Lens stabilization vs Camera stabilization

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

  1. Al Clark

    Dan Sullivan Guest

    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!
     
    Dan Sullivan, Dec 6, 2006
    #81
    1. Advertising

  2. 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
     
    David J Taylor, Dec 6, 2006
    #82
    1. Advertising

  3. Al Clark

    Dan Sullivan Guest

    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
     
    Dan Sullivan, Dec 6, 2006
    #83
  4. Al Clark

    Guest

    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 shit 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.
     
    , Dec 6, 2006
    #84
  5. Al Clark

    Guest

    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.
     
    , Dec 6, 2006
    #85
  6. Al Clark

    jeremy Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > What the **** are you babbling about?


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

    Plonk you, asshole!
     
    jeremy, Dec 6, 2006
    #86
  7. Al Clark

    Dan Sullivan Guest

    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.
     
    Dan Sullivan, Dec 6, 2006
    #87
  8. Al Clark

    Guest

    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.
     
    , Dec 6, 2006
    #88
  9. Al Clark

    Guest

    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?
     
    , Dec 6, 2006
    #89
  10. Al Clark

    Dan Sullivan Guest

    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?
     
    Dan Sullivan, Dec 6, 2006
    #90
  11. Al Clark

    jeremy Guest

    "Dan Sullivan" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > 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?
    >


    You are "woefully wrong" if you believe that he is not just a troll. :)
     
    jeremy, Dec 6, 2006
    #91
  12. Al Clark

    ASAAR Guest

    On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 15:32:35 GMT, David J Taylor 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...


    It probably is, but few settle for the best if lesser choices are
    good enough and the price is right. If Canon's 5D was suddenly put
    on sale for the same price as their 400D, many owners of Canon's
    budget DSLRs would immediately go to extraordinary lengths to get a
    5D, since the 5D has such a superior sensor. But with costs such as
    they are, most owners of Canon's budget DSLRs are quite happy with
    what they have, because those DSLRs are so much better than P&S
    cameras, and they're "good enough". You could make the same
    argument for IS design. The in-lens design might be a little
    better, but there's a cost-benefit ratio to consider, and if the
    in-camera design is "good enough" and saves a lens collector enough
    money, getting camera with IS built-in can be a no-brainer. The
    money saved on not paying the IS premium for a couple of expensive
    IS lenses could easily pay for a backup camera body or another lens.

    Working pros that might really need the benefits that the most
    expensive solutions provide will probably stick with Canon and Nikon
    lenses, but their IS/VR solution is harder to justify for most other
    people. Some will happily pay for it even if the additional benefit
    they provide is not very great. Others will choose a different,
    more economical route, and will be just as happy. Many Canon and
    Nikon owners don't invest in IS and VR glass for all of their
    lenses, but if the premium per lens amounted to only $50, they
    probably would. Ask yourself this. Would owners of P&S cameras
    having sensor driven IS be willing to have paid $300 or $400 more if
    their camera's IS was built into the lens? Or perhaps a better
    question would be, would the manufacturer's of P&S cameras using
    lens based IS have dared to charge such a high premium? I don't
    think so. What I do think is that Canon and Nikon can get away with
    such a high premium because the lenses are so much more expensive to
    start with, so adding the IS/VR to the lenses raises the prices by a
    much smaller percentage of the total cost.
     
    ASAAR, Dec 6, 2006
    #92
  13. Al Clark

    Skip Guest

    "Dan Sullivan" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    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.



    Well, if you count each body I've had my 28-135 IS on as an additional $70,
    that would be $420, or about what the lens itself cost. And none of the IS
    would be as effective as the IS on the 70-200 f2.8L IS.

    --
    Skip Middleton
    www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
    www.pbase.com/skipm
     
    Skip, Dec 7, 2006
    #93
  14. ASAAR wrote:
    > On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 15:32:35 GMT, David J Taylor 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...

    >
    > It probably is, but few settle for the best if lesser choices are
    > good enough and the price is right. If Canon's 5D was suddenly put
    > on sale for the same price as their 400D, many owners of Canon's
    > budget DSLRs would immediately go to extraordinary lengths to get a
    > 5D, since the 5D has such a superior sensor. But with costs such as
    > they are, most owners of Canon's budget DSLRs are quite happy with
    > what they have, because those DSLRs are so much better than P&S
    > cameras, and they're "good enough". You could make the same
    > argument for IS design. The in-lens design might be a little
    > better, but there's a cost-benefit ratio to consider, and if the
    > in-camera design is "good enough" and saves a lens collector enough
    > money, getting camera with IS built-in can be a no-brainer. The
    > money saved on not paying the IS premium for a couple of expensive
    > IS lenses could easily pay for a backup camera body or another lens.


    Yes, "good enough" is a principle I often use. I do wonder why some
    people pay so much for some cameras - perhaps they simply can and have a
    different scale of monetary values to me. Of course full-frame justifies
    a premium.

    > Working pros that might really need the benefits that the most
    > expensive solutions provide will probably stick with Canon and Nikon
    > lenses, but their IS/VR solution is harder to justify for most other
    > people. Some will happily pay for it even if the additional benefit
    > they provide is not very great. Others will choose a different,
    > more economical route, and will be just as happy. Many Canon and
    > Nikon owners don't invest in IS and VR glass for all of their
    > lenses, but if the premium per lens amounted to only $50, they
    > probably would. Ask yourself this. Would owners of P&S cameras
    > having sensor driven IS be willing to have paid $300 or $400 more if
    > their camera's IS was built into the lens? Or perhaps a better
    > question would be, would the manufacturer's of P&S cameras using
    > lens based IS have dared to charge such a high premium? I don't
    > think so. What I do think is that Canon and Nikon can get away with
    > such a high premium because the lenses are so much more expensive to
    > start with, so adding the IS/VR to the lenses raises the prices by a
    > much smaller percentage of the total cost.


    I think you have a good point there. As you know, I have two cameras both
    with lens-based IS which perform very well, and yet cost about the same as
    sensor-base IS cameras. Indeed, I bought a sensor-based IS camera once
    (Minolta A2), but rejected it for various reasons (not the IS not shown as
    working at longer exposures....).

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Dec 7, 2006
    #94
  15. Al Clark

    VX Guest

    On Fri, 1 Dec 2006 0:30:25 +0000, J. Clarke wrote
    (in message <>):

    > 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?


    The Konica-Minolta 7D's AntiShake is the in-camera image stabilisation system
    used by Sony, who bought up K-M, and enhanced AS and now call it Super Steady
    Shot or something similar... I'm still using the 7D. On the 7D you can use
    any lens that you can mount onto the camera and the AntiShake will work- and
    be effective. I've used old M42 lenses, including a Biotar that is very old
    by modern standards and several other oddities. AS seems to work well with
    any lens that will mount on the camera. The longest I've tried so far is the
    Tamron 500mm mirror lens. Obviously in such cases the camera doesn't know
    what lens is on it- so I suppose it just looks at the degree of shake and
    tries to compensate for it. Seems very effective.
    --
    VX (remove alcohol for email)
     
    VX, Dec 7, 2006
    #95
  16. Al Clark

    Dan Sullivan Guest

    Skip wrote:
    > "Dan Sullivan" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    > 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.

    >
    >
    > Well, if you count each body I've had my 28-135 IS on as an additional

    $70,
    > that would be $420, or about what the lens itself cost. And none of the

    IS
    > would be as effective as the IS on the 70-200 f2.8L IS.


    Eventually the cost will come down even more..

    But you forget the ICIS also works on all the lenses you use that don't have
    ILIS.

    All those sharper/better pictures have to be worth something....correct?
     
    Dan Sullivan, Dec 7, 2006
    #96
  17. Al Clark

    jeremy Guest

    "Dan Sullivan" <> wrote in message
    news:TyWdh.11$...
    > Skip wrote:
    >> "Dan Sullivan" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>
    >> 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.

    >>
    >>
    >> Well, if you count each body I've had my 28-135 IS on as an additional

    > $70,
    >> that would be $420, or about what the lens itself cost. And none of the

    > IS
    >> would be as effective as the IS on the 70-200 f2.8L IS.

    >
    > Eventually the cost will come down even more..
    >
    > But you forget the ICIS also works on all the lenses you use that don't
    > have
    > ILIS.
    >
    > All those sharper/better pictures have to be worth something....correct?
    >
    >


    And, if future camera bodies incorporate improved IS, those improvements
    will be transferred to all the images produced by all of one's lenses. IS
    is still a developing feature and we should expect to see improved
    performance as time goes on.
     
    jeremy, Dec 7, 2006
    #97
  18. Al Clark

    Dan Sullivan Guest

    jeremy wrote:

    > And, if future camera bodies incorporate improved IS, those improvements
    > will be transferred to all the images produced by all of one's lenses. IS
    > is still a developing feature and we should expect to see improved
    > performance as time goes on.


    Is software IS around the corner?

    Think about that!!!
     
    Dan Sullivan, Dec 7, 2006
    #98
  19. Dan Sullivan wrote:
    > jeremy wrote:
    >
    >> And, if future camera bodies incorporate improved IS, those
    >> improvements will be transferred to all the images produced by all
    >> of one's lenses. IS is still a developing feature and we should
    >> expect to see improved performance as time goes on.

    >
    > Is software IS around the corner?
    >
    > Think about that!!!


    I already have software IS in my Nikon Coolpix 8400.

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Dec 7, 2006
    #99
  20. "David J Taylor"
    <-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> writes:

    > Dan Sullivan wrote:
    >> jeremy wrote:
    >>
    >>> And, if future camera bodies incorporate improved IS, those
    >>> improvements will be transferred to all the images produced by all
    >>> of one's lenses. IS is still a developing feature and we should
    >>> expect to see improved performance as time goes on.

    >>
    >> Is software IS around the corner?
    >>
    >> Think about that!!!

    >
    > I already have software IS in my Nikon Coolpix 8400.


    Software IS for still images is impossible.

    --
    Måns Rullgård
     
    =?iso-8859-1?Q?M=E5ns_Rullg=E5rd?=, Dec 7, 2006
    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:
    2,242
  2. Norm
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    394
    David J Taylor
    Sep 20, 2004
  3. nospam
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    268
    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:
    1,075
    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:
    515
    Chris Malcolm
    Jun 8, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page