Sony A100 anti-shake test

Hi All,

I've posted my testing of the Sony A100's anti-shake technology:
http://www.dimagemaker.com/article.php?articleID=779

Cheers,

Wayne

--
Wayne J. Cosshall
Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/
Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/

"Wayne J. Cosshall" wrote in message
u...
Hi All,

I've posted my testing of the Sony A100's anti-shake technology:
http://www.dimagemaker.com/article.php?articleID=779

Cheers,

Wayne

Interesting ... thanks Wayne!

Wayne J. Cosshall wrote:

Hi All,

I've posted my testing of the Sony A100's anti-shake technology:
http://www.dimagemaker.com/article.php?articleID=779

Cheers,

Wayne

Thanks for doing the test for us. It was very interesting.
BUT.....
Judging from the pictures you posted I'd say you got "maybe" 1 f stop
improvement. Certainly not 2-3 stops.
Bob Williams

Bob Williams wrote:


Wayne J. Cosshall wrote:

Hi All,

I've posted my testing of the Sony A100's anti-shake technology:
http://www.dimagemaker.com/article.php?articleID=779

Cheers,

Wayne

Thanks for doing the test for us. It was very interesting.
BUT.....
Judging from the pictures you posted I'd say you got "maybe" 1 f stop
improvement. Certainly not 2-3 stops.
Bob Williams

I'm judging from the multiple tests I shot, most less satisfactory only
because of issues of getting enough of an exposure run. I might go
through them again and see if I can get some other meaningful complete
sequences to illustrate what I mean.

Cheers,

Wayne

--
Wayne J. Cosshall
Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/
Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/

Bob Williams wrote:
Thanks for doing the test for us. It was very interesting.
BUT.....
Judging from the pictures you posted I'd say you got "maybe" 1 f stop
improvement. Certainly not 2-3 stops.
Bob Williams


Hi Bob,

It is 2-3 stops on the other tests I did and I would argue 2 on the one
shown. I'll go through all the other tests I did and see if I can post
any of those. The issue was one of getting a good, long sequence of
shutter speeds and the one I used gave that. The others were in lighting
conditions that were too bright, and thus did not give me enough low
range in a long sequence. But I'll see what I can do.

Cheers,

Wayne
--
Wayne J. Cosshall
Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/
Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/

Bob Williams wrote:

Wayne J. Cosshall wrote:

Hi All,

I've posted my testing of the Sony A100's anti-shake technology:
http://www.dimagemaker.com/article.php?articleID=779

Cheers,

Wayne

Thanks for doing the test for us. It was very interesting.
BUT.....
Judging from the pictures you posted I'd say you got "maybe" 1 f stop
improvement. Certainly not 2-3 stops.
Bob Williams

Somehow I think that a tripod or monopod (or even putting the camera on
a stable object like a fence or rock) will reduce shake more than
anti-shake technology. They work for film cameras, after all.

--
Pat O'Connell
[note munged EMail address]
Take nothing but pictures, Leave nothing but footprints,
Kill nothing but vandals...

Pat O'Connell wrote:
Bob Williams wrote:


Somehow I think that a tripod or monopod (or even putting the camera on
a stable object like a fence or rock) will reduce shake more than
anti-shake technology. They work for film cameras, after all.

I'm sorry, but you've been yellow-carded. One more logic-application and
you'll be asked to sit out the rest of the thread (or at least sit in a
corner for a few seconds.. whichever, really..)

ducking
P.

Philippe wrote:
Pat O'Connell wrote:
Bob Williams wrote:


Somehow I think that a tripod or monopod (or even putting the camera on
a stable object like a fence or rock) will reduce shake more than
anti-shake technology. They work for film cameras, after all.

I'm sorry, but you've been yellow-carded. One more logic-application and
you'll be asked to sit out the rest of the thread (or at least sit in a
corner for a few seconds.. whichever, really..)

ducking

Sorry--I don't play soccer, so the card doesn't apply.

Next thought--if people will actually hold the cameras against their
faces and use the viewfinder (rather than squinting at the LCD display
in midair like so many tourists seem to do), that might reduce shake
almost as much as a monopod or tripod. What a concept...

--
Pat O'Connell
Whose digital photography learning curve has been helped a lot by
lessons learned from film photography...I loved my SRT-101.

Pat O'Connell wrote:
Philippe wrote:
Pat O'Connell wrote:
Bob Williams wrote:
Somehow I think that a tripod or monopod (or even putting the camera on
a stable object like a fence or rock) will reduce shake more than
anti-shake technology. They work for film cameras, after all.

If it isn't windy, and you use a remote release, and the subject stays
still while you frame the shot and then wait for the camera to settle.
From my experiments in a (previous thread) a tripod AND anti-shake is
best.

Pat O'Connell wrote:
Philippe wrote:
Pat O'Connell wrote:
Bob Williams wrote:


Somehow I think that a tripod or monopod (or even putting the camera
on a stable object like a fence or rock) will reduce shake more than
anti-shake technology. They work for film cameras, after all.

I'm sorry, but you've been yellow-carded. One more logic-application
and you'll be asked to sit out the rest of the thread (or at least sit
in a corner for a few seconds.. whichever, really..)

ducking

Sorry--I don't play soccer, so the card doesn't apply.

Next thought--if people will actually hold the cameras against their
faces and use the viewfinder (rather than squinting at the LCD display
in midair like so many tourists seem to do), that might reduce shake
almost as much as a monopod or tripod. What a concept...

This one I don't understand; apart from nasty-bright sun shots where
looking through an optic viewfinder would hurt, or a casual "look at me"
type shot, why *wouldn't* you use the viewfinder for a shot? The LCD is
good for macro, bright-bright shots and fun shots but none of those
involve much anti-shake requirements since either you have *loads* of
light or you're on a tripod.

Those that *do* use the LCD for most shots likely aren't posting on this
(these) usergroups, so I don't understand the intent of the sarcasm...

?
P.