Anti-shake / Image Stabilization question

I am reading about the "Anti-shake" mechanism on the KM DiMAGE Z3. It
states that the CCD actually gets shifted.

I am wondering if this is how most camera's accomplish the
stabilization? I was under the impression that the image is simply
compensated for by the camera's processor.

Is shifting the CCD actually a reliable mechanism in the long-run?
My policy when it comes to electronics has always been: the less
moving parts, the better.

But if this is how all the cameras do it, I guess it is a common
thing. I'm just wondering, that's all.


---Atreju---

"Atreju" wrote in message
...
I am reading about the "Anti-shake" mechanism on the KM DiMAGE Z3. It
states that the CCD actually gets shifted.

I am wondering if this is how most camera's accomplish the
stabilization? I was under the impression that the image is simply
compensated for by the camera's processor.

In the case of Canon, it's in those lenses that offer IS. An element or a
group of elements move in such a way to cancel camera shake. The sensing is
done in the lens itself.


Is shifting the CCD actually a reliable mechanism in the long-run?
My policy when it comes to electronics has always been: the less
moving parts, the better.

I don't have any strong feelings as to where motion cancellation should take
place. Obviously, though, if it is done in the camera then all lenses are
covered. Reliable? Don't know about that but it stands to reason that more
is less when it comes to reliability.

"Atreju" wrote in message
...
I am reading about the "Anti-shake" mechanism on the KM DiMAGE Z3. It
states that the CCD actually gets shifted.

I am wondering if this is how most camera's accomplish the
stabilization? I was under the impression that the image is simply
compensated for by the camera's processor.

In the case of Canon, it's in those lenses that offer IS. An element or a
group of elements move in such a way to cancel camera shake. The sensing is
done in the lens itself.


Is shifting the CCD actually a reliable mechanism in the long-run?
My policy when it comes to electronics has always been: the less
moving parts, the better.

I don't have any strong feelings as to where motion cancellation should take
place. Obviously, though, if it is done in the camera then all lenses are
covered. Reliable? Don't know about that but it stands to reason that more
is less when it comes to reliability.

"Atreju" wrote in message
...
I am reading about the "Anti-shake" mechanism on the KM DiMAGE Z3. It
states that the CCD actually gets shifted.

I am wondering if this is how most camera's accomplish the
stabilization? I was under the impression that the image is simply
compensated for by the camera's processor.

In the case of Canon, it's in those lenses that offer IS. An element or a
group of elements move in such a way to cancel camera shake. The sensing is
done in the lens itself.


Is shifting the CCD actually a reliable mechanism in the long-run?
My policy when it comes to electronics has always been: the less
moving parts, the better.

I don't have any strong feelings as to where motion cancellation should take
place. Obviously, though, if it is done in the camera then all lenses are
covered. Reliable? Don't know about that but it stands to reason that more
is less when it comes to reliability.

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 16:13:19 -0400, "Charles Schuler"
wrote:

Reliable? Don't know about that but it stands to reason that more
is less when it comes to reliability.

Yeah, I tend to agree with you there. However, I do need stabilization
in one form or another. I am not a pro, and I know from my own
experience over many years that I just can't keep a perfectly stable
hand. I do have a tripod for very far shots, or long exposures at
night, but for regular shooting I want the feature. Therefore, I have
to live with whatever fragility comes with the territory.

Thanks for the input.


---Atreju---

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 16:13:19 -0400, "Charles Schuler"
wrote:

Reliable? Don't know about that but it stands to reason that more
is less when it comes to reliability.

Yeah, I tend to agree with you there. However, I do need stabilization
in one form or another. I am not a pro, and I know from my own
experience over many years that I just can't keep a perfectly stable
hand. I do have a tripod for very far shots, or long exposures at
night, but for regular shooting I want the feature. Therefore, I have
to live with whatever fragility comes with the territory.

Thanks for the input.


---Atreju---

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 16:13:19 -0400, "Charles Schuler"
wrote:

Reliable? Don't know about that but it stands to reason that more
is less when it comes to reliability.

Yeah, I tend to agree with you there. However, I do need stabilization
in one form or another. I am not a pro, and I know from my own
experience over many years that I just can't keep a perfectly stable
hand. I do have a tripod for very far shots, or long exposures at
night, but for regular shooting I want the feature. Therefore, I have
to live with whatever fragility comes with the territory.

Thanks for the input.


---Atreju---

Atreju wrote:

I am reading about the "Anti-shake" mechanism on the KM DiMAGE Z3. It
states that the CCD actually gets shifted.

I am wondering if this is how most camera's accomplish the
stabilization? I was under the impression that the image is simply
compensated for by the camera's processor.

In still camera systems, usually a lens element is shifted. This
is the approach in lenses like the Canon IS and Nikon VR lenses.
This approach is effective, however it is unique to each lens
assembly, and hence expensive from the SLR system POV.

In the Panasonic Lumix system, those with stabilization have a
lens element that is shifted ... it of course is a single lens
camera.

The Konica/Minolta approach has its advantages which mostly will
accrue to the SLR lens owners like myself (still waiting for the
DSLR body to appear). In a single lens system like the A1/A2 and
the Z series, the advantage is not that great v. the Lumix
approach (and I suspect the lens method is better overall).


Is shifting the CCD actually a reliable mechanism in the long-run?
My policy when it comes to electronics has always been: the less
moving parts, the better.

Absolutely. However over the past 10 - 20 years the performance
and reliability of electromechanical parts has improved
dramatically, so it is not that much of a concern IMO.

An advantage the lens type correction has is that much less mass
is being moved so smaller, less power hungry actuators/motors can
be employed.

Cheers,
Alan.

--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

Atreju wrote:

I am reading about the "Anti-shake" mechanism on the KM DiMAGE Z3. It
states that the CCD actually gets shifted.

I am wondering if this is how most camera's accomplish the
stabilization? I was under the impression that the image is simply
compensated for by the camera's processor.

In still camera systems, usually a lens element is shifted. This
is the approach in lenses like the Canon IS and Nikon VR lenses.
This approach is effective, however it is unique to each lens
assembly, and hence expensive from the SLR system POV.

In the Panasonic Lumix system, those with stabilization have a
lens element that is shifted ... it of course is a single lens
camera.

The Konica/Minolta approach has its advantages which mostly will
accrue to the SLR lens owners like myself (still waiting for the
DSLR body to appear). In a single lens system like the A1/A2 and
the Z series, the advantage is not that great v. the Lumix
approach (and I suspect the lens method is better overall).


Is shifting the CCD actually a reliable mechanism in the long-run?
My policy when it comes to electronics has always been: the less
moving parts, the better.

Absolutely. However over the past 10 - 20 years the performance
and reliability of electromechanical parts has improved
dramatically, so it is not that much of a concern IMO.

An advantage the lens type correction has is that much less mass
is being moved so smaller, less power hungry actuators/motors can
be employed.

Cheers,
Alan.

--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

Atreju wrote in
:

I am reading about the "Anti-shake" mechanism on the KM DiMAGE Z3. It
states that the CCD actually gets shifted.

Yepp.

I am wondering if this is how most camera's accomplish the
stabilization?

Nope - all other move a lens element in the lens.

I was under the impression that the image is simply
compensated for by the camera's processor.

That is film cameras. They have image stabilization - frame by frame.
Still cameras create one sharper frame - camera processor stabilisation
is then not possible.

Is shifting the CCD actually a reliable mechanism in the long-run?
My policy when it comes to electronics has always been: the less
moving parts, the better.

That is one of my concerns. Auto focus and image stabilisation
require rather fragile constructions. An old fashioned camera
with very stable manual focussing must be more reliable and more
accurate.

But if this is how all the cameras do it, I guess it is a common
thing. I'm just wondering, that's all.

There are lots of auto focus cameras with VERY flimsy mechanics.
And the image stabilisation thingie also must be rather flimsy.
But ... that is how they do it ... and it works. Rather good
actually.

I have over 100 year old cameras that still can be used - the
shutter still works - the optics is fit for fight. The only
problem might be the bellow that is getting stiff. I wonder -
a 100 year old auto focus camera or image stabilisation lens.
Will it still be operational?


/Roland