That only works to prevent frame-to-frame jitter in video sequences.
It doesn't help with a single-frame exposure.
> 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
>
>
