I understood your point but, knowing nothing of the mechanism in the
camera, I don't know if it is capable of suitable amplitude or not. I
agree that, as a purely ultrasonic device, it would not need the
amplitude required for anti-shake. On the other hand, if Olympus has
plans for implementing anti-shake via compensating sensor motions they
will have compicated their lives considerably if both functions can't be
performed by the same device. Having implemented sensor cleaning with a
big marketing flair they will not be at liberty to drop it for an
anti-shake mechanism.
If, as you suggest, this or a future mechanism is incapable of the
requisite amplitude then this may speak volumes about Olympus' direction
(or lack thereof) to implement image stabilization.
Chuck Norcutt
Mark Marr-Lyon wrote:
> Well, yeah, but that's like saying that anti-shake could be added to
> OM's if only they had a little bit of control :) My point was that the
> mechanism that removes the dust is entirely unsuited for moving the
> sensor in the way it would need to for anti-shake control. So they're
> no closer to putting anti-shake in the camera than they would be
> without the cleaning system.
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"
|