On 2006-02-01, Tom wrote:

snip

I don't know what you mean by "the Sony H1 forum (in Steve's), there are
alot of people [...]". I have skimmed
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2005_reviews/sony_h1_pg5.html and the
five other reviews linked from the bottom of that page, but no complaints
about the camera using a too-slow shutter speed leaped out at me.

snip

for instance:
http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...12&forum_id=28

snip

OK; those people are discussing the 'camera-shake' warning symbol that
most digital cameras show when their programming indicates that 'camera
shake' is likely. As the respondents suggest there, this is not a fault,
it's a useful warning to the user to take particular care to avoid camera
shake spoiling the picture.

Would you prefer the method used for many years on compact point-and-shoot
cameras using film but with 'auto exposure', where the shutter-button
would be 'locked' if the camera thought there was 'too little light'?
(Those cameras didn't have zoom lenses either). I think there may be some
extremely basic digital cameras with that feature, if you want to shop
around for one.

There are some circumstances where it is inevitable that camera shake
becomes likely; 'zooming in' is one and 'low light' is another. It's a
matter of basic optics and the 'laws' of nature.

That 'wobbly hands' icon does /not/ mean "using 1/30 sec or slower"; when
you 'zoom in' to the full extent of your 3x zoom, camera shake is likely at
anything much less than 1/200 sec. As the maximum aperture is effectively
much smaller when 'zoomed in' [1], thus requiring a slower shutter speed
than the wide-angle setting could use in the same light, it's easy to see
that even on a fairly bright day there are times when your camera /should/
warn you of 'camera shake'. Photographers who like to use long lenses
with medium-speed film have always had to carry (or hunt around for) some
sort of camera support; so have those who like to take pictures indoors,
unless they an afford an extreme wide-aperture prime lens.

The problem can to some extent be designed out of camera lenses, by making
them with larger maximum apertures; but that makes them a lot bigger, and
a great deal more expensive - and not 'zooms'. Camera lenses built for
low-light hand-held work are not enormous just because the designer felt
like it.

[1] Assuming that the actual 'hole' through which the light passes, is
fixed at whatever works out as "f/2.8" at the wide-angle end of a 3X zoom,
then at the 'tele' end that same hole will work out as more like "f/4.5",
ie letting through only 1/3 as much light. So if you can use 1/100 sec at
f/2.8 at the 'wide' zoom, then when you zoom in you will have to use f/4.5
which means that the shutter speed will be little more than 1/30 sec -
even if the smaller area now being photographed is just as bright as the
wider scene, which it probably isn't.

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~