In body IS

[Dave Peters]

Well the sensor stays the same size but it has to move outside the area of the full frame sensor hence the lens coverage needs to be more than full frame and a larger space in the camera back is needed to cope with the movement.

--
Dave Peters

 

[Nathan Yan]

If we are talking full frame then you need a sensor larger than 36mm
x 24mm if you want to move it to stabilise an image. The other
manufacturers can do it because they use smaller sensors.

Then how do you reason that image stabilization on the Olympus system works? Their 4/3 lenses only cover the 2x crop area.

Or how about the EF-S lenses that have IS? 17-55, 17-85?

The answer is that, yes there will be some slight vignetting, but not really enough to effect pictures significantly. If you've never noticed this on Olympus cameras, Pentax/Sony cameras with crop lenses, or Canon/Nikon cameras with VR/IS lenses, then it's not going to cause a problem on full-frame.

 

[Nathan Yan]

It is obviously more effective to move a lens element at or near the
nodal point of the lens a small amount than to move a sensor at the
"film plane" a large amout. IS is generally required more the longer
the lens is, whereas in-body IS becomes less effective the longer the
lens is.

This doesn't make sense. A lens element would have to move much more
than a sensor (now, I'll allow that a lens element may have more room
to shift). Think about a long lens mounted on a camera body, and
imagine it pivoting about the camera body (rotational shake). What
moves more - the sensor, or the front element of the lens?

Apologies if I haven't understood here, but surely if the greatest
movement is at the end of the lens then surely that is where the IS
should take place?

It really doesn't matter. My original point was that it actually takes much less movement for the Sensor to stabilize than the lens element to stabilize.

Imagine you're in the middle of a circle. The camera's sensor is very near the middle of the circle. The camera's lens is out at the edge of the circle (say you have a big telephoto). Now imagine yourself rotating around (this is what happens when you have camera shake). What moves out of position more - the sensor or the lens? The lens, being further away from your axis of rotation, shifts much more, and thus a lens element would require even more shift to compensate.

But this is largely irrelevant to what you're asking. You can move the lens element 5mm, or you can move the sensor element 1mm (oversimplifying here), and you will get the same result.

 

[MikeA]

Adding IS to the body may lose customers to Sigma, Tamron etc because
their lenses are then stabilised. Currently if you want IS you have
to buy Canon - with a couple of exceptions.

Last year I saw someone using a rather large Sigma lens with a long zoom range -- and image stabilization. I should have asked him a bit about it. I haven't seen anything looking like that lens on Sigma's web site and I still wonder what it was and how he came by it.

If image-stabilization systems are becoming less expensive to make and install within lenses, I'd think they would begin appearing in more and more non-Canon lenses. In which case, yes, Canon would probably lose more sales to those companies. I've occasionally heard this bit of conventional wisdom about the subject: if Tamron and Sigma start making IS lenses, Canon will simply withdraw their ability to license its lens mount. Ok, and ... before image stabilization technology appeared, Canon, Nikon, et al., were also at risk of losing sales to other lens manufacturers, no? If the major manufacturers have been concerned about business being lost that way, then why did they ever reduce their competitive advantages by licensing the use of their lens mounts to third parties, in the first place?

 

[john pringle]

--
I love photography
http://www.jpringlephoto.com

 

[pbolton]

a recent comparison of the results of the two methods:

http://www.popphoto.com/cameras/4615/image-stabilization-special-stop-the-shake.html

 

[tissunique]

In my original post regarding an updated 5D I added IS as an added and competitive feature. I would welcome it and Canon do possess the technology, so why not! And yes I would pay the price
Tony

 

[Anil Koshy]

Sony stated that the technical limitation involved in an in-body stabilization system working with a Full-frame sensor, has been solved. Whatever that means ! How did they do it ? No idea, especially since a FF sensor will be occupying the whole imaging circle and to move it around without falling outside the imaging circle, would be a challenge, to say the least.

Does that mean that their rumored upcoming FF sensored camera will function seamlessly with the in-body stabilization ? Time will tell.

If we are talking full frame then you need a sensor larger than 36mm
x 24mm if you want to move it to stabilise an image. The other
manufacturers can do it because they use smaller sensors.

--
--- Anil ----
Gear: A couple of cameras & tripods/flash etc.

 

[Matt Cham]

--
Matt Cham

My Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/mattcham/

 

[Matt Cham]

I agree with your comments on benefits of ultrawide with
image stabilization. Below is a photo from my old Minolta 7D
with a 14mm lens and in-body image stabilization.
I switched to Canon 3 months ago, and sorely miss this option.

14mm, f/2.8, 1/2 sec, hand held with in-body image stabilization:



--
Matt Cham

My Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/mattcham/

 

[Anil Koshy]

Then how do you reason that image stabilization on the Olympus system
works? Their 4/3 lenses only cover the 2x crop area.

I think the Olympus lenses cover much more than the 2x crop area. That is precisely why they are a lot heavier and larger than they could be, if they only covered the 2x area.

 

[Anil Koshy]

Or how about the EF-S lenses that have IS? 17-55, 17-85?

The IS EF-S lenses use Optical in-lens stabilization. Not impacted by the in-body stabilization, since the sensor remains static.

 

[scottjj]

How about letting Canon's engineers figure out how to build cameras instead of suggesting that they are "dallying" around with features that you don't want?

Can you imaging a how much a 36x24mm sensor would have to flop around to keep up with a 400mm f/5.6? Do you want a huge camera with a 36x24mm sensor living in the middle of a 60x40mm mirror box?

Frankly I like Lens IS since it is built and tuned for the lens that it is installed in. I like to see the effect of IS in the viewfinder. I like a sensor that is bolted in place rather than on some kind of motor system.

I'll go with the IS system that really works based on Canon's engineering excellence. I'll pass on a point & shoot IS system and I'm willing to bet that most Canon shooters will too.

 

[EricDP]

I like a sensor that is bolted in place rather than on
some kind of motor system.

Like the vibration cleaning system on all the new models? Sensors move... that's a future I doubt will change.

 

[Nathan Yan]

Or how about the EF-S lenses that have IS? 17-55, 17-85?

The IS EF-S lenses use Optical in-lens stabilization. Not impacted
by the in-body stabilization, since the sensor remains static.

You are either shifting two things. Your sensor is going to shift to remain consistent with the image circle, or your image circle is going to shift to remain consistent with the sensor.

In the case with EF-S lenses with IS, you will get the same problem that you claim will happen on full-frame, namely the imaging circle doesn't fall on the sensor, and you get vignetting.

However this problem is so slight that it rarely ever shows up in the real world.

 

[Nathan Yan]

Then how do you reason that image stabilization on the Olympus system
works? Their 4/3 lenses only cover the 2x crop area.

I think the Olympus lenses cover much more than the 2x crop area.
That is precisely why they are a lot heavier and larger than they
could be, if they only covered the 2x area.

No, they do not. They were designed from the ground-up as full-frame lenses.

They are large and heavy because they have many more elements than needed to actually produce that kind of lens. This is to increase sharpness, decrease optical aberrations, etc. This has nothing to do with creating a larger imaging circle.

 

[Nathan Yan]

How about letting Canon's engineers figure out how to build cameras
instead of suggesting that they are "dallying" around with features
that you don't want?

Can you imaging a how much a 36x24mm sensor would have to flop around
to keep up with a 400mm f/5.6? Do you want a huge camera with a
36x24mm sensor living in the middle of a 60x40mm mirror box?

A sensor-shift method doesn't need to compensate for that much shift. This is probably the reason why lens-shift will work better for telephotos. But having a sensor that can shift somewhat will produce better results than not having one at all.

I'll go with the IS system that really works based on Canon's
engineering excellence. I'll pass on a point & shoot IS system and
I'm willing to bet that most Canon shooters will too.

But the question is: would you mind if they included it in the camera? All of your IS lenses might render the point moot, but there are many users who can't afford IS lenses, and many lenses that don't have IS.

 

[Anil Koshy]

Check the below site out, which tests various 3rd party lenses on EOS bodies. If you follow the link, it lists all the Olympus "4/3" lenses that can be mounted onto the Canon 5D (Full-frame) using adapters, thus proving that those lenses cover way more than the 2x crop area. Their lens tests go to the outer boundaries of the full-frame sensor area and the Olympus "4/3" lenses definitely covers the full 35mm imaging circle (not all of them...only the ones listed in the chart shown in the link below). Thus any sensor-shifting in-body IS has got a ton of room for the 2X sensor to move around.

http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/adapters_5d.html

Then how do you reason that image stabilization on the Olympus system
works? Their 4/3 lenses only cover the 2x crop area.

I think the Olympus lenses cover much more than the 2x crop area.
That is precisely why they are a lot heavier and larger than they
could be, if they only covered the 2x area.

No, they do not. They were designed from the ground-up as full-frame
lenses.

They are large and heavy because they have many more elements than
needed to actually produce that kind of lens. This is to increase
sharpness, decrease optical aberrations, etc. This has nothing to do
with creating a larger imaging circle.

--
--- Anil ----
Gear: A couple of cameras & tripods/flash etc.

 

[Nathan Yan]

Actually, all of these are Olympus film lenses (back when Olympus made film cameras and lenses), which would obviously cover 35mm full-frame. None of the lenses listed here are 4/3.

http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/adapters_5d.html

Then how do you reason that image stabilization on the Olympus system
works? Their 4/3 lenses only cover the 2x crop area.

I think the Olympus lenses cover much more than the 2x crop area.
That is precisely why they are a lot heavier and larger than they
could be, if they only covered the 2x area.

No, they do not. They were designed from the ground-up as full-frame
lenses.

They are large and heavy because they have many more elements than
needed to actually produce that kind of lens. This is to increase
sharpness, decrease optical aberrations, etc. This has nothing to do
with creating a larger imaging circle.

--
--- Anil ----
Gear: A couple of cameras & tripods/flash etc.

 

[NigelMoore]

I like a sensor that is bolted in place rather than on
some kind of motor system.

Like the vibration cleaning system on all the new models? Sensors
move... that's a future I doubt will change.

In the EOS cleaning system, it's the filter in front of the sensor that shakes not the sensor itself.

Whether or not it has any effect on dust is another matter entirely.
--
second frog in