Why No D-SLR In-Camera Stabilization

[Jay Turberville]

If you really think I am telling you to "F"-off in other words,
then you are of course free to not respond, however I assure you
that that was not my intention and that such a negative reading of
my entire post is unwarranted.

I also often have a problem with the way Joe treats people in his posts. But frankly, the "whatever" subject line is very dismissive since that context seems to imply that you are dismissing his comments. See definition 10 here.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/whatever

--
Jay Turberville
http://www.jayandwanda.com

 

[dkloi]

I also often have a problem with the way Joe treats people in his
posts. But frankly, the "whatever" subject line is very dismissive
since that context seems to imply that you are dismissing his
comments. See definition 10 here.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/whatever

Frankly, the post to which I was replying didn't have very much in it, certainly compared to what it replied to. I could have been more than equally justified in considering such a reply dismissive yet I replied in full and seeking more information. I guess the irony of my title was lost, it would have been far more appropriate for a more dismissive post. I feel as if some people willfully find offence when none is intended.

Cheers,
Daniel.

 

[Canoneyesed]

... the makers of in-camera stab. systems are , combined,
outselling both Nikon and Canon... NOT!

Just another example of how superior technology is outsold by
superior marketing.

And by "marketing" I mean more than just the quality of
advertising, but rather the control of distribution channels and
the brand loyalty of consumers who rather make excuses for why
their favorite brand doesn't have in-camera IS than admit that
another brand maybe has superior technology.

You make it sound like IS is the only technology to consider when buying a camera.

 

[Jay Turberville]

I also often have a problem with the way Joe treats people in his
posts. But frankly, the "whatever" subject line is very dismissive
since that context seems to imply that you are dismissing his
comments. See definition 10 here.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/whatever

Frankly, the post to which I was replying didn't have very much in
it, certainly compared to what it replied to. I could have been
more than equally justified in considering such a reply dismissive
yet I replied in full and seeking more information. I guess the
irony of my title was lost, it would have been far more appropriate
for a more dismissive post. I feel as if some people willfully find
offence when none is intended.

He, in effect said, "I have direct knowledge about what camera makers use," and then you lead with "Whatever ...." If you intended no offense, then I think you need to work on your communications skills. Especially since you still don't seem to see the problem. When I want to get more information from others, I never start by being dismissive about what they just said. But hey, that's just me...

But I'll let you and Joe continue this if either of you cares. I just thought you might want to hear from an impartial outside observer. I have no dog in this fight.

--
Jay Turberville
http://www.jayandwanda.com

 

[heskaz]

A lens based system aims the gun to hit the target, a sensor based
system moves the target around to try and catch the bullets.

Bad analogy.

Lens based system alters the path of the bullet while it's flying in the air, sensor based system moves the target.

 

[SLove]

It is not true that Nikon and Canon still make film cameras!

While both have a supply of film cameras to is supposed to last a
few years . . . they presently are no longer manufacturing them!

Does that mean that the Nikon FM10 is not being manufactured either? After all, it is (was?) made by Cosina. If so, it means that I will have to contact Kiev Arsenal for the cameras of my future nuclear fallout shelters. (They make the Kiev 19M, which has Nikon F AI-s bayonet.) ;-)

 

[Calico Cat]

Just another example of how superior technology is outsold by
superior marketing.

And by "marketing" I mean more than just the quality of
advertising, but rather the control of distribution channels and
the brand loyalty of consumers who rather make excuses for why
their favorite brand doesn't have in-camera IS than admit that
another brand maybe has superior technology.

You make it sound like IS is the only technology to consider when
buying a camera.

Ha ha. No, IS is not the only technology to consider. I never said that.

I did say that in-camera IS is superior technology to lens-only based IS. After all, Canon could still add in-camera IS (which obviously doesn't cost that much considering that the E-510 sells for only $800), but chooses not to because it would rather rip off consumers on IS lenses which cost a lot more money.

 

[MusicDoctorDJ]

Does that mean that the Nikon FM10 is not being manufactured
either?

Thats right . . . they've been out of production for two or three years now.

However, from when Nikon announced that they were discontinuing (except for the F6), they mentioned the FM10 as a camera model that they had a planned 10 year supply to meet what is left of the film camera market (which isn't much nowadays).

--
J. Daniels
Colorful Colorado
Panasonic FZ10, FZ50 & Fuji S602Z owner & operator
Remember . . . always keep the box and everything that came in it!

 

[mutleybird]

Yet they defend to the death their intense reliance on default settings - out of the box. Not good. With DSLR's this is just completely not good.

It leads to simplistic judgements like gushing over the default settings of the D80, and saying that is what makes it better than the Pentax K10D, since its default settings are targeted to a different market as it is also a camera without scene modes unlike the D80 that is trying to cater to they type that needs/likes scene modes, etc.

Just not a good review in its intense bias, and occurs over and over again in their dslr tests where judging EVERYTHING based on default settings is VERY misleading and uninformative for an educated purchase.

Larry

Ken_5D wrote:

I rather like Cameralabs, they make obvious and useful comparisons,
as opposed to conjecture and opinion.
--
Riley

not everything that counts, can be counted

 

[MjDon]

I believe that in-camera stabilization is NOT as effective as lens
stabilization. It's as simple as that.

And that's just what Canon and Nikon want you to think. Mission accomplished.

 

[PeterQ]

I believe that in-camera stabilization is NOT as effective as lens stabilization. It's as simple as that.

You may believe what you like to believe, but it isn't that simple and not true.

As you might know, IS in the lens already existed when a lot of us were with FILM.
Never had in body IS with film.

And once there is IS in my lens I won't buy in body IS, because that would be a useless technical challenge creating more errors than advantages.

That's why I'm happy with in lens IS and my DSLR (and still with film too) and I expect a lot of fotog's do.

Be happy with what you like.
Cheers.
--
Enjoying to try making better images again and again and ...

 

[Marty4650]

I reported you to the moderator of DPReview for saying my comment
is dumb.

OK.... so maybe it was a tad insensitive to call you comment "dumb"... but I do think that Glen makes a very valid point.

You can buy a Pentax K100D and have instant access to hundreds of Pentax mount lenses that can now be "image stabilized" by the sensor shift in the body. Or, you can buy a Canon 400D and spend $10,000 more for a handful of Canon IS lenses.

It's your choice.

You might even make a good arguement that "in lens IS" is marginally better than "in body IS."

And I know people who upgrade bodies every two years, but use high quality 30 year old lenses. But... maybe there REALLY ARE folks who buy $1200 lenses and swap them out frequently to get "better in lens IS performance." Who knows? Anything is possible.

Gee.... am I the ONLY person on this forum who isn't a gazillionaire?

--
Marty
Panasonic FZ20,
Panasonic FZ7,
Olympus C7000,
Leica M3

 

[WillemB]

Camera shake will NOT give fuzzy pictures if the camera makes pure sliding movements in left-right (X-)direction, up-down (Y-)direction or forward-backward (Z-)direction. (That is to say, if the camera-subject distance is great enough, much farther than macro).

Pictures WILL be fuzzy if the camera makes a turning movement along the three axes during the take.

IS in a lens can compensate the resulting angle deviations in X- and Y- directions. Compensation of rotation vibration around the lens axis is not well possible at the moment IMO.

Theoretically, body IS cannot fully compensate vibrations because a certain deflection angle will result in different displacements over the surface of the sensor. From the centre of the sensor towards the corners, the displacement will progressively grow. Thus body IS will compensate for the mean displacement, while lens IS compensates fully. QED

WillemB

'A fanatic is a waverer who made a decision', G. Bomans

 

[BraveUlysses]

n/t
--
Rob

If you're bored...
http://braveulysses.deviantart.com/gallery
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

'Have the courage to be ignorant of a great number of things, in order to avoid the calamity of being ignorant of everything.' Sydney Smith (1771-1845)

 

[Michel J]

Try it you will love it. It work perfectly.

A100 image stabilization available FOR ALL OTHER BRANDS THAN SONY. Click here:

http://www.dealtime.co.uk/xPF-Avenger-Avenger-A100-HIGH-COMBO-STAND-W-LAZY-LEG

How it's possible?

--
Michel J

 

[Henry Richardson]

And I know people who upgrade bodies every two years, but use high
quality 30 year old lenses. But... maybe there REALLY ARE folks who
buy $1200 lenses and swap them out frequently to get "better in
lens IS performance." Who knows? Anything is possible.

I'm still waiting for someone to provide a history of Canon lenses where the lens has been reintroduced with better IS. For example:

70-200mm f2.8 IS
300mm f2.8 IS
300mm f4 IS
28-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS
etc.

How many versions of these lenses have been introduced with progressively better IS? Was it possible to upgrade to the new version with better IS every couple of years?

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

 

[Tom McCarty]

-- Big thread. Just to add an example

Panasonic has in body OIS on P&S from FZ 50 down the line
On the L1, in lens OIS

Might be due to the lens having a much more value to owners later on. Just look at the nice Leica lens that had to be left behind on the FZ20 and LC1, Digilux 2 etc

Can you buy a Leica Summicron for $200? Yes, but only if it is built in to a FZ20 body. Have the lens seperate and the lens is worth well over a grand

Many buy the L1 for the OIS lens

Bodies tend to lose out in the tech race. Lens keep on working even if the newer bodies wont work 100%.

Tom in Yorba Linda

 

[Rriley]

Camera shake will NOT give fuzzy pictures if the camera makes pure
sliding movements in left-right (X-)direction, up-down
(Y-)direction or forward-backward (Z-)direction. (That is to say,
if the camera-subject distance is great enough, much farther than
macro).
Pictures WILL be fuzzy if the camera makes a turning movement along
the three axes during the take.
IS in a lens can compensate the resulting angle deviations in X-
and Y- directions. Compensation of rotation vibration around the
lens axis is not well possible at the moment IMO.

my understanding there is a rotational component to IS, and this checks the 3 axis movement

Theoretically, body IS cannot fully compensate vibrations because a
certain deflection angle will result in different displacements
over the surface of the sensor. From the centre of the sensor
towards the corners, the displacement will progressively grow. Thus
body IS will compensate for the mean displacement, while lens IS
compensates fully. QED

this isnt true, it becomes a matter of minute angles of movement, and unless its macro this is smaller at the sensor than somewhere in the lens

to add to in lens woes, not only is the lens going to be heavier and more costly, that will be true for every lens in your kit

In lens is also limited by the mass it can move, usually limiting to apertures around F4 (but where this is acceptable for tele lens)

there is a case to suggest that FF sensors are going to be harder to move quickly and slower to respond (just as big lenses are) but as sensors get smaller, this is a fraction of that incumberance. As a result, Canon use in lens IS for FF, to the loss of APS C, who could use in body IS, but where Canon is committed because of the need for synergy across the group.

--
Riley

not everything that counts, can be counted

 

[andy ross]

On their older film cameras? My in lens IS works great on my film
camera...

Does in body IS allow for panning?

--
http://www.pbase.com/ewhalen

The new oly 510 has a panning is function. haven't used it though. Andy

 

[igelfeld]

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

I think it is debatable which one has less mass - a sensor or a glass element in the lens that gets moved with in-lens IS. The only lens property that the in-body IS system needs to know is the focal length. It is automatically acquired from the manufacturer's lens and is inputted manually by the user for any other lens.

The in-lens IS systems has advantage only for long focal lengths because there are limits as to how far the sensor can be moved in camera. For anything else it is a coin toss in terms of performance but a major hit to the wallet in case of the in-lens IS.

--
Cheers,

Igelfeld