Anti-shake reliability?

[Randy Z]

Sorry if this has been addressed, but is there any info regarding reliability and longevity of "anti-shake" systems? In other words, looking at "another mechanical thing to go wrong," it seems like it must be a delicate and complex little system. When and HOW does it fail? Can it CAUSE problems? Can it be disabled?

Perhaps those who have had experience with these things can shed some light?

Thanks in advance,

--
Z-Man

 

[Bernal Peralta]

Yes, it can be disabled! But, I don't know about reliability -- time will tell!
--
Bernal P.

 

[JohnGB]

I was thinking exactly the same thing. I am sure it is a great feature to have, but I also wonder about the medium/long term reliability of it, on a piece of kit that represents a substantial investment.

Sorry if this has been addressed, but is there any info regarding
reliability and longevity of "anti-shake" systems? In other words,
looking at "another mechanical thing to go wrong," it seems like it
must be a delicate and complex little system. When and HOW does it
fail? Can it CAUSE problems? Can it be disabled?

Perhaps those who have had experience with these things can shed
some light?

Thanks in advance,

--
Z-Man

 

[slipe]

The UZI IS was mechanical and they have held up extremely well. I am hoping Minolta can do as well. Sony video cameras have had mechanical stabilizers in their top models for years and I have heard of no particular problems. I have a pair of Canon mechanically stabilized binoculars and they work well and have for a while.

For myself I plan to trust Minolta and get an A1 when they are available. There is no way to anticipate the reliability of a new system, but I would always use obsolete equipment if I worried too much about it.

 

[Biu]

All current optical IS/VR lens have similar moving mechanical parts. Some even have 2 moving elements. There does not seem to be major reliability concern. They all drain more battery power when enabled though.

The demonstration video shows exagerated movement for presentation only. The real movement is much milder.
Biu

Sorry if this has been addressed, but is there any info regarding
reliability and longevity of "anti-shake" systems? In other words,
looking at "another mechanical thing to go wrong," it seems like it
must be a delicate and complex little system. When and HOW does it
fail? Can it CAUSE problems? Can it be disabled?

Perhaps those who have had experience with these things can shed
some light?

Thanks in advance,

--
Z-Man

 

[William West]

Is it suppose to stabilize the image, regardless of the position and/or angle of the camera?

William

 

[David Race]

Is it suppose to stabilize the image, regardless of the position
and/or angle of the camera?

William

The CCD is moved in the X-Y planes so should cope with shake in those directions. I haven't got my head around how/if it would deal with tilting the camera.

This is useful for any shot where you want a little extra sharpness. Yes, it's primary benefit will be seen in landscape/stills shots, but there's pleanty of other times it would be useful.

For example, the other day I was shooting birds in the local falconary centre. Many of the shots were spot on but others were too soft due to the fact that I was trying to hand hold at 125th or less towards the tele end of the lens. The birds weren't moving particularly - they were on perches - but the light was low and you only have a split second to grab the shot so even a mono pod was inappropriate. In those circumstances AS might have helped a great deal.

daveR

 

[Azra]

This is useful for any shot where you want a little extra
sharpness. Yes, it's primary benefit will be seen in
landscape/stills shots, but there's pleanty of other times it would
be useful.

I am hoping it will prove useful for sports photography and low-light settings; two situations where I have too frequently lost great once-in-a-lifetime images too the curse of shake!

 

[slipe]

I am hoping it will prove useful for sports photography and
low-light settings; two situations where I have too frequently lost
great once-in-a-lifetime images too the curse of shake!

Can’t see where it would be much good for sports photography unless you want the subjects with motion blur and the background sharp.

 

[Mike G61010]

I am guessing that used in conjunction with the predictive auto-focus, sports images would benefit. Although, most sporting situations I would deal with are people outside and usually on a very sunny day, so the extra 2 ticks in A wouldn't help me much. I can see how it would help others in a indoor sporting event or any non-sunny day event.

I am hoping it will prove useful for sports photography and
low-light settings; two situations where I have too frequently lost
great once-in-a-lifetime images too the curse of shake!

Can’t see where it would be much good for sports photography unless
you want the subjects with motion blur and the background sharp.

 

[Barry Kernerman]

For what it's worth, I've just read in a UK magazine that a hand-held shot taken at 200mm would ideally have to have a minimum setting of 1/200 sec shutter speed in order to prevent camera-shake on any camera. Minolta advertises it's IS works at shutter speeds as low as 1/25 sec (or is it 1/10 sec.) with an 80%-90% success rate.
Sounds pretty impressive to me.
Barry

Is it suppose to stabilize the image, regardless of the position
and/or angle of the camera?

William

The CCD is moved in the X-Y planes so should cope with shake in
those directions. I haven't got my head around how/if it would deal
with tilting the camera.

This is useful for any shot where you want a little extra
sharpness. Yes, it's primary benefit will be seen in
landscape/stills shots, but there's pleanty of other times it would
be useful.

For example, the other day I was shooting birds in the local
falconary centre. Many of the shots were spot on but others were
too soft due to the fact that I was trying to hand hold at 125th or
less towards the tele end of the lens. The birds weren't moving
particularly - they were on perches - but the light was low and you
only have a split second to grab the shot so even a mono pod was
inappropriate. In those circumstances AS might have helped a great
deal.

daveR

 

[Greg Gebhardt]

Sorry if this has been addressed, but is there any info regarding
reliability and longevity of "anti-shake" systems? In other words,
looking at "another mechanical thing to go wrong," it seems like it
must be a delicate and complex little system. When and HOW does it
fail? Can it CAUSE problems? Can it be disabled?

Perhaps those who have had experience with these things can shed
some light?

Thanks in advance,

--
Z-Man

--

The camera can be programmed to only use the "AS" feature when shutter is half pressed. This should save power and hardware wear.

Greg Gebhardt in
Jacksonville, Florida

 

[Azra]

I think you have misunderstood the operation of the anti-shake unit in this case; somewhere on this website it was stated that the AS feature understands when a panning photo is being taken (it reduces the compensation for the x-axis movment, but still compensates for the y-axis).

From the posted before/after AS images I have seen I doubt the As could cope with such an extreme. To me it seems ideal for reducing the effect of camera shake at an indoors contest; especially in situations where one is not able to use a monpod, ie. at an extreme sports contest.

I agree on the strong sunlight situation - even this w/e I was able to capture the prefect moment in a kickflip trick using a loaned pre-focused minolta 404 (a camera that I am still unsure of) whilst outside. If I knew how to embed an image I would include it here!

Can’t see where it would be much good for sports photography unless
you want the subjects with motion blur and the background sharp.

 

[Jawed49152]

The samples posted here show 200mm at 1/13s (ISO 100):

http://www.dcview.com.tw/article/newreadarticle.asp?last=/article/newreadarticle.asp&id=2220

(with a bit of fiddling I worked out how to create a user account! since my Chinese is non existant - it helps that some of the error messages are in English!).

The two pictures at 1/13s have almost no blur - very impressive!

I hesitate to say "no blur" because a comparison with a tripod-shot would be needed...

Jawed

For what it's worth, I've just read in a UK magazine that a
hand-held shot taken at 200mm would ideally have to have a minimum
setting of 1/200 sec shutter speed in order to prevent camera-shake
on any camera. Minolta advertises it's IS works at shutter speeds
as low as 1/25 sec (or is it 1/10 sec.) with an 80%-90% success
rate.
Sounds pretty impressive to me.
Barry

 

[GlennMac]

Actually, if you look at the full-size files, they show a bit of blur. And are a bit noisy, even at ISO 100. I'd be curious to see the same shots taken with anti-shake disabled. For 1/13 at 198mm, they're pretty damn good, though.

Figuring out how to register for an account is an adventure, too.

http://www.dcview.com.tw/article/newreadarticle.asp?last=/article/newreadarticle.asp&id=2220

(with a bit of fiddling I worked out how to create a user account!
since my Chinese is non existant - it helps that some of the error
messages are in English!).

The two pictures at 1/13s have almost no blur - very impressive!

I hesitate to say "no blur" because a comparison with a tripod-shot
would be needed...

Jawed

For what it's worth, I've just read in a UK magazine that a
hand-held shot taken at 200mm would ideally have to have a minimum
setting of 1/200 sec shutter speed in order to prevent camera-shake
on any camera. Minolta advertises it's IS works at shutter speeds
as low as 1/25 sec (or is it 1/10 sec.) with an 80%-90% success
rate.
Sounds pretty impressive to me.
Barry

 

[Jon Read]

Actually, if you look at the full-size files, they show a bit of
blur.

they do, don't they? Mind you, AFAIK Minolta claim 90% success rate at 1/25, so it's not surprising. But still very impressive!

And are a bit noisy, even at ISO 100.

Yeah, and the ISO 800 shot is just plain unusable IMHO. It almost makes me want to get the 300D instead.

Figuring out how to register for an account is an adventure, too.

Isn't it just?

J

 

[Jawed49152]

In a few days you won't need to register, as the news is only for registered users for about 7-10 days I think.

Jawed

Figuring out how to register for an account is an adventure, too.

Isn't it just?

J

 

[slipe]

I think you have misunderstood the operation of the anti-shake unit
in this case; somewhere on this website it was stated that the AS
feature understands when a panning photo is being taken (it reduces
the compensation for the x-axis movment, but still compensates for
the y-axis).

I think I understand it OK. Even if you pan it seems like aspects of the image will be in motion like pumping legs or arms, rackets, balls etc. If you are using the IS to compensate for not being able to use a high enough shutter speed elements of the image would blur on you. Might work for auto racing where panning stops the relative motion of everything but the background, which often looks great with some motion blur.

For most sports photography I think a fast lens is more important than IS.

 

[PAYBACK]

IMO the less moving/mechanical parts the better I assume we talking about the A1, a warranty only last so long, I seen pictures of the CCD on the test bed with its little actuators, frankly it scare me. I'm know expert but how do these IS you find in Video Cameras work are they also based on actuators?

Sorry if this has been addressed, but is there any info regarding
reliability and longevity of "anti-shake" systems? In other words,
looking at "another mechanical thing to go wrong," it seems like it
must be a delicate and complex little system. When and HOW does it
fail? Can it CAUSE problems? Can it be disabled?

Perhaps those who have had experience with these things can shed
some light?

Thanks in advance,

--
Z-Man

 

[Randy Z]

IMO the less moving/mechanical parts the better I assume we talking
about the A1, a warranty only last so long, I seen pictures of the
CCD on the test bed with its little actuators, frankly it scare me.
I'm know expert but how do these IS you find in Video Cameras work
are they also based on actuators?

Exactly my point in my original post. I'm not a worry-wart by nature, it's always been a principle of camera design to put the film up against a rock solid planar wall so that there is no possibility of movement! So the idea of MOVING the CCD seems fraught with negative possibilities. What happens, for example, if it gets "stuck" out of position?

Does this movement have the possibility of affecting focus??

Hoping to be proven wrong and shown the light . . .
--
Z-Man