Is stabilization available for analog?

[David Lyga]

kintatsu: the string idea is one that I have known about but (stupidly?) never tried. It really does answer many of the questions with a simple comcept that is worth trying and very easy to implement. I wonder how many others reading this have tried this 'no frills' approach?

benjiboy: yes, another whole thread could be dedicated towards "what would have happened if digital had never been invented?". What really astounds me about digital cameras (I finally bought a used Canon IS S2 Powershot for $30 and do love it but see some deficiencies faults with regard to film cameras) is the fact that most indoor scenes do not require flash and can be handheld, both because of the IS (image stabilization) and the speed capability of the sensor. The lack of shadow in the back of the subject is very desirable.

All: At least I am not the first person who has posed this question. Thank you for the links. Informative, if not frustrating. - David Lyga

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Here you go David, I've been using one of these - mine is a carbide tipped hiker's staff, the grip unscrews leaving a 1/4-20 stud for the camera.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...2%2F07%2F02%2Fhow-to-use-a-monopod%2F;610;535

 

[kintatsu]

As far as the string-pod, I found it helps to tie a little dowel or other item to the end of the string. It helps with gripping it to the floor. Also, if you make about 6" short of eye level, it will give more stability. I've tried this where I couldn't use a monopod or tripod in the Cologne Cathedral, and gotten some nice shots, being able to handhold at 1/4 second.

I wish I could be more help, though, as your question is one I know I've wondered about.

 

[polyglot]

If you're doing the string trick, it works better if you attach a short (30cm) length of something rigid to the bottom of the camera, and then attach the string to the bottom of that. Without the rigid section, the string will prevent up/down motion but the string+stick constrains vertical rotation of the camera too.

 

[kintatsu]

Thanks for the info on adding an extra support to the string tip. I hadn't thought about that!

 

[AgX]

Me too. I had not thought of that either.

(Though that spoils the idea of just a tiny cord curled up in your pocket. And would need a tiny ballhead to work best.)

 

[zk-cessnaguy]

Why don't you just buy a stabilised lens? Canon, Nikon and Sigma sell a whole bunch of them that will work on 35mm film bodies; it's Sony that does stabilisation in the body instead (therefore no stabilisation available on Minolta SLRs).

You want an external stabiliser? It's called a tripod.

The Sigma OS lenses are stabilised with the SSM-enabled Minolta AF bodies such as the dynax 7.

 

[Bill Burk]

How about duct taping two hard drives together at appropriate angles and running 12 volts to them?

 

[E. von Hoegh]

There was a gyro stabiliser that attached to the tripod socket - if I can ever remember the name of it, I'll find and post a link.

 

[AgX]

Just follow the link in post #4.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Just follow the link in post #4.

Yes, that's it.

 

[AgX]

Body mechanics:

http://i.imgur.com/9jUtoEa.jpg

 

[bobwysiwyg]

Body mechanics:

http://i.imgur.com/9jUtoEa.jpg

 

[John Koehrer]

A steadycam system is designed for with another kind of camera movement in mind.

To steady motion picture cameras. Will still work with still cameras.

There's also the Minigyro.......It's his money.

 

[Chan Tran]

Canon shall be rehabilitated.

They made the change almost 30 years ago. Canon wouldn't have the leading position they have today if they didn't make the switch to EF mount. I am a die hard Nikon user and it's good that they retain the F mount until today but doing so they are creating quite number of incompatibilities in recent years. Beginning with the G lenses and then AF-S lenses.

 

[Dr Croubie]

They made the change almost 30 years ago. Canon wouldn't have the leading position they have today if they didn't make the switch to EF mount. I am a die hard Nikon user and it's good that they retain the F mount until today but doing so they are creating quite number of incompatibilities in recent years. Beginning with the G lenses and then AF-S lenses.

Yeah, the irony is that I can mount more Nikon lenses on my Canon bodies than I could on a Nikon body, even G lenses with expensive adapters.
Only the very very earliest wide-angle intruding lenses that need mirror lockup don't go on a canon, because they've never figured how how mirror lockup is really meant to work...

 

[Pupfish]

Kenyon Gyros were the first thing that came to mind but it's an old school solution and may be no better than VR or IS in a smaller format. Everyone else has chimed in with their experience so I will too. The VR (version) on my Nikon 200-400 has allowed me to get shots that were tack-sharp to as slow as 1/15s, from a crouch, bracing elbows on my knees. 1/60th becomes very routine, shooting with an F5 at 7 fps. Subject motion is then a real problem at these slower speeds, a slowly turned bobcat head that blurred comes to mind, in the middle of a sequence where the 1/15s shots were tack sharp.
Larger cameras don't have stabilized lenses outside of huge astronomy reflecting telescopes (with these they do something similar by moving sections of the mirror--called adaptive optics, IIRC from my years working at an observatory). Astronomically, another slick technology is to put the larger optic/camera in a gimbal, guiding it with a system of fast stepper motors, driven off a video camera and software that senses brightness changes as small as a 1/4 pixel of motion. Off the shelf commercial solutions are standard features of high end amateur telescopes today, works great for correcting drive errors and atmospheric perturbance on long exposures of stars, galaxies, nebulas. Works with film cameras, too, though few astronomers yet use analog capture.

 

[John Koehrer]

Just slightly off regarding the diference between Canon/Nikon implementing new mounts.
Canon did it in one giant leap that outmoded all of their manual focus cameras while Nikon did it in increments.
If you have a bunch of $$ invested in a system would you rather dispose of the expensive lenses in one shot or over the years? Your money, your choice.

 

[StoneNYC]

Just slightly off regarding the diference between Canon/Nikon implementing new mounts.
Canon did it in one giant leap that outmoded all of their manual focus cameras while Nikon did it in increments.
If you have a bunch of $$ invested in a system would you rather dispose of the expensive lenses in one shot or over the years? Your money, your choice.

Many camera companies changed mounts suddenly, canon was just the biggest with the most lenses so it caused more uproar. For the pro's with significantly large lenses like 400mm or 600mm primes, canon offered a send in program where they would change the mount for you. Also they offered a conversion adapter on a limited basis. I've only seen one on eBay once, and if memory serves they made a tiny run like 200 that were made. They only fit the L series glass and possibly only the white lenses as the adapter is white.

It's just like the ones with cheap glass on eBay except its high quality canon glass.

Wish I could get my hands on one...


~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk