Reading mode: Light Dark

B&H newsletter on anti-shake

Go to last post
This is a direct quote:

" While optical and digital technologies achieve the same goal, there is often a slight loss of image sharpness in pictures taken with digital stabilization technology due to the mechanics of the process. At the end of the day the "softer" pictures you get from the digitally stabilized cameras are still sharper than the images you get from their non-stabilized counterparts."

They are talking about digital stabilization vs no stabilization at all. They did not comment on whether KM/Sony's AS technology or IS in-lens technology is better than the other. It was a comment on digital stabilization vs no stabilization at all.
Dennis Phillips said:
Just read the B&H newsletter on anti-shake technology . . .

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=RootPage.jsp&A=getpage&Q=newsLetter/digi_photo_antishake.jsp&ei=633&kw=Link_Anti_Shake

. . . where they make the following statement about KM-Sony's system.

"There is often a slight loss of image sharpness in pictures taken
with [KM-Sony] stabilization technology due to the mechanics of the
process. At the end of the day the "softer" pictures you get from
the digitally stabilized cameras are still sharper than the images
you get from their non-stabilized counterparts."

I wonder how they made that determination?
Click to expand...
You have mis-quoted the article. Nothing said about KM/Sony AS technology vs anything. Only digitally image stabilizing technology vs no image stabilizing system at all. Go back and re-read the entire article and I think you will discover your error.
Dennis Phillips said:
--
Fiat lux.

Click to expand...
 
in all possible shooting style while tracking the flight - panning, snaps, overhead, whatever, etc. and AS gets me lots of usable shots. I used 5 Panasonic FZ series with image stabilization before coming to the 5D; thus, experienced a bit the merist of stabilized images esp. in birds in flight . I also used Canon Rebel XT but not with IS lens. 5D is the most cost effective solution for stabilized system and I am happy with it.
cheers,
gil

--
**************
Images or nothing.
http://art4less.smugmug.com
 
I am not assuming he is right. I'm simply assuming that he is consistent.

This is the first time I heard of the phrase "digital..." I didn't realize that it had a very specific meaning.

Personally I don't see how the KM approach is any more digital than Canon's or Nikon's.
Klipsen said:
Well, if you assume he's right, I can understand your confusion.
I'm saying he's got it wrong. Can you name one Sony camera (video
or other) that has a moving CCD?
Click to expand...
 
You wouldn't but at that speed there should be no contribution to the out of focus image made by camera shake. So any soft focus is due entirely to the anti-shake mechanism.

The point is that there is obviously some point at which you should turn off anti-shake to get the best result and its not just when its on a tripod.

I think most people believe you should leave anti-shake on unless using a tripod. That was certainly my thinking.

--
Dave Peters
 
Well if anyone with both systems wants to do the test, it would be interesting. You would also need photos taken with the systems disabled to determine any differences caused by the differing lenses.

Unfortunately I only have Minolta system.

--
Dave Peters
 
Cheers!
 
I took your advice and reread the article. I come to the same conclusion as on my first read. Here are the logical links that I'm following.

DIRECT QUOTE "Konica-Minolta was the first to incorporate anti-shake technology in the form of "digital" image stabilization. Rather than shifting a lens element around to smooth out the action, digital image stabilization shifts the imaging sensor back-and-forth." END QUOTE

Here they've defined KM's sensor stabilization as "digital image stabilization".

DIRECT QUOTE While optical and digital technologies achieve the same goal, there is often a slight loss of image sharpness in pictures taken with digital stabilization technology due to the mechanics of the process. END QUOTE

In the next paragraph, cited here, they say that "digital stabilization" suffers a loss of image sharpness that in-lens stabilization does not. Since they've already defined "digital stabilization" as sensor stabilization, I have to believe they mean the KM system, since (a) it was referenced in the preceding paragraph, and (b) no other system uses sensor stabilization.

I'd like to know on what evidence they make the claim that sensor stabilization results in softer images than in-lens stabilization.

If there is a real difference, I'd like to know before investing more money in sensor-based systems. If there isn't a real difference, then the article seems biased.

I may still prefer to invest in softer sensor stabilized systems for the cost savings and for other unrelated reasons. But B&H has made an important claim here, and I'd like to know more about how they reached their conclusion.

--
Fiat lux.

 
Did the article maybe referr to "electronic" stabilization vs. optical stabilisation?
 
Digital (or electronic) means it's done by a processor. Canon's, Nikon's and Sigma's systems are mechanical like Minolta's.

He seems to have the idea that moving a sensor is the same as changing by electronic means the part of the sensor that the image is taken from.
 
What do you expect from "experts" who sell cameras and interested to sell all IS and VR high priced lenses? :) That statement was written the way that makes me think the person who wrote it never actually used AS. Otherwise he would be more specific.

You will see contrary statement about AS usability when Sony SLR will be on sale at B&H. :)

--
http://www.pictures2.com
 
It sure sounds to me like the writer of that article is confusing digital stabilization and AS. I know the first quote makes it seem like he does understand that AS is not digital stabilization it still seems to me like he doesn't really understand. We see the same kind of confusion here in the forums all the time. Even camera store salesman sometimes get it confused because they don't really understand some of the products they sell. This guy seems to likely be in that category.

--
Henry Richardson
http://www.hrich.com
http://www.printroom.com/pro/intrepid
 
The article if full of inaccuracies and factual errors. So many that I just sat down and sent a feedback to B&H, this sort of "articles" simply misleading.

Paragraph 15:

"The same holds true for pictures taken with the higher resolution, APS-sized, CMOS chips found in Nikon's D200 and D2x." False. Only D2x has CMOS chip

Paragraph 18:

"Rather than shifting a lens element around to smooth out the action, digital image stabilisation shifts the imaging sensor back-and-forth. Sony currently utilizes similar technology in several of their own cameras." Not true to the best of my knowledge, at present AS is still exclusive to KM. Sony recently introduced a P&S with Optical IS,

Paragraph 19, the very reason for this thread:

"While optical and digital technologies achieve the same goal, there is often a slight loss of image sharpness in pictures taken with digital stabilisation technology due to the mechanics of the process."

Having read the text carefully (and evident from the previous quote) I'm in no doubt that the above is a comparison between the two approaches to stabilise the image, moving lens elements vs moving the sensor. Worded like this and without any references/ citations or tests to support the statement it's a nonsense.

Paragraph 21:

"Panasonic's new Lumix DMC-T21 digital point-and-shoot has broken the mold by incorporating optical image stabilization into the camera's Leica DC Vario-Elmarit 10x (optical) zoom lens."

The truth is that Panasonic has broken the mould long before the intro of DMC-T21, producing OIS for a couple of years now. I won't be surprised if Panasonic is the biggest manufacturer of OS lenses and supply both C and N with parts for their own lens lines.

Shame on B&H for spreading so much misinformation in such a short article.

Regards,
Ivo
 
The IS and VR lens are high quality and sharp. If you compared the kit KM lens it would never match those lens sharpness even on a tripod. Did they use a comparable sharp KM lens? Or compare a $1000 lens with a $200 lens. All I know is my KM5D AS works fine.

Ken from CO. http://www.pbase.com/kenron
KM Five-Dee, fifty1.7,twentyeight-300 Tamron XRDILDIF 3.5,Tamron 28-75 f2.8
 
That quote in that paragraph was either a typing error of thought or the writer did not understand what he was writing.

KM/Sony's Anti-Shake "AS" technology is not digital.

It moves the imaging sensor based on camera movement the same way the IS lens element moves in any of the IS lenses.

There is opitical stabilization and digital stabilization.

The unique thing about the Maxxum DSLR is that they used the imaging chip as a stabilizer rather than an element(s) in the lens.

Your logical progression to your misunderstanding is not all together your fault. The statement in that article is false. I believe it was by mistake not intentional.
Dennis Phillips said:
I took your advice and reread the article. I come to the same
conclusion as on my first read. Here are the logical links that I'm
following.

DIRECT QUOTE "Konica-Minolta was the first to incorporate
anti-shake technology in the form of "digital" image stabilization.
Click to expand...
The writer was apparently copying his input from some place and obviously copied it wrong. Anti-shake technology is another form of a "physical" imaging stabilization utilizing the imaging sensor rather than the a lens element. It is similar in it's effectiveness to that technology in optical stabilization lenses.

Digital stabilization uses a crop portion of a imaging chip and moves the crop portion based on camera movement electronically. Using this technology leads to loss of resolution and softness. However it is still better then not having anything other than a tripod.

Again, if you want to understand, just goggle Konica-Minolta Anti-Shake technology and you'll learn the difference.
Dennis Phillips said:
Rather than shifting a lens element around to smooth out the
action, digital image stabilization shifts the imaging sensor
back-and-forth." END QUOTE

Here they've defined KM's sensor stabilization as "digital image
stabilization".

DIRECT QUOTE While optical and digital technologies achieve the
same goal, there is often a slight loss of image sharpness in
pictures taken with digital stabilization technology due to the
mechanics of the process. END QUOTE

In the next paragraph, cited here, they say that "digital
stabilization" suffers a loss of image sharpness that in-lens
stabilization does not. Since they've already defined "digital
stabilization" as sensor stabilization, I have to believe they mean
the KM system, since (a) it was referenced in the preceding
paragraph, and (b) no other system uses sensor stabilization.

I'd like to know on what evidence they make the claim that sensor
stabilization results in softer images than in-lens stabilization.

If there is a real difference, I'd like to know before investing
more money in sensor-based systems. If there isn't a real
difference, then the article seems biased.

I may still prefer to invest in softer sensor stabilized systems
for the cost savings and for other unrelated reasons. But B&H has
made an important claim here, and I'd like to know more about how
they reached their conclusion.

--
Fiat lux.

Click to expand...
 
Whether you are using optical stabilization or anti-shake stabilization, when the camera is mounted on a tripod, either the optical stabilization on the lens or the anti-shake feature on the camera needs to be turned off. It is in all the different manuals I have read from the different camera companies. It's the same as my Maxxum 5D and my DSC-H1.

Save your testing, it is just the way it works.
Dave Peters said:
I just did a quick test to test Anti-Shake. I printed off a page
of squared paper and took 3 shots with a 50mm lens at 500th second.
Then I turned off anti-shake and took another 3 shots.

Result: The anti-shake pictures were more blurred than those
without anti-shake - and considerably more.

Not believing the results I repeated the test with 9 frames of each
  • same result. Every shot with anti-shake was more blurred than
without it.

Needs a lot more testing with different lenses and shutter speeds
but looks interesting. Maybe someone else can repeat this ?

--
Dave Peters
Click to expand...
 
There have been reviews on the internet that have had different conclusions on which technology is better. I think one is grabbing for straws. They are both good when used properly. Remember the lenses will be different from one camera to the other. Optical image stabilization lenses tend to be slightly softer than their non-stabilized lenses. Not the case with KM's AS technology. It does not effect the sharpness of the lens being used.

But whether you have optical stabilization or anti-shake, both are great at avoiding camera shake. Much better than digital stabilization and there is no contest against not having any stabilization.
Dennis Phillips said:
You may be right, but the real test should be between (1) an
activated image stabilized lens photo and (2) an activated sensor
stabilized photo to see if there is a difference in softness.
Click to expand...
You would have to use the same lens which is impossible. There is no way.
Dennis Phillips said:
--
Fiat lux.

Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top