anti shake-technology

philstar

Thinking about getting a camera with "anti shake" built in, such as panasonic'c lumix.

All i want to know is...does this technology actually work or is it a gimmick??

thebaz

philstar wrote:

Thinking about getting a camera with "anti shake" built in, such as panasonic'c lumix.

All i want to know is...does this technology actually work or is it a gimmick??

i got a panasonic, and i'm dissapointed with it ! looked great in the shop , but not that happy with the results .
Sizewise its great , but to answer your question, i'm now not sold on the idea of image stabilisation, great idea , but i can't see much difference from my olympus , which doesn't have IS.

ThOnda

I had opportunity to test Canon body with both lenses, normal and anti-shake. In Canon version, it really works. At least two stops longer exposures from hand. It really worked there.
Panasonic Lumix 10 - well, I can't tell you the difference, becfause it was so light and image quality wasn't very good. Possible, but not proven to me.

leinsterman

thebaz wrote:

i got a panasonic, and i'm dissapointed with it ! looked great in the shop , but not that happy with the results .
Sizewise its great , but to answer your question, i'm now not sold on the idea of image stabilisation, great idea , but i can't see much difference from my olympus , which doesn't have IS.

You are not strictly correct there ... IS is in fact very good ... at least on the Canon lenses it works extremely well (I have no experience of other brands with the exception of my K800i on which it also works a treat) ... remember it does not do miracles it just buys you a few f-stops of handholdability ... or allows you to shoot at slower shutter speeds than you normally can ... if you are shaking like a leaf then it does noting ...

I'll post and example for you if I get the chance ... but perhaps the best thing to do is go into a shop and shoot two images at the same settings on a telephoto lens ... one switched on the other off ... obvoiusly make sure the camera is set to something where the difference is apparent ... so say a 200mm lens at say shutter speed of 1/30 ... zoom into the picture to see the result.

mathias

What you have to watch out for is makers that are using misleading terms , and with IS a lot of them are ,

Some have a scene mode where the ISO and the shutter speed are maxed out , and are calling this Anti shake , which in my opinion is deliberately misleading people into thinking the camera has some form of IS , real IS is a moving sensor or lens element.

Any camera can be set to high ISO and fast shutter speed , so the Anti-shake as a selling point is a con really.

Check it out before you buy , make sure that the Anti shake ( or digital image stabilisation or whatever they are calling it ....) is not just a scene mode.

Heres a quote from Dpreview on this issue ,

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0701/07010501notimagestabilization.asp

In a way its kind of like optical zoom and digital zoom , one is a benefit , the other is just cropping the picture , and you can crop any picture. If you see what I mean.

stereoroid

Have a look on the dpreview.com forums for various opinions on this. You'll find different opinions from different camera users.

For example, the Canon SLR crowd swear by their in-lens stabilization, and (based on a short stint) I can see their point - it's quite confidence-inspiring to feel the whole camera steady itself as the gyro spins up.

However, I'm a Pentax SLR user with a lot of lenses, so my next SLR will probably be their K10D, which has in-body stabilization offering 2-4 stops improvement. Not as "flash" as the Canons, but it works with all Pentax K-mount lenses, going back 30+ years, even dumb lumps of glass (if you enter the focal length). It means a much lower overall cost, as you can imagine, but you'd best check user reports on e.g. dpreview for more details. (I'm on a budget.)

leinsterman

... an interesting article on how Canon image stabilisation works ... TBH I can't see how in camera stabilisiation is anything more than a ruse ... unless they have an optical element between the body and the lens ...

The lens version used by both Nikon and Canon uses Gyros ...

http://web.canon.jp/imaging/lens/knowledge/index.html

http://web.canon.jp/imaging/lens/merit/index.html

nilhg

A test of both inbody and OIS on the same camera, from cameralabs.com, the video is quite interesting.

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/OlympusE510/Olympus_E510_with_Leica_14-50mm.shtml

Ghost Train

I have the lumix fz7. The image stabilisation definitely works for me and is worth having. Its very useful at the long end of the zoom and slower shutter speeds. Would be better is the camera performed better at higher iso settings, but for a compact camera with big zoom it helps get a bit more performance from the camera. The technology though will vary from manufacturer to manufacturer so it might not work as well in some cameras

I've read how digital image stabilisation isn't worth much, although i have found it does work well in the k800i for night shots