Originally posted by osv you have criticized the k-3 sr in multiple posts, and you refuse to understand the real-world limitations of sr technology.
i gave you a link that clearly explained what jellocam is, and why you are wrong, but you ignored it.
the k-3 is a killer camera, if you don't like the sr, learn how to use a tripod... that's how professionals shoot video.
Cause you can always shoot using a tripod... Also, that's how professionals shoot video? Really? I remember ONE movie that had only static shots. ONE. And even there there was one non static shot. And it was a rather artsy arthouse movie. Every other movie is shot handheld, using a steadicam, dolly, ... of course not all shots, but some at least.
SR, REAL, optical SR (either through an element in the lens or the sensor being able to move) will not have the wobble effect as long as the SR system is able to correct the movement. It makes sure that what arrives on the sensor doesn't move. Now if you pan, there will be rolling shutter, but since it only leans into one direction, and doesn't move randomly, it can be corrected more easily, and it isn't as distracting. It is the random micromovements that are the most distracting when using a camera with a CMOS sensor. Electronic SR can work well enough on a CCD sensor, or it can be done there in post. But CMOS... you are screwed. Also, even when you use CCD or it corrects for rolling shutter, you will still get random motion blur in different directions on a static shot when shooting at slower shutter speeds.
@TomGarn: That's exactly what happens. The camera takes a part of the sensor, and changes that part of the sensor depending on what it needs to correct camera movement. With CMOS sensors the problem is that you have a rolling shutter, so first line of the frame was taken at a different time than the last one, or any other. So the top part of the video stays stable, but the bottom part moves around. YouTube (and other software based solutions that use the video footage after it was recorded) can correct only what is needed (i.e. when the video is already pretty smooth there is no need to crop so much out), and they can avoid panning back, since they know you are going to stop a pan. However you lose in resolution. In camera electronic solutions better know about the motion that is actually happening (thanks to sensors), so I suppose less processing power is needed. However they have the same problem as sensor based SR and optical IS... they don't know what happens in future, so after a pan they will have to pan back cause they didn't know you wanted to stop. Now you could program the system so that it will not move back, but then you have little motion left to correct into one direction.
Vibration control or optical IS in the lens works by having a glass element in the lens that can move around. It will change the frame of the image that arrives on the sensor, and it does it so that what arrives at the sensor stays stable. Typically these have a wider range of motion than sensor based systems and work better... however not all lenses are offered with such a system, and the system costs money. Quite a bit. Per lens. IIRC you can either buy a 70-200 4 with IS or a 70-200 2.8 without IS. They are similar in price. That's how expensive these systems seem to be...
Higher end consumer video cameras have an optical IS, while lower end only have an electronic one. If electronic ones are so good, why do the much more expensive models have an optical system?