Reading mode: Light Dark

Good news from Pentax

Go to last post
J

Jeff Varszegi

Senior Member
Messages
2,967
Reaction score
0
Location
US
Now that they have released another stabilized SLR body, hopefully Canon and Nikon will soon follow suit. Hopefully the reviews will soon put the lie to the claims that in-body IS is worthless. I'd love to have even one stop's worth of reliable in-body IS.
 
Jeff Varszegi said:
Now that they have released another stabilized SLR body, hopefully
Canon and Nikon will soon follow suit.
Click to expand...
The reason Canon/Nikon won't is because the "dent" in their market from a 3rd company's DSLR is significantly outweighed by the drop in profits they would suffer from IS/VR lenses (in favor of 3rd party alternatives) were they to implement such a feature. I personally would love it, but then you would have plenty of people going for the 90% of a 17-55IS in the $400 Sigma 18-50/2.8!

For this to ever make sense to Canon/Nikon, a company with muscle as large as Sony would need to get etablished in the DSLR arena and implement anti-shake as standard on their models. Enough people need to pass over the Canon/Nikon system to make it felt in the bottom line. Even then, these are Japanese companies we are dealing with, and they aren't exactly of the mindset to change "plan" midstream.

Personally I am looking forward to more alternatives in the future. A feature like this in a digital rangefinder built from the ground-up would be really impressive.

--
-CW
 
Both systems have their advantages.

In-body IS works with every lens. Biiiiiig advantage! Only sad thing is, it has no effect on the viewfinder image.

In-lens IS also stops the shaking in the viewfinder, making it easier to compose the image or to place the AF-box spot-on. Very useful with long lenses.
If this advantage is worth the higher cost? Not an easy one to decide.
Tinu

----
If the text above reads like real English, it must be a quotation.
 
Is "CCD shift shake reduction" the same as image stabilisation? There are a number of compacts out there now that are compensating for shake without actually stabilising the camera.
 
I don't think any of the current in camera or in lens systems can be said to do anything other than stablise the image. The Canon/Nikon in lens system features a moving lens element to counter camera movement, the Pentax (and others) use a moving sensor for the same purpose.

Camera stablising is a whole different ball-game (stopping the camera moving) and starts with tripods on up to gyro based devices such as
http://www.ken-lab.com/stabilizers.html

Looking at the prices for the capability of these add on gyros (maybe 3 stops ... but no panning!) makes the Canon and other systems seem all the more remarkable.

I love the Canon IS system - it works, is reliable, and most importantly, I can judge the effectiveness (or not) in the viewfinder. As conditions and my ability to hold a lens still can vary, this is very important to me. I also suspect that due to simple physics and the location of the IS element, lens stablising is more effective with very long lenses than a sensor could be ... the range of movement of the sensor (being at the end of a long arm) would need to be comparatively greater than a stablising element placed closer to the midway point.

On the other hand, there is much to be send for a system that can confer IS to a whole slew of lenses - even very old legacy items. Whatever the merits of one over the other, I would expect now to see sensor stablising to become pretty standard - the next Olympus will need to have this in order to survive and we may well see it on Canon and Nikon entry level systems soon ... what will happen when you combine an IS lens with an IS body?

Cheers,

Colin
--
Colin K. Work
[email protected]
http://www.ckwphoto.com
 
deepak rao said:
deepak rao said:
. what will happen
when you combine an IS lens with an IS body?
Click to expand...
Probably wont work at all.
Click to expand...
Yes, that last was really tongue in cheek - I can't see that both in operation would offer any benefit. But it is possible that one system may be better than another in certain situations, and it would be nice if the system used were user selectable - even if this made it possible to try and use both at the same time!

Cheers,

Colin
--
Colin K. Work
[email protected]
http://www.ckwphoto.com
 
Personally, I believe the argument that in-lens stabilization will out perform in-body stabilization, as the elements are customized to the specific lens. Furthermore, I'd rather pay for IS in a few lenses, where I find it valuable (20-135, 70-300), and keep those lens for years, rather than pay for it in the camera body, which will likely be replaced every few years.
 
to utilize in-camera stabilization. Too massive to move it back and forth fast enough.
 
is update the old prime designs with new USM and IS.

that's it.. it'll keep me in their camp FOREVER if I can get a

20mm, 24mm, 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm True Ring USM with IS each under $350

--
I see dead pixels
 
Jeff Varszegi said:
Now that they have released another stabilized SLR body, hopefully
Canon and Nikon will soon follow suit.
Click to expand...
Not sure how to do it with large-sensor cameras.
Jeff Varszegi said:
Hopefully the reviews will
soon put the lie to the claims that in-body IS is worthless.
Click to expand...
Who said that? Many, me among them, have claimed that it's inferior to lens-IS but that is not the same as "worthless".
Jeff Varszegi said:
I'd
love to have even one stop's worth of reliable in-body IS.
Click to expand...
I still want my 85/1.4L IS on the 5D and in-body IS isn't likely to get me there.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)
 
I guess I'm confused as to why so many people want an Image Stablized body? Sure I guess it might drive down the price of the lenses rather than paying for IS in each lens, but I woudl rather have the senosr planted and let the lens do the work, besides I think Is on a FF sensor woudl be rather difficult and casue more probelms than it is worth.
Jeff Varszegi said:
Now that they have released another stabilized SLR body, hopefully
Canon and Nikon will soon follow suit. Hopefully the reviews will
soon put the lie to the claims that in-body IS is worthless. I'd
love to have even one stop's worth of reliable in-body IS.
Click to expand...
 
Lee Jay said:
I still want my 85/1.4L IS on the 5D and in-body IS isn't likely to
get me there.
Click to expand...
if properly implemented, in-body IS should be just as effective at a focal length of 85 mm. It's when you get to > 200 mm focal lengths where the effectiveness of in-body IS becomes questionable. In fact, I find that at long focal lengths, the in-lens IS is also not as effective as using high ISO to keep the shot steady. Just my personal experience.

-------------------------------------------
See the colors of my world in:
thw.smugmug.com
 
thw said:
thw said:
I still want my 85/1.4L IS on the 5D and in-body IS isn't likely to
get me there.
Click to expand...
if properly implemented, in-body IS should be just as effective at
a focal length of 85 mm.
Click to expand...
That's not the problem - it's the 5D that's the problem. The full-frame sensor will deflect outside the image circle of a normal full-frame lens.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)
 
I thought you were going to say Pentax is out of business. LOL
Jeff Varszegi said:
Now that they have released another stabilized SLR body, hopefully
Canon and Nikon will soon follow suit. Hopefully the reviews will
soon put the lie to the claims that in-body IS is worthless. I'd
love to have even one stop's worth of reliable in-body IS.
Click to expand...
 
Jeff Varszegi said:
Now that they have released another stabilized SLR body, hopefully
Canon and Nikon will soon follow suit. Hopefully the reviews will
soon put the lie to the claims that in-body IS is worthless. I'd
love to have even one stop's worth of reliable in-body IS.
Click to expand...
Just cutting and pasting my response in a different thread (with a few mods):

Question: Which cameras can have AS in body ?

Answer: Cameras sporting small sensors (sub-full-frame sensors)

Reason: The in-camera AS works by moving the sensor around, to compensate for hand-shake. Thus this kind of AS will work, as long as you have a small sensor. You cannot move the sensor around, when the sensor size increases, since the imaging circle is fixed and so the larger full-frame sensor would be moved out of the imaging circle, if moved around.

Problem with this approach ? You will be perpetually tied down to small sensors and thus lower resolution 6/8MP or 10MP cameras at the most. Even 8 or 10MP becomes a stretch, due to noise rearing its ugly head at any ISO greater than around 400. As cheaper terra-byte storage devices come into play in the near future, smaller MP cameras with less detail in their images, will move out of vogue, other than among entry-level customers. High resolution, higher-end cameras that can go head-to-head with the upcoming 22MP+ Canon 1DSIII will be out of the question, either now or in the future, if the in-camera AS is retained. Sony will always be a bit player in the dSLR segment, with such a limiting technology in place....which is absolutely not how Sony would like to operate, based on the sound bytes coming from Sony management.

Is this in-camera AS a strength ? Yes, among entry-level purchasers with small sensored dSLRs, when coupled with lenses with shorter FL.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top