Reading mode: Light Dark

What is the fasination with in body IS ?

Go to last post
Klipsen said:
We all know that many serious photographers have more than one
camera body, often even the same model, but how many photographers
have two 600 mm IS f:4 lenses "just in case the IS malfunctions".
Click to expand...
If IS fails I can continue to shoot without it (I rarely use it anyway and serious photographers often don't need it either).
Klipsen said:
With Minolta's system you can have some degree of security for the
price of a 5D, should the AS on your 7D die on you. Did you mention
something about prices somewhere?
Click to expand...
Well a Pro without a backup camera isn't bearable, but if AS fails chances are the camera needs to go for an immediate repair whereas a defective IS is just a niggle that can be mended on the next lens revision anyway.

What you all seem to forget is that better pictures are made from sturdy tripods, monopods or hand held without the need for any image stabilisation because the criteria for using this technical aid aren't met. So why have AS on when you are shooting at 1/1000th? Or at 1/20th from a tripod, on that shutter speed I need mirror lockup but no AS.
--
regards
Karl Günter Wünsch
 
Stocky72 said:
Am I the only person who does not think that this is a good idea,
in fact it scares me in someways. In no way would we want a frame
of film to be moving in the body to help capture a sharper image,
so why allow the image sensor to move.

Surely trying to get the light to focus accurately on a static
object, such as a non moving sensor is a tough enough job but
trying to get the light to focus on a moving object will be even
harder to get right.
Click to expand...
So what you're saying is that the IDEA of it bothers you because it strikes you as counter-intuitive?

This is not uninteresting, but it has very little to do with photography. Either a technology works or it doesn't; either it's useful or not; either it's reliable or it isn't. To determine these things, you try it / test it / use it.

I can tell you that the technology works (an objective statement); that it's useful to me (a personal value-judgement); and that I have no idea whether it will cause future reliability problems or not (a consequence of the inherent difficulty of foretelling the future--but so far, so good).

--Mike
 
It won't be long before IS technology will be accepted like AF technology.

Interestingly, if you can move the sensor, then you could also focus the lens in camera...
--

jonclayton.smugmug.com
 
astefot said:
astefot said:
However, I'm not sure if this one size fits all thingy from Minolta
really works with all lenses to 100% ..
Click to expand...
Yes, I think this could be a problem. I wouldn't be surprised if
they implement a mechanism for IS not to work with certain lenses.
Click to expand...
Minolta has stated that their in-body IS works with ALL lenses save for ONE of their macro lenses (I forget the reason why). No KM user has so far reported that AS has failed to work with any particular lens.

Basically, it works for virtually all Minolta A mount lenses.

larsbc
 
Karl Günter Wünsch said:
Klipsen said:
We all know that many serious photographers have more than one
camera body, often even the same model, but how many photographers
have two 600 mm IS f:4 lenses "just in case the IS malfunctions".
Click to expand...
If IS fails I can continue to shoot without it (I rarely use it
anyway and serious photographers often don't need it either).
Click to expand...
If you are serious about your photography you want to avoid blur, even blur caused by camera/lens movement, or am I terribly wrong about that?
Karl Gnter Wnsch said:
Karl Gnter Wnsch said:
With Minolta's system you can have some degree of security for the
price of a 5D, should the AS on your 7D die on you. Did you mention
something about prices somewhere?
Click to expand...
Well a Pro without a backup camera isn't bearable, but if AS fails
chances are the camera needs to go for an immediate repair whereas
a defective IS is just a niggle that can be mended on the next lens
revision anyway.
Click to expand...
You seem to think that if AS doesn't work, the rest of the camera won't work, but I fail to see why. All the more so since you claim that an IS lens will continue to work. What if the IS element is jammed while not being centered?
Karl Gnter Wnsch said:
What you all seem to forget is that better pictures are made from
sturdy tripods, monopods or hand held without the need for any
image stabilisation because the criteria for using this technical
aid aren't met. So why have AS on when you are shooting at
1/1000th? Or at 1/20th from a tripod, on that shutter speed I need
mirror lockup but no AS.
Click to expand...
AS and IS can to some extent replace a tripod, saving weight and in other ways making life easier for the photographer in the process, so if you need a tripod, sometimes you can just use AS or IS. Is that really so terrible?

You wouldn't need to use a tripod to take pictures at 1/1000 s, but sometimes people do. I don't see you argue against the use of tripods, and they don't come cheap either, if you want the good stuff.
 
Karl Günter Wünsch said:
Klipsen said:
We all know that many serious photographers have more than one
camera body, often even the same model, but how many photographers
have two 600 mm IS f:4 lenses "just in case the IS malfunctions".
Click to expand...
If IS fails I can continue to shoot without it (I rarely use it
anyway and serious photographers often don't need it either).
Click to expand...
IMO "serious" photographers are the ones most likely able to afford the high cost of IS lenses. My guess would be that a very high percentage of IS sales are to pro photographers.
Karl Gnter Wnsch said:
Well a Pro without a backup camera isn't bearable, but if AS fails
chances are the camera needs to go for an immediate repair whereas
a defective IS is just a niggle that can be mended on the next lens
revision anyway.
Click to expand...
You raise a valid point regarding added complexity, though. I have heard of at least one KM 7D that wouldn't operate at all due to an AS problem. OTOH, I have heard of one where AS was broken but could still function as a non-AS camera.

As far as repairing the problem, I don't get your point about lens revisions. You mean buy a new lens to repair the problem??
Karl Gnter Wnsch said:
What you all seem to forget is that better pictures are made from
sturdy tripods, monopods or hand held without the need for any
image stabilisation because the criteria for using this technical
aid aren't met. So why have AS on when you are shooting at
1/1000th? Or at 1/20th from a tripod, on that shutter speed I need
mirror lockup but no AS.
Click to expand...
One could also argue that "better" pictures are made with large format or medium format cameras on huge tripods. The point is that, just like with 20D-sized cameras and its APS-sized sensor, we make decisions based on convenience, cost and performance. Using IS is a choice for the convenience of not having to use a tripod in some situations.

larsbc
 
.....for a couple of years, I'm not any sort of expert, but I have some experience with both KM's and Canon's systems. The KM system really does work. Like the Canon system, it allows some shots to be taken which otherwise would have been impossible. True, no sort of image stabilization or anti-shake will help when a baseball or a racing car is whizzing past, or when the wind blows around the flowers and leaves. But still, both of these systems have real value.

The advantage of in-body IS is that all lenses have stabilization. OTOH - the in-lens system of Canon is reported to work better with long tele lenses than the in-body system of KM.

Bill
 
Stocky72 said:
Am I the only person who does not think that this is a good idea,
in fact it scares me in someways. In no way would we want a frame
of film to be moving in the body to help capture a sharper image,
so why allow the image sensor to move.

Surely trying to get the light to focus accurately on a static
object, such as a non moving sensor is a tough enough job but
trying to get the light to focus on a moving object will be even
harder to get right.
Click to expand...
I have not read every response to this message but can anybody really CONFIRM that the technology of in-body IS is due to sensor movement ?

My impression is that the in-body IS system works like those of the video cameras with IS . When the image that is formed on the full size of the sensor is moving, the edges of the image are the ones that sometimes hit the sensor and sometimes are out of the sensor area. Of course there is a bit smaller area of the image that allways stays on the sensor. The processor monitors and predicts the movement of this image so that it can capture the sharper image that was allways hitting the sensor. Thus, activation of the in-body IS results a small loss of the borders of the image, than without IS.
All is done electronically.....no moving parts and floating sensors!!!

Think about it......this is much more rasonable than having a sensor trying to move in any direction.
 
Jeff Peterman said:
Jeff Peterman said:
Jeff Peterman said:
Guillaume paris2 wrote:
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
in the hope that one out of the 2 or 3 will be sharp.

Uhm, doesn't a professional get hired because he knows that his
pictures are sharp, not because he hopes?

If I couldn't shoot with a 70mm handheld at 1/45, then I would
practice a bit on my technique instead of praying for (IMHO)
useless clutches
Click to expand...
We are talking about holding a 100mm at 1/15s. And getting a decent proportion at 1/8s.
70mm at 1/45mm is easy :)

You also have the moments where something happens behind you and you have to get the shot fast and you haven't had time to set yourself properly.

Andrew
Jeff Peterman said:
1. I assume you meant CRUTCHES not CLUTCHES.
2. A good professional takes multiple shots because he knows that
the unexpected can happen, such as the subject blinking. He does
not get hired with the assumption that every shot will be perfect.
Why do you think so many professionals want good multishot
capability in the camera body?
3. Shooting at shutter speeds slower than 1/focul length is always
a risk, and many wouldn't shoot that slow. In the "good old days"
photographers used huge flash units that gave more even light, and
even then may have taken a dozen shots to get the one classic shot
that you're thinking about. There were many events that were never
recorded because flash photography wasn't allowed and film/camera
technology couldn't handle the situation without a flash.
4. And finally, by traditional standards, autofocus and even
in-camera metering could be considered crutches. It took many years
for autofocus to be taken seriously, but now it is a standard tool
for 35mm photographers. IS is the same way - it is a great tool
that makes it possible to take shots that would not be practical
otherwise.

Maybe you think that the only REAL camera is a view camera?

--
Jeff Peterman
Any insults, implied anger, bad grammar and bad spelling, are
entirely unintentionalal. Sorry.
http://www.pbase.com/jeffp25

Click to expand...
 
Motion blur to symbolism movement can work very well in images.
Camera shake is almost never a good thing.
Getting one without the other is a big use of AS for me.

Andrew
 
This picture was taken with AS OFF:
http://www.imagehigh.com/view.php?image_id=1069516

This picture was taken with AS ON:
http://www.imagehigh.com/view.php?image_id=1069517

I can give you the EXIF data if you want, but first you have to know, that the only difference between the shots was AS on or off.

Come on, Karl, show us what you've got. Even the one with AS on has motion blur, but with your finely honed skills and proper technique you can do much better ... and best of all: you can do it without IS.
I have confidence in you! Do you?
 
Without AS:



With AS:

 
Stocky72 said:
Am I the only person who does not think that this is a good idea,
in fact it scares me in someways. In no way would we want a frame
of film to be moving in the body to help capture a sharper image,
so why allow the image sensor to move.
Click to expand...
Why woyldn't we? it would not be really technically the same to do with a roll of film, i guess otherwise someone obviously would have done it by now.

Anf i'm sure that your logic should make it clear that buying one system for 10 lenses is smarter than buying 10 systems for 10 lenses.
Stocky72 said:
Surely trying to get the light to focus accurately on a static
object, such as a non moving sensor is a tough enough job but
trying to get the light to focus on a moving object will be even
harder to get right.
Click to expand...
As Einstein said, all movement is relative. Depends on the logic you use, but imho. the system just tries to keep the sensor still.
Stocky72 said:
Why do people think that it is going to be so much better than the
current IS system that Canon is using in their lenses ?
Click to expand...
Probanly not much better, probably might even not be as goodm but as things are now i just have no IS-lenses that i use on a regular basis.
 
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