XM2 stabilizer at DVinfo.net

Mario Lauria · May 12th, 2003, 12:20 PM

Because I'm new in using an optical stabilizer I'd like to
know if it is normal that the effect af image stabilizing is
very noticeable when totally zoomed on a far object
but is almost absent when the zoom is in wide.

Thanks

Mario Lauria

Graham Bernard · May 12th, 2003, 04:21 PM

Mario - Are you saying that the IS is more noticable in Tele than in WIDE - then the answer would be yes. You are trying to keep steady something that is far far away, so any "small" movement will be accentuated. If you are saying that the IS is LESS noticable in WIDE the answer is yes too! This is becasue the IS is actually working - it's doing its job - SO it will not be "noticeable".

Here's the thing: You should really mount your cammy on a tripod for far zooming - AND have the IS system switched OFF. Why? - It is something to do with the IS system will still try to STABILIZE even when on a tripod. - Something like this - yeah?

I've found the IS to work very well when I'm not zoomed at all. If I want to get the image nearer, then I need to walk nearer. Far objects will always be "prone" to shake/wind etc. Far objects put that cammy on a decent tripod. No trip[od? Try and wrap yourself round a tree or lamp-post OR a heavy object. Failling that, use a partner to lean on OR a car - yeah?

Mario Lauria · May 13th, 2003, 02:36 AM

Thank you very much for your kind reply Graham,

I bought my XM2 a few days ago and I’m trying to understand as much as I can.

I have made some quick tests to check the stabilizer.
I’ve set the customer key to switch the stabilizer on/off, then zoomed on a far object and switched the stabilizer back and forth.
Here I could clearly see my hands shaking completely cancelled. (Very fine!).

I repeated the same test with the zoom excluded (wide). Switching the stabilizer on/off while moving around a near object it seems that there is no difference.

Do the other optical stabilizers work the same way? This is my real question.

I completely agree with you when you say that it is better to use a tripod. I have one.

Furthermore, as I’m very “sensitive” to image stabilizing, during last Christmas holydays I built myself a “steady cam” that after many modifications seems to work very fine.
I thing I’ve done a good (and hard) job.

I’ll find the time to show on the Internet the photos of the toy.
In the meanwhile if somebody is interested in taking a look at it, I can send some pictures by E-Mail.

Thank you very much for your attention, Graham

Bye
M. Lauria

Charles Papert · May 13th, 2003, 03:04 AM

Mario:

<<Switching the stabilizer on/off while moving around a near object it seems that there is no difference.>>

If your thought is that an optical stabilizer will help while walking/moving around, then it is no surprise you are disappointed. It is doing exactly the same job at wide angle as it is while zoomed in; the difference is that it is much harder to perceive the effect at wide angle because it is more subtle. The amount of displacement caused by walking with a camera is far greater than the shake of the hand while standing still. You can check this out while you are zoomed to telephoto: with the stabilizer switched on (nice stable image), start walking in place (not so stable anymore).

Your Steadicam-type device is the way to go if you want to smooth out your walking shots. After all, if the optical stabilizers could do the job of the Steadicam, there wouldn't be any need for Steadicams any more, would there? (and I'd be out of a job!!)

Graham Bernard · May 13th, 2003, 03:07 AM

Hiyah - It's a pleasure!

"Do the other optical stabilizers work the same way? " - Mario, I can't answer this straight out. But here is the techie bit for "our" dream machine:-

http://www.canondv.com/gl2/f_image_stabilization.html

It gives a neat view into the innards of the XM2 [GL2] optical stabilizer.

I do remember a fairly extensive thread regarding OS and keeping things steady here - some weeks back.

Back on the learning front - I've had mine since Nov '02. I've learnt lots esp. lately "Horizons" ! I'm using the 16:9 guides as an extra horizon "catcher" for the time being - neat eh?

Oh yes the dreaded shakes!!!! :-( . Still playing around with the OS function. Liked your tip on putting it into a "customer key " . You do know that you can also use "Lock" rather than OFF to keep your settings available for the next shot - yes?

Graham

Mario Lauria · May 13th, 2003, 04:10 AM

Thank you for your replies Charles and Graham

I appreciate very much your answers.

They have made me know what I needed.

Thanks also for your suggestions.

Bye
M.Lauria

May 12th, 2003, 12:20 PM	#1
Mario Lauria New Boot Join Date: May 2003 Location: Taranto Italy Posts: 14	XM2 stabilizer Because I'm new in using an optical stabilizer I'd like to know if it is normal that the effect af image stabilizing is very noticeable when totally zoomed on a far object but is almost absent when the zoom is in wide. Thanks Mario Lauria

May 12th, 2003, 04:21 PM	#2
Graham Bernard Old Boot Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: London UK Posts: 3,633	Errrmmm... not quite! Mario - Are you saying that the IS is more noticable in Tele than in WIDE - then the answer would be yes. You are trying to keep steady something that is far far away, so any "small" movement will be accentuated. If you are saying that the IS is LESS noticable in WIDE the answer is yes too! This is becasue the IS is actually working - it's doing its job - SO it will not be "noticeable". Here's the thing: You should really mount your cammy on a tripod for far zooming - AND have the IS system switched OFF. Why? - It is something to do with the IS system will still try to STABILIZE even when on a tripod. - Something like this - yeah? I've found the IS to work very well when I'm not zoomed at all. If I want to get the image nearer, then I need to walk nearer. Far objects will always be "prone" to shake/wind etc. Far objects put that cammy on a decent tripod. No trip[od? Try and wrap yourself round a tree or lamp-post OR a heavy object. Failling that, use a partner to lean on OR a car - yeah?

May 13th, 2003, 02:36 AM	#3
Mario Lauria New Boot Join Date: May 2003 Location: Taranto Italy Posts: 14	XM2 stabilizer Thank you very much for your kind reply Graham, I bought my XM2 a few days ago and I’m trying to understand as much as I can. I have made some quick tests to check the stabilizer. I’ve set the customer key to switch the stabilizer on/off, then zoomed on a far object and switched the stabilizer back and forth. Here I could clearly see my hands shaking completely cancelled. (Very fine!). I repeated the same test with the zoom excluded (wide). Switching the stabilizer on/off while moving around a near object it seems that there is no difference. Do the other optical stabilizers work the same way? This is my real question. I completely agree with you when you say that it is better to use a tripod. I have one. Furthermore, as I’m very “sensitive” to image stabilizing, during last Christmas holydays I built myself a “steady cam” that after many modifications seems to work very fine. I thing I’ve done a good (and hard) job. I’ll find the time to show on the Internet the photos of the toy. In the meanwhile if somebody is interested in taking a look at it, I can send some pictures by E-Mail. Thank you very much for your attention, Graham Bye M. Lauria

May 13th, 2003, 03:04 AM	#4
Charles Papert Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 6,810	Mario: <<Switching the stabilizer on/off while moving around a near object it seems that there is no difference.>> If your thought is that an optical stabilizer will help while walking/moving around, then it is no surprise you are disappointed. It is doing exactly the same job at wide angle as it is while zoomed in; the difference is that it is much harder to perceive the effect at wide angle because it is more subtle. The amount of displacement caused by walking with a camera is far greater than the shake of the hand while standing still. You can check this out while you are zoomed to telephoto: with the stabilizer switched on (nice stable image), start walking in place (not so stable anymore). Your Steadicam-type device is the way to go if you want to smooth out your walking shots. After all, if the optical stabilizers could do the job of the Steadicam, there wouldn't be any need for Steadicams any more, would there? (and I'd be out of a job!!) __________________ Charles Papert www.charlespapert.com

May 13th, 2003, 03:07 AM	#5
Graham Bernard Old Boot Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: London UK Posts: 3,633	Hiyah - It's a pleasure! "Do the other optical stabilizers work the same way? " - Mario, I can't answer this straight out. But here is the techie bit for "our" dream machine:- http://www.canondv.com/gl2/f_image_stabilization.html It gives a neat view into the innards of the XM2 [GL2] optical stabilizer. I do remember a fairly extensive thread regarding OS and keeping things steady here - some weeks back. Back on the learning front - I've had mine since Nov '02. I've learnt lots esp. lately "Horizons" ! I'm using the 16:9 guides as an extra horizon "catcher" for the time being - neat eh? Oh yes the dreaded shakes!!!! :-( . Still playing around with the OS function. Liked your tip on putting it into a "customer key " . You do know that you can also use "Lock" rather than OFF to keep your settings available for the next shot - yes? Graham

May 13th, 2003, 04:10 AM	#6
Mario Lauria New Boot Join Date: May 2003 Location: Taranto Italy Posts: 14	Thank you for your replies Charles and Graham I appreciate very much your answers. They have made me know what I needed. Thanks also for your suggestions. Bye M.Lauria