-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Why No D-SLR In-Camera Stabilization
- Thread starter solarider
- Start date
R Valentino
Senior Member
It did work when given the time. My biggest issue with it was it took longer to "work" than the in lens IS.
To me the in lens IS was as near instant as it could be. For example, pick up the camera point, hit the shutter button, fire as soon as AF was achieved. Never had an issue with it not keeping up.
With the Pentax (K10) I could almost always get the shot off before the stabelization was complete. Something that I thought would not be possible based on Pentax's claims.
Apparently the cpu used for this is not fast enough or something.
Given time to settle in it worked pretty good with the few lenses I tried it with.
Gene
To me the in lens IS was as near instant as it could be. For example, pick up the camera point, hit the shutter button, fire as soon as AF was achieved. Never had an issue with it not keeping up.
With the Pentax (K10) I could almost always get the shot off before the stabelization was complete. Something that I thought would not be possible based on Pentax's claims.
Apparently the cpu used for this is not fast enough or something.
Given time to settle in it worked pretty good with the few lenses I tried it with.
Gene
Actually, sensor stabilization is more effective - google it and you will find there is indeed article on this, with respect to current technology.
In summary and if you study the physics of it, displacement increases as you go further away from the source of vibration or disturbance (hand) and physics also tells you that the response lag will also increase.
What is being said is, in the past, not many electromechanical systems are able to stabilize a photoreceptor media (in this case film + film holder) fast enough due to its weight, etc. without the compromises of size and power consumption and accuracy, not too mention the speeds of the response required.
It's best to tacke this further away (i.e. at the lens) where there is indeed a response lag and a tilting floating lens mechanism which can simply resolve this.
With the introduction of light fixed photo sensors (CCD/ CMOS), tiny piezo electro motors works efficiently to curb (counter effect) vibrations very close to the source. It's less expensive too.
That said, it's all about business sense, as these two large camera manufacturers still have a large pool of consumers out there with SLRs (digital and film) without in-body stabilization. It's also more difficult to change if you already have a whole range of SLRs behind you without IS. And not to mention a factory line that makes lens with IS and the right to the patents for a fee.
--
Yus.
'Photography is the Art or Process of Producing Images,
The Art of Photography is Another Story.'
In summary and if you study the physics of it, displacement increases as you go further away from the source of vibration or disturbance (hand) and physics also tells you that the response lag will also increase.
What is being said is, in the past, not many electromechanical systems are able to stabilize a photoreceptor media (in this case film + film holder) fast enough due to its weight, etc. without the compromises of size and power consumption and accuracy, not too mention the speeds of the response required.
It's best to tacke this further away (i.e. at the lens) where there is indeed a response lag and a tilting floating lens mechanism which can simply resolve this.
With the introduction of light fixed photo sensors (CCD/ CMOS), tiny piezo electro motors works efficiently to curb (counter effect) vibrations very close to the source. It's less expensive too.
That said, it's all about business sense, as these two large camera manufacturers still have a large pool of consumers out there with SLRs (digital and film) without in-body stabilization. It's also more difficult to change if you already have a whole range of SLRs behind you without IS. And not to mention a factory line that makes lens with IS and the right to the patents for a fee.
--
Yus.
'Photography is the Art or Process of Producing Images,
The Art of Photography is Another Story.'
N
neil holmes
Guest
Clearly the ORIGINAL reason is simply that IS was introduced by Canon and Nikon when 35mm film was at its peak....no other reason.
Why they do NOW is a different story, and on this point people are just going to go around in circles (with the supporters of each holding onto "THEIR FACTS")
For me..both work and work well...All i know is its FAR cheaper on my Pentax than it would be for me to have the equivalent lenses in Canon.
I would not want to shoot at 700+mm (1050+mm 35mm fov) at 1/15 hand held but its nice to know I can....if your in lense does better...great.
neil
PhotoTraveler
Forum Pro
Few care about supporting film bodies.
And in-body can support panning, no maker has added such a function though, it would be just software. Possibly because it's not needed since the view finder isn't showing you a distorted view like it does with in Lens. People do panos all the time with in-body systems, no problems.
And in-body can support panning, no maker has added such a function though, it would be just software. Possibly because it's not needed since the view finder isn't showing you a distorted view like it does with in Lens. People do panos all the time with in-body systems, no problems.
poliscijustin
Veteran Member
Probably because they can make more selling it on the lenses (which also work a bit better than the in camera version). FWIW, I'd love to have the option of both, since nickon doesn't have anything wider than 55mm (on the 55-200) with VR. If I could have a VR 50 1.8, I could rule the world.
--
A small but growing collection of my photos can be seen at
http://www.pbase.com/poliscijustin
--
A small but growing collection of my photos can be seen at
http://www.pbase.com/poliscijustin
Jim Salvas
Veteran Member
While in the Everglades recently, I came across a birder who was using a Pentax K10D with a huge Leica spotting scope attached. No autofocus, of course, but with the Pentax he was using it for IS shots of birds I could barely see.
Now, that's a pretty neat trick you can only do with in-body IS.
--
Jim
Now, that's a pretty neat trick you can only do with in-body IS.
--
Jim
KM Glassman
Senior Member
I believe that the widest angle focal length available for Canon and Nikon IS lenses is 17mm, which is not very wide on a 1.5 or 1.6 cropped sensor. This is equal to a FOV on a 35mm camera using a 26-27mm lens. In film days 28mm was the poor man's wide angle lens- not much to it. 24mm or 20mm was true wide angle. Are there no Canon photogs that wouldn't like to use a 10-22mm IS lens for available light interiors shots stopped down to f8 hand held? Or a Nikon user taking pictures in a dimly lit forest on an overcast day with a 12-24mm Nikkor IS lens? Yes, you can use a tripod, but we all know what a pain in the glass they are. My guess is that with focal lengths greater than 200mm, in-lens IS would be more desireable, but at anything below 200mm there wouldn't be much difference between in-body and in-lens. Ideally, a camera could use both systems, so no lens, prime or wide angle, or third party would be left out.
The first camer maker to do this will be miles ahead!
--
G. Lassman
H
Henry Richardson
Guest
You may believe it, but can you point to any authoritative test to prove it? I have seen tests in Japanese photo magazines that indicated that Canon and Sony were very similarly effective with various lenses. Sometimes one was a bit better than the other, but neither one was clearly better.
I guess people who purchased the Canon 28-135mm IS 10 years ago with old IS technology are still waiting to do as you suggest and upgrade to new IS technology. Lenses rarely get updated. IS lenses get updated even more rarely. DSLRs get updated every couple of years or so and the in-body IS does too.
--
Henry Richardson
http://www.bakubo.com
H
Henry Richardson
Guest
It seems Canon IS requires time to stabilize and work also:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=22585537
--
Henry Richardson
http://www.bakubo.com
H
Henry Richardson
Guest
When the term in-body is used it is for DSLR bodies. As far as I know, Sony doesn't even make a film SLR.
By the way, how well does the Canon 50mm f1.4 IS work on a Canon film SLR? I have been trying to find someone with first hand experience.
--
Henry Richardson
http://www.bakubo.com
H
Henry Richardson
Guest
If you don't think that you can compare the two Canon lenses then how in the world do you find it a valid comparison to compare totally different lenses from different companies? Doesn't make any sense using your own criteria.
--
Henry Richardson
http://www.bakubo.com
Leon Wittwer
Forum Pro
Over time, there has been many reports on this and most seem to favor the lens based system although the differences are not large.
Having said all this, camera based stabilization is a good thing as it increases the performance envelope of cameras that have it over not having it. Like a lot of things, in the stabilization business you pay more dollars, you get somewhat more performance. I expect that both Nikon and Canon will implement some sort of body based IS in their entry level DSLRs when and if they feel the competitive heat from other brands.
--
Leon
http://homepage.mac.com/leonwittwer/landscapes.htm
One article does not a conclusion make.
I am a PhD physicist and I disagree. I have looked at this. The extra displacement means that you can do a more accurate measurement of the motion (pitch and yaw). There is also no reason that there would be any more or less lag. If anything, the lens base system would be more responsive as it is moving less mass. In addition, the lens system can be tuned to the particular properties (mass distribution, dimensions, etc.) of the lens. A camera based stabilization system does not know, in general, the lens properties except for perhaps the lenses made by the same manufacturer. Then there are the advantages of stabilizing the image in the viewfinder and in the AF sensor system.
Having said all this, camera based stabilization is a good thing as it increases the performance envelope of cameras that have it over not having it. Like a lot of things, in the stabilization business you pay more dollars, you get somewhat more performance. I expect that both Nikon and Canon will implement some sort of body based IS in their entry level DSLRs when and if they feel the competitive heat from other brands.
--
Leon
http://homepage.mac.com/leonwittwer/landscapes.htm
N
neil holmes
Guest
Again actually no.
What there HAS been is lots of posts where people say exactly what you do, but how many proper actual comparison tests?
While it may very well be proveable that one is better than the other. I believe it comes down to the individual (everyone is different). I also believe (unsubstantiated opinion and all) that Canon only keeps it in lens to maintain existing value of and for their heavily spending customers and Nikon follows on this issue....if Canon changed Nikon would also.
I do not believe I could get any more stops with in lens than I can get with in body but since I do not have any in lense IS it is really not an issue.
In body at least appears to be value for money in any case.
neil
dkloi
Senior Member
Doesn't matter where you put an angular rate sensor on a rigid body. You don't think they use linear accelerometers?
Cheers,
Daniel.
Rod K
Well-known member
Whilst I understand that the OP is seeking a definitive answer to a genuine question, would it not be better to appreciate the technologies involved and purchase equipment according to one's needs / budgetary constraints? Can anyone prove conclusively that one system is better than the other, thereby rendering one system useless/inferior at a stroke ---- not going to happen.
Could I ask if anyone has (demonstrably or anecdotally ) LOST an image because they were using, or not using, IS of either kind at the time?
Regards, Rod.
Could I ask if anyone has (demonstrably or anecdotally ) LOST an image because they were using, or not using, IS of either kind at the time?
Regards, Rod.
J
Jon Ragnarsson
Guest
So, which one is the outdated one? And why does it matter?
Two lenses, from the same manufacturer, same specs, both considered the best zoom lenses money can buy. $600 for a IS? I can buy a DSLR for that price.
That means nothing. Sigma makes 70-200/2.8 too, and it only costs $900.
Sony is overpriced in any category, IMHO.
Now, that is a valid point.
--
http://www.4-3system.com
http://jonr.light.is
If I'm not mistaken Pentax doesn't use motors; the sensor is suspended in a magnetic field....
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum