There is also digital stabilization as used on many video cameras (Canon and
Sony use otical stab. AFAIK all the rest use digital). It is just a matter of
shifting the pixel scan, no moving parts.
--
KT Takeshita wrote:
On 04.6.13 11:19 PM, "Tom Reese" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If the lens is moving and the sensor is stationary then what
would the captured image look like? I would think that in camera
stabilization would require some type of stabilizing lens element in front
of the sensor rather than stabilizing the sensor itself. How does the IS
work in their binoculars anyway?
I was just passing some "rumours" I was finding in Japanese sites. However,
I admit I always have a wishful thinking about these things :-).
In-camera stabilization was achieved by Konica-Minolta on their A1 or Z1 or
whatever they call (non interchangeable lens SLR). My understanding is that
it works superbly and their achievement is very much admired. Since K-M
have not come up with a DSLR yet (I know it exists and being tested), I have
no idea if this IS could be immediately applicable to wide angle or long
telephoto etc. When I have time, I might dig into the detail description of
K-M technology.
I do not know if moving a CCD element is any more difficult than moving a
group of small compensating lenses within the lens system like Canon's.
There might be an optical restrictions when stabilizing the image at the
focal plane.
In any case, K-M have proven that it works. Let's see what other mfrs are
doing :-). I just thought that it is logical to stabilize the image in
camera rather than in each individual lenses, now that CCD is indeed
moveable (and perhaps lighter than stabilizing lens group?).
I am sure that at least the prototype exists in Pentax Keppler saw it in
Japan. Otherwise his commentary was rather irresponsible.
Cheers,
Ken
--
graywolf
http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
