Re: Canon develops Hybrid image stabilization system

[David Hull]

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.

I agree, but there is quite a bit more glass and work in the IS lenses. Whether that is entirely due to the addition of the IS feature or not is not clear but there is more stuff there which I suspect that Canon expects to get paid for. This discussion all started (for me anyway) with a post by someone who said that Canon adds $20 worth of parts and charges $1200 which is clearly not the case.

--
one among others

 

[David Hull]

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.

Canon still might be right. I think from Canon's perspective, to be "done in a FF body" would have to mean that the system performs equaly to that they feel they can do with their lens based system. I would really like to see a good test conducted in a controled fashon to find out how both systems perform with long lenses.

neil

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

 

[David Hull]

You need to have someone video tape you or observe you with it on and off doing that. You feel more stable with it on. In reality you are moving a lot. This is all driven by biology and how our body keeps us stable.

Thinking you are stable, and being stable are very different. Viewing anything through a stabilized lens causes you to move more, thus defeating the system. Your body cannot properly correct and make your body stable since your eyes are being feed a false image. And unlike how the body can adjust for a telephoto lens with some time as your body calms down and sorts out the magnification, it can't adjust for the IS in the lens as the amount it's changing reality is continuously changing.

My first experience with IS in optics was with a Canon prototype binocular at the CES show around 20 years ago. When you turned that thing on, the image was dramatically more stable and easier to look at. Whether I was shaking more or not, was irrelevant, the system functioned the image was more stable.

If the argument that you are trying to make is that the body based IS system, ultimately produces a better image because the photographer is able to better control his shakiness when he sees the real thing (while the IS system fixes it unseen in the background) then this should show up in the comparative performance of the two systems. I would expect to see test data that shows consistently better performance of the body based system when compared to an equivalent lens based system under similar conditions. So far I have not seen anything like this.

 

[gene thomson]

Well, I predict that very shortly a camera will be introduced that has an Image Stabilization (IS) button that stands for "Instant Sakrete" (Sakrete, for those not in the U.S., is a fast setting concrete). Pressing the IS button spews out a cured Sakrete stabilizing, tripod-like device at faster than light speed. Why worry about built in lens motors, body sensor shifting systems and the like. Just remember this prediction 300 years from now!! Enjoy your day.
--



geeno
effzee 1, 5 and 30, dee40
http://genet.smugmug.com/

 

[Henry Richardson]

Canon still might be right. I think from Canon's perspective, to be "done in a FF body" would have to mean that the system performs equaly to that they feel they can do with their lens based system.

That's a good one! Your going back after the fact and trying to spin this in a very awkward way to show Canon was right after all gave me a good chuckle. Just admit it, in this case Canon was wrong, wrong, wrong!

--
Henry Richardson
http://www.bakubo.com

 

[boels069]

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.

The point is how well it works
In-camer or in-lens IS isn't yet tested/reviewed properly.

Both systems move something (sensor or lens-element) that is the only thing we know.

The stabilizing part has to respond very quickly (high accelaration rate) within a couple of millisecs to reach a predefined sharpness.

I own a Canon 5D/40D/50D and with an EF 70-200 f4 L IS USM lens @200mm I can get tack sharp images (blur within 2 pixels or better) without any time add tot the shutter lag.

Both systems are equal If an in-camera IS can produce that.

 

[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.

The point is how well it works
In-camer or in-lens IS isn't yet tested/reviewed properly.

Both systems move something (sensor or lens-element) that is the only thing we know.

The stabilizing part has to respond very quickly (high accelaration rate) within a couple of millisecs to reach a predefined sharpness.

I own a Canon 5D/40D/50D and with an EF 70-200 f4 L IS USM lens @200mm I can get tack sharp images (blur within 2 pixels or better) without any time add tot the shutter lag.

Both systems are equal If an in-camera IS can produce that.

Great....happy for you.

UMM except you did not say at what shutter speed...what speed are you talking about?

I am very happy with the stabilization from my old entry level K100d (newer cameras do better)

My 17-35 2.8-4 tamron is stabilized
My 28 f2 is stabilized
My 50 1.2 is stabilized
My 60 year old Carl Zeiss Jena Biotar 58 f2 is stabilized
My 85 1.8 is stabilized
my 135 1.8 is stabilized
my 300 2.8 is stabilized
They are still stabilized with various adapters/converters
All my other lenses are stabilized

Some people would say the systems are equal if in lens can do THAT!

Oh and I can hand hold at silly speeds I would not use in real life ....even at longer focal lengths that i use regularly.

Again, the actuall speeds posted are pretty much the same from in camera and in lens. Tests to date are all over the place and which is "best" is really dependant on how recent the tech is .....as well as the person using it.

I love using short fast lenses stabilized in low light for live music but also I like using the 300 2.8 with a af adapter for 510 4.8 and I never bother with my tripod or monopod with that.

The argument is dead....both in lens and in camera works and works well.

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

 

[Slugger]

In my defense, I wasn't referring to Canon getting in-body stability. I highly doubt they would give their users such a luxury. I was merely referring to the 3-axis stabilization.

Regards.

 

[Slugger]

In-lens systems have to be custom made per applications, you can't make a "one size fits all" in-lens system. They aren't optimizing in lens systems, they are doing what is required to make it work. Canon is using the old motto "if you can't fix it, feature it".

When mounting a manual focus lens on a Pentax, the camera asks what the focal length is, to adjust its stabilization accordingly. Wider angles get less stabilzation where as a longer lens gets more. Try a fast 50 or 85 on a stabilized sensor and then go shoot in the dark! Of course newer lenses can pass this information on automagically.

 

[Slugger]

Just curious, does Canon or Nikon make any fast primes that have IS?

 

[Kuivaamo]

Just curious, does Canon or Nikon make any fast primes that have IS?

The fastest Canon & Nikon make is the 200/2 VR/IS.

 

[zxaar]

This discussion all started (for me anyway) with a post by someone who said that Canon adds $20 worth of parts and charges $1200 which is clearly not the case.

Yes this part i agree with you. Cost is for many things not just what part they add. They have to pay for research and development too.

--
one among others

 

[miret]

Canon has developed a 'Hybrid Image Stabilizer' that corrects for both linear and rotational shake. The system, which the company claims is a world's first

and

Canon Inc. announced today the development of Hybrid Image Stabilizer (IS), the world’s first* optical Image Stabilizer which compensates for both angular camera shake and shift camera shake

Oh yes! Canon-bla-bla-bla..., but isn't PENTAX K7 able to correct rotational shake already?
http://www.pentaximaging.com/slr/K-7

 

[Andrew Westlake]

Oh yes! Canon-bla-bla-bla..., but isn't PENTAX K7 able to correct rotational shake already?
http://www.pentaximaging.com/slr/K-7

You're confusing completely different things here:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=32466514

--
Andy Westlake
dpreview.com/lensreviews

 

[David Hull]

Canon still might be right. I think from Canon's perspective, to be "done in a FF body" would have to mean that the system performs equaly to that they feel they can do with their lens based system.

That's a good one! Your going back after the fact and trying to spin this in a very awkward way to show Canon was right after all gave me a good chuckle. Just admit it, in this case Canon was wrong, wrong, wrong!

If the Sony scheme works as well, then Canon will have been wrong. Let's see someone run a real test.

--
Henry Richardson
http://www.bakubo.com

 

[David Hull]

Just curious, does Canon or Nikon make any fast primes that have IS?

I don't know about NIkon but Canon has:

300mm f2.8
400mm f2.8
500mm f4.0
600mm f4.0
800mm f5.6

All primes all fast for their FL

They might make others taht I am not aware of.

 

[Henry Richardson]

Yes this part i agree with you. Cost is for many things not just what part they add. They have to pay for research and development too.

And pay for marketing. And as big a profit as they think they can get away with.

--
Henry Richardson
http://www.bakubo.com

 

[neil holmes]

Canon still might be right. I think from Canon's perspective, to be "done in a FF body" would have to mean that the system performs equaly to that they feel they can do with their lens based system.

That's a good one! Your going back after the fact and trying to spin this in a very awkward way to show Canon was right after all gave me a good chuckle. Just admit it, in this case Canon was wrong, wrong, wrong!

If the Sony scheme works as well, then Canon will have been wrong. Let's see someone run a real test.

--

So lets see if i have this right

Canon works because they say it does

Sony does not work even though they say it does (because canon says it can not...just as they said a sensor has to move too far for longer lenses....which it does not)

Never mind that Sony users seem happy with their stabilization.

Never mind that users of all systems get results, never mind the tests that HAVE been done (various systems and various lenses) show they work.

Ok guess you "win"

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

 

[David Hull]

Canon still might be right. I think from Canon's perspective, to be "done in a FF body" would have to mean that the system performs equaly to that they feel they can do with their lens based system.

That's a good one! Your going back after the fact and trying to spin this in a very awkward way to show Canon was right after all gave me a good chuckle. Just admit it, in this case Canon was wrong, wrong, wrong!

If the Sony scheme works as well, then Canon will have been wrong. Let's see someone run a real test.

--

So lets see if i have this right

Canon works because they say it does

Sony does not work even though they say it does (because canon says it can not...just as they said a sensor has to move too far for longer lenses....which it does not)

Never mind that Sony users seem happy with their stabilization.

Never mind that users of all systems get results, never mind the tests that HAVE been done (various systems and various lenses) show they work.

Ok guess you "win"

There is a difference between "works" and "works as well ". I think the post was pretty clear.

I don't think that there is any argument that both systems work, to me the question is how well. All the tests that I have seen (and I have seen a few but probably not all) show pretty mixed results with no clear winner. Which clearly shows that they both work.

I would like to see a well executed test on the long end where Canon claims that their system has an advantage just to see if they really do. I would also like to see is Sony falls short there which has been predicted. I have not seen this type of comparison done, if I have missed it, please put up a link or referrence. Not that this matters too much becaues most of us don't shoot really long (600-800) routinely.

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 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?

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/