Someone provided a good explanation regarding this many months ago which I can't find. Most camcorders use CMOS sensors which I believe can operate with "electronic" shutters; ie, the sensor itself turns on and off to capture each image. The stablization process is actually comparing the relative position of the frame information to the frame before it. Except for the 1D, all the Canon DSLR's use the shutter as a shutter so there would be a machine gun effect like a motor drive. The 1D supposedly only uses the mechanical shutter as a protective cover over the sensor. Also, I will say that with everyone praying for full frame images, the thought of taking away some pixels around the four edges to use for stabilization would be counter productive.
John --- Francis Zhou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Video cameras have digital image stabilization for > years because they use > CCD to capture images, which allows digital > manipulation to achieve image > stabilization. Obviously you can achieve IS by > optical means, like IS > lenses, which, for film cameras, is the only way to > enjoy IS. I wonder: with > the advent of DSLR, does it make more sense to do it > in camera or in lens? I > see the "in camera" approach more economical and > suffers no mechanical wear > and tear. And it allows all non-IS lenses to behave > like IS, at least as far > as the end results on the image file is concerned. > What is your take? > > I am still shooting on film and scan (Canon FS4000) > then Photoshop. My > strategy has so far been to concentrate on lens > upgrade (I am not a pro) but > stay with the same body. But I am now increasingly > tempted by the DSLR but > can not justify the cost, and I am wary about the > rapid obsolescence. I will > wait until a full frame DSLR that can produce Velvia > like quality with EOS3 > like AF and AE performance and at a price of no more > than EOS3. That day may > be long in the waiting but I have a few more years > on my 630, which is still > going strong after 15 years. Will I be able to say > the same thing about a > DSLR? > > BTW, the argument of multiplication factor may not > swing many buyers. I > didn't see it swing many buyers when APS SLR hit the > market, which has a > similar multiplication factor, albeit a different > value. > > Thanks, > > Francis __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.com/ * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
