On Fri, 16 Nov 2001 00:25:19 GMT, tnr wrote:
>In article <3bf4549c.15984172@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>, rpn1
>@cornell.edu says...
>> >In article <3bf3ce35.2739985@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>, rpn1
>> >@cornell.edu says...
>> >> The digital vs. optical stabilizer issue here is, BTW,
>> >> of small importance...)

>> >Why is that?

>> There is little visual difference most of the time
>> between well-implemented OIS and DIS stabilization
>> systems...

>Isn't there a penalty to pay in terms of available ccd area for imaging
>when EIS is used?

Yes, this is true. If the CCD size is the same for both
systems, the DIS system, for the same effective pixel count,
will require a larger gross number of pixels, making them
smaller, and so less sensitive, all else being equal. In
good light, you would not see the difference, but in low
light, you might. The Sony CCDs appear to be HAD-types,
with both their disadvantages and advantages, including
increased sensitivity, offsetting the smaller pixel size
used...

>I've also heard (so please don't flame me as I'm not
>claiming to know it's true) that some EIS fails with dim lighting, low
>contrast images etc. since it depends on analyzing the scene itself
>while optical systems use accelerometers to directly determine motion.
>Althoug I don't see why EIS couldn't use accelerometers as well....

It has been my experience with the Sony DIS systems that
they perform at least as well as OIS systems - and also
avoid the "swimming" and "bouncing-ball" effects often
seen with OIS. The Sony systems do switch the shutter
speed to 1/100th when engaged, making turning them off
in low light preferable for least gain rise...