Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (
More info?)
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 19:12:37 GMT, Matt Silberstein wrote:
>> Heavy cameras are more stable than light ones. It's a simple
>> matter of physics. It takes more energy to move or vibrate a
>> heavy object than a light one. The heavy camera therefore
>> doesn't move as much given the same inputs from the
>> photographer's hands.
>
> This is simple but misleading physics. A heavy camera also tires the
> muscles faster leading to a lose of control. I strongly suspect that
> there is a curve and that "medium" weight cameras are best.
You've identified a second factor but I don't see why it
invalidates the first or makes it "misleading". Heavier cameras
will tire you sooner, but whatever the weight, light, medium or
heavy, if the muscles tire you should rest.
In addition to the input from the hands that were implied (muscular
movement) there's also the movement caused by hydraulics. I find it
difficult to keep my heart from beating.
The effect is quite
noticeable in the viewfinder when using long focal lengths, with the
image hopping around slightly in sync with my pulse. With shorter
lenses this movement will still be there, but it is less noticeable.
I think that lighter cameras (such as mine) are affected more by
this and find that I try to brace the camera more often than I used
to when I used a heavier film camera.
I don't know the details about how IS works, but one thing that
might help if it's not already being done, is in addition to
minimizing the effect of motion, would be for the camera to be able
to sense cyclic movement (such as due to blood pulses mentioned
above) and electronically delay the shutter release for a few
milliseconds until the cyclic movement reaches one extreme or the
other and the camera's movement is at its minimum. This could also
be a relatively low cost method that, because it's not moving any
lens elements or sensors, wouldn't consume much battery power.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram