Why Aren't Shake Warnings Based on Camera Movement?

Discussion in 'Digital Cameras' started by jim evans, Nov 13, 2006.

  1. jim evans

    jim evans Guest

    I learned today that the "shake" warning on Canon cameras is simply
    based on reaching shutter speeds less than 1/60th second.

    The old 1/60th rule is based on an average person with steady hands
    using a 35mm camera with a normal lens. It applied to cameras pressed
    against the face, using good practice. I'm an old guy with shaky
    hands and with a submini camera you pretty much have to hold it out
    from your body and use the LCD display, sometimes at 100mm equivalent.
    The 1/60th rule is meaningless under such conditions.

    Does someone know why they don't base the shake warning on data from
    the IS system combined with shutter speed and focal length?

    -- jim
     
    jim evans, Nov 13, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. jim evans

    jim evans Guest

    Yes, of course. I'm talking about cameras with IS.

    I learned that they don't do it while investigating my Canon SD700 IS.
    And, I have long zoom prosumer with IS.

    -- jim
     
    jim evans, Nov 14, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Cost. Few would understand. Fewer still would use it. And, as someone
    already mentioned, you'd need IS to begin with.
     
    John McWilliams, Nov 14, 2006
    #3
  4. jim evans

    JohnR66 Guest

    The camera would have to have an accelerometer of some sort making it more
    expensive. Given the cost of some IS models these days, you might as well go
    full IS. Also if you were still and moved the camera at the last second
    (most people move the camera when pressing the shutter button), the warning
    would be too late. I can see the warning going on an off all the time -
    annoying. Just doesn't make sense. Much better to give the warning depending
    on focal length and shutter speed combo.

    John
     
    JohnR66, Nov 14, 2006
    #4
  5. jim evans

    jim evans Guest

    That argument would apply equally to the current Shake warnings.

    I'm only talking about what appears to be a far superior way determine
    when the shake is too great. The warning light/signal would not
    change from what it is now.

    -- jim
     
    jim evans, Nov 14, 2006
    #5
  6. jim evans

    jim evans Guest

    It doesn't have to have anything more than it does now. I'm
    suggesting the existing IS sensor system be used as the signal.
    I don't understand what you're trying to say by "full IS", but IS does
    not overcome all shake only maybe 2-3 stops worth.
    They have shake warnings now. All of your objections would apply to
    the present shake warnings.

    -- jim
     
    jim evans, Nov 14, 2006
    #6
  7. jim evans

    timeOday Guest

    Maybe, maybe not. Compact cameras already show a preview on the screen,
    so they are clearly already capturing the image. Some clever processing
    might enable them to detect and warn about camera shake.

    If not, a shake warning could still be issued with a crude
    accelerometer, with no directional feedback and no corrective mechanism.
    Even hard drives have accelerometers in them now. So I don't think a
    full IS mechanism would be necessary.
     
    timeOday, Nov 14, 2006
    #7
  8. jim evans

    jim evans Guest

    Then there was that awful flash powder and the messy wet plates

    -- jim
     
    jim evans, Nov 14, 2006
    #8
  9. jim evans

    Neil Ellwood Guest

    There were rangefinders in the 1930's or doesn't this qualify as the
    olden days?
     
    Neil Ellwood, Nov 14, 2006
    #9
  10. jim evans

    jim evans Guest

    So, you feel the shake warnings currently on cameras with IS are
    stupid?
    Or, you'd increase the ISO or use flash or brace yourself more or . .
    ..
    And at 600mm?
    You're prescribing to me? Photographer, heal thyself.

    -- jim
     
    jim evans, Nov 14, 2006
    #10
  11. jim evans

    Bill Funk Guest

    Another thing I'm unaware of - shake warnings.
    I have three cameras with IS; a Canon 30D (IS lenses), an S2IS, and a
    Lumix FX01. None of these have any "shake warning."
    What form do these shake warnings take?
     
    Bill Funk, Nov 14, 2006
    #11
  12. An obnoxious, fast repeating voice booms out:

    "Warning! Apply directly to tripod!"
    "Warning! Apply directly to tripod!"
    "Warning! Apply directly to tripod!"

    etc, etc,
     
    John McWilliams, Nov 14, 2006
    #12
  13. jim evans

    jim evans Guest

    This one http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Canon/canon_sd800is.asp
    and
    this one http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Canon/canon_sd700is.asp
    and I more but two should make the point that your should get out
    more.
    It was you who brought it up in your original post when you said

    "I can quite easily hand hold my camera at 1 - 30th with the lens at
    the 35 equivalent of 600mm."

    -- jim
     
    jim evans, Nov 15, 2006
    #13
  14. jim evans

    jim evans Guest

    Naturally it's different on different cameras. On mine it shows a
    flashing red picture of a camera with what look like four parentheses
    below it. This is a poor picture, it's actually more distinct but
    look in the bottom left of this LCD display --
    http://tinyurl.com/vmdlh

    Also, an orange LED flashes on he body of the camera.

    -- jim
     
    jim evans, Nov 15, 2006
    #14
  15. jim evans

    Bill Funk Guest

    Hmmm...
    I would think that the fact that the viewfinder/LCD showed a moving
    image would be a clue, but then, we have grown to think that we should
    be protected from ourselves.
    :-(
     
    Bill Funk, Nov 15, 2006
    #15
    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.