On 2 Dec 2002 10:30:01 -0600, farrar@datasync.com (Paul Farrar) wrote:
>In article ,
>Carl Bevil wrote:
>>On Thu, 28 Nov 2002 04:12:45 -0800 Carl Bevil wrote:

>>> Hey all. I was thinking the other day (uh-oh ;-) and was wondering why
>>image
>>> stabilization technology was inside the lens as opposed to making a device
>>> that did the image stabilization that you could attach to your camera.
>>Ah well, I guess this is just a pipe dream. Thanks for the responses, all. :-)
>>Carl

>No. The Kenlab gyro stabilizer works well, and is widely used. (But not
>by me.) One person complained about the noise (for video, but most
>users use it for stills). It's widely used for aerial photography,
>Norbert Rosing uses it for wildlife photography (presumably in
>situations that are not noise-critical), one bridge photgrapher uses it
>to stabilize his camera in the high winds atop bridges. It's available
>for rental in big cities.
>Paul

I complained about the noise. It is acceptable for
noisy locations or for set-ups, but not for most
situations where it would disturb an event... It
is also difficult to use in situations where the
motion frequency is low, with large excursions
(like in bumpy airplanes...) - when the gyros are
forced to their stops, the camera suddenly is free
to turn, and is difficult to control... The gyro's
vibration was enough to cause Hi-8 tape to mistrack,
also. It is most useful with physically short or
compact gear (reducing lever arms) that is not
sensitive to vibration, in situations without noise
limitations, and with slow large-amplitude motions
(large boats, smooth aircraft, etc.) or high-frequency
low-amplitude vibrations (hand-holding, etc.).
In the end, I sold mine...