Lens stabilization vs Camera stabilization

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

  1. Al Clark

    Steve Wolfe Guest

    >> 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.


    "We"? I certainly don't. Hand-holding a Canon 400mm lens with IS has
    worked amazingly well for me.

    steve
     
    Steve Wolfe, Dec 1, 2006
    #41
    1. Advertising

  2. Al Clark

    SteveB Guest

    I suspect that it's ANY lens, even if you've managed to get a Nikkor onto it
    (K100D/K10D). If you put a lens on that doesn't communicate, like an
    ancient M Pentax, then the camera will ask you what focal length you want
    for the image stabilisation and you scroll through a list and choose what
    you want up to 800mm. About the only downside I can think of is using old
    zoom lenses, obviously there's no single figure that's going to be optimum.



    "J. Clarke" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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)
     
    SteveB, Dec 1, 2006
    #42
    1. Advertising

  3. Al Clark

    SteveB Guest

    "Skip" <> wrote in message
    news:_UObh.289$...
    > 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


    What about when Pentax/Sony IS is better than Canon's or Nikon's?
    Canon/Nikon will have to do something new then.
    I think that day may have almost come anyway with the K10D from the results
    I've seen, although I'll grant C/N the advantage compared with the K100D.
     
    SteveB, Dec 1, 2006
    #43
  4. Al Clark

    J. Clarke Guest

    On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 08:48:13 +0000, SteveB wrote:

    > "Skip" <> wrote in message
    > news:_UObh.289$...
    >> 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

    >
    > What about when Pentax/Sony IS is better than Canon's or Nikon's?
    > Canon/Nikon will have to do something new then.


    If that ever happens, and if Pentax/Sony can produce the _rest_ of the
    system that Canon and Nikon produce.

    I use Canon not because of the excellence of the bodies but because
    there's so bloody much stuff that can be attached to them.

    > I think that day may have almost come anyway with the K10D from the
    > results I've seen, although I'll grant C/N the advantage compared with
    > the K100D.


    --
    --John
    to email, dial "usenet" and validate
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
     
    J. Clarke, Dec 1, 2006
    #44
  5. Al Clark

    Skip Guest

    "SteveB" <sbrads24^ukfsnDOTorg> wrote in message news:456ff144.0@entanet...
    > "Skip" <> wrote in message
    > news:_UObh.289$...
    >> 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

    >
    > What about when Pentax/Sony IS is better than Canon's or Nikon's?
    > Canon/Nikon will have to do something new then.
    > I think that day may have almost come anyway with the K10D from the
    > results I've seen, although I'll grant C/N the advantage compared with the
    > K100D.
    >

    That would be "if" not "when." The results I've seen (wasn't there a thread
    on just that subject?) from the K10D still show a 1 to 2 stop advantage,
    better than the K100D, but still not close to the 3-4 stops for Canon and
    Nikon. And, as others have noted, the need for extreme movement of the
    sensor to compensate for long teles will still give the advantage to in lens
    stabilization. That's not an inconsiderable point, since focal lengths of
    300mm and more are commonplace, even for non professional users. IF someone
    produces in-camera stabilization that competes with, let alone exceeds,
    in-lens stabilization, especially on long focal length lenses, then I'd
    imagine that the two proponents of in-lens stabilization would have to
    react. But the space in the camera that would need to be available for
    sensor movement of that magnitude, and the time it would take to accomplish
    it, given current technology, would seem to preclude that. Now, electronic
    or digital stabilization is another matter.

    --
    Skip Middleton
    www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
    www.pbase.com/skipm
     
    Skip, Dec 1, 2006
    #45
  6. Al Clark

    POHB Guest

    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?


    With any immature technology or high-tech kit there will always be a
    better and/or cheaper version available shortly after you make your
    purchase. Just make your decision based on what is available now and
    whether it is worth the money to you.
     
    POHB, Dec 1, 2006
    #46
  7. Al Clark

    Annika1980 Guest

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

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


    Yeah, that's right, never as in "Not Ever."
    Canon would be shooting themselves in the foot if they did that. Who
    would buy their expensive IS lenses anymore?
     
    Annika1980, Dec 1, 2006
    #47
  8. Al Clark

    bugbear Guest

    Haydon wrote:
    > There is a very little chance of in-camera IS on DSLR's. See below from
    > Chuck Westfall who is a very switched on guy when it comes to Canon
    > products:
    >
    > "Canon pioneered the concept of image stabilization for SLR lenses starting
    > in 1995 with the EF75-300mm IS lens, and we are still the market leaders
    > with 16 IS lenses in our current line-up. Moreover, we are firm believers in
    > the superiority of lens-based image stabilization versus body-based
    > stabilization in terms of performance, so chances are good that you will see
    > more IS lenses from Canon over time. "


    I use Gitzo or Manfrotto branded stablisation :)

    BugBear
     
    bugbear, Dec 1, 2006
    #48
  9. Al Clark

    Dan Sullivan Guest

    Annika1980 wrote:
    > Dan Sullivan wrote:
    > > > And that's exactly why it'll never happen. Not from Canon, anyway.

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

    >
    > Yeah, that's right, never as in "Not Ever."
    > Canon would be shooting themselves in the foot if they did that. Who
    > would buy their expensive IS lenses anymore?


    I don't know where the technology will take the manufacturers.

    But they have to compete for the business. And if they have the
    technology, and we know Canon does, that other companies are using to
    cut into Canon's business, then Canon will do what they have to do.

    It used to be,

    1 - pros will never stoop to 35mm

    2 - pros will never use auto exposure

    3 - pros will never used autofocus

    4 - pros will never switch to digital

    No one can stop progress.

    Never say never.
     
    Dan Sullivan, Dec 1, 2006
    #49
  10. Al Clark

    Phil Wheeler Guest

    bugbear wrote:
    > Haydon wrote:
    >> There is a very little chance of in-camera IS on DSLR's. See below
    >> from Chuck Westfall who is a very switched on guy when it comes to
    >> Canon products:
    >>
    >> "Canon pioneered the concept of image stabilization for SLR lenses
    >> starting in 1995 with the EF75-300mm IS lens, and we are still the
    >> market leaders with 16 IS lenses in our current line-up. Moreover, we
    >> are firm believers in the superiority of lens-based image
    >> stabilization versus body-based stabilization in terms of performance,
    >> so chances are good that you will see more IS lenses from Canon over
    >> time. "

    >
    > I use Gitzo or Manfrotto branded stablisation :)
    >


    Lots of museums will stop your IS at the door, I
    fear (been there, done that).

    Phil
     
    Phil Wheeler, Dec 1, 2006
    #50
  11. Al Clark

    bugbear Guest

    Phil Wheeler wrote:
    > bugbear wrote:
    >>
    >> I use Gitzo or Manfrotto branded stablisation :)
    >>

    >
    > Lots of museums will stop your IS at the door, I fear (been there, done
    > that).


    Yeah, I know.

    I also have the legendary "string-pod" but it's less good.

    BugBear
     
    bugbear, Dec 1, 2006
    #51
  12. Al Clark

    Bill Funk Guest

    On 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.
    >
    >Just a thought.


    OK, now it's your turn...
    Any lens placed on rhe camera isn't image stabilized; the
    stabilization is in the camera body.
    :)
    --
    Bill Funk
    replace "g" with "a"
     
    Bill Funk, Dec 1, 2006
    #52
  13. Annika1980 wrote:
    > 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.
    >

    There are at least 6! Out of -heavens knows- how many Canons. Reminds
    me that I have a shoot tonight at a formal event, and I won't have room
    to set up lighting other than a Canon 550 EX on a pole with some sort of
    diffuser for a set-shot location, and my other flash which I sometimes
    use for fill will be employed on another camera.

    Any cheap solutions? Was thinking about maybe a Sunpak or similar and a
    slave trigger? I don't currently own any strobe heads, and even if I did
    room is at a premium. Don't think I can even set up an umbrella....

    --
    John McWilliams
     
    John McWilliams, Dec 1, 2006
    #53
  14. Al Clark

    Bill Funk Guest

    On Fri, 1 Dec 2006 08:48:13 -0000, "SteveB" <sbrads24^ukfsnDOTorg>
    wrote:

    >"Skip" <> wrote in message
    >news:_UObh.289$...
    >> 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

    >
    >What about when Pentax/Sony IS is better than Canon's or Nikon's?


    "When"? If we managed to kidnap all of Canon's and Nikon's engineers,
    that might well happen. But, barring that, do you think Nikon & Canon
    might keep improving their in-lens IS?
    >Canon/Nikon will have to do something new then.
    >I think that day may have almost come anyway with the K10D from the results
    >I've seen, although I'll grant C/N the advantage compared with the K100D.
    >

    --
    Bill Funk
    replace "g" with "a"
     
    Bill Funk, Dec 1, 2006
    #54
  15. Al Clark

    Bill Funk 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?


    Given current IS lenses...
    The lens IS has no knowledge of what goes on with anything the in-body
    IS would be doing, so the lens will act as it already does,
    The in-body IS would see what the lens passes to it, and would react
    to any instabilities the lens passes on to it, so I would imagine it
    would make for less camera shake being seen in the image.
    I can't see any way for any feedback since the two systems don't have
    any way to communicate with each other.
    That's with *current* systems.
    --
    Bill Funk
    replace "g" with "a"
     
    Bill Funk, Dec 1, 2006
    #55
  16. Al Clark

    Bill Funk Guest

    On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 22:48:27 +0000, Måns Rullgård <>
    wrote:

    >"Bill Hilton" <> writes:
    >
    >>>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?

    >>
    >> I think the in-camera IS/VR solutions are giving around one f-stop of
    >> benefit (at least the examples I've seen), maybe a bit more, but no
    >> more than two stops ... Canon's first version of IS circa 10 years ago
    >> offered around 2 stops, the improved version on later lenses like the
    >> 24-105 f/4 supposedly offered around 3 stops (I'm actually running some
    >> tests right now to measure this), and Canon is claiming up to four
    >> stops for their latest version of stabilization, shipping in the 70-200
    >> f/4 L IS.
    >>
    >> So my guess is Canon will keep putting IS in the lenses for the dSLR
    >> systems since they probably feel they can do a better job there than
    >> in-camera. But just a guess.

    >
    >It just struck me that placing motion sensors in the lens and the
    >moving parts, be it extra glass element or the sensor itself, in the
    >body could possibly get the (supposed) benefit of lens-based IS as
    >well as needing only one set of complicated mechanics.


    That's a possibility, but the system, in order to work, requires both
    the body and lens to be designed for the system.
    I don't see this happening with any current system maker.
    --
    Bill Funk
    replace "g" with "a"
     
    Bill Funk, Dec 1, 2006
    #56
  17. Al Clark

    Frank ess Guest

    Annika1980 wrote:
    > 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.
    >



    I hesitate to comment on the underlying
    fascination/obsession/preoccupation/fetishism that results in a
    gathering of folks with such equipment-both from the onlooker side and
    the performer perspective. What kind of society produces this kind of
    misdirection of resources?

    --
    Frank ess
    "A merry heart doeth good like a medicine:
    but a broken spirit drieth the bones."
    ~Proverbs 17:22~
     
    Frank ess, Dec 1, 2006
    #57
  18. Al Clark

    Guest

    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?
    >
    > Just wondered......


    You would get blurry pictures. Both IS systems would try to cancel out
    the same movement, in essence cancelling each other:

    1. Camera moves.

    2. Lens IS reacts, so the image projected by the lens onto the sensor
    is steady.

    3. But the sensor IS also reacts to the camera movement, expecting the
    image projected by the lens to move. So the sensor moves to try to keep
    the projected image steady in relation to the sensor.

    4. Putting those together, you have a steady image (stabilized by lens
    IS) projected onto a moving sensor (stabilized by body IS). So you get
    a blurry picture.

    -Gniewko
     
    , Dec 1, 2006
    #58
  19. Per Phil Wheeler:
    >Lots of museums will stop your IS at the door, I
    >fear (been there, done that).


    How come?
    --
    PeteCresswell
     
    (PeteCresswell), Dec 1, 2006
    #59
  20. Al Clark

    JC Dill Guest

    On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 14:57:18 GMT, Phil Wheeler <>
    wrote:

    >> I use Gitzo or Manfrotto branded stablisation :)

    >
    >Lots of museums will stop your IS at the door, I
    >fear (been there, done that).


    I don't understand the fascination with taking photos of static
    exhibits at museums. This type of photography ranks right up there
    with the photos of people in front of buildings or monuments or other
    landmarks. I just don't see the value in photos of that type. I
    guess some people like shots like that, but not me.

    jc

    --

    "The nice thing about a mare is you get to ride a lot
    of different horses without having to own that many."
    ~ Eileen Morgan of The Mare's Nest, PA
     
    JC Dill, Dec 1, 2006
    #60
    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:
    2,241
  2. Norm
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    392
    David J Taylor
    Sep 20, 2004
  3. nospam
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    267
    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:
    1,074
    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:
    512
    Chris Malcolm
    Jun 8, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page