Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Lens stabilization vs Camera stabilization

Reply
Thread Tools

Lens stabilization vs Camera stabilization

 
 
Aaron
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-07-2006
And lo, http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) <(E-Mail Removed)> emerged from the ether
and spake thus:
> jeremy wrote:
>
>> In 1973 a parallel was the introduction of cameras that automatically set
>> the exposure. Konica came out with the Autoreflex-T, which had a special
>> set of dedicated lenses with linkages which adjusted the aperture based on
>> instructions from the camera body.
>>
>> [snip]

>
> Are you just making this **** up? Trying to justify your
> impoverishment? Or what? Nothing you are saying is making any sense
> at all. Let me be blunt: in-camera IS (ICIS) systems for a DSLR are
> slam-dunk stupid. The entire point of an SLR is to "see what you are
> about to get", and this won't happen for ICIS for what should be
> obvious reasons. You can certainly build cameras that could use ICIS
> effectively ... but these won't be SLR's anymore. Indeed, you can
> inspect the offerings of most video camera companies for examples.
> Some of them even have interchangable lenses. Heck, Canon's high-end
> video gear can even accept EOS lenses with an adaptor.


That's a really good point, eawckyegcy; with in-camera IS on a true
SLR, you will never be able to look through the eyepiece and SEE how
much stabilization you're getting, unless the system magically jiggles
the mirror at the same time it's jiggling the sensor. What this seems
like, to me, is a needlessly complex solution that makes your camera
body all the more vulnerable to breakage. I don't really want anything
inside of my camera jiggling around on motors.

Image stabilization in general is delicious black magic, and it's a
wonder it works at all. I am certain that in-camera IS has its place
(remember Steady Shot?), and Canon has already introduced this in a
few P&S cameras. In my opinion, in-camera IS only has its place in the
consumer and lower end of the pro-am market. No professional will ever
want some magical motors jiggling things around inside their camera
that they can't see with their own eyes.

If you want to play around with half-assed in-camera IS, buy a
half-assed consumer camera. Professional-grade equipment, yielding the
best results that current technology can offer, will always cost a
premium and demand savvy users that understand how to make the best
use of it. You cannot *possibly* compare a 2-stop in-camera IS system
with (e.g.) Canon's 3-4-stop second-generation IS.

Just to be absolutely certain that jeremy understands what I'm saying,
I think that both in-camera and in-lens stabilization systems will
grow in abundance, but that their applications are fundamentally
divided into separate areas of the marketplace.

--
Aaron
http://www.fisheyegallery.com
http://www.singleservingphoto.com
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
John McWilliams
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-07-2006
Måns Rullgård wrote:
> "David J Taylor"
> <(E-Mail Removed)-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> writes:
>
>> Dan Sullivan wrote:
>>> jeremy wrote:
>>>
>>>> And, if future camera bodies incorporate improved IS, those
>>>> improvements will be transferred to all the images produced by all
>>>> of one's lenses. IS is still a developing feature and we should
>>>> expect to see improved performance as time goes on.
>>> Is software IS around the corner?
>>>
>>> Think about that!!!

>> I already have software IS in my Nikon Coolpix 8400.

>
> Software IS for still images is impossible.


Not on CSI!

I agree it's impossible now. And will never sub. for correct image
capturing, but some day we'll see software than can do a passable job of
salvaging some photos with camera shake.

--
John McWilliams

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
=?iso-8859-1?Q?M=E5ns_Rullg=E5rd?=
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-07-2006
John McWilliams <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> "David J Taylor"
>> <(E-Mail Removed)-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> writes:
>>
>>> Dan Sullivan wrote:
>>>> jeremy wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> And, if future camera bodies incorporate improved IS, those
>>>>> improvements will be transferred to all the images produced by all
>>>>> of one's lenses. IS is still a developing feature and we should
>>>>> expect to see improved performance as time goes on.
>>>> Is software IS around the corner?
>>>>
>>>> Think about that!!!
>>> I already have software IS in my Nikon Coolpix 8400.

>> Software IS for still images is impossible.

>
> Not on CSI!
>
> I agree it's impossible now. And will never sub. for correct image
> capturing, but some day we'll see software than can do a passable job
> of salvaging some photos with camera shake.


I suppose if the camera shake during the exposure was recorded, the
exact shake pattern could be used with a deconvolution algorithm to
give better results than guessing the shake would. I still don't
think it would replace a stable capture in the first place.

--
Måns Rullgård
(E-Mail Removed)
 
Reply With Quote
 
Kennedy McEwen
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-07-2006
In article <(E-Mail Removed). com>, Dan
Sullivan <(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>
>jeremy wrote:
>
>> And, if future camera bodies incorporate improved IS, those improvements
>> will be transferred to all the images produced by all of one's lenses. IS
>> is still a developing feature and we should expect to see improved
>> performance as time goes on.

>
>Is software IS around the corner?
>

No - once the image has been captured blurred, software IS can only fix
it by deconvolution with the blur PSF, which will ALWAYS be at the
expense of noise. While software IS is a useful technique for
scientific or evidential images, it isn't a general purpose IS
technology with the capabilities of in-lens or in-camera IS, and there
are certain laws of physics (actually the underlying mathematics) that
mean it never can be.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
 
Reply With Quote
 
jeremy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-07-2006
"Aaron" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...

>>
>> Are you just making this **** up? Trying to justify your
>> impoverishment? Or what? Nothing you are saying is making any sense
>> at all. Let me be blunt: in-camera IS (ICIS) systems for a DSLR are
>> slam-dunk stupid. The entire point of an SLR is to "see what you are
>> about to get", and this won't happen for ICIS for what should be
>> obvious reasons. You can certainly build cameras that could use ICIS
>> effectively ... but these won't be SLR's anymore. Indeed, you can
>> inspect the offerings of most video camera companies for examples.
>> Some of them even have interchangable lenses. Heck, Canon's high-end
>> video gear can even accept EOS lenses with an adaptor.

>
> That's a really good point, eawckyegcy; with in-camera IS on a true
> SLR, you will never be able to look through the eyepiece and SEE how
> much stabilization you're getting, unless the system magically jiggles
> the mirror at the same time it's jiggling the sensor.


Check his profile on Google and you will see that he has written many
THOSANDS of posts, most of which were insulting.

I plonked him. Technology is good.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Skip
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-08-2006



"Dan Sullivan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:TyWdh.11$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Skip wrote:
>> "Dan Sullivan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...
>>
>> Måns Rullgård wrote:
>>
>> > I didn't even think of that difference. It quite obvious though, now
>> > that you mention it. I suppose it would be possible to make a body
>> > with stabilized focus sensors, but I doubt that's how they do it.
>> >
>> > Another aspect is the useful lifetime of lenses and body. A digital
>> > body is obsoleted much sooner than a lens. Putting IS in the lens
>> > means you don't need to pay for it every time you upgrade the body.
>> > Over 10 years, which are you likely to buy more of, lenses or bodies?
>> > 20 years? Many of the top end Canon lenses have been around for quite
>> > a few years now.

>>
>> >If you haven't noticed the cost of in camera stabilization in the
>> >Pentax DSLR cameras is about $70.

>>
>>
>> Well, if you count each body I've had my 28-135 IS on as an additional

> $70,
>> that would be $420, or about what the lens itself cost. And none of the

> IS
>> would be as effective as the IS on the 70-200 f2.8L IS.

>
> Eventually the cost will come down even more..
>
> But you forget the ICIS also works on all the lenses you use that don't
> have
> ILIS.
>
> All those sharper/better pictures have to be worth something....correct?
>

But not as well as in lens does. And I'm not convinced on the efficacy of
IS on a 15mm fisheye...
And if I divide the cost difference of say the 70-200 f2.8 and the IS
version by $70x the number of cameras I've had that the lens would mount on,
the cost comes down, somewhat.

--
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
www.pbase.com/skipm


 
Reply With Quote
 
Skip
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-08-2006
And don't forget the possibility of in camera IS affecting focus, as someone
else mentioned...

--
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
www.pbase.com/skipm
"


 
Reply With Quote
 
Kennedy McEwen
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-08-2006
So I'll use nothing, thanks.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
 
Reply With Quote
 
Little Juice Coupe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-08-2006
Ah, the same choice you made when god asked if you wanted a brain. She said
nothing works better than a brain and so you took nothing!

LJC


"Kennedy McEwen" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:$(E-Mail Removed)...
> So I'll use nothing, thanks.
> --
> Kennedy
> Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
> A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
> Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when
> replying)



 
Reply With Quote
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-08-2006
Måns Rullgård wrote:
[]
> I suppose if the camera shake during the exposure was recorded, the
> exact shake pattern could be used with a deconvolution algorithm to
> give better results than guessing the shake would. I still don't
> think it would replace a stable capture in the first place.


Never say "impossible"! In this case, deconvolution may be able to handle
the still image shake problem to a degree, although I agree completely
that stabilisation before capture is far preferable. Simple deshake
software is already freely available....

David


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Image stabilization in body, camera held by lens? Paul Ciszek Digital Photography 5 06-08-2012 05:02 AM
Re: Nikon Sues Sigma Over Lens Stabilization Patent - Photography Bay nospam Digital Photography 3 05-27-2011 06:35 PM
Point and Shoot with wide angle lens (28mm min), optical or electronicviewfinder, image-stabilization, and support for external flash (hot shoeor wireless) SMS 斯蒂文• 倏 Digital Photography 4 11-21-2007 09:00 PM
Swivel lcd + lens stabilization + high optical zoom Norm Digital Photography 7 09-20-2004 04:34 PM
Image Stabilization - What Lens Has This for D70 Alan Wonsowski Digital Photography 14 05-30-2004 03:48 PM



Advertisments