Re: In-camera stabilization or in-lens?
- From: "OldBoy" <nono@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 12:59:38 +0200
"Wilba" <usenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:fv9hlj$me9$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
David J Taylor wrote:Wilba wrote:David J Taylor wrote:
The major advantage of in-lens stabilisation is that the image in
the viewfinder is stabilised, along with the image on the focus
and exposure sensors. Especially at the longer focal lengths,
this makes in-lens IS much nicer to use, and allows you to
compose the image and frame the subject much more easily.
It will also allow the camera focus and exposure sensors to
function better.
I agree broadly with what you're saying, but I'm not convinced that
lens-based IS is _always_ an advantage for the image in the
viewfinder.
Specifically, at the "normal" focal length (like the classic ~50mm on
a full-frame 35mm camera), the viewfinder image through an
unstabilised lens does not appear to move _at_all_ as you pan,
whereas with an IS lens it is discontinuous.
The IS is faulty then, or not configured for panning mode.
Ah, yes, panning mode - that would be it. Well spotted. :-)
What if you're lens is set for horizontal panning but you find yourself tracking or scanning something vertically?
Canon's mode 2 IS stabilizes perpendicular the panning movement
.
- References:
- In-camera stabilization or in-lens?
- From: 3Putt from CoastalSouth Carolina
- Re: In-camera stabilization or in-lens?
- From: David J Taylor
- Re: In-camera stabilization or in-lens?
- From: Wilba
- Re: In-camera stabilization or in-lens?
- From: David J Taylor
- Re: In-camera stabilization or in-lens?
- From: Wilba
- In-camera stabilization or in-lens?
- Prev by Date: Re: In-camera stabilization or in-lens?
- Next by Date: Re: Upgrades
- Previous by thread: Re: In-camera stabilization or in-lens?
- Next by thread: Re: In-camera stabilization or in-lens?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|