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

    Steve Wolfe, Dec 1, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  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.
    SteveB, Dec 1, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. Al Clark

    SteveB Guest

    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
  4. Al Clark

    J. Clarke Guest

    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.
    J. Clarke, Dec 1, 2006
  5. Al Clark

    Skip Guest

    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, Dec 1, 2006
  6. Al Clark

    POHB Guest

    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
  7. Al Clark

    Annika1980 Guest

    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
  8. Al Clark

    bugbear Guest

    I use Gitzo or Manfrotto branded stablisation :)

    bugbear, Dec 1, 2006
  9. Al Clark

    Dan Sullivan Guest

    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
  10. Al Clark

    Phil Wheeler Guest

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

    Phil Wheeler, Dec 1, 2006
  11. Al Clark

    bugbear Guest

    Yeah, I know.

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

    bugbear, Dec 1, 2006
  12. Al Clark

    Bill Funk Guest

    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, Dec 1, 2006
  13. 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, Dec 1, 2006
  14. Al Clark

    Bill Funk Guest

    "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?
    Bill Funk, Dec 1, 2006
  15. Al Clark

    Bill Funk Guest

    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, Dec 1, 2006
  16. Al Clark

    Bill Funk Guest

    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, Dec 1, 2006
  17. Al Clark

    Frank ess Guest

    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, Dec 1, 2006
  18. Al Clark

    lubecki Guest

    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.

    lubecki, Dec 1, 2006
  19. Per Phil Wheeler:
    How come?
    (PeteCresswell), Dec 1, 2006
  20. Al Clark

    JC Dill Guest

    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 Dill, 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.