Lens stabilization vs Camera stabilization

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

  1. 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.
    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
    =?iso-8859-1?Q?M=E5ns_Rullg=E5rd?=, Nov 30, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  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...):

    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

    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.
    Haydon, Dec 1, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. Al Clark

    J. Clarke Guest

    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?
    J. Clarke, Dec 1, 2006
  4. Al Clark

    SimonLW Guest

    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.
    SimonLW, Dec 1, 2006
  5. Al Clark

    Dan Sullivan Guest

    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
  6. Al Clark

    Annika1980 Guest

    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
  7. Al Clark

    Steve Wolfe Guest

    I'm about to order an expensive Canon lens with IS, but I wonder if Canon
    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

    Steve Wolfe, Dec 1, 2006
  8. 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
  9. Al Clark

    Annika1980 Guest

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

    Annika1980, Dec 1, 2006
  10. Steve Wolfe wrote:

    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
  11. Al Clark

    Dan Sullivan Guest


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

    Skip Guest

    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, Dec 1, 2006
  13. Al Clark

    Phil Wheeler Guest

    Good lord: Who really cares?

    Phil Wheeler, Dec 1, 2006
  14. Al Clark

    Skip Guest

    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, Dec 1, 2006
  15. Al Clark

    Skip Guest

    I've sort of wondered that, too.
    Skip, Dec 1, 2006
  16. Al Clark

    Skip Guest

    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, Dec 1, 2006
  17. 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.
    =?iso-8859-1?Q?M=E5ns_Rullg=E5rd?=, Dec 1, 2006
  18. Al Clark

    Skip Guest

    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, Dec 1, 2006
  19. Al Clark

    ASAAR Guest

    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
    ASAAR, Dec 1, 2006
  20. Al Clark

    Prometheus Guest

    I would expect that any system which supports both would not permit you
    to have both active.
    Prometheus, Dec 1, 2006
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.