Lens stabilization vs Camera stabilization

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

  1. Al Clark

    Bill Funk Guest

    On Fri, 1 Dec 2006 10:24:05 -0800, "Frank ess" <>
    wrote:

    >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?


    One that has soccer teams?
    :)
    --
    Bill Funk
    replace "g" with "a"
     
    Bill Funk, Dec 1, 2006
    #61
    1. Advertising

  2. Al Clark

    Bill Funk Guest

    On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 13:59:05 -0500, "(PeteCresswell)" <>
    wrote:

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

    >
    >How come?


    A few reasons:
    Some don't want the hassle the other patrons will have trying to go
    around the tripod; often, the photographer will rudely place the
    tripod right in front of an exhibit, blocking others. Tripods are also
    not expected; others will sometimes trip over them.
    Many equate tripod-equiped photographers with professional
    potographers; such are usually not allowed for obvious reasons.
    And some just get off on power trips.
    --
    Bill Funk
    replace "g" with "a"
     
    Bill Funk, Dec 1, 2006
    #62
    1. Advertising

  3. Al Clark

    Bill Funk Guest

    On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 12:05:58 -0800, JC Dill <> wrote:

    >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


    And I, OTOH, enjoy taking such photos very much.
    Put me in an interesting museum, indoors or out, and and I can go
    crazy with the camera.
    The history such places display is often amazing; how can you not want
    to see it again?
    :)
    --
    Bill Funk
    replace "g" with "a"
     
    Bill Funk, Dec 1, 2006
    #63
  4. Al Clark

    J. Clarke Guest

    On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 13:59:05 -0500, (PeteCresswell) wrote:

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

    >
    > How come?


    Mostly because they can. They'll give you all sorts of reasons, some of
    which are plausible, but the bottom line is that it's their museum and
    they make the rules.

    --
    --John
    to email, dial "usenet" and validate
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
     
    J. Clarke, Dec 1, 2006
    #64
  5. Al Clark

    Alan LeHun Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    > 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.
    >


    Changes all driven by the ultimate rule.

    1. Pros will always seek the best result.

    In-camera IS will never match in-lens IS because whatever advance is
    made in one will be adapted and applied to the other, and all other
    things being equal, in-lens is better than in-camera.

    In-lens IS is, and always will be, the professionals choice.

    --
    Alan LeHun
     
    Alan LeHun, Dec 1, 2006
    #65
  6. Skip wrote:

    > 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.


    I had an interesting situation w respect to IS on a dance shoot. I never
    thought about it before, but the camera movements may not always be due
    to hand-held inadequacies of the human photographer. I had my camera on
    a tripod for some available light shots at longer exposures, but left
    the IS on, because when the kids stomped on the floor it sent vibrations
    thru the tripod to the camera. I was very worried about the effects of
    this, but when it was said and done, the pix were fine. Possibly saved
    by the Sony A100 body IS.

    Gary Eickmeier
     
    Gary Eickmeier, Dec 2, 2006
    #66
  7. Al Clark

    Zott!!! Guest

    "Al Clark" <> ha scritto nel messaggio
    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?


    A) IS systems on camera are less efficent when used with telephoto lens than
    is systems on the lens.
    B) Digital equipment aren't the only available on planeth earth; how do you
    think to stabilize a film camera?
    --
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Antonio Taccone | Siamo scienziati, non ingegneri!
    | A. A. Bertossi 1990, Durante una lezione.
    | Università di Pisa - Dipartimento di Informatica
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    -Certo,certo.Ma ti prego,non mi ammazzare l'ingnegnere.Mi serve.Va bene?
    -Maledetti tecnici. Sempre vezzeggiati. cit. Warrior apprentice.
     
    Zott!!!, Dec 2, 2006
    #67
  8. Al Clark

    Annika1980 Guest

    Zott!!! wrote:
    > B) Digital equipment aren't the only available on planeth earth; how do you
    > think to stabilize a film camera?


    Film is dead. That's about as stable as you can get.
     
    Annika1980, Dec 2, 2006
    #68
  9. Al Clark

    Zott!!! Guest

    "Annika1980" <> ha scritto nel messaggio
    news:...
    > Film is dead. That's about as stable as you can get.


    It depends. Wich is your goal?
    Have you found a digital projector that can outcome a pkr on a
    supercolorplan?
    --
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Antonio Taccone | Siamo scienziati, non ingegneri!
    | A. A. Bertossi 1990, Durante una lezione.
    | Università di Pisa - Dipartimento di Informatica
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    -Certo,certo.Ma ti prego,non mi ammazzare l'ingnegnere.Mi serve.Va bene?
    -Maledetti tecnici. Sempre vezzeggiati. cit. Warrior apprentice.
     
    Zott!!!, Dec 2, 2006
    #69
  10. Bill Funk <> writes:

    >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,


    Agreed.

    >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.


    This assumes that the camera body somehow "observes" the image from the
    lens with some sensor other than the main sensor, calculates the amount
    of image motion, and moves the main sensor correspondingly. I don't see
    where the body is going to put the sensor to do this, nor how the
    feedback loop could be fast enough.

    Instead, I'll bet that the IS-equipped cameras sense motion directly
    using accelerometers and, knowing the current focal length of the lens,
    estimate how much sensor movement is needed to compensate for it.

    In this case, both lens and camera will end up compensating for the same
    motion independently, causing the image to appear to move in the
    *opposite* direction it would with both systems turned off.

    Dave
     
    Dave Martindale, Dec 3, 2006
    #70
  11. Al Clark

    Bill Funk Guest

    On Sun, 3 Dec 2006 07:54:30 +0000 (UTC), (Dave
    Martindale) wrote:

    >Bill Funk <> writes:
    >
    >>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,

    >
    >Agreed.
    >
    >>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.

    >
    >This assumes that the camera body somehow "observes" the image from the
    >lens with some sensor other than the main sensor, calculates the amount
    >of image motion, and moves the main sensor correspondingly. I don't see
    >where the body is going to put the sensor to do this, nor how the
    >feedback loop could be fast enough.
    >
    >Instead, I'll bet that the IS-equipped cameras sense motion directly
    >using accelerometers and, knowing the current focal length of the lens,
    >estimate how much sensor movement is needed to compensate for it.
    >
    >In this case, both lens and camera will end up compensating for the same
    >motion independently, causing the image to appear to move in the
    >*opposite* direction it would with both systems turned off.
    >
    > Dave


    Yep, you're probably right.
    I was thinking of aq video camera. :-(
    --
    Bill Funk
    replace "g" with "a"
     
    Bill Funk, Dec 3, 2006
    #71
  12. On Sun, 3 Dec 2006 07:54:30 +0000 (UTC), Dave Martindale <> wrote:

    [re: a hypothetical camera with both a stabilized lens and a stabilized
    sensor]

    > In this case, both lens and camera will end up compensating for the same
    > motion independently, causing the image to appear to move in the
    > *opposite* direction it would with both systems turned off.


    Presumably, if the manufacturer knew what they were doing, the body
    stabilizer would shut itself off when it detects the presence of a
    stabilized lens. Alternatively, if an entire system of dual-stabilzed
    camera/lens combos was developed, the two stabilizers could be designed
    to work in tandem rather than cancelling each other out. Presumably that
    would require one set of acceleromters, plus a single processor that
    divies up the vibration-cancellation duties between the two systems.

    For now, though, putting a stabilized lens on a stabilized-sensor camera
    would be a bad idea, as you have illustrated. Is this completely
    hypothetical, or are there any stabilized lenses which will mate to a
    stabilized sensor? Panasonic/Leica has a stabilized 4/3s lens; are there
    any 4/3s cameras with a stabilized sensor?

    -dms
     
    Daniel Silevitch, Dec 3, 2006
    #72
  13. Al Clark

    bugbear Guest

    JC Dill wrote:
    > 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.


    As a woodworker, being able to take my choice of
    angle and emphasis on (e.g.) a nice wood carving
    is nice.

    I suspect from you meant was the sort
    of photo that is on sale in postcard in
    the museum shop (shot under ideal conditions)
    - agreed, there is little point reproducing them.

    BugBeasr
     
    bugbear, Dec 4, 2006
    #73
  14. Al Clark

    Guest

    Alright, no one seems to want to point this out but here are some
    differences between in camera and on lens stabilization:

    On camera: it's lighter and it's for all the lenses that you put on the
    camera. However, it is only stabilizing when you press the shutter.

    In lens: This may not matter much, but on lens is stabilizing when you
    focus, and when the camera is light and exposure metering. This means
    that you get more accurate focus and metering than with in camera
    stabilization. The camera's focus system uses a very tiny region of the
    image (or many very tiny regions) and maximizes contrast over these
    regions to gain a sharp focus. If the image is stabilized it will gain
    adequate focus more quickly and more accurately.

    In short, in camera stabilization is for consumers and in lens is for
    pros. Consumers won't frequently put 400mm f1.8 zoom lenses on their
    camera (the $7K price tag scares them off) and for them, in camera will
    be more than adequate. Pros will continue to demand and be able to pay
    for in lens.
     
    , Dec 5, 2006
    #74
  15. writes:

    > Alright, no one seems to want to point this out but here are some
    > differences between in camera and on lens stabilization:
    >
    > On camera: it's lighter and it's for all the lenses that you put on the
    > camera. However, it is only stabilizing when you press the shutter.


    I doubt it's very much lighter. As for when it's active, that is
    wholly up to the camera firmware. My Sony compact camera has
    stabilization with three settings: always off, on when shutter button
    half pressed or more, and always on.

    > In lens: This may not matter much, but on lens is stabilizing when you
    > focus, and when the camera is light and exposure metering. This means
    > that you get more accurate focus and metering than with in camera
    > stabilization. The camera's focus system uses a very tiny region of the
    > image (or many very tiny regions) and maximizes contrast over these
    > regions to gain a sharp focus. If the image is stabilized it will gain
    > adequate focus more quickly and more accurately.


    I think most cameras with stabilization activate it when focusing as
    well as when exposing. BTW, not that it matters here, but SLR cameras
    don't generally use contrast measurements for AF. Keeping the image
    steady while focusing still helps of course.

    --
    Måns Rullgård
     
    =?iso-8859-1?Q?M=E5ns_Rullg=E5rd?=, Dec 5, 2006
    #75
  16. In article <>, Måns Rullgård
    <> writes
    > writes:
    >
    >>However, it is only stabilizing when you press the shutter.


    >My Sony compact camera has
    >stabilization with three settings: always off, on when shutter button
    >half pressed or more, and always on.
    >
    >I think most cameras with stabilization activate it when focusing as
    >well as when exposing.


    Nevertheless, Ronald's comments are still valid. Irrespective of when
    the in-camera stabilisation is active it NEVER stabilises the image on
    the focus sensors. You can move the image sensor around as much as you
    like, when you like, but the only difference it ever makes to the final
    image is the movement it makes during the exposure. The focus sensors
    are fixed within the shaking camera body and they see a blur of
    movement during operation, making focus less accurate whatever type of
    detection and subsequent processing is used. Similarly, the image you
    see in the viewfinder is moving although generally this will have less
    impact on the final image.

    Since in-lens stabilisation works on the image before it actually
    reaches the focal plane, the effect on all functions of the camera is
    improved.

    I recently took some shots from a light aircraft while it circled over
    the scene I was interested in. It wasn't a particularly calm day and
    the aircraft was buffeting a lot as it circled. Even keeping the 400mm
    lens accurately on target was helped by in-lens IS, let alone reducing
    the effect of movement on focus and the final images. I am sure that
    in-camera would have been much less effective, for the exactly reasons
    that Ronald gave, although it isn't a system I have bought into to
    evaluate.
    --
    Kennedy
    Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
    A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
    Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
     
    Kennedy McEwen, Dec 5, 2006
    #76
  17. Kennedy McEwen <> writes:

    > In article <>, Måns Rullgård
    > <> writes
    >> writes:
    >>
    >>>However, it is only stabilizing when you press the shutter.

    >
    >>My Sony compact camera has stabilization with three settings: always
    >>off, on when shutter button half pressed or more, and always on.
    >>
    >>I think most cameras with stabilization activate it when focusing as
    >>well as when exposing.

    >
    > Nevertheless, Ronald's comments are still valid. Irrespective of when
    > the in-camera stabilisation is active it NEVER stabilises the image on
    > the focus sensors. You can move the image sensor around as much as
    > you like, when you like, but the only difference it ever makes to the
    > final image is the movement it makes during the exposure. The focus
    > sensors are fixed within the shaking camera body and they see a blur
    > of movement during operation, making focus less accurate whatever type
    > of detection and subsequent processing is used. Similarly, the image
    > you see in the viewfinder is moving although generally this will have
    > less impact on the final image.


    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.

    --
    Måns Rullgård
     
    =?iso-8859-1?Q?M=E5ns_Rullg=E5rd?=, Dec 5, 2006
    #77
  18. Al Clark

    Aaron 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?


    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.

    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. 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.

    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.

    --
    Aaron

    "Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems
    good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the
    rest." -- John Stuart Mill
     
    Aaron, Dec 6, 2006
    #78
  19. Al Clark

    jeremy Guest

    "Aaron" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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.
    >
    > 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. 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.
    >
    > 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.
    >
    > --
    > Aaron
    >



    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.

    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.
     
    jeremy, Dec 6, 2006
    #79
  20. Al Clark

    Dan Sullivan Guest

    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.
     
    Dan Sullivan, Dec 6, 2006
    #80
    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:
    428
    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:
    543
    Chris Malcolm
    Jun 8, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page