Checking the specs.

Is this DX format or full frame?

Couldn't see any notes re image stabilisation either?

In article <iodjveF5o9pU1@mid.individual.net>, James Last plays in
Miami < gutless@such.as.Ordog.com> wrote:

> Checking the specs.
>
> Is this DX format or full frame?
>
> Couldn't see any notes re image stabilisation either?

keep checking the specs.

On Sat, 21 Aug 2021 20:36:47 -0400, nospam posted:-

> In article <iodjveF5o9pU1@mid.individual.net>, James Last plays in
> Miami < gutless@such.as.Ordog.com> wrote:
>
> > Checking the specs.
> >
> > Is this DX format or full frame?
> >
> > Couldn't see any notes re image stabilisation either?
>
> keep checking the specs.

DP Review says no stabilisation, just found that.

Waste of money then IMO

In article <iodkr8F5o9pU5@mid.individual.net>, James Last plays in
Miami < gutless@such.as.Ordog.com> wrote:

>
> DP Review says no stabilisation, just found that.

it's in the lenses, where it should be.

On Sat, 21 Aug 2021 20:44:22 -0400, nospam posted:-

> In article <iodkr8F5o9pU5@mid.individual.net>, James Last plays in
> Miami < gutless@such.as.Ordog.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > DP Review says no stabilisation, just found that.
>
> it's in the lenses, where it should be.

Useless, should be in the body, so older Nikon lenses can be used (with
the adaptor, of course).

In article <ioh4cpFpufhU2@mid.individual.net>, James Last plays in
Miami < gutless@such.as.Ordog.com> wrote:

> > > DP Review says no stabilisation, just found that.
> >
> > it's in the lenses, where it should be.
>
> Useless, should be in the body,

physics says otherwise.

> so older Nikon lenses can be used (with
> the adaptor, of course).

they can be used.

On Mon, 23 Aug 2021 10:30:01 -0400, nospam posted:-

> > Useless, should be in the body,
>
> physics says otherwise.

Not aware of that. Can you point me to a link, please?

In article <ioiibdF46okU4@mid.individual.net>, James Last plays in Miami
wrote:

> > > James Last plays in Miami:
> > > Useless, should be in the body,
> >
> > nospam:
> > physics says otherwise.
>
> Not aware of that. Can you point me to a link, please?

No, he can not. :)

--
Sandman

In article <ioiibdF46okU4@mid.individual.net>, James Last plays in
Miami < gutless@such.as.Ordog.com> wrote:

>
> > > Useless, should be in the body,
> >
> > physics says otherwise.
>
> Not aware of that. Can you point me to a link, please?

it's very simple.

the longer the focal length of the lens, the more the image moves with
any vibration, thus the greater the distance the sensor must move to
compensate, whereas modulating a lens element (or group) requires
*very* little movement versus the amount of movement that would be
required by a sensor for equivalent stabilization.

since the distance a sensor must move increases with focal length,
sensor-based stabilization becomes *less* effective as the focal length
increases, the opposite of what's needed, reaching a point where the
sensor literally cannot keep up to stabilize the image.

there is no getting around that. it's basic physics.

further, in-lens stabilization can be optimized specifically for each
lens and its optical formula, whereas sensor stabilization must work
with any lens and will always be sub-optimal in every case.

sensor-based stabilization is useful at shorter focal lengths, where
sensor excursion is minor and where lenses generally are not already
stabilized. except that's where stabilization is needed the least.

put simply, sensor-based works best where it's needed the least and
in-lens works best where it's needed the most.

there's also the secondary issue that in-lens stabilization presents a
stabilized image to the sensor, which helps both autofocus and
autoexposure, and for slrs, also the image seen in the viewfinder.

this was discussed extensively in this very newsgroup roughly 20 years
ago, with a lot of math to show just how far the sensor had to move and
why it sensor-based stabilization *can't* work for longer focal length
lenses. unfortunately, google group search is very broken.

In article <sandman-22c19fd856dcc2f96dd2e10f2a5a376b@individual.net>,
Sandman <mr@sandman.net> wrote:

> > > > Useless, should be in the body,
> > >
> > > physics says otherwise.
> >
> > Not aware of that. Can you point me to a link, please?
>
> No, he can not. :)

as usual you are wrong. see other post for an explanation as to the
physics involved.

On Tue, 24 Aug 2021 08:45:59 -0400, nospam posted:-

> there is no getting around that. it's basic physics.

Gotcha, thanks.

On Saturday, 21 August 2021 at 20:42:22 UTC-4, gutless@such.as.ordog.com James Last plays in Miami wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Aug 2021 20:36:47 -0400, nospam posted:-
> > In article <iodjve...@mid.individual.net>, James Last plays in
> > Miami < gut...@such.as.Ordog.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Checking the specs.
> > >
> > > Is this DX format or full frame?
> > >
> > > Couldn't see any notes re image stabilisation either?
> >
> > keep checking the specs.
> DP Review says no stabilisation, just found that.
>
> Waste of money then IMO

On that score, seconded. No I.S. today is like lacking live view. The camera is supposed to be a "street" camera but forget late-night, low-light shooting with any success rate.

On Tue, 24 Aug 2021 20:42:02 -0000, James Last plays in Miami posted:-

> On Tue, 24 Aug 2021 08:45:59 -0400, nospam posted:-
>
> > there is no getting around that. it's basic physics.
>
>
> Gotcha, thanks.
>

Follow up.

What is the effect of using a camera with internal stabilisation, and a
lens attached which is stabilised?

Greater stabilisation all round, or limited by either the camera, or
the lens?

In article <iolc72Flq64U3@mid.individual.net>, James Last plays in
Miami < gutless@such.as.Ordog.com> wrote:

> What is the effect of using a camera with internal stabilisation, and a
> lens attached which is stabilised?
>
> Greater stabilisation all round, or limited by either the camera, or
> the lens?

if the two systems communicate with each other, then it theoretically
can be better. how well that works in the real world depends on a lot
of factors. some cameras split the axises that each system stabilizes,
so they aren't fighting each other. i think sony does that.

it's also possible that the camera decides to only use one system even
if both are available and not try to keep both in sync.

if the two systems do not communicate, then good luck. they will each
try to stabilize the image, unaware that another system is also trying
to do the same thing at the same time, with not particularly good
results.

On Tue, 24 Aug 2021 20:09:52 -0400, nospam posted:-

> In article <iolc72Flq64U3@mid.individual.net>, James Last plays in
> Miami < gutless@such.as.Ordog.com> wrote:
>
> > What is the effect of using a camera with internal stabilisation,
> > and a lens attached which is stabilised?
> >
> > Greater stabilisation all round, or limited by either the camera, or
> > the lens?
>
> if the two systems communicate with each other, then it theoretically
> can be better. how well that works in the real world depends on a lot
> of factors. some cameras split the axises that each system stabilizes,
> so they aren't fighting each other. i think sony does that.
>
> it's also possible that the camera decides to only use one system even
> if both are available and not try to keep both in sync.
>
> if the two systems do not communicate, then good luck. they will each
> try to stabilize the image, unaware that another system is also trying
> to do the same thing at the same time, with not particularly good
> results.

Thanks again.