Candace et al,
The way this works is very different than IS/VR/etc in still cameras. With a
lens based system (Canon, Nikon, etc), there is an element in the lens that
is moved in the opposite direction as the "shake," giving the stabilization.
With body based systems (Minolta/Sony), the sensor is moved around to
achieve the same effect. The info for the moving whatever system is obtained
from a (scientific term alert) gyroscope thingie. That's why some thought it
couldn't be far for Olympus, with the fact that the sensor is already moving
for dust reduction.
On camcorders and such, it is a digital thing. In IS/VR the image recorded
is reduced in size, so there are excess pixels on the sensor edges. Thus,
the area recorded is shifted on the sensor, so there is no physical movement
of anything. Some say that this reduces image quality, as all pixels aren't
used, but if there is so little difference between 8 and 10 mp, then loosing
a few at the edges can't make that much of a difference.
There are also some naysayers about the moving sensor business, that feel
that resolution is degraded if the sensor isn't locked down to the body
casting. That argument might be a good one, but what about the ultrasonic
dust removal feature?
Bill Pearce
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|