eric(a)sorry---nospam---.com> wrote in message [] > The next logical question is: How much difference is there between the > IS in the SX120 and the G11? Those are the two cameras I had been > considering. I just got to try them briefly, and it's difficult to > discern the finer points in a short test in a camera store. DPReview do some tests on the effectiveness of camera stabilisation: http://www.dpreview.com/ David |