In body sensor stabilization

[Lance B]

Hey Lance - don't tell me you Aussies have also adopted the Americanised version of English words using the letter Z as replacement for the correct S!

Not at all. I actually wasn't sure of the correct spelling and just Googled it, but forgot about the mostly Americanisation of spelling on the internet. My humble apologies is offered for my mislpaced belief in the internet and it's US bias!

You will notice in my posts that I always spell colour as colour, neighbour as neighbour etc.

--
Lance B
http://www.pbase.com/lance_b

 

[KSV]

I would rather live it as is. Yes Pentax IS works no doubt, but I never feel that I need it that much. Plus I continuously have paranoia that in some instances like shooting from stable tripod it doing more harm then help. I like sensor bolted on firmly. Having IS in lens kills such paranoia easy enough - just replace lens. And frankly I never feel that I need any stabilization with fast lenses below 50mm where I shoot the most - if you cannot shoot at 1/50 and doing that with IS at 1/15 then object starts move.

Cheers

 

[tigrebleu]

I had a Pentax K10D then K20D and then a K-7 and they all had in body stablization which made every lens that you put on the body stabilized up to 3 stops and it was very effective. No added cost to lens manufacture and no need for lens redesign, every lens now stabilized.

Hi Lance,

Pentax user here as well, about to switch to a D700 too. I'm about to sell my K10D, K-7, 16-45 and 50-135, plus a few other accessories.

I will probably go for a 16-35 F/4 VR plus 85 F/1.8 combo (or a 24-120 F/4 VR), plus battery grip and SB-700 to start with, and I will add some more lenses and accessories over time. Sounds like a good idea?

I agree the Pentax (and Olympus, Pana, Sony) DSLRs have a little edge when it comes to the price you have to pay to stabilize your images! However, in-body stabilization don't help much when framing since you actually don't experience the stabilization during framing. That's especially true with longer focal lengths, where the slightest hand shake can make framing a real challenge. That's where the in-lens stabilization shows its strength! (Plus it's a bit more efficient, with the VRII and latest IS giving you an advantage of 4 stops or less instead of 3 stops or less with in-body SR in real life use).

But for short focal lengths, where framing isn't likely to be affected much by hand shake, an in-body lens stabilizer would allow the use of cheaper lenses, while the longer focal length lenses would still benefit from the in-lens stabilization.

Now, as we all know, not all Nikon lenses are VR and therefore, having in body stabilization would be a great feature for those lenses that do not have VR. When a VR lens is attached to the camera then the in body stabilization could be automatically turned off by the camera.

Not a bad idea. But what if people stop buying VR lenses? Bad news for Nikon. So much time and money spent designing these VR systems.

I guess the only issue would be whether the image circle would be large enough on an FX camera to allow the sensor to move sufficiently to counter blur. If it can't be implemented in an FX body, maybe it could be implemented in the DX bodies.

If Sony can do it on its Alpha 900/850, I'm sure Nikon and Canon could do it in their FF DSLRs as well. There might be a few technical issues, but nothing that cannot be fixed, I think.

The main issue is, I believe, not technical but financial, since such an in-body stabilizer would likely hurt the sales of VR lenses. Blocking the in-body stabilization when mounting a VR lens could help if you don't sell non-VR lens similar to one with VR. But as soon as you have a non-VR lens with the same features as its VR cousin, the first will probably outsell the second by a huge margin if Nikon has an in-body VR on its DSLRs.

I think they'll keep working on in-lens VR. And VR lenses are getting cheaper and cheaper...

--

If photography can be considered like painting, then I'm still at the preschool "paint with your fingers" level.

 

[Lance B]

I had a Pentax K10D then K20D and then a K-7 and they all had in body stablization which made every lens that you put on the body stabilized up to 3 stops and it was very effective. No added cost to lens manufacture and no need for lens redesign, every lens now stabilized.

Hi Lance,

Pentax user here as well, about to switch to a D700 too. I'm about to sell my K10D, K-7, 16-45 and 50-135, plus a few other accessories.

Another Pentaxian defects!

I will probably go for a 16-35 F/4 VR plus 85 F/1.8 combo (or a 24-120 F/4 VR), plus battery grip and SB-700 to start with, and I will add some more lenses and accessories over time. Sounds like a good idea?

The lenses look good, but I am not so sure about the battery grip. I didn't have one, up until recently, and the only reason I got it was for my large lenses like the 300/f2.8 plus TC's. For all other lenses, I didn't ever feel the need for it at all. The D700 is large enough for comfortable vertical shooting in most instances.

However, I guess if you do alot of portraiture, then it may be of use.

I agree the Pentax (and Olympus, Pana, Sony) DSLRs have a little edge when it comes to the price you have to pay to stabilize your images! However, in-body stabilization don't help much when framing since you actually don't experience the stabilization during framing. That's especially true with longer focal lengths, where the slightest hand shake can make framing a real challenge. That's where the in-lens stabilization shows its strength! (Plus it's a bit more efficient, with the VRII and latest IS giving you an advantage of 4 stops or less instead of 3 stops or less with in-body SR in real life use).

What you say is very true.

But for short focal lengths, where framing isn't likely to be affected much by hand shake, an in-body lens stabilizer would allow the use of cheaper lenses, while the longer focal length lenses would still benefit from the in-lens stabilization.

The 16-35 f4 VR works brilliantly with VR.

Now, as we all know, not all Nikon lenses are VR and therefore, having in body stabilization would be a great feature for those lenses that do not have VR. When a VR lens is attached to the camera then the in body stabilization could be automatically turned off by the camera.

Not a bad idea. But what if people stop buying VR lenses? Bad news for Nikon. So much time and money spent designing these VR systems.

Well, no one can buy a Nikon 70-200 f2.8 without VR, or the 300/f2.8, 400/f2.8, 500/f4, 600/f4, 105/f2.8 micro, 200/f2, etc. As I said, VR is not a substitute, but an adjunct to VR for those lenses that Nikon do not have covered by VR, like the 24-70 f2.8, 85 f1.4, 50 f1.4, 35 f1.4, 300 f4 etc.

It's just that for some purposes and some lenses it would be good to have in body IS. Take the 24-70 f2.8 and the AFS300 f4, both lenses have people crying out for VR to be added to these, but adding it to the 24-70 would increase size, possibly compromise performance and mean that everyone with one now would have to upgrade at significant cost. Why not leave it as it is and just add in body SR? This keeps lenses smaller, cheaper and without the need for a costly VR redesign.

The benefit is being able to shoot at lower ISO especially where there is high contrast and raising ISO diminishes DR.

I guess the only issue would be whether the image circle would be large enough on an FX camera to allow the sensor to move sufficiently to counter blur. If it can't be implemented in an FX body, maybe it could be implemented in the DX bodies.

If Sony can do it on its Alpha 900/850, I'm sure Nikon and Canon could do it in their FF DSLRs as well. There might be a few technical issues, but nothing that cannot be fixed, I think.

The main issue is, I believe, not technical but financial, since such an in-body stabilizer would likely hurt the sales of VR lenses. Blocking the in-body stabilization when mounting a VR lens could help if you don't sell non-VR lens similar to one with VR. But as soon as you have a non-VR lens with the same features as its VR cousin, the first will probably outsell the second by a huge margin if Nikon has an in-body VR on its DSLRs.

But Nikon's lenses that need VR do not have versions without VR and the lenses that do not have VR do not have versions that do, so I do not see any loss of sales in VR lenses.

I think they'll keep working on in-lens VR. And VR lenses are getting cheaper and cheaper...

--

If photography can be considered like painting, then I'm still at the preschool "paint with your fingers" level.

--
Lance B
http://www.pbase.com/lance_b

 

[tigrebleu]

Well, no one can buy a Nikon 70-200 f2.8 without VR, or the 300/f2.8, 400/f2.8, 500/f4, 600/f4, 105/f2.8 micro, 200/f2, etc. As I said, VR is not a substitute, but an adjunct to VR for those lenses that Nikon do not have covered by VR, like the 24-70 f2.8, 85 f1.4, 50 f1.4, 35 f1.4, 300 f4 etc.

Indeed. There is no non-VR 70-200 lens, although the 80-200 comes close. Same for the 200mm F/2, which has only a far cousin without VR, the 180 F/2.8...

It's just that for some purposes and some lenses it would be good to have in body IS. Take the 24-70 f2.8 and the AFS300 f4, both lenses have people crying out for VR to be added to these, but adding it to the 24-70 would increase size, possibly compromise performance and mean that everyone with one now would have to upgrade at significant cost. Why not leave it as it is and just add in body SR? This keeps lenses smaller, cheaper and without the need for a costly VR redesign.

The benefit is being able to shoot at lower ISO especially where there is high contrast and raising ISO diminishes DR.

Makes sense from that point of view. The addition of in-body stabilization, even if less effective than VR, could prove a benefit when using lenses without VR, especially short and medium focal lengths. I'm already thinking about the primes, but also the ultrawide and wide angle lenses (14-24 F/2.8, 17-35 F/2.8, 16 F/2.8 Fisheye), and even the PC-E lenses!

--

If photography can be considered like painting, then I'm still at the preschool "paint with your fingers" level.

 

[John McMillin]

Originally, back in the day circa 1990's, Nikon didn't CHOOSE between in-body and in-lens stabilization. Nikon and Canon used the only route possible, since it wasn't possible to wiggle 35mm film to deal with shake. Lens stabilization was the only way to improve binocular performance, too.

Nikon and and Canon have remained stubbornly attached to this approach, and they proft form it handsomely, I'd reckon. But their fans try to believe it's because of some technical superiority. IS and VR offers a real benefit with really long lenses, 300mm and up, I'll grant that. But for anything shorter, I'll take my Pentax or my Sony. Imagine the freedom and flexibility to use stabilization with a fast prime, a macro lens, an ultrawide zoom, a converted Leica or Contax lens, or my old Takumar manual focus beauties. That's a lot of options, and options are good.

BTW, focal length is automatically taken into account with in-body stabilization systems. The Pentax is smart enough to let you manually enter the focal length for non-CPU lenses. The Sony isn't, so we use chipped adapters. And I really don't care if the custom, lens-by-lens VR system gives me four additional stops instead of three. It's those first three stops that I'll be using most often.

 

[Fish323]

Nikon and and Canon have remained stubbornly attached to this approach, and they proft form it handsomely, I'd reckon. But their fans try to believe it's because of some technical superiority. IS and VR offers a real benefit with really long lenses, 300mm and up, I'll grant that. But for anything shorter, I'll take my Pentax or my Sony. Imagine the freedom and flexibility to use stabilization with a fast prime, a macro lens, an ultrawide zoom, a converted Leica or Contax lens, or my old Takumar manual focus beauties. That's a lot of options, and options are good.

BTW, focal length is automatically taken into account with in-body stabilization systems. The Pentax is smart enough to let you manually enter the focal length for non-CPU lenses. The Sony isn't, so we use chipped adapters. And I really don't care if the custom, lens-by-lens VR system gives me four additional stops instead of three. It's those first three stops that I'll be using most often.

Couldn't agree more. I really need IS at short focal lengths. If Sony, or anyone else can come up with the high ISO full frame camera, it's good bye to Nikon for me. I still have a few old Minolta lenses. I have just sold my zooms as they are not fast enough and moved to primes but none is stabilised

 

[georgeRC]

Lens design is, as we should all understand, very complicated. It involves many factors such as light falloff away from the center, sharpness, sharpness falloff away from the center, geometric distortion, flare, weight, cost, chromatic aberration, and on and on.

Adding features such as VR, or IF forces something else to degrade, and also leads to more complex designs. A more complex design typically means larger, heavier, pricier, more prone to flare, and greater sample variation.

Moving VR out of the lens design and into the camera body has some serious advantages. It could not be done with film, and Nikon has been in business for a long time, hence the VR option. But, a camera with built-in VR with the option to select on/off for VR in the camera, as well as in the lens, would be a major benefit.

 

[gisle]

This is indeed a feature that I really appreciated on Pentax. Not only was it efficient but you paid for it once only.

Huhh? You'd pay for again every time you replaced the body.

I don't know about you, but I very seldom replace a lens. Bodies, on the other hand, get replaced about very two years.
--
– gisle [ See profile/plan for equipment list ]

 

[Fish323]

None of the lenses I have or can afford has IS. 24mm f2.8, 35mm f2, 50mm f1.8, 85mm f1.8, 80-200 f2.8. If I had a camera with IS I would only have to pay for it once. As you wrote 'I very seldom replace a lens' so I am well and truly stuffed. Thanks for rubbing it in, making me feel even more cheated Come on Sony, or someone else, come up with a decent camera with IS.

Gisle wrote:
Huhh? You'd pay for again every time you replaced the body.

I don't know about you, but I very seldom replace a lens. Bodies, on the other hand, get replaced about very two years.
--
– gisle [ See profile/plan for equipment list ]

 

[Mark LW]

I do not care for In Camera stabilisation. In lens is another matter. I like the switchable Nikon VR, most of my lenses do not require any such. In camera complicates even further the variants. If you use long lenses, then good and add a VR; anything under 200mm does not require VR, even that is questionable. How can one 'need' VR upon a lens weighing under half the body weight ?
--
All comments are purely personal and generally based on my experience.
What I state is an opinion; I may well be wrong.

 

[Lance B]

This is indeed a feature that I really appreciated on Pentax. Not only was it efficient but you paid for it once only.

Huhh? You'd pay for again every time you replaced the body.

I don't know about you, but I very seldom replace a lens. Bodies, on the other hand, get replaced about very two years.

Impossible to quantify as the cost of the camera includes SR and unless you had two absolutely identical cameras you could never acertain the real value of the SR when included in the camera rather than the lens. Looking at the D7000 prices at B&H versus the K-5, the two closest cameras available in the respective ranges, the D7000 is US$1,200 and the K-5 is $1,380, but the K-5 is a better camera with more features other than just the SR. So, the extra cost of SR is much less than the $150 difference in initial cost.

Also, SR is a basic feature which can be fitted to each camera with little or no redesign each time a new camera is released, so the cost is amortised over many more thousands of cameras than it would be for a lens which has to be designed specifically for that lens line. In fact, the cost of SR now in a Pentax camera is probably not even a consideration.

Even if the inclusion of SR was a $20 cost with each camera upgrade, it would take many camera body upgrades over the years to even come close to the cost of VR in lenses where you would have to upgrade each lens, whereas with Pentax every lens ever made will already be SR enabled.

At the moment, Nikon has a select few lenses that are VR. Let's say you had a whole set of lenses, primes and zooms, with only a couple of the zooms with VR. Now, imagine the cost to you if Nikon decided to upgrade all their lenses to VR and you had to repurchase all those lenses in order to have VR? With Pentax it is a small possible $20 outlay - and maybe not even that - with a more expensive camera compared to Nikon and buying VR with each lens.

At the end of the day it really matter nout, as we are Nikon users and others are Pentax users and to change systems is a more expensive exercise than the inclusion of VR or SR whichever system is best. The fact is, I see no reason why Nikon doesn't include in body SR as an adjunct to in lens VR and therefore we would have the best of both worlds and at very minimal cost at that.

--
Lance B
http://www.pbase.com/lance_b

 

[Fish323]

Mark LW wrote:
How can one 'need' VR upon a lens weighing under half the body weight ?

--

Errr to allow one to shoot at slower shutter speeds with lesss ssshake? Have I missed something here? Seems obvious.

 

[Lance B]

I do not care for In Camera stabilisation. In lens is another matter. I like the switchable Nikon VR, most of my lenses do not require any such. In camera complicates even further the variants. If you use long lenses, then good and add a VR; anything under 200mm does not require VR, even that is questionable. How can one 'need' VR upon a lens weighing under half the body weight ?

Not required under 200mm? Surely you jest.

I have used in body SR and in lens VR many thousands of times using lenses under 200mm. Just because you do not require it, doesn't mean that others would find the feature indispensible.

Take for example the Nikon 16-35 f4 VR. People wonder why it would need VR. Well, it means that you can shoot down to 1/5sec at ISO3200 and f13, which I have done on numerous occassions. If I didn't have VR, I would have had to compromise on either ISO or DOF or both. Take the scenariop of wanting to shoot at 1/5sec and use ISO200, f11. Without VR you would need to shoot at ISO3200 rather than ISO200, or compromise DOF and go f4. VR can be a wonderful tool even at focal lengths under 200mm.

In camera SR can be turned off if you don't need it, just like in lens VR. In body SR works and works just as well as in lens VR up to about 200/300mm. I know as I have used both systems and they are invaluable.

--
All comments are purely personal and generally based on my experience.
What I state is an opinion; I may well be wrong.

--
Lance B
http://www.pbase.com/lance_b