Re: Canon develops Hybrid image stabilization system

[PhotoTraveler]

A mount is big so not even a factor.

Far as image circle, you don't need to move a sensor very far for a lot of stabilization. The early KM systems from the pre-DSLR stuff, and even the 7D moved the sensor a lot. Over time they have the sensor moving less and less. Now the systems maybe move it a mm, but are more effective than the early ones.

Image circles also aren't dead on with the corners of the frame, there is plenty of extra in a lens.

 

[David Hull]

A mount is big so not even a factor.

Far as image circle, you don't need to move a sensor very far for a lot of stabilization. The early KM systems from the pre-DSLR stuff, and even the 7D moved the sensor a lot. Over time they have the sensor moving less and less. Now the systems maybe move it a mm, but are more effective than the early ones.

If it was necessary to move the sensor a lot early on, how did it suddenly become possible to accomplish the same thing by moving it less as time went on? Let's say in the old days for a given lense and a given amount of shake the sensor moved 3mm, now under the same conditions, it only needs to move 1mm -- doesn't make any sense to me.

Image circles also aren't dead on with the corners of the frame, there is plenty of extra in a lens.

 

[David Hull]

LOL -- I think you are really grasping now. With this system, what you see in the VF is what is going onto the film (or sensor). It is not there to stabalize the photographer, it is there to stabalize the image.

 

[PhotoTraveler]

Dunno, Don't care. It could be multiple factors in play which when one improved others didn't need to be so big.

Or simply they just way over designed the original one.

But simply, the new systems don't move 5+mm either direction like the old ones, yet the stabilization capability has improved.

 

[PhotoTraveler]

You can blow off what I say all you want. It's how it works, and it doesn't take much more than a basic understanding of how the human body stabilizes. Plus test of it are simple enough.

Canon and Nikon have in-lens systems because they did stabilization in the film era, there really wasn't any other choice.

Those who have put stabilization to market in the digital era have done it in the body. Those company all know how to do trade studies, they know all the factors involved. And they arrived at doing it in the body. If there was a superior reason for doing it in the lens, they would have done as Canon and Nikon have.

The only anomaly has been the Panny-Leica lenses. But that's not much of a deal there has been very few of them. And much of it very well could be Oly didn't license Panny the stabilization system. Plus Leica would be happy to oblige as it just means they can charge more. It's no different than how Sigma and Tamron do it in the lens....since that's what they make.

Canon and Nikon will do in body in time. But they still got people happy to pay for lenses with stabilization. Soon as one of them does it, the other will have to follow suit very quickly.

Based on Nikon's lenses released in the last 2 years. I'd say it won't be too long before Nikon brings out body stabilization.

 

[boels069]

But simply, the new systems don't move 5+mm either direction like the old ones, yet the stabilization capability has improved.

That's odd, human shake must be less nowadays

 

[ZeevK]

If you take some sample images at 2 to 3 stops below the "safe shutter speed", you will notice that the total amount of blur is in general less than 100 pixels, which is much less than 1mm. The problem is actually not the travel during the shot itself, but rather the travel of the sensor before the shot while following the shake of the camera.

New algorithms, stiffer system parameters and better synchronization allow the system a more frequent "reset" of sensor to the default center position thus preventing the sensor to run into end of travel condition. Each such "reset" move takes a very short "dead" time during which the SSS "does not follows" and the camera will not shoot. The more resent SSS systems and in the A900 there are more frequent and much faster "resets" that allow same or better degree of IS with shorter total travel span even with the FF sensor.

This explanation is in very basic form but that is the way SONY achieve SSS on A900 without too much "punishment"...
--
ZeevK
http://www.pbase.com/zeevk

 

[Ehrik]

I agree that talking about "tailor designed" stabilisation is just to make it sound more elaborate and sophisticated than it actually is, however,

In-body systems are by the very nature optimized for everything.

I'd say everything below some max FL where you start to bump into limitations of the speed/acceleration the sensor can be moved. (It's obviously not an exact limit, but depends on the nature of the shake.)

The limits to body designs are no different than in-lens. You are limited by time in the control loop, speed/acceleration of the moving parts, and total movement available.

Yes, but the difference is that for the sensor, you have to move the same speed as the projected image and that speed increases proportionally to focal length - there's no way around that. With a lens, you can design the IS group such that it doesn't have to move that quickly - a small movement has a big effect.

At some focal length, there will begin to be a theoretical advantage for in-lens. However, if that FL is long enough, it has no practical consequences.

It's basically down to the implementation, and testing is needed to say more.

To argue the other side, I'd say it's seems very likely to me, that given the same budget, at the same point of time in the technological progression, a non-IS lens can be made either better or with higher specs than the corresponding IS lens.

Only technological progress and bigger budgets (and maybe occasional luck) have allowed newer IS lenses to replace older non-IS lenses without seeing a decline in optical performance.

Interesting point about recent Nikon lenses. I suppose you are hinting at a lack of VR in some of them? Is there somewhere where these are listed chronologically?

 

[neil holmes]

I agree that talking about "tailor designed" stabilisation is just to make it sound more elaborate and sophisticated than it actually is, however,

In-body systems are by the very nature optimized for everything.

I'd say everything below some max FL where you start to bump into limitations of the speed/acceleration the sensor can be moved. (It's obviously not an exact limit, but depends on the nature of the shake.)

True

In the case of my lowly old first generation Pentax stabilized K100d (and all Pentax stabilized cameras I think) it is limited to 800mm, that means that in theory all those hand holding stabilized lens LONGER than 800mm will "win" and those people can feel free to have a free kick.

Actually while Pentax states the limit is 800mm, it will still work beyond that but with decreasing usefullness. Then again at 900mm I would be using a tripod anyway most probably....will have to give it ago when my camera gets back (300 2.8 with 3x converter). I would not even try to use that on my non stabilized camera.

neil

http://www.flickr.com/photos/26884588@N00/

 

[Ehrik]

In-body systems are by the very nature optimized for everything.

I'd say everything below some max FL where you start to bump into limitations of the speed/acceleration the sensor can be moved. (It's obviously not an exact limit, but depends on the nature of the shake.)

In the case of my lowly old first generation Pentax stabilized K100d (and all Pentax stabilized cameras I think) it is limited to 800mm

Interesting. If it indeed works at its full capacity up to 800mm, then I think very few users have much reason to complain.

SLRgear.com tested the E-520 at 50mm [100mm] and 150mm [300mm] and found a slight reduction in efficiency for the longer lens: 0.1 to 0.6 stops depending seemingly on the steadiness of the shooter. I don't know if Olympus have any claims similar to the 800mm one from Pentax.

http://www.slrgear.com/articles/is_olympuse520/IS_Test_Olympus_E-520_SLR_Body.htm

Then again at 900mm I would be using a tripod anyway most probably....will have to give it ago when my camera gets back (300 2.8 with 3x converter).

3x converter! You Pentaxians sure have a lot of glass to choose from.

Just my two oere
Erik from Sweden

 

[David Hull]

You can blow off what I say all you want. It's how it works, and it doesn't take much more than a basic understanding of how the human body stabilizes. Plus test of it are simple enough.

Canon and Nikon have in-lens systems because they did stabilization in the film era, there really wasn't any other choice.

Those who have put stabilization to market in the digital era have done it in the body. Those company all know how to do trade studies, they know all the factors involved. And they arrived at doing it in the body. If there was a superior reason for doing it in the lens, they would have done as Canon and Nikon have.

If you have nothing, then it is less expensive to do it in the camera body whether it is optimal or not. For Sony an others to redesign a lot of lenses (that they don'e even make) vs. design once in the body is a no brainer. For CaNikon it is probably less expensive to stick with waht they have. Plus, Canon at least still has the film cameras to support.

I don't buy the idea that the body approach was implemented as a result of detailed studies of how the human body worked or even that these companies care -- that part sounds like marketing spin on the part of the body based vendors to counter the one major disadvantage of their sustem -- like you said earlier "if you can't fix it -- feature it".

The only anomaly has been the Panny-Leica lenses. But that's not much of a deal there has been very few of them. And much of it very well could be Oly didn't license Panny the stabilization system. Plus Leica would be happy to oblige as it just means they can charge more. It's no different than how Sigma and Tamron do it in the lens....since that's what they make.

Canon and Nikon will do in body in time. But they still got people happy to pay for lenses with stabilization. Soon as one of them does it, the other will have to follow suit very quickly.

From what I can tell, the amount I have to pay for a Canon lens with stabalization is the same (or LESS) tahn the price I would have to pay for the equevelent Sony lens w/o stabalization so where is the big savings?

Based on Nikon's lenses released in the last 2 years. I'd say it won't be too long before Nikon brings out body stabilization.

 

[neil holmes]

In-body systems are by the very nature optimized for everything.

I'd say everything below some max FL where you start to bump into limitations of the speed/acceleration the sensor can be moved. (It's obviously not an exact limit, but depends on the nature of the shake.)

In the case of my lowly old first generation Pentax stabilized K100d (and all Pentax stabilized cameras I think) it is limited to 800mm

Interesting. If it indeed works at its full capacity up to 800mm, then I think very few users have much reason to complain.

SLRgear.com tested the E-520 at 50mm [100mm] and 150mm [300mm] and found a slight reduction in efficiency for the longer lens: 0.1 to 0.6 stops depending seemingly on the steadiness of the shooter. I don't know if Olympus have any claims similar to the 800mm one from Pentax.

http://www.slrgear.com/articles/is_olympuse520/IS_Test_Olympus_E-520_SLR_Body.htm

Hi

yes I saw that (and have used that test to refute some of the silly this is better than that claims) but they only used a couple of people testing and the results differ from person to person.

I think the Oly stabilization may well be a little better than Pentaxes for most people, though I have always said that which is better differs from person to person and even day to day and shot to shot but that all systems work.

Then again at 900mm I would be using a tripod anyway most probably....will have to give it ago when my camera gets back (300 2.8 with 3x converter).

3x converter! You Pentaxians sure have a lot of glass to choose from.

True but all mine is old. Manual focus 300 2.8 and manual focus 3x macro converter....not a combination I would use in real life very often....I DO use the 300 2.8 with a 1.7x autofocus adapter frequently though (510mm 4.8 af lens) and that has no problems being hand held even with the first generation stabilized K100d.

I have even used the 300 2.8 with its matching 1.4x converter AND the 1.7x afa for a auto focus 714mm 6.7 that is sometimes useable iq wise and is ok hand held.

I have no problems at longer focal lengths with stabilization and most Pentax users seem happy...there have been a few experimenting with old mirror lenses lately as well.

Actually that is a seperate point as well. Pentax and Oly users and to a slightly lesser extent Sony users do have a lot of glass at long lengths to use stabilized. Canon and Nikon users only have a few very good and very expensive options and a few slower third party lenses...us mere mortals have lots ....technically I can get stabilized LONGER than 300mm by.....

300 2.8 and 1.7x auto focus adapter
300 2.8 and 1.4x matching adaptall converter
300 2.8 and matching 2x adaptall converter
300 2.8 and 2x macro converter

I use all the above

300 2.8 Adaptall and 3x macro converter (may be somewhat useable)

combinations of the above lens and converters/adapter

300 f4 m42 lens with 2x macro converter (useable)
300 f4 and 1.7x afa (useable)
300 f4 and 3x macro converter (may be useable)

80-250 mf Tamron adaptall lens lens 3.8-4 zoom with 1.7x afa (useable)

80-250 mf Tamron adaptall lens with the Tamron matching converters (might be useable but I would not even try)

80-250 with 2x macro converter (would possibly be useable)
80-250 with 3x macro converter (borderline probably, would not even try)

135mm 1.8 m42 lens with 3x macro converter (probably quitte useable but the lens needs a clean)

28-200 af Sigma zoom with 1.7x afa, 2x macro converter and 3x macro converter
I hate this lens and do not even use it bare....a relic from my film cameras.

That means I have more than SEVENTEEN ways of getting a stabilized lens longer than 300mm ....ok some of them are not worth bothering with but many of them are....thats with a kit that costs less than many single stabilized lenses over 300mm.

The thing is that many people who argue in favour of in lens have not even tried in lens stabilization at lengths longer 300mm while many of us with stabilized cameras use them almost daily.

neil
http://www.flickr.com/photos/26884588@N00/

 

[zxaar]

You can blow off what I say all you want. It's how it works, and it doesn't take much more than a basic understanding of how the human body stabilizes. Plus test of it are simple enough.

Canon and Nikon have in-lens systems because they did stabilization in the film era, there really wasn't any other choice.

Those who have put stabilization to market in the digital era have done it in the body. Those company all know how to do trade studies, they know all the factors involved. And they arrived at doing it in the body. If there was a superior reason for doing it in the lens, they would have done as Canon and Nikon have.

If you have nothing, then it is less expensive to do it in the camera body whether it is optimal or not. For Sony an others to redesign a lot of lenses (that they don'e even make) vs. design once in the body is a no brainer. For CaNikon it is probably less expensive to stick with waht they have. Plus, Canon at least still has the film cameras to support.

I don't buy the idea that the body approach was implemented as a result of detailed studies of how the human body worked or even that these companies care -- that part sounds like marketing spin on the part of the body based vendors to counter the one major disadvantage of their sustem -- like you said earlier "if you can't fix it -- feature it".

Well as working in research depart my experience is that there is no way they are designing it without taking care of how human body behaves. Descardoing it is too foolish thing to do.

The only anomaly has been the Panny-Leica lenses. But that's not much of a deal there has been very few of them. And much of it very well could be Oly didn't license Panny the stabilization system. Plus Leica would be happy to oblige as it just means they can charge more. It's no different than how Sigma and Tamron do it in the lens....since that's what they make.

Canon and Nikon will do in body in time. But they still got people happy to pay for lenses with stabilization. Soon as one of them does it, the other will have to follow suit very quickly.

From what I can tell, the amount I have to pay for a Canon lens with stabalization is the same (or LESS) tahn the price I would have to pay for the equevelent Sony lens w/o stabalization so where is the big savings?

Here is saving, i bought 180 dollars used 50mm f1.2, and its stablized.

As for saying that you have to pay equal amount in sony or in in body system, its not always true. Further best benefit it provides is that you do not have to redesign or buy new lenses for updating it. And its effect might go as old as 50 or 70 years if you could mount that lense.

In body approach is better and more economical in the end.

Plus, i remember sometime ago someone in sony slr forum did address this myth that sony lenses are always more expensive than canon nikon ones.
He put their comparative prices and showed that its mostly not true.

Based on Nikon's lenses released in the last 2 years. I'd say it won't be too long before Nikon brings out body stabilization.

--
one among others

 

[PhotoTraveler]

If you have nothing, then it is less expensive to do it in the camera body whether it is optimal or not. For Sony an others to redesign a lot of lenses (that they don'e even make) vs. design once in the body is a no brainer. For CaNikon it is probably less expensive to stick with waht they have. Plus, Canon at least still has the film cameras to support.

Sony didn't have nothing, they had KM. And KM didn't have nothing, they had decades of Minolta gear. Like any company they bring out new lenses replacing old ones. They could have gone in lens just the same putting it in new lenses.

And by the way, Sony makes it's lenses. There are some Tamron based ones, but Sony owns a part of Tamron (like 11%, biggest owner). But even those look to be built by Sony as their lens plant tour online shows a tamron based one being built at the Sony plant.

Supporting film cameras is not a legitimate reason for in-lens. If that was a case Canon or Nikon are trying to make, they are saying they are supporting legacy imaging tech that few use instead of making the system better for current digital users.

I don't buy the idea that the body approach was implemented as a result of detailed studies of how the human body worked or even that these companies care -- that part sounds like marketing spin on the part of the body based vendors to counter the one major disadvantage of their sustem -- like you said earlier "if you can't fix it -- feature it".

Thinking major corporations don't do studies is borderline madness. Everything on a camera is done via studies, market surveys, etc. In the case of Nikon and Canon, they did their studies long ago, and how do do stabilization wouldn't have been the question, just if they should do it would be the question. You mention marketing Spin, yet Canon is the one who had the advert a few years ago claiming when they invented there IS they studied in-lens verses in-body and in-lens won. That's pure BS as they did it in the Film era.

Canon and Nikon are in a situation that they went one way at one point in time, it was the only option then, it was the right one then. The world changed, digital happened. Other companies got to the point of making a decision, and the input was now different, there were different paths available. So they had a different result. Canon and Nikon are now caught out having a design that is from a different era. Now if they were to change, it could cause outrage, even if it's the right answer. Either way they are in a hard place. Continue with in-lens they are using the less than ideal path. Switch and draw the ire of some users who have sucked in all their marketing over the years. Nikon is in a better spot on this. As they haven't built a big hype machine about in-lens. They even have in-body on some P&S models. Canon on the other hand has their "whitepapers" which continually get them in trouble in the long term. They made the claims in-body FF was not possible. They made the claim in-body doesn't work over 300mm cause of a need for huge sensor travel. In-body makers keep proving the marketing white papers wrong. Canon was also the one who kept claiming you don't need IS for wide FLs, but as KM and Pentax had success and gave entry level user stabilization, Canon put out IS kit lenses. They also now have it in non-tele lenses. And many a Canon users keeps dreaming of the mythical 2.8/24-70 IS.

Canon is in a bad spot. Sony has been gaining a lot of market share the last few years. Now in the teens globally, but into the 20s in some markets, such as Japan. Nikon has been doing ok with this. But no matter, if Sony starts to make the playing field a 3 way race, it not only shows they are on to something, but it becomes a matter of who moves first with nikon and canon. One will have in-body stabilization first. And right now it will probably be nikon. Soon as nikon goes, then Canon comes the odd one out. And if they haven prepared, they will behind for a generation of bodies. That could crush them.

If you think KM, Sony, Pentax, Oly's approach is marketing spin, you also have to accept that canon and Nikon's approach has just as much spin behind it.

All the companies did their homework at the time, they just did their homework at different times.

 

[David Hull]

You can blow off what I say all you want. It's how it works, and it doesn't take much more than a basic understanding of how the human body stabilizes. Plus test of it are simple enough.

Canon and Nikon have in-lens systems because they did stabilization in the film era, there really wasn't any other choice.

Those who have put stabilization to market in the digital era have done it in the body. Those company all know how to do trade studies, they know all the factors involved. And they arrived at doing it in the body. If there was a superior reason for doing it in the lens, they would have done as Canon and Nikon have.

If you have nothing, then it is less expensive to do it in the camera body whether it is optimal or not. For Sony an others to redesign a lot of lenses (that they don'e even make) vs. design once in the body is a no brainer. For CaNikon it is probably less expensive to stick with waht they have. Plus, Canon at least still has the film cameras to support.

I don't buy the idea that the body approach was implemented as a result of detailed studies of how the human body worked or even that these companies care -- that part sounds like marketing spin on the part of the body based vendors to counter the one major disadvantage of their sustem -- like you said earlier "if you can't fix it -- feature it".

Well as working in research depart my experience is that there is no way they are designing it without taking care of how human body behaves. Descardoing it is too foolish thing to do.

The only anomaly has been the Panny-Leica lenses. But that's not much of a deal there has been very few of them. And much of it very well could be Oly didn't license Panny the stabilization system. Plus Leica would be happy to oblige as it just means they can charge more. It's no different than how Sigma and Tamron do it in the lens....since that's what they make.

Canon and Nikon will do in body in time. But they still got people happy to pay for lenses with stabilization. Soon as one of them does it, the other will have to follow suit very quickly.

From what I can tell, the amount I have to pay for a Canon lens with stabalization is the same (or LESS) tahn the price I would have to pay for the equevelent Sony lens w/o stabalization so where is the big savings?

Here is saving, i bought 180 dollars used 50mm f1.2, and its stablized.

As for saying that you have to pay equal amount in sony or in in body system, its not always true. Further best benefit it provides is that you do not have to redesign or buy new lenses for updating it. And its effect might go as old as 50 or 70 years if you could mount that lense.

In body approach is better and more economical in the end.

Plus, i remember sometime ago someone in sony slr forum did address this myth that sony lenses are always more expensive than canon nikon ones.
He put their comparative prices and showed that its mostly not true.

I just did a quick check (the other day for one of these discussions) and I see that the 70-200 Canon lens was around $1650 and the equuivelent Sony was around $1800. I think it is the same for a couple of others I looked at briefly. Not extensive research but that is a lens that I would want to own and if I was trading off between the two brands, the better choice was Canon in that case. I just looked at a couple cases which might have been bad ones -- but they were lenses I would be wanting to have.

Based on Nikon's lenses released in the last 2 years. I'd say it won't be too long before Nikon brings out body stabilization.

--
one among others

 

[David Hull]

Sony didn't have nothing, they had KM. And KM didn't have nothing, they had decades of Minolta gear. Like any company they bring out new lenses replacing old ones. They could have gone in lens just the same putting it in new lenses.

I think we are both making the same point here -- Sony (and the others) had a choice which way to go. As far as I know, KM had no IS implementation In this respect, they had nothing -- i.e a clean slate. For them the less expensive route in terms of non recurring investment and time to market with the broadest product portfolio was to do what they did. Canon doesn't have this problem, they have a system in place already that works well.

Supporting film cameras is not a legitimate reason for in-lens. If that was a case Canon or Nikon are trying to make, they are saying they are supporting legacy imaging tech that few use instead of making the system better for current digital users.

There are actually a lot of people who still run film a lot of them in conjunction with digital particularly in pro circles. I don't think it is a huge portion of Canon's buisness though. But it is there. When I drag out my Elan7 to run a roll of Tri-X I am glad to be able to use my 24-105 and 70-200 on it and have it stabalized if I shoot hand held.

I don't buy the idea that the body approach was implemented as a result of detailed studies of how the human body worked or even that these companies care -- that part sounds like marketing spin on the part of the body based vendors to counter the one major disadvantage of their sustem -- like you said earlier "if you can't fix it -- feature it".

Canon is in a bad spot. Sony has been gaining a lot of market share the last few years. Now in the teens globally, but into the 20s in some markets, such as Japan. Nikon has been doing ok with this. But no matter, if Sony starts to make the playing field a 3 way race, it not only shows they are on to something, but it becomes a matter of who moves first with nikon and canon. One will have in-body stabilization first. And right now it will probably be nikon. Soon as nikon goes, then Canon comes the odd one out. And if they haven prepared, they will behind for a generation of bodies. That could crush them.

If you think KM, Sony, Pentax, Oly's approach is marketing spin, you also have to accept that canon and Nikon's approach has just as much spin behind it.

All the companies did their homework at the time, they just did their homework at different times.

All of these companies have sales groups whose sole purpose is spin -- of course they all do it.

As for Canon, I don't know which WP's you read but I think that Canon has been pretty clear in the past that they were ready and able to move to this technology if and when they felt it made sense. I suspect that if and when they do they will come with the appropriate answer as to why they did it. They could always say they have sucomed to market pressure or something. Or the might say "ok we've put this in but we feel that our super tele's work better with the lens based scheme so the body detects those and turns off. There is a thousand things they could do -- NEVER EVER underestimate the cleverness of marketing people to cover their a$$ .

If Sony is making market share inroads (and that clearly does not seem to be the case in my neck of the woods), I doubt that it is based on the presence or absence of IB IS -- it is a contributor at best. If that were the main driver, I think we would see more movement from Oly and others that have it. I suspect what is driving Sony is just that -- S*O*N*Y. It is a respect and trusted brand in many parts of the world -- I suspect.

I agree, if Nikon does this, I would expect that Canon will follow, but you might not want to hold your breath. We have yet to see 1DX level focusing in the 5DII aand 50D and Nikon has clearly thrown down the gauntlet in that area.

I snipped a few things out of your part, it seems there is a "pontification limit" on this thing

 

[David Hull]

But simply, the new systems don't move 5+mm either direction like the old ones, yet the stabilization capability has improved.

That's odd, human shake must be less nowadays

I suspect that there is something to this having to do with accelleration or algorithims or somehting but Starbucks Coffee is as strong as it ever was and I doubt that people aren't shaking any less

 

[zxaar]

Plus, i remember sometime ago someone in sony slr forum did address this myth that sony lenses are always more expensive than canon nikon ones.
He put their comparative prices and showed that its mostly not true.

I just did a quick check (the other day for one of these discussions) and I see that the 70-200 Canon lens was around $1650 and the equuivelent Sony was around $1800. I think it is the same for a couple of others I looked at briefly. Not extensive research but that is a lens that I would want to own and if I was trading off between the two brands, the better choice was Canon in that case. I just looked at a couple cases which might have been bad ones -- but they were lenses I would be wanting to have.

The point you are trying to make is that Sony who provides in-body stablization does sell their lenses at higher prices than canon's stablizied price.

And my point is that it might be the cases with some lenses but it is not always true.

To give an example with a very normal lense. This is one of the most common lense.

This is prices of 50mm f1.4 in the shop near to me.

canon
http://www.yodobashi.com/ec/product/000000104101101501/index.html
sony
http://www.yodobashi.com/ec/product/100000001000747089/index.html

You see 43000 yen for canon and 41000 yen for sony's. Plus sony's lense is stablized.

So 'Sony is more expensive' is not always true.

It depends on lense , plus sony never claimed that they are charging extra for stablization. I am not sure whether also says that one is paying extra for lense if it has stablization, but every thing indicates that canon's stablised lenses are expensive than their non stablized versions.

--
one among others

 

[boels069]

But simply, the new systems don't move 5+mm either direction like the old ones, yet the stabilization capability has improved.

That's odd, human shake must be less nowadays

I suspect that there is something to this having to do with accelleration or algorithims or somehting but Starbucks Coffee is as strong as it ever was and I doubt that people aren't shaking any less

Not to mention the strong dutch coffee

There's very little info found about normal human shake speed, but it seems to be about 3.5 degrees per second.

Take a 200mm lens (image angle about 7 degrees for full frame) and the shake takes half of the image circle and the stabilization correction could be up to half the diagonal sensor size (41.5mm)

(Note: shutter speed should be counted in, with very high shutter speeds you do not need much stabilization)

 

[neil holmes]

The point is that all in body systems work at 10mm and work at 800mm and everything in between.... they all move the sensor enough.....who cares how much they have to move....it works!

Saying they do not is just spin from Canon just like they said it could not be done full frame.

neil

http://www.flickr.com/photos/26884588@N00/