It is necessary to customize for each lens because there are extra optical elements, with sensor based IS it's software.
Soon it will be 3 companies with 10% (or more) market share each...
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Canon vs. Sony Marketing
- Thread starter RogerRex
- Start date
And is quite easy.
All you need is slightly bigger than 35mm sensor, say 0.85x crop, and image is captured within it.
Many cameras exploit partial sensor image circle (say, Nikon D2X in its 6MP mode).
This article only shows the dumbness and technical blindness of those editors or whoever ordered that article (Canon?).
This solution is quite straightforward and simple to implement. And even anti-shake is possible, but redesigned -- to acommodate larger tha APC-C sensor movement.
===
Tom Pariz
All you need is slightly bigger than 35mm sensor, say 0.85x crop, and image is captured within it.
Many cameras exploit partial sensor image circle (say, Nikon D2X in its 6MP mode).
This article only shows the dumbness and technical blindness of those editors or whoever ordered that article (Canon?).
This solution is quite straightforward and simple to implement. And even anti-shake is possible, but redesigned -- to acommodate larger tha APC-C sensor movement.
===
Tom Pariz
I assume they're "worried", if they are, because it is SONY, not KM. SONY is obviously a much more recognized name in the consumer world. SONY, perhaps, on name only (as opposed to other factors) will increase their DSLR market share over whatever KM could achieve.
Even the almighty giant swats flies and mosquitoes away from his face, right?
That's all Canon is doing here.Bigger sensor than a 35mm negative? No. It certainly wouldn't be able to move and you'd have to redesign the camera to accept a larger sensor and/or a new lens mount. With sony, the sensor moves not the lenses so the sensor HAS to be smaller than a 35mm negative and not full frame.
It can only be the lenses, or the sensor. The sensor captures light that hits it, "moving pixels" is an oxymoron. Can't happen.
H
Henry Richardson
Guest
Yes, I agree. I was thinking the same thing. If Sony/Pentax/Olympus can make it, especially Sony, then Canon will probably someday add it to some of their bodies, but they are making that very hard by all these continuing new ads. They really have a system that was designed within the constraints of film and now are stuck with an old, out of date system. It causes their lenses to have shorter lifespans, be bigger and heavier, and they can't put it in most of their lenses. They then charge a huge premium for it. Just like Minolta, Nikon, and Pentax back in the 1980s chose wrong with where the lens motor should be located, Canon chose wrong where stabilization should be located. But, back then there really wasn't any choice.
--
Henry Richardson
http://www.bakubo.com
...
IMHO a 1.1x crop factor sensor handles that concern and its size difference to an FF sensor is almost negligible. I believe that's the path Sony will follow.
... Lucas
---
You're welcome to: http://www.pbase.com/lucaspix
Always having fun with photography ...
IMHO a 1.1x crop factor sensor handles that concern and its size difference to an FF sensor is almost negligible. I believe that's the path Sony will follow.
... Lucas
---
You're welcome to: http://www.pbase.com/lucaspix
Always having fun with photography ...
Kenneth B
Senior Member
I doubt Sigma or Tamron would be making IS lenses for the A-Mount seeing how Minolta is the one with the Patent for a combined in lense & in body solution.
Actually it can be done (theoretically) if you make several (10 or more) samples during one exposure and add these (after shifting frames). Of course you will need a very fast read-out circuit and image processor to do this, but it is not unthinkable that this will be possible in a couple of years.
Don't they use these kinds of techniques in digital video cameras?
very true I'm 100% with you on this
after using both In body AS/SSS and in lens IS I prefer the in body much more and all the rubbish you hear that in lens is better well its not even @ a focal length of 400mm
and not forgetting the extra money you pay for each lens
arif
--
You're welcome to visit my favorite Gallery
http://www.pbase.com/aarif/favorites
Good to hear this from a person like you who have experience in both systems.
--
banzen
http://www.flickr.com/photos/banzen/
Anastigmat
Forum Pro
I don't think that is necessarily true. I think the size of the mirror box would need to be increased. To make sure it does not block the light that has moved outside of the sensor's original position. Take, for example, the Olympus DSLR cameras. They are full frame and they have in body shake reduction, but the lens mount is still the same size.
If in body shake reduction cannot be implemented on a full frame body, then the pro body will not have shake reduction. Simple. But I seriously doubt that, since Olympus has successfully implemented in body shake reduction in its full frame 4/3 cameras.
mcl
Senior Member
At least in the way that KM & Sony have implemented it in that it gives feedback as to how hard it's working. I find the feedback very usefull. Yes, If you don't think about it and just take you picture you get 2 stops. But I found that if you really use the feedback you get in the viewfinder to help you hold steady you can get alot more. That feedback can help your photographic techniques(;-).
mcl
--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
mcl
fjbyrne
Veteran Member
Agreed. Does anyone know if there is similar feedback on IS lenses or do you really not know how "much" the IS system is working?
--
fjbyrne
claudio rio
Active member
No problem. In this case just turn on the system you would prefer to use.
In my opinion if FF is for professionals, they won't mind to pay more for IS on each lens if they want. Cameras with body AS will alwways have the advantage to give the user the choice.
omaha41173
Senior Member
canon probably took this marketing tack because they stand to lose a lot of revenue if people stop purchasing their is lenses. the reason more people swear by it is probably because it has been around longer than in-body stabilization. (in body is at the time is lenses were introduced was probably physically impossible anyway, or have they really tried to stabilize film?) unless a thorough a-b comparison is made at all focal lengths, it would be very hard to make an all-encompassing statement that one is better than the other.
however, minolta(and now sony) and the other camera companies that developed in-body stabilization hold the patents to the technology and canon would have to pony up to use it, short of inventing a new method in-house if in-body stabilization has advanced to a point that makes lens stabilization obsolescent. when (and if) that day comes, canon would be bleeding sales and would eat humble cake and adapt in-body stabilization.
as for sony only having 5% of the market and therefore merely a nuisance, canon might learn a thing or two from nintendo when the playstation was introduced. back then nintendo ruled the gaming console world, and sony was the upstart, but how the times have changed. brnad recognition and loyalty only counts for so much when faced by a new and better technology.
omaha
however, minolta(and now sony) and the other camera companies that developed in-body stabilization hold the patents to the technology and canon would have to pony up to use it, short of inventing a new method in-house if in-body stabilization has advanced to a point that makes lens stabilization obsolescent. when (and if) that day comes, canon would be bleeding sales and would eat humble cake and adapt in-body stabilization.
as for sony only having 5% of the market and therefore merely a nuisance, canon might learn a thing or two from nintendo when the playstation was introduced. back then nintendo ruled the gaming console world, and sony was the upstart, but how the times have changed. brnad recognition and loyalty only counts for so much when faced by a new and better technology.
omaha
I’m just curious as I haven’t yet read any posts about this miss-alignment issue. How long does it typically take to happen. Can you provide any link to posts? It sounds interesting.
Greg
--
http://www.pbase.com/dadas115/
Greg
--
http://www.pbase.com/dadas115/
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum