On this one - shortly after pigs fly...

My first digital camera DSLR was a Canon 350D

I felt the same way - my sister in low is into photography, and i sent her a photo of the parts saying "I hope the photography gods forgive me"! Although I felt better when i realised how badly damaged it was too!

I have felt that a little too often for my liking! Any thing else we can save from your curiosity?

@@a531016 I was actually trying to figure that out. Best I can do for now is back when I lived in Denmark there were a lot of automated lawn mowers (think a Roomba with blades). I was always curious about their safety features. I once saw a couple of children run up and kick one which effectively shut it off before panicking and running away in surprise as if they'd accidentally killed the neighbors cat. 😄 I'll let you know if anything else comes to mind.

Absolutely! I mentioned the stabilisation right at the begining and then promptly forgot it! I was mostly caught of guard by it as my Nikon has it as a lense featue!

@@a531016 yes Nikon calls it vibration reduction short VR.

Having the stabilization in the body (as in this one) makes for cheaper, smaller, lighter lenses but complicates things because it has to be able to adjust differently for each lens and even differently for a single Zoom lens at different focal lengths. Putting the image stabilization in the lenses makes for cheaper, smaller, lighter camera bodies (and gives you the option to go without image stabilization in high vibration environments) but makes the lenses more expensive, bigger and heavier. In high vibration/impact environments such as motorsports, mechanical image stabilization is a bad thing because vibrations and bumps actually jar the mechanism and make the image worse. Even with OIS turned off, the sensor or focus point is not absolutely solidly in place and so inertia will force it out of position during vibrations and bumps. That's why GoPros and other action cams that only have software image stabilization often have a much clearer, more stable image than a big, fancy DSLR in action sport situations. If you have a DSLR with image stabilization in the lenses and like to do vlogs and such, try getting a lens without stabilization, preferably fixed focal length as well. If the stabilization is in the body, you're out of luck. You're probably better off with a decent action cam. They're much easier and safer to mount anyway, and much cheaper if things go wrong and the camera gets lost or damaged.

@@awo1fman having the imagestabalisation in the camera body, has two major effects. First this type of imagestabalisation has only to compensate the shaky movement of the camera body. It's not related to the focal length. And second the motion of the sensor must be driven by motors. That produces heat. More heat in the camerabody causes more noise to the sensor, the images tend get more noisier.

@@hinkelstein4six Wrong. The focal length determines exactly how far the sensor has to move in order to keep the image stable. Just like when you zoom in with a non-stabilized lens it's much harder to keep your composition aimed. Longer lenses are harder to stabilize. Which is another reason having stabilization in the body rather than the lens is a bad idea. There's a hard limit on how far the sensor can move, but the lens can bend the light as far as it needs to (although there are practical limits on that as well).

Thanks, that's a much better explanation than the one i fumbled over in the video!

Hello been wanting a 7d to add to my collection for awhile now, but I've been very skeptic since it turns out that the Minolta 7d have major flaws in its design or manufacturing (I believe it was the black screen of death not sure, but that's what I remember from my research) that it turned me off from getting the 7d. What is your experience with the 7d, and are you aware of the issues that plagued this camera?

Head over to the e14 Commnunity www.element14.com/community/docs/DOC-95405/l/the-eiectronics-inside-25-sony-dslr-teardown-bonus-content

@@a531016 thanks

Ubuntu said. Don't trust him.

My Nikon has it in the lense too, which is probably why it took me so long to realise what it was for in this Sony!

It's definitely for image stabilisation. In-body image stabilisation (IBIS) is more common on mirrorless cameras than DSLRs, but companies such as Olympus have used it to great effect.

@@wilkgr I guess that makes a lot of sense, so on a mirrorless you will get the same frameing in the viewfinder! Great spot!

It does what it says though right? I think Sony use the name on all their consumer level products right through to their high end pro kit too?

@Test86 One4 We were always given Sony as an example of a high quality manufacturer at school. The high build quality and excuisite quality control. Having now taken 2 Sony devices apart, I completely understand!

I'm still none the wiser! I happy to take your word for it. What do you think the pairing would be used for?

@@a531016 Creating a frequency in Hertz, used in different ways pair with other components or cluster of components. I think so, at least. I'm new to the stuff, and don't want to Google it right now, sorry.

Right, so I guess it works in tandem with one or more capacitors to deliver faster and more efficient flash charging capabilities. Source: electronics.howstuffworks.com/camera-flash3.htm

These things are two gyros. Placed 90 dregree apart to detect the movement of the camera. That's the input to the Steady shot system. It can detect the movement of the body with the help of these two gyros and move the sensor accordingly.

@@a.c.e.repair2173 You're totally right. Those are gyro sensors. I should've Googled the part number instead of simply guessing, haha.

My bad, as I said, I'm not particularly camera fluent! Actually after shooting this, i watched a video titled somthing like "why APS was the worst thing to happen to phtography" and the size of sensors was mentioned then too!

I like the sound of that!