Reading mode: Light Dark

In body sensor stabilization

Go to last post
Lance B

Lance B

Forum Pro
Messages
35,340
Solutions
5
Reaction score
16,049
Location
AU
I wonder if Nikon is ever going to consider in body stabilization as an adjunct , not a replacement, to it's in lens VR?

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.

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.

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.

Just a thought.
--
Lance B
http://www.pbase.com/lance_b

 
Lance B said:
I wonder if Nikon is ever going to consider in body stabilization as an adjunct , not a replacement, to it's in lens VR?

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.

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.

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.

Just a thought.
--
Lance B
http://www.pbase.com/lance_b

Click to expand...
On Sony A850 / A900 FF the Steady Shot are just great. Its just great to have stabilized primes.

I think Nikon could do it, but dont think they will. Many Sony users questioned if it was possible to implement the steady shot on the Sony FF cameras when they were first announced. But as everybody now know it were possible.

Kind regards

David
--

 
For years Minolta was at the forefront of innovative technology. If only they'd jumped into the digital age at the start.
 
A good point, but I never need IS. It is mostly required for slow lenses and video, which is why it was introduced. I've tried it, but it doesn't do any better than the following shots (450mm equivalent) taken without it and often is worse.







 
I always found in body stabilization to be a great feature and it is not just for slow lenses. It works for all lenses, no matter how old, even screw mount lenses, which is its best feature!

It works great when you are running out of light and want to keep your ISO as low as possible, and the only time I found it to make things worse, is when you activate it while using a tripod!

Tom
Skipper494 said:
A good point, but I never need IS. It is mostly required for slow lenses and video, which is why it was introduced. I've tried it, but it doesn't do any better than the following shots (450mm equivalent) taken without it and often is worse.







Click to expand...
 
I'm guilty of owning two great FFs (5D Mark II and Sony a900). I can attest that the in-body stabilization is a great feature of the Sony.

But I wonder if, beyond any business/marketing decisions for making VR lenses, there are patent restrictions that prevent Nikon/Canon from putting IS/VR in their bodies?...
 
don't talk to me about my beloved minolta...it still hurts. the 7d still feels magnificent, too bad it was their one and only foray...and a KONICA/minolta to boot. i actually quite like the sony 850/900 because they remind me of minolta's blocky and practical later designs...and they have the amazing viewfinder to boot.

--
dave
 
I think it's unlikely that Nikon will introduce in body stabilization.

Nikon is a high quality brand. In lens stabilization gives better stabilization. Therefore it's Nikon's choice.

Any stabilization degrades image quality compared to one taken with a stable camera, in-lens stabilization less so than in-camera stabilization. One apparent weakness of in camera stabilization is that the sensor movement for optimal results would need to be varied based on focal length and lens design, even then it is theoretically less perfect than can be achieved by in-lens design.

Let's not forget that Nikon makes more money by using in-lens design.

So... no in-body VR for Nikon, definitely not in their "professional" models.

--
Kind regards
Kaj
http://www.pbase.com/kaj_e
WSSA member

It's about time we started to take photography seriously and treat it as a hobby.- Elliott Erwitt
 
I have had in-body IS on two Olympus bodies, and it is a great feature. I don't miss it ALL the time on the D700, because of the faster lenses and better high ISO, plus my longest lens (70-200 VRI) is stabilized, but sometimes I think it would come in handy. It is more useful on WAs and UWAs than some Nikon users realize or want to admit. I doubt Nikon will implement it, though, for all the reasons that have already been mentioned in this thread. Too bad. I would love to have my third-party and legacy lenses stabilized!

Julie
Lance B said:
I wonder if Nikon is ever going to consider in body stabilization as an adjunct , not a replacement, to it's in lens VR?

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.

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.

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.

Just a thought.

Lance B
Click to expand...
 
That's what I always believed, Nikon chose the more effective solution to IS rather than the less expensive solution.
 
ennacac said:
I always found in body stabilization to be a great feature and it is not just for slow lenses. It works for all lenses, no matter how old, even screw mount lenses, which is its best feature!

It works great when you are running out of light and want to keep your ISO as low as possible, and the only time I found it to make things worse, is when you activate it while using a tripod!

Tom
Click to expand...
Hi Tom,

Thank you for participating. I think in body IS would be a great adjunct for Nikon as there are many lenses that do not have VR, one in particular being the AFS300 f4 which just about everyone has been crying out to have VR. Having used Pentax's IS, it works brilliantly.

I would also like to thank you for backing me up in the Pentax forum with regards to Thommo. You were very kind with you comments with regards to me.

I still have a very soft spot for Pentax and as you may know, I also still have many of the FA lenses just in case! :-)

Anyway, it's been nice to hear from you.

Take care,

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

 
Unfortunate Nikon made the best low ISO dslr otherwise I would have gone elsewhere. Internal stabilisation is the business, anything else is just a cynical way to fleece consumers to benefit a few people who almost exclusively use long lenses. IS on WA and UWA would be a boon for me. It's unfortunate that Sony dived headfirst into the mega pixel race at the expense of high ISO. Nikon not putting IS into all their lenses is a serious loss to low light WA shooters who need it as much as long lens sports photographers. They could give us the best of both worlds, but why should they until some other manufacturer comes up with a decent ff camera with good high iso and IS they have a captive market. Nikon cameras are brilliant, but sadly flawed in this respect.
uchinakuri said:
windsprite said:
It is more useful on WAs and UWAs than some Nikon users realize or want to admit.
Click to expand...
I see this a lot, mostly from people that haven't tried in-body IS systems themselves.
Click to expand...
 
I agree 100%. On my VR lenses I rarely have them turned on, especially in low light where I think VR is at it's worst. Daylight handshake, maybe, but I have yet to find a shot that was saved by VR, yet have hundreds that were ruined by VR.

--
I'z lovez my AiS'ez
 
You have the 16-35/f4VR. Yes, it is one stop slower than a f2.8, but you VR lovers always clammer to the 3-4 stop VR advantage, so I don't see the problem ;)

--
I'z lovez my AiS'ez
 
Kaj E said:
I think it's unlikely that Nikon will introduce in body stabilization.

Nikon is a high quality brand. In lens stabilization gives better stabilization. Therefore it's Nikon's choice.

Any stabilization degrades image quality compared to one taken with a stable camera, in-lens stabilization less so than in-camera stabilization. One apparent weakness of in camera stabilization is that the sensor movement for optimal results would need to be varied based on focal length and lens design, even then it is theoretically less perfect than can be achieved by in-lens design.

Let's not forget that Nikon makes more money by using in-lens design.

So... no in-body VR for Nikon, definitely not in their "professional" models.

--
Kind regards
Kaj
http://www.pbase.com/kaj_e
WSSA member

It's about time we started to take photography seriously and treat it as a hobby.- Elliott Erwitt
Click to expand...
Thats why atleast pentax take focal length into account when stabilisation is activated.
Its not like the senor moves the same if you got a 8 mm lens or a 300mm lens
 
In camera stabilisation would not only mean cheaper lenses but lighter lenses too.
 
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! :(
 
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