I agree. Still, a great many common subjects are stationary. Certainly
the majority of my shots are of at least relatively stationary subjects
where IS would work.
Wouldn't it work for people like Stephen and Mike who are expert at
panning moving objects? Minolta claims it works for horizontal panning.
Doesn't matter for me, as I almost never try that.
It is interesting that it operates based on motion sensors in the
camera. Thus, it would work nicely for subjects with both moving images
that are intentionally blurred and stationary components. An example
that comes immediatly to mind is my TOPE 10 shot. The water was going to
blur anyway, but I was stretching to get the background steady in a
rather shaded little corner, playing the old speed vs. DOF game. Might
work well for nighttime shots of fireworks, fairs, etc., where the
moving conponents are generally slightly blurred anyway. The other big
advantage is for photo ops where setting up a tripod isn't
possible/practical. Could work wonders in indoor venues where tripods
aren't allowed.
The advantage of a system that worked based on image movement, rather
than camera movement, would be compensation for subtle movement of
subjects like flowers.
I mostly wanted to point out for those who hadn't noticed that IS, of
whatever kind, can be used, in effect, to improve noise performance in
digital cameras.
Moose
chling@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>Your assumption works only for stationary objects.
>
>
The olympus mailinglist olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: mailto:olympus-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
To contact the list admins: mailto:olympusadmins@xxxxxxxxxx?subject="Olympus
List Problem"
|