Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

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

Reply
Thread Tools

Lens stabilization vs Camera stabilization

 
 
Dan Sullivan
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-06-2006

Aaron wrote:
> Al Clark wrote:
> > I'm about to order an expensive Canon lens with IS, but I wonder if

> Canon
> > won't soon join the other manufacturers and put out a decent DSLR with
> > stabilization built into the camera. If I thought they were, I might

> put off
> > my lens purchase, later buying the new camera and a non-IS lens (saving
> > about $400 on the lens). Any Comments?

>
> Perhaps I'm the only person who thought this, but when I saw the first
> advert in one of my photo mags for an in-camera image stabilization
> system (can't remember which camera it was), I thought the following:
> "Wow, cool. But who would be dumb enough to buy it?"
>
> Here are the reasons you don't want in-camera IS:
>
> 1. It cannot stabilize all lenses equally, due to their varying focal
> lengths and physical lengths.


Most people will only have an 18-55 and a 55-200, which would both be
fine for an in camera IS.

> 2. It increases the mechanical complexity of the camera body, making it
> all the more probable to break in the field.
>
> 3. IF your in-camera IS breaks, you either lose IS for every shot, or
> you lose the camera entirely, depending on how it works.


Chances are if the in cam IS fails, you'll just have a regular camera
till it's fixed.

> On the other
> hand, if you have lens-based IS, you can switch to another IS lens if
> you need to. This may be a burden, but it's better than nothing. If your
> lens-based IS fails, you have other lenses you can use until you get it
> fixed, some of which may also have IS.
>
> 4. What's the point of IS on a lens as fast as e.g. the Canon
> 16-35/2.8L, or even a more economical prime such as the 50/1.4? You
> could have spent that money on camera features, instead of in-camera IS.


Internal IS = about $70... and will get less expensive as time goes by.

> In other words, I think the lens-based IS is the overall best solution
> for the professional because each IS implementation is built for the
> lens it is inside of. Additionally, the extra money for IS lenses is
> easily justified, and there are often non-IS versions available if you
> want to use the "Gitzo/Manfrotto" stabilization method and save a few
> bucks.
>
> It's all about choice. I think in-camera IS will be a great feature for
> the mid-range consumers to pro-sumers, and may turn up inside of
> something like the 400D, but professionals will always want their IS to
> be in the lens. I sure do.


Eventually it will be a "must have" feature in all DSLRs.

Just wait!

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-06-2006
Dan Sullivan wrote:
[]
> Eventually it will be a "must have" feature in all DSLRs.
>
> Just wait!


I think you are right, but the arguments I have seen suggest that the lens
is a better place...

Cheers,
David


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Dan Sullivan
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-06-2006

David J Taylor wrote:
> Dan Sullivan wrote:
> []
> > Eventually it will be a "must have" feature in all DSLRs.
> >
> > Just wait!

>
> I think you are right, but the arguments I have seen suggest that the lens
> is a better place...
>
> Cheers,
> David


If internal lens IS is a saleable/better feature (and it is), you can
bet it will continue to be available... and continue to GROW!

Five years from now we'll all be laughing at the dinosaur crap that's
out today.

That's the way it is and that's the way it will be.

Fromage, Dan

 
Reply With Quote
 
eawckyegcy@yahoo.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-06-2006
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.
>
> Asahi Pentax introduced the ES, which had all of the automation built into
> the camera. Any lens could be used for automatic exposure operation,
> because the camera adjusted the shutter speed, rather than required the use
> of special lenses.
>
> The Pentax advantages were obvious: photographers did not have to replace
> their existing lenses. The Konica Autoreflex-T was not a market success.


What the **** are you babbling about? Unless you are willing to place
some object within the path of the light -- which has obvious optical
impacts -- the lens can't sense the amount of light passing through it.
Even if there was no optical impact, the camera body already has this
"object in the path of the light"; why use two?

> Pentax has introduced a similar system in their digital camera line--the
> anti-shake is built into the camera, and the user may input information
> about specific lenses (even older manual focus ones). The camera does the
> rest. If I were going to buy into an IS system I think I'd go the Pentax
> route rather than pay for IS in each individual lens. Why carry some lenses
> that had IS along with other lenses that did not have it? It might take
> years to acquire all the IS lenses one wants.


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.

 
Reply With Quote
 
eawckyegcy@yahoo.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-06-2006
Dan Sullivan wrote:

> If internal lens IS is a saleable/better feature (and it is), you can
> bet it will continue to be available... and continue to GROW!
>
> Five years from now we'll all be laughing at the dinosaur crap that's
> out today.
>
> That's the way it is and that's the way it will be.


If your engineering acumen is any indication of your ability to predict
the future, it's time to start shorting Pentax.

 
Reply With Quote
 
jeremy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-06-2006

<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) ups.com...
>
> What the **** are you babbling about?


Was I talking to you, or were you just born emotionally challenged?

Plonk you, asshole!


 
Reply With Quote
 
Dan Sullivan
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-06-2006

http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> Dan Sullivan wrote:
>
> > If internal lens IS is a saleable/better feature (and it is), you can
> > bet it will continue to be available... and continue to GROW!
> >
> > Five years from now we'll all be laughing at the dinosaur crap that's
> > out today.
> >
> > That's the way it is and that's the way it will be.

>
> If your engineering acumen is any indication of your ability to predict
> the future, it's time to start shorting Pentax.


Did I say I'm an engineer?

Please explain your post... and add a few of your predictions.

 
Reply With Quote
 
eawckyegcy@yahoo.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-06-2006
Dan Sullivan wrote:

> > If your engineering acumen is any indication of your ability to predict
> > the future, it's time to start shorting Pentax.

>
> Did I say I'm an engineer?
>
> Please explain your post... and add a few of your predictions.


My sincere apologies, Mr. Sullivan: I stupidly confused your rant with
that of this "jeremy" dingbat. I still think you are woefully wrong,
but at least you haven't uttered total bullshit while stating your
position.

 
Reply With Quote
 
eawckyegcy@yahoo.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-06-2006
jeremy wrote:

> > What the **** are you babbling about?

>
> Was I talking to you, or were you just born emotionally challenged?


No, you weren't talking to me: you were posting to a world-wide USENET
forum. Remember? It has a number of properties, one being that anyone
can respond to your drivel at their leisure. Can't take the heat?
Leave the lab.

> Plonk you, asshole!


I am so utterly, completely, crushed. Plonked by yet another nitwit.
How will I ever endure the pain?

 
Reply With Quote
 
Dan Sullivan
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-06-2006

(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> Dan Sullivan wrote:
>
> > > If your engineering acumen is any indication of your ability to predict
> > > the future, it's time to start shorting Pentax.

> >
> > Did I say I'm an engineer?
> >
> > Please explain your post... and add a few of your predictions.

>
> My sincere apologies, Mr. Sullivan: I stupidly confused your rant with
> that of this "jeremy" dingbat. I still think you are woefully wrong,
> but at least you haven't uttered total bullshit while stating your
> position.


What am I "woefully wrong" about?

 
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• 夏 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