Reading mode: Light Dark

Why Nikon doesn't want to introduce in-body stabilisation?

Go to last post
T

Tom Pariz

Forum Enthusiast
Messages
427
Reaction score
0
Location
AU
If that happens, I would't look at any KM or Sony or any similar joker anymore.

Btw, I also believe that would be a smart move for Nikon -- they would demolish DSLR world in their favour.

In-body stabilisation, plus in-lens stabilisation for those who want ... gee, you'd get 4 stops at least!?

And change the way people percieve DSLR camera. You have an all new kind of beast.

And zillions of new, happy users that know their DSLR company will be around and be very serious!

===
Tom Pariz
 
thought about this myself, but..

one problem i see is the millions of VR lenses out there and millions spent developing them. Going to in-body stabilization would negate all of those lenses, all the RnD developing them. It would torpedo their own line costing significant short-term losses. That's a hard pill to swallow

add to that the advantage in-lens stabilization has in that you can actually see it work (something in-body won't show you).
 
I read a few articles on in body IS vs Lense IS. The pro all seem to said that the lense IS even though is more expensive, is better. They said it is better because each lense is different therefore the IS function is optimize for that lense. Where the in body design is one size fit all.
--
--
Khanh
http://www.khanh.photosite.com
Equipments listed under profile.
 
1) In body PLUS in lense IS doesn't count up to 4 stops advantage. The one tries to re-compensate so the effect would rather be 2-2=0

2) There's no advantage in being able to see the IS working.

3) There have been many threads about an advantage for IS in the lense. There is no advantage. The effect is virtually the same.

Ooopps...there is ONE difference actually. The in body IS makes ALL my lenses stabilized. Which saves me a lot of bucks.

--
Today's oppressed become tomorrow's oppressors...
 
randazzo said:
1) In body PLUS in lense IS doesn't count up to 4 stops advantage.
The one tries to re-compensate so the effect would rather be 2-2=0
Click to expand...
Right, IF in-body does not know what in-lens is doing. However, if you can program the body to recognize what the lens is doing, (a lens+body mode) there can be some additive property (2+2=3?)

--
A camera is just a tool.
. . . And I couldn't wait forever.
 
Why doesn't HP sell injet printers that take really cheap ink cartridges?

Nikon makes money on those VR lenses. They want to maintain that. The body is cheap and low profit margin.

Still, they could do it someday on the cheapest bodies. But it won't happen on higher end stuff. And inbody and inlens systems can't work together at the same time. Not only would the controls be near impossible, they would fit each other.

In body is catching a moving image circle. In lens is making the image circle not move.
 
PhotoTraveler said:
Why doesn't HP sell injet printers that take really cheap ink
cartridges?

Nikon makes money on those VR lenses. They want to maintain that.
The body is cheap and low profit margin.

Still, they could do it someday on the cheapest bodies. But it
won't happen on higher end stuff. And inbody and inlens systems
can't work together at the same time. Not only would the controls
be near impossible, they would fit each other.

In body is catching a moving image circle. In lens is making the
image circle not move.
Click to expand...
Lots of once "imposible controls" that are now in practice. Would it be easy? No. Would they work together independantly? No. Would it be imposible? No.

The camera would need to know if a IS/VR lens is mounded, then it would just need to make the sensor react to the image movement adjusted by the lens instead of the movement induced by the camera.

Once the controls are figured out (if somebody hasn't done it already, and it would not surprise me if it has been done in some R&D lab somewhere) the only way one would not benefit the other would be if one of the systems was perfect and infaliable.

We all know that is not the case for either system.

chad

--
A camera is just a tool.
. . . And I couldn't wait forever.
 
The lens stabilization has a slight advantage, more so with longer lenses, because the lens sensor is located further in front of the body. As the shake causes the body to angle, say 5 degrees, the lens typically moves the same 5 degrees - but that 5 degrees is manifested as a longer distance at the point where the in-lens sensor is located, thus in-lens AS has the ability to be more sensitive than in-body.

But from what I read in Pop Photo, this is really marginal - perhaps up to 1 f/stop or so (I think they were referring to telephoto lenses in this case, but typical ones, say up to about 200-300mm.

The downside of lens stabilization is that and extra lens (or lens group) is required in order to optically change the direction of the lignt coming through the lensr. This means more distortion and more unwanted reflection (bouncing of the light back out the fornt of the lens) and is fundamentally not desirable. The more lens surfaces" in that lens group, the higher the refelection. Ironically, pro's should be concerned about this drawback more than amateurs. Now, if you've got a humongous y l-o-n-g lens, with the sensor positioned close to the front, it might provide substantially more AS. But then pro's, and even moderately advanced users will have it on a tripod - in which the AS should be turned off.

I agreethat combining both methods of AS will simply cause each AS mechanism to cancel out the other.

Regarding moving to Nikon if it introduces in-body stabilizaiton - that would really seduce me. I'm really frutstrated with Sony. But knowing that Sony makes some (or most, or all) of Nikon's sensors, I have to cut Sony some slack on this issue. Every user reaches his own point of having to get a new camera, and therefore reaches his frustration at his own time. Sony is stretching the goodwill it acquired from Konica-Minolta. To address this issue, it needs to introduce a reliable and high-performing higher-end body soon. (Introducing a lower end body will not enhance its marketing position.) They also have to ensure the high quality of their Zeiss lenses - I read two posts here stating that the 35mm f/1.4, costing $1,399 is not up to par.

One last note (although I digress): I'm concerned that Sony may rely on their recently announced CMOS sensor's ability to simultaneously record still and video images to boost their sales at the expense of image quality. I know that CMOS is inherently better than CCD for a number of reasons, but shifting its resources to be able to support very high frame rates might result in degradation of still images even with the video option turned off. I hope this will not happen. Time will tell.
 
randazzo said:
2) There's no advantage in being able to see the IS working.
Click to expand...
Maybe not to the eye (I don't know, I haven't tried lens IS), but the AF mechanism will benefit from lens IS and is supposed to lock easier.

--
Yours etc.
Torsten Balle Koefoed

http://www.elgsdyr.dk
 
randazzo said:
1) In body PLUS in lense IS doesn't count up to 4 stops advantage.
The one tries to re-compensate so the effect would rather be 2-2=0
Click to expand...
If they are independent systems. Could they be made to work together? Probably. Would it be worth the cost and added complexity? Remains to be seen.
randazzo said:
2) There's no advantage in being able to see the IS working.
Click to expand...
There are many who would disagree with you. Also the incoming image is stabilized for the AF sensor which purportedly improves AF performance.
randazzo said:
3) There have been many threads about an advantage for IS in the
lense. There is no advantage. The effect is virtually the same.
Click to expand...
In my experience AS is very effective. However I have yet to see a scientific comparison of the 2 systems.
randazzo said:
Ooopps...there is ONE difference actually. The in body IS makes ALL
my lenses stabilized. Which saves me a lot of bucks.
Click to expand...
That is by far the biggest advantage of in-body IS. This alone makes it a worthy feature event if you have some IS lenses.
randazzo said:
--
Today's oppressed become tomorrow's oppressors...
Click to expand...
--
fjbyrne
 
I was just thinking about image stabilization possibilities or impossibilities last night.

What if a camera manufacturer figured out how to not only stabilize the image via sensor compensation (due to wobbles by the photographer) but also compensated for external movement, by the subject as well, (up to a point that is).

It could well require two seperate systems, one for the movements of the camera SSS? and one for movements by the subject IS? ....

Beyond a certain limit of movement, the focus illuminator in use, link to the spot on the subject is broken and starts to flash, and thus allerting the photographer that... (AF-C for example) may not be tracking until lock is re-acquired...

Or altenatively the shutter fires the millisecond that zero movement is detected.....

It could be great for some types of subjects, like flowers being jiggled and jostled slightly by wind, fidgety birds, moon being shimmied by atmospherics,.....things that involve only small erratic movements by the subject but are enough to scruff up the photo.
Greg
 
fjbyrne said:
fjbyrne said:
2) There's no advantage in being able to see the IS working.
Click to expand...
There are many who would disagree with you. Also the incoming
image is stabilized for the AF sensor which purportedly improves AF
performance.
Click to expand...
I have read this a few times, and I understand the theory of this claim, but doubt if there is any practical validity to it. Also, it should be noted that when Canon was the only maker of stabilized lenses, I never heard of a focusing advantage for them over their non-stabilized Nikon counterparts.

I have never handlled an IS or VR lens, so if I am wrong please correct me.

I thought that you press the shutter button part way and the lens focuses and stabilizes at virtually the same time. Does it stabilize first and then focus?

The other point is that for years, I've been hearing how Canon lenses focus almost instantaneously (as opposed to the 1/4 to 1/2 sec it can take some of my older Minoltas). How much more "instantaneous" can it get?
 
I don't understand this..... Why Nikon? what's the big deal? yes they have more bodies.... they might have more lens choices but... In Japan, there is a well known photographer who reviews lenses every year, a very well known and serious review complete with resolution charts for some 300+ lenses. Even thought Minolta/Sony has less lenses then others, their G series lenses and some other non-G lenses are best in its class. 70-200mm SSM G, 85mm 1.4 G, 100mm 2.8 Macro and some others I don't recall are all the best in its class, all have higher rating then Canon and Nikon. Minolta also has 3 lenses that no body else has been able to make, the 135mm STF, 1X-3X Macro AF, and 500mm Reflex AF. Minolta/sony lenses are underrated because 1. minolta can't market anything, and 2. Minolta is slow in developing bodies. I think minolta and now sony does have some optics advantage, even more so with carl zeiss now. Lens you keep for years and years, and with electronics improvements, camera bodies are easily replaceable. I think sony will be fine coming out with their own bodies, they make sensors for nikon right? So if there is a new camera from nikon, sony will probably come out with one with the same sensor.

Plus.... IS lenses and VR lenses are way way way too expansive.
--
Latest addition to my lens stable: 17-35mm 2.8-4, and 135mm STF

Alpha 100 11-18mm, 18-70mm, 28-75mm 2.8, 75-300mm, 50mm 1.7, 85mm 1.4G (D),
Tamron 90mm 2.8 Macro, and Program flash 5600
 
Tony Fleres said:
I thought that you press the shutter button part way and the lens
focuses and stabilizes at virtually the same time. Does it
stabilize first and then focus?
Click to expand...
As I understand it, there are two modes. In one it stabilises continuously, which also stabilises when you look through the viewfinder and during AF. In the other mode it just stabilises, when you take the picture, and thus doesn't help on AF. Various lenses may not have both modes, though.

--
Yours etc.
Torsten Balle Koefoed

http://www.elgsdyr.dk
 
I think the idea that the engineering would be too difficult to make in-body and in-lens stabilization work together is completely ridiculous. Look at telescopes, for instance. They have an array of mirrors that actively move in real time to correct for atmospheric aberrations. That's intense.

If that is possible, I'm certain that the lens can say "Hey, I almost got it steady but it was a little too much for me so the circle just moved up 1mm, sensor, you move up 1mm to finish it off." You would then have a system with a "master" stabilizer and then a "slave" which responds to everything that the master can't handle. I think it's definitly possible, the question I have is do the current lenses provide the camera with enough data or would they need to be re-chipped?

Here's some stuff on the telescopes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_optics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_optics

--
--
Andy
Photo Editor: The Knox Student
http://www.andyfitz.com
 
...sell them the license!!
--
DMalcolm
Growing kit list in profile....
 
The difference in AF performance is more obvious in continuous AF mode (AI Servo in a Canon). When you half press the shutter, the image in the viewfinder automatically stabilizes allowing the AF module to lock on to your moving target better than if the sensor is stabilized. This is a huge advantage in sports and wildlife photography. If you're talking about shooting more static objects like portraits, there's virtually no difference.

I've used both, and they both work about as well until you get into longer focal lengths. When you're hand holding 300mm+ it does make it easier to frame your subject.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bernarrking
 
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