Lens stabilization vs Camera stabilization

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Al Clark, Nov 30, 2006.

  1. "J. Clarke" <> writes:

    > On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 13:07:56 -0800, Dan Sullivan wrote:
    >
    >> Haydon wrote:
    >>> OK, I give up. I should have put the word Canon in the first line as well.
    >>> However, it isn't rocket science mate, when the original post was referring
    >>> to Canon, and my post was obviously also referring to Canon too.

    >>
    >> Not a problem.
    >>
    >> But I mentioned the Pentax cameras because a complete K100D kit, with a
    >> very well made 18-55 is about $600 in the US.
    >>
    >> And any lens placed on the camera is image stabilized.

    >
    > Is that in fact the case? How does it know that you've got a 600 on the
    > camera and not a 6 unless there is some communication between the lens and
    > the body that provide this information?


    The lens communicates focal length, and other parameters, to the body
    for other reasons anyway. More of a concern is that detecting the
    motion in the lens should be easier since, especially for a long lens,
    it will be much greater than the body motion.

    > Or is the stabilization algorithm based on image analysis rather
    > than inertial sensing and focal-length-based calculation?


    That type of image stabilization is found on video cameras, where it
    is used to reduce the effect of large-scale inter-frame shake. Image
    stabilization as found on still cameras is meant to reduce blur from
    vibrations during a single exposure. This can only be done
    mechanically.

    --
    Måns Rullgård
     
    =?iso-8859-1?Q?M=E5ns_Rullg=E5rd?=, Nov 30, 2006
    #21
    1. Advertising

  2. Al Clark

    Haydon Guest

    No chance in the near future for CANON DSLR's.

    Look a this photo (and the choice of camera/lens is...):
    http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=33wo4gh

    You must remember that Canon are unmatched in the DSLR market and this is
    for a reason. They can be improved, of course, but not by some other
    manufacturer's marketing department trying to take their sales without
    producing something truly spectacular (and I am not talking about megapixel
    bollox).

    Nikon are the only manufacturer who may be able to give Canon a run for
    their money if they were to spend a huge amount of money, even then I don't
    think they would get the huge amount of Canon users to switch, as they have
    already invested their money in Canon products that they are very happy
    with. And vice versa.

    Don't get me wrong, in-camera IS is a great idea as it reduces the cost and
    weight of lenses, however Canon as pioneers of IS have invested too much in
    lens IS to back down, especially when they don't need to. Also, they have a
    duty to their huge amount of customers that have invested in IS lenses, not
    to stitch them up by making them worthless all of a sudden by introducing
    body IS.


    "Dan Sullivan" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    >
    > And Canon, being a competitive company in a competitive industry, will
    > certainly consider in-camera IS.
    >
    > It's just a matter of time.
    >
     
    Haydon, Dec 1, 2006
    #22
    1. Advertising

  3. Al Clark

    J. Clarke Guest

    On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 23:59:33 +0000, Måns Rullgård wrote:

    > "J. Clarke" <> writes:
    >
    >> On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 13:07:56 -0800, Dan Sullivan wrote:
    >>
    >>> Haydon wrote:
    >>>> OK, I give up. I should have put the word Canon in the first line as well.
    >>>> However, it isn't rocket science mate, when the original post was referring
    >>>> to Canon, and my post was obviously also referring to Canon too.
    >>>
    >>> Not a problem.
    >>>
    >>> But I mentioned the Pentax cameras because a complete K100D kit, with a
    >>> very well made 18-55 is about $600 in the US.
    >>>
    >>> And any lens placed on the camera is image stabilized.

    >>
    >> Is that in fact the case? How does it know that you've got a 600 on the
    >> camera and not a 6 unless there is some communication between the lens and
    >> the body that provide this information?

    >
    > The lens communicates focal length, and other parameters, to the body
    > for other reasons anyway. More of a concern is that detecting the
    > motion in the lens should be easier since, especially for a long lens,
    > it will be much greater than the body motion.


    So it doesn't work with _any_ lens, just those that are designed for that
    system? I couldn't put an old manual focus Nikkor on it or whatever and
    have IS?

    >> Or is the stabilization algorithm based on image analysis rather than
    >> inertial sensing and focal-length-based calculation?

    >
    > That type of image stabilization is found on video cameras, where it is
    > used to reduce the effect of large-scale inter-frame shake. Image
    > stabilization as found on still cameras is meant to reduce blur from
    > vibrations during a single exposure. This can only be done mechanically.


    >


    --
    --John
    to email, dial "usenet" and validate
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
     
    J. Clarke, Dec 1, 2006
    #23
  4. Al Clark

    SimonLW Guest

    "Al Clark" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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?
    >

    Probably not anytime soon. If they start getting hammered by the
    competition, who knows what Canon will do. If Lens IS really can outperform
    body IS, I can see them staying with lens IS.

    Full frame 36x24mm across the dSLR camera line is probably on the horizon,
    If moving this big sensor around (over twice the area of APS sensor) and
    allowing 3 or 4 stops of hand holdability, It could be a reality.
    -S
     
    SimonLW, Dec 1, 2006
    #24
  5. Al Clark

    Dan Sullivan Guest

    Phil Wheeler wrote:
    > Dan Sullivan wrote:
    > > Phil Wheeler wrote:
    > >> If you read to the bottom, you will see the
    > >> original question related to Canon DSLRs.
    > >>
    > >> Phil

    > >
    > > No harm was done by what I posted.
    > >
    > > Just info.
    > >
    > > And Canon, being a competitive company in a competitive industry, will
    > > certainly consider in-camera IS.
    > >
    > > It's just a matter of time.
    > >

    >
    > A very long time, I suspect. They have a very big
    > commitment to IS lenses .. and their system is
    > outstanding.
    >
    > Phil


    And they can still make 3-4 stop IS lenses.

    But when they start to believe the competition is cutting into their
    business with internal IS, they have to react.

    That's why it's called "the competition."
     
    Dan Sullivan, Dec 1, 2006
    #25
  6. Al Clark

    Annika1980 Guest

    Haydon wrote:
    > No chance in the near future for CANON DSLR's.
    >
    > Look a this photo (and the choice of camera/lens is...):
    > http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=33wo4gh


    There's like one guy in that pic with a Nikon.
    He must feel like he showed up at a formal dinner party wearing a tank
    top and flip-flops.
     
    Annika1980, Dec 1, 2006
    #26
  7. Al Clark

    Steve Wolfe Guest

    > 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?


    In-camera IS only works at shorter focal lengths. As your lens gets
    longer, the sensor would have to move much further to keep up with
    lens-based IS. On a 400mm lens, you'd have to move that sensor 1/4" in
    order to keep up with Canon's lens-based system, and that's just not going
    to happen. If you're going to stick to shorter focal lengths, in-body works
    well.

    steve
     
    Steve Wolfe, Dec 1, 2006
    #27
  8. Haydon wrote:

    > Don't get me wrong, in-camera IS is a great idea as it reduces the cost and
    > weight of lenses, however Canon as pioneers of IS have invested too much in
    > lens IS to back down, especially when they don't need to. Also, they have a
    > duty to their huge amount of customers that have invested in IS lenses, not
    > to stitch them up by making them worthless all of a sudden by introducing
    > body IS.


    I was thinking that, too, until I realized that if they make a new body
    with IS, you could switch it off, just as I can on my Sony. Not sure if
    you can switch it off on the lens as well, but I expect you should be
    able to, and for the same reasons. Sometimes IS is not called for. So,
    you would have your choice of lens or body IS, and you would be able to
    buy non-IS lenses from then on. All it would hurt would be Canon's IS
    lens market.

    Gary Eickmeier
     
    Gary Eickmeier, Dec 1, 2006
    #28
  9. Al Clark

    Annika1980 Guest

    Gary Eickmeier wrote:
    >
    > I was thinking that, too, until I realized that if they make a new body
    > with IS, you could switch it off, just as I can on my Sony. Not sure if
    > you can switch it off on the lens as well, but I expect you should be
    > able to, and for the same reasons. Sometimes IS is not called for. So,
    > you would have your choice of lens or body IS, and you would be able to
    > buy non-IS lenses from then on. All it would hurt would be Canon's IS
    > lens market.


    And that's exactly why it'll never happen. Not from Canon, anyway.
    For true camera stabilization look to something like this:

    http://www.ken-lab.com/stabilizers.html#KS8
     
    Annika1980, Dec 1, 2006
    #29
  10. Steve Wolfe wrote:


    > In-camera IS only works at shorter focal lengths. As your lens gets
    > longer, the sensor would have to move much further to keep up with
    > lens-based IS. On a 400mm lens, you'd have to move that sensor 1/4" in
    > order to keep up with Canon's lens-based system, and that's just not going
    > to happen. If you're going to stick to shorter focal lengths, in-body works
    > well.


    But we already know that IS can't cope with extreme movements. If the
    problem were that bad, you would certainly use a tripod, for that plus
    other reasons. The in-camera IS is mainly for hand-held shooting with
    normal lenses.

    Gary Eickmeier
     
    Gary Eickmeier, Dec 1, 2006
    #30
  11. Al Clark

    Dan Sullivan Guest

    Annika1980 wrote:
    > Gary Eickmeier wrote:
    > >
    > > I was thinking that, too, until I realized that if they make a new body
    > > with IS, you could switch it off, just as I can on my Sony. Not sure if
    > > you can switch it off on the lens as well, but I expect you should be
    > > able to, and for the same reasons. Sometimes IS is not called for. So,
    > > you would have your choice of lens or body IS, and you would be able to
    > > buy non-IS lenses from then on. All it would hurt would be Canon's IS
    > > lens market.

    >
    > And that's exactly why it'll never happen. Not from Canon, anyway.


    Never???

    Don't bet on it.
     
    Dan Sullivan, Dec 1, 2006
    #31
  12. Al Clark

    Skip Guest

    "Haydon" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Uh? I think you missed the words 'Canon' in both the original post and in
    > my reply.
    >
    >


    Ahem, he missed it in your reply because you didn't type it in your reply.
    "There is a very little chance of in-camera IS on DSLR's." Notice the lack
    of "Canon" in that sentence?

    --
    Skip Middleton
    www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
    www.pbase.com/skipm
     
    Skip, Dec 1, 2006
    #32
  13. Al Clark

    Phil Wheeler Guest

    Skip wrote:
    > "Haydon" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Uh? I think you missed the words 'Canon' in both the original post and in
    >> my reply.
    >>
    >>

    >
    > Ahem, he missed it in your reply because you didn't type it in your reply.
    > "There is a very little chance of in-camera IS on DSLR's." Notice the lack
    > of "Canon" in that sentence?
    >



    Good lord: Who really cares?

    Phil
     
    Phil Wheeler, Dec 1, 2006
    #33
  14. Al Clark

    Skip Guest

    "Dan Sullivan" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > Annika1980 wrote:
    >> Gary Eickmeier wrote:
    >> >
    >> > I was thinking that, too, until I realized that if they make a new body
    >> > with IS, you could switch it off, just as I can on my Sony. Not sure if
    >> > you can switch it off on the lens as well, but I expect you should be
    >> > able to, and for the same reasons. Sometimes IS is not called for. So,
    >> > you would have your choice of lens or body IS, and you would be able to
    >> > buy non-IS lenses from then on. All it would hurt would be Canon's IS
    >> > lens market.

    >>
    >> And that's exactly why it'll never happen. Not from Canon, anyway.

    >
    > Never???
    >
    > Don't bet on it.
    >

    Certainly not soon enough for the OP to worry about his next camera
    purchase. I'd be willing to guess that both Nikon and Canon will wait a
    long, long time before introducing in-camera stabilization. Especially
    since nobody has shown that it is as effective as lens based stabilization.

    --
    Skip Middleton
    www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
    www.pbase.com/skipm
     
    Skip, Dec 1, 2006
    #34
  15. Al Clark

    Skip Guest

    "Haydon" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > LOL. I was thinking the same thing!
    >
    >
    > "embee" <> wrote in message
    > news:eknf3q$cme$...
    >>
    >> As an aside, does anybody know what would happen if you left lens IS
    >> switched on while using a body which also has IS switched on?
    >>
    >> Just wondered......
    >>

    >
    >

    I've sort of wondered that, too.

    --
    Skip Middleton
    www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
    www.pbase.com/skipm
     
    Skip, Dec 1, 2006
    #35
  16. Al Clark

    Skip Guest

    "Gary Eickmeier" <> wrote in message
    news:mJNbh.3045$%...
    >
    >
    > Steve Wolfe wrote:
    >
    >
    >> In-camera IS only works at shorter focal lengths. As your lens gets
    >> longer, the sensor would have to move much further to keep up with
    >> lens-based IS. On a 400mm lens, you'd have to move that sensor 1/4" in
    >> order to keep up with Canon's lens-based system, and that's just not
    >> going to happen. If you're going to stick to shorter focal lengths,
    >> in-body works well.

    >
    > But we already know that IS can't cope with extreme movements. If the
    > problem were that bad, you would certainly use a tripod, for that plus
    > other reasons. The in-camera IS is mainly for hand-held shooting with
    > normal lenses.
    >
    > Gary Eickmeier


    You'd be surprised at the movement possible to a very long (400mm+) lens on
    a tripod. Think about gusting wind, vibrating bridges, things like that.
    And a lot of sport shooters use a monopod, which is still aided by IS.

    --
    Skip Middleton
    www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
    www.pbase.com/skipm
     
    Skip, Dec 1, 2006
    #36
  17. "Skip" <> writes:

    > "Gary Eickmeier" <> wrote in message
    > news:mJNbh.3045$%...
    >>
    >>
    >> Steve Wolfe wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>> In-camera IS only works at shorter focal lengths. As your lens gets
    >>> longer, the sensor would have to move much further to keep up with
    >>> lens-based IS. On a 400mm lens, you'd have to move that sensor 1/4" in
    >>> order to keep up with Canon's lens-based system, and that's just not
    >>> going to happen. If you're going to stick to shorter focal lengths,
    >>> in-body works well.

    >>
    >> But we already know that IS can't cope with extreme movements. If the
    >> problem were that bad, you would certainly use a tripod, for that plus
    >> other reasons. The in-camera IS is mainly for hand-held shooting with
    >> normal lenses.
    >>
    >> Gary Eickmeier

    >
    > You'd be surprised at the movement possible to a very long (400mm+) lens on
    > a tripod. Think about gusting wind, vibrating bridges, things like that.
    > And a lot of sport shooters use a monopod, which is still aided by IS.


    Isn't the general advice to switch off IS when using a tripod, in
    order to avoid vibration feedback loops between the tripod and the IS
    or something like that? Some lenses are even supposed to detect when
    tripod mounted, and automatically disable IS.

    --
    Måns Rullgård
     
    =?iso-8859-1?Q?M=E5ns_Rullg=E5rd?=, Dec 1, 2006
    #37
  18. Al Clark

    Skip Guest

    "Måns Rullgård" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "Skip" <> writes:
    >
    >> "Gary Eickmeier" <> wrote in message
    >> news:mJNbh.3045$%...
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Steve Wolfe wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> In-camera IS only works at shorter focal lengths. As your lens gets
    >>>> longer, the sensor would have to move much further to keep up with
    >>>> lens-based IS. On a 400mm lens, you'd have to move that sensor 1/4" in
    >>>> order to keep up with Canon's lens-based system, and that's just not
    >>>> going to happen. If you're going to stick to shorter focal lengths,
    >>>> in-body works well.
    >>>
    >>> But we already know that IS can't cope with extreme movements. If the
    >>> problem were that bad, you would certainly use a tripod, for that plus
    >>> other reasons. The in-camera IS is mainly for hand-held shooting with
    >>> normal lenses.
    >>>
    >>> Gary Eickmeier

    >>
    >> You'd be surprised at the movement possible to a very long (400mm+) lens
    >> on
    >> a tripod. Think about gusting wind, vibrating bridges, things like that.
    >> And a lot of sport shooters use a monopod, which is still aided by IS.

    >
    > Isn't the general advice to switch off IS when using a tripod, in
    > order to avoid vibration feedback loops between the tripod and the IS
    > or something like that? Some lenses are even supposed to detect when
    > tripod mounted, and automatically disable IS.
    >
    > --
    > Måns Rullgård
    >


    Only on older IS, the long teles and the 70-200 f2.8 IS don't have this
    recommendation. Those lenses don't detect a tripod, they detect a lack of
    movement. The IS elements tend to move, sort of searching for movement that
    sometimes isn't there. Not because there is some sort of interface between
    the lens and the tripod. And turning off IS was only recommended because it
    was assumed that there would be no movement of the lens on a tripod. I have
    images that attest otherwise.
    And there's still the use of a monopod.

    --
    Skip Middleton
    www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
    www.pbase.com/skipm
     
    Skip, Dec 1, 2006
    #38
  19. Al Clark

    ASAAR Guest

    On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 20:31:52 -0000, embee wrote:

    > As an aside, does anybody know what would happen if you left lens IS
    > switched on while using a body which also has IS switched on?


    If they were two completely independent systems, the overall IS
    would probably suffer. If designed intelligently, each system
    providing some feedback to the other, a cooperative IS system could
    probably handle more camera movement (greater excursions) than
    either method when used alone.

    If this is the case, Canon and Nikon owners of IS/VR lenses would
    have no reason to fear the devaluation of their old lenses by the
    introduction of IS/VR into new camera bodies. And Canon and Nikon
    could continue offering new lenses, some with, some without it,
    since having IS/VR both in body and lens would provide the best
    performance.
     
    ASAAR, Dec 1, 2006
    #39
  20. Al Clark

    Prometheus Guest

    In article <YVObh.293$>, Skip <>
    writes
    >"Haydon" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> LOL. I was thinking the same thing!
    >>
    >>
    >> "embee" <> wrote in message
    >> news:eknf3q$cme$...
    >>>
    >>> As an aside, does anybody know what would happen if you left lens IS
    >>> switched on while using a body which also has IS switched on?
    >>>
    >>> Just wondered......

    >>

    >I've sort of wondered that, too.


    I would expect that any system which supports both would not permit you
    to have both active.

    --
    Ian G8ILZ
     
    Prometheus, Dec 1, 2006
    #40
    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. Alan Wonsowski

    Image Stabilization - What Lens Has This for D70

    Alan Wonsowski, May 24, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    2,333
  2. Norm
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    427
    David J Taylor
    Sep 20, 2004
  3. nospam
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    295
    nospam
    May 27, 2011
  4. David J Taylor

    Re: Macro lens without image stabilization: foolish purchase?

    David J Taylor, Oct 2, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    62
    Views:
    1,130
    John Turco
    Nov 12, 2011
  5. Paul Ciszek

    Image stabilization in body, camera held by lens?

    Paul Ciszek, Jun 4, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    541
    Chris Malcolm
    Jun 8, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page