IS or who remember FS, read lol.

Discussion in 'Open Discussion' started by microfourthirdsnut, Nov 21, 2013.

  1. microfourthirdsnut

    microfourthirdsnut Mu-43 Regular

    Oct 8, 2012
    Who out their remembers the days when you loaded film and used a tripod or pressed the camera so hard against you face it left a mark. FS. face stabilization. lol
    I know it does make a difference especially when we get older but for me it's not a must use a table or tripod, monopod your arms or face, or what ever it takes to hold the bugger steady.
    I guess it comes from the days of my Argus C3 and Canon A1 cameras,
    and even the 10+ years I used Leica stuff.

    • Like Like x 1
  2. drd1135

    drd1135 Zen Snapshooter

    Mar 17, 2011
    Southwest Virginia
    I prefer a flip LCD and BS (belly stabilization). I have so much more to work with these days.
    • Like Like x 5
  3. oldracer

    oldracer Mu-43 All-Pro

    Oct 1, 2010
    LOL, indeed.

    Except for the film part, that's what I do now. In fact I miss one thing from the film days: Getting a clean new sensor for every shot. Now we have to worry about dust because we use the same old sensor over and over.

    Regarding IS vs tripods and FS, IMHO there are a couple of things that people tend to miss. First, in order for IS to work the camera or lens has to sense motion. So essentially you have lost the game before it starts. Second, Newton's second law of motion guarantees that the IS correction will lag the motion. Even assuming infinite computer speed for the calculations, we con't have the infinite force necessary to product instantaneous motion of the correction mechanisms, lenses or sensor. So the best one can hope for is for the IS lag to be undetectable in the finished image. The lag cannot be zero and hence the stabilization cannot be perfect.
    • Like Like x 1
  4. AdamSF

    AdamSF Shutterbugger

    Oct 13, 2013
    San Francisco, CA
    Why would there be a need for IS lag that is less than "undetectable"? In fact, if it's "undetectable," how can you measure it, or even know it exists?:rolleyes:
  5. flash

    flash Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Apr 29, 2010
    1 hour from Sydney Australia.
    The real issue with FS is that, as you get older, it takes longer and longer for the dents in your face to recover.

    • Like Like x 3
  6. RevBob

    RevBob Super Moderator

    Jun 4, 2011
    NorthWestern PA
    I need to try this, I also have a lot to work with! :biggrin:
  7. oldracer

    oldracer Mu-43 All-Pro

    Oct 1, 2010
    There isn't. But I seriously doubt that such a goal is easily achievable just because of the relatively large masses that must be moved. It seems like the motion must be restricted somewhere below a thousandth of a millimeter (1 micron) but I have no idea what the masses and acceleration numbers might be. Maybe submicron lag is achievable, maybe not. But the physics guarantees that some lag is there.

    I said " ... undetectable in the finished image." Measuring such motions in a laboratory is relatively easy, so the IS engineers almost certainly have measured exactly how fast their gadgetry can accelerate in response to a command. We'll never be told, however. It would be a proprietary number and too hard to explain anyway.
  8. jamespetts

    jamespetts Mu-43 Top Veteran

    May 21, 2011
    London, England
    Gosh, I remember using a film camera and using a tripod, cable release, hand-held light meter and grey card for every shot!
  9. b_rubenstein

    b_rubenstein Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 20, 2012
    Melbourne, FL
    So, what does that mean? Unless you can quantify the visible imperfections of the system it doesn't mean anything useful. It's like saying, thing fall down. Four stops lower shutter speed may be less than an infinite number of stops, but it's infinitely more than zero stops.
  10. Promit

    Promit Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 6, 2011
    Baltimore, MD
    Promit Roy
    I nearly always shoot at arm's length. BWAHAHAHAHAHA.
  11. jloden

    jloden Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 15, 2012
    Hunterdon County, NJ
    Brings new meaning to "in body stabilization" :biggrin:
    • Like Like x 3
  12. GaryAyala

    GaryAyala Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 2, 2011
    I remember when Auto was a car, not a camera setting.

    • Like Like x 6
  13. agentlossing

    agentlossing Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jun 26, 2013
    Andrew Lossing
    Here's a question... Does the extent to which a given vibration affects the finished image depend in any way on how big the sensor/film is? In other words, would a larger capture surface be affected, scientifically, any more or less than a smaller one?
  14. biomed

    biomed Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 22, 2013
    Seattle area
    I'm an old schooler. The tripod - don't leave home without it. Must be a holdover from shooting 4x5. :thumbup:
  15. GaryAyala

    GaryAyala Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 2, 2011
    I could be completely wrong with this, but just using reason* ...

    1) We can never truly "stop action" on any medium. Action is continuous, (when action stops being continuous, then it is stationary);
    2) The shutter allows the camera to minimize the movement to a predetermined slice of time. The shorter that slice of time, the less time the movement has to travel across the capture medium;
    3) At a certain predetermined slice of time, the movement/action will appear 'stopped' to our eyes. But it is still moving, it appears to be motionless because we are viewing the object moving a very very short distance across the capture medium.

    Oops, I digressed ... okay my answer is:


    On the shooter's end, as an example ... a movement/shift/vibration which causes a stationary object in the viewfinder to move .1" across a FF sensor, would result in an equivalent .2" movement/shift/vibration on a MFT.
  16. oldracer

    oldracer Mu-43 All-Pro

    Oct 1, 2010
    "On the shooter's end, a movement/shift/vibration which causes a stationary object in the viewfinder to move .1" across a FF sensor, would result in an equivalent .2" movement/shift/vibration on a MFT."

    Yes. To be slightly more technical, the amount of motion that is acceptable is probably some fraction of the pixel size. Half? I don't know. So the bigger sensor, assuming equivalent technology, would have bigger pixels and hence the motion could be bigger before it became detectable.

    But ... for IBIS, sensor size is not an independent variable. The mass of the sensor assembly that has to be moved will be going up roughly as the square of the increase in linear dimension. 120% bigger sensor gets you 40% more mass that has to be accelerated to chase the camera motion. For in-lens stabilization, certainly the mass of the glass to be moved will also increase (assuming equivalent focal length and aperture), so I don't know if there is a win there either.

    ((I also agree with Gary's digression. Subject motion and camera motion have exactly the same effect: photons are "smeared" and not all of them land on the pixel we want them to land on.)
  17. agentlossing

    agentlossing Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jun 26, 2013
    Andrew Lossing
    That's what I was thinking as well. An interesting diversion.
  18. pdk42

    pdk42 One of the "Eh?" team

    Jan 11, 2013
    Leamington Spa, UK
    I should think the biggest advantage that larger frame sizes have on camera shake is that the resulting image needs less magnification to print/view it compared to a smaller one so the blur will be less evident.
  19. RDM

    RDM Mu-43 All-Pro

    I remember some cameras where you had to turn the camera upside down in order get the FS, Like my Kodak Signet 40.