Re: Canon develops Hybrid image stabilization system

[David Hull]

That works both ways...I could say that I will believe in lens is better when i see the tests saying it is....I happen to think that they are different for different people so am happy to leave it at both work and work well.

You think in lens is better...you prove it.

I have never said that. I don't really believe that one is better than the other. These are two ways of skinning the same cat each with it's own advantages and disadvantages. One will be better than the other to a given individual depending on how they weigh those advantages and disadvantages. As I said, is would be curious to see if the claims made by Canon have merrit.

I do not need proof as ....I know my camera is a old first generation entry level.

I know that for me it works better than some lenses and behind others and is behind most newer stabilized cameras (if not all).

I know that newer stabilized cameras do better. I know that the reviews to date have many different "winners" and am confident enought to bet you that future tests will also have different "winners"

But I also know that it works.

Take a focal length over 300mm....as I have said elsewhere in this thread I have more than seventeen ways of doing that stabilized...from very poor to quite good (I actually forgot a few as well).

I KNOW that at 510mm I can get very useable photos in very low light with that old entry level camera hand held. I also know that to get the same with Canon or Nikon would cost me several times the price.

The canon or Nikon 500mm f4 IS/VR would be better...of course it would... but thats with lenses that cost as much as a car!....and thats not the stabilization...below that what is there?

What difference does it make anyway if a lens does better than a camera or vice versa if they can not mount together? Is Nikon better than Canon at all focal lengths stabilization wise?

These sort of arguments are just silly....that is why if it works is all that should matter.

Tell me, what shutter speeds you get at around 500mm stabilized? How about 50mm faster than f2?

That depends on the enviornment, don't you think?

EDIT
This is way of anyway...

the point here is that Canon was wrong in saying the sensor has to move to far and they were wrong in saying it would not work for full fraame.

This is also way of topic for the thread....I hope the new canon tech works great.

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

 

[neil holmes]

That works both ways...I could say that I will believe in lens is better when i see the tests saying it is....I happen to think that they are different for different people so am happy to leave it at both work and work well.

You think in lens is better...you prove it.

I have never said that. I don't really believe that one is better than the other. These are two ways of skinning the same cat each with it's own advantages and disadvantages. One will be better than the other to a given individual depending on how they weigh those advantages and disadvantages. As I said, is would be curious to see if the claims made by Canon have merrit.

Ok, sorry, on that at least we can agree to agree then!

I do not need proof as ....I know my camera is a old first generation entry level.

I know that for me it works better than some lenses and behind others and is behind most newer stabilized cameras (if not all).

I know that newer stabilized cameras do better. I know that the reviews to date have many different "winners" and am confident enought to bet you that future tests will also have different "winners"

But I also know that it works.

Take a focal length over 300mm....as I have said elsewhere in this thread I have more than seventeen ways of doing that stabilized...from very poor to quite good (I actually forgot a few as well).

I KNOW that at 510mm I can get very useable photos in very low light with that old entry level camera hand held. I also know that to get the same with Canon or Nikon would cost me several times the price.

The canon or Nikon 500mm f4 IS/VR would be better...of course it would... but thats with lenses that cost as much as a car!....and thats not the stabilization...below that what is there?

What difference does it make anyway if a lens does better than a camera or vice versa if they can not mount together? Is Nikon better than Canon at all focal lengths stabilization wise?

These sort of arguments are just silly....that is why if it works is all that should matter.

Tell me, what shutter speeds you get at around 500mm stabilized? How about 50mm faster than f2?

That depends on the enviornment, don't you think?

Yes it does, and the person and a whole lot of things.

I am just tired of people making claims that in camera is no good at long focal lengths or even not as good without them having even used long lenses for their OWN system. Same as those who say they do not think there is any need for stabilization on short fast primes....yet most of theose who use short fast primes stabilized like it. (not aimed at you)

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

 

[plugin]

I am not sure this is as difficult as you think. For anyone trying to hold still, the average velocity would be zero in a pretty short time. IS always takes a period of time to lock in, and unless your shift was very slow the system would be able to calculate zero velocity. It might not help at the end of the day, if you are slowly sinking to the ground after holding a heavy lens still.

I suspect the bigger limitation will be how much amplitude it can compensate for.
BTW - I agree about the name - very confusing.

snip

Canon's Hybrid (strange name...) IS corrects also for translational shake, a shake that doesn't matter at low magnifications (far distance) but is a problem with macro. Since it's only possible to measure acceleration, not velocity, I suppose it depends on the shooter cooperating and shaking around a point that doesn't move relative to the subject, for some time before the exposure. Then it may be possible to make a guess at a zero velocity reference and knowing subject distance correct the shake.

 

[boels069]

I would say so.
But why?
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2009/0185796.html

 

[dala]

Canon's adds correction for vertical and horizontal shift . This means it should work even at macro distances - something no current IS system is really good at.

I've always believed the major problem stabilizing macro is the z-direction (back and forth).

 

[Kuivaamo]

Canon's adds correction for vertical and horizontal shift . This means it should work even at macro distances - something no current IS system is really good at.

I've always believed the major problem stabilizing macro is the z-direction (back and forth).

That's more to do with focus than handshake.

 

[doady]

Why should either Canon and Nikon start using in-body IS when they already dominate the camera market by a large margin? The consumers, the enthusiasts, and, most importantly, the professionals have spoken: in-lens stabilization is superior to in-body stabilization.

 

[Kuivaamo]

The consumers, the enthusiasts, and, most importantly, the professionals have spoken: in-lens stabilization is superior to in-body stabilization.

It's not quite that simple. Nikon and Canon have been the dominant brands for a while now, for various reasons (the IS being in the lens instead of the body is amongst the least significant). The form of IS they happen to offer is in-lens based, and I'm sure a huge part of that is due to the fact that those companies developed their IS systems when film was still dominant. Developing in-body IS would have been mucho difficult back then, and would have not carried over to digital all that well, so an all-round bad investment.

Neither type, in-lens or in-body, is absolutely superior. With in-lens, you have to accept the fact that only a relatively small portion of all the available lenses will feature stabilisation. With in-body, you have to accept the fact that the viewfinder image is not stabilised, and possibly that performance is compromised at very long focal lengths (this hasn't been objectively confirmed, though).

If Canon & Nikon were to provide in-body IS along with their existing IS/VR offerings, it's easy to see that the customers would get the best of both worlds. So it should be very understandable that many Canon and Nikon users would like this to happen.

Unfortunately, the marketing and investment situation is such that I doubt either company is at all willing to introduce in-body IS.