Why Aren't Shake Warnings Based on Camera Movement?

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

 

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

 

Cost. Few would understand. Fewer still would use it. And, as someone
already mentioned, you'd need IS to begin with.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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.

 

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

-- jim

 

There were rangefinders in the 1930's or doesn't this qualify as the
olden days?

 

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

 

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?

 

An obnoxious, fast repeating voice booms out:

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

etc, etc,

 

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

 

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

 

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.
:-(