Canon's IS, Nikon's VR, Panasonic's Mega OIS, Pentax's SR - Image stabilization

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by aniramca@yahoo.com, Jan 14, 2007.

  1. Guest

    Are they all different? or is it just a case of Coke vs. Pepsi?
    Any advantage or superiority of one over the others?
     
    , Jan 14, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!), Jan 14, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. M-M Guest

    In article <>,
    wrote:

    > Are they all different? or is it just a case of Coke vs. Pepsi?
    > Any advantage or superiority of one over the others?



    I think they are all very different, and you cannot say one camera's IS
    (VR) = another's.

    I believe it's like saying all cars are the same because they have 4
    wheels and get you where you are going.

    I have not read up on all of them but I know Nikon's VR will distinguish
    between many types of intentional and unintentional movement. I would
    like to see some comparisons.

    --
    m-m
     
    M-M, Jan 14, 2007
    #3
  4. In article <>,
    "Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!)" <> wrote:

    > On 14 Jan 2007 09:41:08 -0800, in rec.photo.digital
    > wrote:
    >
    > >Are they all different?

    >
    > Yes. In fact just for the Case of Nikon VR in slr lenses there are now
    > three different versions in the field.


    Indecision is the key to flexibility.

    --
    "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and
    carrying a cross."
    Sinclair Lewis
     
    Ockham's Razor, Jan 14, 2007
    #4
  5. Skip Guest

    Skip, Jan 15, 2007
    #5
  6. On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 17:39:09 -0500, in rec.photo.digital M-M
    <> wrote:

    >I have not read up on all of them but I know Nikon's VR will distinguish
    >between many types of intentional and unintentional movement. I would
    >like to see some comparisons.


    Not quite. in just the slr lenses themselves there would appear to be at
    least three different versions. There are at least two different versions
    just denoted as VR and now a new VRII has been offered. You can see
    differences in the original designation in different lenses by Nikon's
    recommendation as whether to use or not use VR on a tripod.

    http://support.nikontech.com/cgi-bi...2U9MSZwX3NlYXJjaF90ZXh0PXZy&p_li=&p_topview=1

    There were some graphs I recently found, on the .jp site I think, which
    also illustrated this, but I can't find the link just now.
    --
    Ed Ruf ()
    http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html
     
    Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!), Jan 15, 2007
    #6
  7. M-M Guest

    In article <>,
    "Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!)" <> wrote:

    > Nikon's
    > recommendation as whether to use or not use VR on a tripod.



    That page says my lens should have VR off when on a tripod. The manual
    that came with the lens says additionally it should be on if the tripod
    head is not secured.

    --
    m-m
     
    M-M, Jan 15, 2007
    #7
  8. Paul Mitchum Guest

    M-M <> wrote:

    > In article <>, "Ed Ruf (REPLY
    > to E-MAIL IN SIG!)" <> wrote:
    >
    > > Nikon's recommendation as whether to use or not use VR on a tripod.

    >
    > That page says my lens should have VR off when on a tripod. The manual
    > that came with the lens says additionally it should be on if the tripod
    > head is not secured.


    The point of these technologies is to reduce blurriness from camera
    shake. If the camera can't shake, the VR/SR/whatever will compensate for
    moving subjects, or subjects which the lens/camera thinks are moving.
    You typically don't want it to do that.
     
    Paul Mitchum, Jan 15, 2007
    #8
  9. M-M Guest

    In article <1hrzc0x.hh59znmjrkmnN%0m>,
    0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:

    > If the camera can't shake, the VR/SR/whatever will compensate for
    > moving subjects, or subjects which the lens/camera thinks are moving.
    > You typically don't want it to do that.



    I thought the VR/IS system responded strictly to camera movement, with
    subject movement having no influence.

    --
    m-m
     
    M-M, Jan 15, 2007
    #9
  10. M-M wrote:
    > In article <1hrzc0x.hh59znmjrkmnN%0m>,
    > 0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
    >
    >> If the camera can't shake, the VR/SR/whatever will compensate for
    >> moving subjects, or subjects which the lens/camera thinks are moving.
    >> You typically don't want it to do that.

    >
    >
    > I thought the VR/IS system responded strictly to camera movement, with
    > subject movement having no influence.


    Yes, for most systems, but the electronic image stabilisation used in
    movie cameras and some digital cameras (e.g. for video modes) does rely
    purely on the image from the sensor, and therefore could be fooled by
    subject movement.

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jan 16, 2007
    #10
  11. On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 11:58:01 -0800, in rec.photo.digital 0m
    (Paul Mitchum) wrote:

    >The point of these technologies is to reduce blurriness from camera
    >shake. If the camera can't shake, the VR/SR/whatever will compensate for
    >moving subjects, or subjects which the lens/camera thinks are moving.
    >You typically don't want it to do that.


    Just what implementation of image stabilization in still cameras
    compensates for subject motion? Nikon's does not.
    --
    Ed Ruf ()
    http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html
     
    Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!), Jan 16, 2007
    #11
  12. Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!) wrote:
    > On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 11:58:01 -0800, in rec.photo.digital
    > 0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
    >
    >> The point of these technologies is to reduce blurriness from camera
    >> shake. If the camera can't shake, the VR/SR/whatever will compensate
    >> for moving subjects, or subjects which the lens/camera thinks are
    >> moving. You typically don't want it to do that.

    >
    > Just what implementation of image stabilization in still cameras
    > compensates for subject motion? Nikon's does not.


    Nikon Coolpix 8400 in video mode, for one. It uses what it calls
    "electronic VR".

    If you make a movie of a group of people walking in the same direction you
    can see the VR sometimes moving with the people (so that the people are
    steady) and then jumping back (as its stabilisation limit is reached).

    Of course, you might call it a movie camera in that mode....

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jan 16, 2007
    #12
  13. On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 06:17:27 -0500, in rec.photo.digital "Ed Ruf (REPLY to
    E-MAIL IN SIG!)" <> wrote:

    >There were some graphs I recently found, on the .jp site I think, which
    >also illustrated this, but I can't find the link just now.


    Turned out these were from the pdf copies of the manuals for my lenses I
    recently dl'd from the Nikon USA site. The applicable pages have been
    excised here:
    http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/dSLR/pano/index.html
    --
    Ed Ruf ()
    http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html
     
    Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!), Jan 16, 2007
    #13
  14. Paul Mitchum Guest

    Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!) <> wrote:

    > On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 11:58:01 -0800, in rec.photo.digital 0m
    > (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
    >
    > >The point of these technologies is to reduce blurriness from camera
    > >shake. If the camera can't shake, the VR/SR/whatever will compensate for
    > >moving subjects, or subjects which the lens/camera thinks are moving. You
    > >typically don't want it to do that.

    >
    > Just what implementation of image stabilization in still cameras
    > compensates for subject motion? Nikon's does not.


    That's my point. If the camera's not shaking, then the IS system could
    be fooled by moving subjects. That's why manufacturers tell you to turn
    off IS if the camera's mounted on a tripod.
     
    Paul Mitchum, Jan 16, 2007
    #14
  15. Paul Mitchum Guest

    M-M <> wrote:

    > In article <1hrzc0x.hh59znmjrkmnN%0m>,
    > 0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
    >
    > > If the camera can't shake, the VR/SR/whatever will compensate for
    > > moving subjects, or subjects which the lens/camera thinks are moving.
    > > You typically don't want it to do that.

    >
    > I thought the VR/IS system responded strictly to camera movement, with
    > subject movement having no influence.


    Then the next time your camera is mounted on a tripod, leave the IS on
    and see what happens. :)
     
    Paul Mitchum, Jan 16, 2007
    #15
  16. acl Guest

    Re: Canon's IS, Nikon's VR, Panasonic's Mega OIS, Pentax's SR - Imagestabilization

    Paul Mitchum wrote:
    > Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!) <> wrote:
    >
    >>On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 11:58:01 -0800, in rec.photo.digital 0m
    >>(Paul Mitchum) wrote:
    >>
    >>>The point of these technologies is to reduce blurriness from camera
    >>>shake. If the camera can't shake, the VR/SR/whatever will compensate for
    >>>moving subjects, or subjects which the lens/camera thinks are moving. You
    >>>typically don't want it to do that.

    >>Just what implementation of image stabilization in still cameras
    >>compensates for subject motion? Nikon's does not.

    >
    > That's my point. If the camera's not shaking, then the IS system could
    > be fooled by moving subjects. That's why manufacturers tell you to turn
    > off IS if the camera's mounted on a tripod.


    Since most of those systems work by using gyroscopes (or some sort of
    accelerometer, let's not get hang up on terminology), they'll have a
    hard time detecting subject motion, I think.
     
    acl, Jan 16, 2007
    #16
  17. M-M Guest

    In article <1hs14ly.bf20102apag6N%0m>,
    0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:

    > Then the next time your camera is mounted on a tripod, leave the IS on
    > and see what happens. :)



    I did and nothing happened. Perhaps all IS systems are not alike.

    --
    m-m
     
    M-M, Jan 16, 2007
    #17
  18. On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 11:12:41 -0800, Paul Mitchum <0m> wrote:
    > Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!) <> wrote:
    >
    >> On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 11:58:01 -0800, in rec.photo.digital 0m
    >> (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
    >>
    >> >The point of these technologies is to reduce blurriness from camera
    >> >shake. If the camera can't shake, the VR/SR/whatever will compensate for
    >> >moving subjects, or subjects which the lens/camera thinks are moving. You
    >> >typically don't want it to do that.

    >>
    >> Just what implementation of image stabilization in still cameras
    >> compensates for subject motion? Nikon's does not.

    >
    > That's my point. If the camera's not shaking, then the IS system could
    > be fooled by moving subjects. That's why manufacturers tell you to turn
    > off IS if the camera's mounted on a tripod.


    Err, no. Your typical IS system works by having some sort of motion
    sensor, an accelerometer or something, measure the motion of the
    lens/camera, and move actuators to compensate. They would work just fine
    with the lens cap on on the camera. Or the shutter closed.

    Turning the IS off when tripod mounting is to prevent the IS system from
    going into some sort of runaway feedback loop based on spurious
    "vibrations" (from noise in the accelerometers or some such), and
    _adding_ vibrations rather than taking them away.

    -dms
     
    Daniel Silevitch, Jan 16, 2007
    #18
  19. J. Clarke Guest

    Re: Canon's IS, Nikon's VR, Panasonic's Mega OIS, Pentax's SR -Image stabilization

    On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 11:12:41 -0800, Paul Mitchum wrote:

    > Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!) <> wrote:
    >
    >> On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 11:58:01 -0800, in rec.photo.digital
    >> 0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
    >>
    >> >The point of these technologies is to reduce blurriness from camera
    >> >shake. If the camera can't shake, the VR/SR/whatever will compensate
    >> >for moving subjects, or subjects which the lens/camera thinks are
    >> >moving. You typically don't want it to do that.

    >>
    >> Just what implementation of image stabilization in still cameras
    >> compensates for subject motion? Nikon's does not.

    >
    > That's my point. If the camera's not shaking, then the IS system could
    > be fooled by moving subjects.


    How? The IS in most still cameras uses accelerometers and/or gyros to
    sense camera motion. Unless the subject is an apatosaurus shaking the
    ground or something there's no way for the subject to "fool" the IS.

    > That's why manufacturers tell you to turn off IS if the camera's mounted
    > on a tripod.


    More like the IS algorithms are predicated on a particular response curve
    (there's always lag in any feedback control system--it may be small but
    it's there) and the tripod by changing the system mass changes the response
    curve, possibly leading to overcorrection.

    --
    --John
    to email, dial "usenet" and validate
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
     
    J. Clarke, Jan 16, 2007
    #19
  20. Skip Guest

    "Paul Mitchum" <0m> wrote in message
    news:1hs14ly.bf20102apag6N%0m...
    > M-M <> wrote:
    >
    >> In article <1hrzc0x.hh59znmjrkmnN%0m>,
    >> 0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
    >>
    >> > If the camera can't shake, the VR/SR/whatever will compensate for
    >> > moving subjects, or subjects which the lens/camera thinks are moving.
    >> > You typically don't want it to do that.

    >>
    >> I thought the VR/IS system responded strictly to camera movement, with
    >> subject movement having no influence.

    >
    > Then the next time your camera is mounted on a tripod, leave the IS on
    > and see what happens. :)


    It depends on the lens. With Canon, the first generation of IS needed to be
    turned off when the lens/camera was on a tripod. The second (or third,
    depending on how you counted) did not.
    I have a 28-135 IS, part of the first gen. and I've seen the, ahem,
    interesting results when IS is left on using a tripod.

    --
    Skip Middleton
    www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
    www.pbase.com/skipm
     
    Skip, Jan 17, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Wright

    Canon Image Stabilization, DO, Lenses?

    Wright, Nov 14, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    17
    Views:
    517
    MarkH
    Nov 15, 2004
  2. MegaZoom + OIS + external flash supprt?

    , Oct 2, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    510
    Alturas
    Oct 5, 2005
  3. WannabeSomeone

    Fuji FinePix S9000 9 Mega Pixel Camera Came Out 17 Mega Pixel?

    WannabeSomeone, Nov 14, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    1,152
    WannabeSomeone
    Nov 14, 2005
  4. Al Clark

    Lens stabilization vs Camera stabilization

    Al Clark, Nov 30, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    119
    Views:
    1,902
    Dan Sullivan
    Dec 9, 2006
  5. Wally
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    625
    PeterN
    Oct 20, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page