Sony A100 anti-shake test

Discussion in 'Sony' started by Wayne J. Cosshall, Nov 21, 2006.

  1. Wayne J. Cosshall, Nov 21, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Charles Schuler, Nov 21, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Bob Williams Guest

    Thanks for doing the test for us. It was very interesting.
    BUT.....
    Judging from the pictures you posted I'd say you got "maybe" 1 f stop
    improvement. Certainly not 2-3 stops.
    Bob Williams
     
    Bob Williams, Nov 22, 2006
    #3
  4. I'm judging from the multiple tests I shot, most less satisfactory only
    because of issues of getting enough of an exposure run. I might go
    through them again and see if I can get some other meaningful complete
    sequences to illustrate what I mean.

    Cheers,

    Wayne
     
    Wayne J. Cosshall, Nov 22, 2006
    #4
  5. Hi Bob,

    It is 2-3 stops on the other tests I did and I would argue 2 on the one
    shown. I'll go through all the other tests I did and see if I can post
    any of those. The issue was one of getting a good, long sequence of
    shutter speeds and the one I used gave that. The others were in lighting
    conditions that were too bright, and thus did not give me enough low
    range in a long sequence. But I'll see what I can do.

    Cheers,

    Wayne
     
    Wayne J. Cosshall, Nov 22, 2006
    #5
  6. Somehow I think that a tripod or monopod (or even putting the camera on
    a stable object like a fence or rock) will reduce shake more than
    anti-shake technology. They work for film cameras, after all.
     
    Pat O'Connell, Nov 22, 2006
    #6
  7. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Philippe Guest

    I'm sorry, but you've been yellow-carded. One more logic-application and
    you'll be asked to sit out the rest of the thread (or at least sit in a
    corner for a few seconds.. whichever, really..)

    <ducking>
    P.
     
    Philippe, Nov 22, 2006
    #7
  8. Sorry--I don't play soccer, so the card doesn't apply.

    Next thought--if people will actually hold the cameras against their
    faces and use the viewfinder (rather than squinting at the LCD display
    in midair like so many tourists seem to do), that might reduce shake
    almost as much as a monopod or tripod. What a concept...
     
    Pat O'Connell, Nov 23, 2006
    #8
  9. Wayne J. Cosshall

    POHB Guest

    If it isn't windy, and you use a remote release, and the subject stays
    still while you frame the shot and then wait for the camera to settle.
    best.
     
    POHB, Nov 23, 2006
    #9
  10. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Philippe Guest

    This one I don't understand; apart from nasty-bright sun shots where
    looking through an optic viewfinder would hurt, or a casual "look at me"
    type shot, why *wouldn't* you use the viewfinder for a shot? The LCD is
    good for macro, bright-bright shots and fun shots but none of those
    involve much anti-shake requirements since either you have *loads* of
    light or you're on a tripod.

    Those that *do* use the LCD for most shots likely aren't posting on this
    (these) usergroups, so I don't understand the intent of the sarcasm...

    ?
    P.
     
    Philippe, Nov 23, 2006
    #10
  11. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Jan Böhme Guest

    Philippe skrev:
    In the case of many tourists, because their camera hasn't got an
    optical viewfinder to start with.

    Squinting at the viewfinder in mid-air isn't particularly clever, of
    course. But I actually found myself using the LCD, rather than the
    viewfinder, quite a lot with my Nikon Coolpix 995. Of course, then I
    held the camera against my chest, and looked down on the LCD.

    Jan Böhme
     
    Jan Böhme, Nov 23, 2006
    #11
  12. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Mike Fields Guest

    Philippe skrev:
    In the case of many tourists, because their camera hasn't got an
    optical viewfinder to start with.

    Squinting at the viewfinder in mid-air isn't particularly clever, of
    course. But I actually found myself using the LCD, rather than the
    viewfinder, quite a lot with my Nikon Coolpix 995. Of course, then I
    held the camera against my chest, and looked down on the LCD.

    Jan Böhme

    What we *really* need is a camera with a motion sensor
    and a speach chip ... "stop that -- hold me still" :)

    mikey
     
    Mike Fields, Nov 23, 2006
    #12
  13. Wayne J. Cosshall

    POHB Guest

    Shooting above the heads of the people in front of you in a crowd
     
    POHB, Nov 23, 2006
    #13
  14. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Philippe Guest

    Yup, but this is another clear situation where a viewfinder is just not
    an option. I was more referring to shots where viewfinders are a viable
    alternative.

    :)
    P.
     
    Philippe, Nov 23, 2006
    #14
  15. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Pete D Guest

    Of course that is the only way you can take a shot with the A100 as it
    thankfully have live view.
     
    Pete D, Nov 23, 2006
    #15
  16. Wolfgang Weisselberg, Nov 23, 2006
    #16
  17. I used to live in Las Vegas NV. You would not believe the number of
    tourists on the Strip or Downtown that had viewfinders on their digital
    cameras, but used the LCD instead, held a foot or more away from their
    face, to frame and shoot. Biggest offenders were Japanese tourists,
    usually in a tour group from a bus. Individual tourists, Japanese or
    not, seemed to have more camera sense on average.
    It just seems to me that the anti-shake feature on digital cameras is
    mostly unnecessary for most photography, and wouldn't be all that
    important to most buyers if they'd ever used a camera, film or digital.

    Mirror slap problems on SLRs were solved a long time ago, IIRC. My old
    Minolta SRT 101 had a damper that "caught" the mirror with a foam strip.
     
    Pat O'Connell, Nov 24, 2006
    #17
  18. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Skip Guest

    Well, I'm guilty of that very thing, primarily because the VF is just short
    of useless.
     
    Skip, Nov 24, 2006
    #18
  19. I actually
     
    Pat O'Connell, Nov 24, 2006
    #19
  20. Wayne J. Cosshall

    POHB Guest

    Not "necessary" maybe, but it does improve the sharpness of the results
    for "most photography" i.e. handheld and less than bright sunshine.

    Here's some test shots I took.
    Apart from the extra cost, what's not to like about it?
     
    POHB, Nov 24, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.