Canon vs. Sony Marketing

[RogerRex]

A Canon ad titled "IS: Which IS Best" appears in the January 2007 issue of "Travel and Leisure." In part it reads:

"In addition, if a camera maker with body based image stabilization wants to create a camera with a full frame sensor, they would have to increase the size of the lens mount so drastically, the lens mount would be the same as a medium format camera."

So, if true, all KM lenses will not work on a Sony full frame IF such a camera is produced - true? I'm no optics/sensor expert so I'd like to know if the Canon statement can be true. Any other comments would be appreciated as well.

 

[banzen]

The in body stabilization works by moving the sensor to follow the image so for a full frame camera, it is possible for the sensor to move out of the 35mm image circle. However, there are a few ways to work around the problem.

1. Develops a 1.1x crop factor sensor so the sensor can still move within certain limits.

2. Develops a full frame sensor and allows two modes. In full frame mode, the SSS will be off. In crop mode, the SSS can be turned on.

What Canon didn't say in their advertisement is that they are not able to add IS to their large aperture prime lens like 50/1.4 which I think is a more serious limitation.

--
banzen

http://www.flickr.com/photos/banzen/

 

[tweedle]

there are a few ways to work around the problem.

1. Develops a 1.1x crop factor sensor so the sensor can still move
within certain limits.

2. Develops a full frame sensor and allows two modes. In full frame
mode, the SSS will be off. In crop mode, the SSS can be turned on.

Agreed.

3. Reducing possible vignetting issues (dark corners) via firmware programming.

It seems that Canon also fails to adress the long term problem of in-lens stabilizing. This technology is based on having one or more lens elements held in place by a flexible gel. This construction makes the lens element easily mis-alligned and the whereas we are in habit of seeing lenses lifespan as almost eternal, the lifetime of this specific gel is unknown.

 

[Jekabs]

In fact life-time of current in-lens stabilization systems is pretty much known according to people who complain that their IS lenses get mis-aligned or IS stops working at all. Mechanics for zoom lenses are pretty complex already, add IS to that and no wonder it does break.

IMHO the only real benefits of in-lens against in-body is that you can actually see it work through viewfinder. As for performance - I think it is mostly a marketing hype - both systems work well under certain conditions and also utterly fail in different conditions. And none of them are as effective as heavy tripod

 

[tweedle]

IMHO the only real benefits of in-lens against in-body is that you
can actually see it work through viewfinder.

That is a benefit indeed. With live view becoming more common, even in-body stabilization will be viewable via the camera's LCD.

 

[fjbyrne]

And supposedly the stabilized image help the AF sensors and the metering.
--
fjbyrne

 

[claudio rio]

Also it is possible to Sony to develop a lens with buit in IS if its necessary. If Sony (or Sigma, Tamrom, etc.) offer this option, we'll can have the best of both worlds.

Canon or Nikon without body AS can't offer this same option.

 

[Henry Richardson]

Also it is possible to Sony to develop a lens with buit in IS if its
necessary. If Sony (or Sigma, Tamrom, etc.) offer this option, we'll
can have the best of both worlds.

Canon or Nikon without body AS can't offer this same option.

Canon and/or Nikon could add in-body IS to their bodies someday, but who knows if they ever will.

--
Henry Richardson
http://www.bakubo.com

 

[Henry Richardson]

A Canon ad titled "IS: Which IS Best" appears in the January 2007
issue of "Travel and Leisure." In part it reads:

Isn't this the second big Canon ad dissing in-body stabilization? This tells me that Canon is worried. You don't go to all this trouble if the in-body stabilization of Sony/Pentax/Olympus is having no effect on them. Making such a big deal about it is a double-edged sword, I suppose. On one hand they convince some people to ignore Sony/Pentax/Olympus. On the other hand they bring attention to in-body stabilization and get people thinking about it.

--
Henry Richardson
http://www.bakubo.com

 

[Hellashot]

Isn't this the second big Canon ad dissing in-body stabilization?
This tells me that Canon is worried. You don't go to all this
trouble if the in-body stabilization of Sony/Pentax/Olympus is having
no effect on them. Making such a big deal about it is a double-edged
sword, I suppose. On one hand they convince some people to ignore
Sony/Pentax/Olympus. On the other hand they bring attention to
in-body stabilization and get people thinking about it.

Simply getting their viewpoint on image stabilization out there. Lens based is better as it can be customized for each lens. Canon isn't worried about a company with 5% market share in dSLRs.

 

[loupiote]

so in theory, when the "image stabilisation / super steady shot" mode is turned OFF on the Alpha, we should have 10.3 or 10.5 mega-pixels?

but we don't...

too bad they under-use the sensor in that case.

 

[tweedle]

Also it is possible to Sony to develop a lens with buit in IS if its
necessary. If Sony (or Sigma, Tamrom, etc.) offer this option, we'll
can have the best of both worlds.

That's what you get, if you mount a in-lens stabilized Leica/Panasonic lens on your in-body stabilized Olympus -510 (it's all the 4/3 mount).

Camera Labs tested this very combo, and found that if you turn both stabilization systems on at once, only the in-body stabilizer will work (the in-lens system will be disabled):

the two systems are not aware of each other, so their attempts to interpret
and counteract shakes can actually work against each other. [...]

the lens system is disabled, leaving the E-510’s body-based IS to exclusively
stabilise the image.

http://www.cameralabs .
com/reviews/OlympusE510/Olympus_E510_with_Leica_14-50mm.shtml

 

[tweedle]

Isn't this the second big Canon ad dissing in-body stabilization?
This tells me that Canon is worried.

Sure they are, they would love to let in-body stabilization to die in silence (it's the obvious weakness of the XTi/400D), but that is no more possible.

In-body stabilization is a very strong salespoint, and both Sony and Olympus are now marketing this feature strongly. Unfortunately, the first companies to bring out in-body stabilization (KM and Pentax respectively) never managed to really bring out the information on the benefits of this feature to the average consumer. But this is about to change.

A lot of p&s'ers upgrading to DSLR are also now already accustomed to having stabilized pictures.

Canon is under serious pressure these months with Nikon now commanding nearly 50 per cent of Japanese sales on the one hand and Sony/Olympus/Pentax (all having in-body stabilization) on the other. I would never ever underestimate Canon, but I think they will have to show quite a few new tricks within the next 6-9 months.

 

[Henry Richardson]

Simply getting their viewpoint on image stabilization out there.
Lens based is better as it can be customized for each lens. Canon
isn't worried about a company with 5% market share in dSLRs.

You prove my point. If Canon isn't worried they would just ignore the Sony pip squeak.

--
Henry Richardson
http://www.bakubo.com

 

[PhotoTraveler]

No, AS verses no-AS doe not change the pixel count. The sensor doesn't suddenly get bigger because AS is turned off.

 

[KM Glassman]

And supposedly the stabilized image help the AF sensors and the
metering.
--
fjbyrne

Except on the Canon MkIII, which has focus problems up the gazoo!--
G. Lassman

 

[KM Glassman]

A Canon ad titled "IS: Which IS Best" appears in the January 2007
issue of "Travel and Leisure." In part it reads:

Isn't this the second big Canon ad dissing in-body stabilization?
This tells me that Canon is worried. You don't go to all this
trouble if the in-body stabilization of Sony/Pentax/Olympus is having
no effect on them. Making such a big deal about it is a double-edged
sword, I suppose. On one hand they convince some people to ignore
Sony/Pentax/Olympus. On the other hand they bring attention to
in-body stabilization and get people thinking about it.

--
Henry Richardson
http://www.bakubo.com

I agree Henry, Canon is worried about in-body IS. They are really painting themselves into a corner by dissing in-body IS though. Someday they may have to offer in-body IS in order to compete for customers! --
G. Lassman

 

[KM Glassman]

Lens based is better as it can be customized for each lens. Canon
isn't worried about a company with 5% market share in dSLRs.

No argument that in lens IS can be customized for a particular focal length lens, but when you put it in a zoom lens, things aren't quite so simple. Can in-lens IS actually be equally good a all focal lengths in a zoom camera? I really doubt it. Optics and mechanics being what they are, I am sure there are compromises built into the Canon IS feature, just like other aspects of the optical design of any brand of zoom lens. But to set something straight, actually, the Sony SSS in the a100 is customized for each focal length. The focal length information is passed to the camera from the electronics in the lens and the sensor shifting adjusts accordingly. In future, this technology will get better and better. Frankly, I am surprised the Anit-Shift system developed by Konica-Minolta works as well as it does...and I believe Canon is just as surpised (to their chagrin) also!
--
G. Lassman

 

[RobertSigmund]

If Sony wanted to go FF, they would just have to ad a minimal additional space on the full frame sensor to give room for the movements. It really is tiny, so I do not see any problem. No need for a larger bayonet.

 

[moire]

Isn't this the second big Canon ad dissing in-body stabilization?
This tells me that Canon is worried. You don't go to all this
trouble if the in-body stabilization of Sony/Pentax/Olympus is having
no effect on them. Making such a big deal about it is a double-edged
sword, I suppose. On one hand they convince some people to ignore
Sony/Pentax/Olympus. On the other hand they bring attention to
in-body stabilization and get people thinking about it.

Simply getting their viewpoint on image stabilization out there.
Lens based is better as it can be customized for each lens. Canon
isn't worried about a company with 5% market share in dSLRs.

customized how? does your handshking change from lens to lens? Well it varies with weight ofcourse ...

but then its just more shaking .. so why not just compensate for as much shake as possible all the time??

maybe there is more space/room for larger compensation when you have the mechanics in the lens ...