• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter
Photo

Did I read correct: Canon now has in body image stabilisation


  • Please log in to reply
20 replies to this topic

#1 toni-a

toni-a

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,124 posts
  • LocationLebanon

Posted 16 February 2017 - 07:38 AM

Just read tha M6 has 5 axis body and lens stabilisation....

Is that true will Canon start with camera body stabilisation ?



#2 dave's clichés

dave's clichés

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,587 posts

Posted 16 February 2017 - 08:20 AM

   Have you a link?



#3 obican

obican

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 337 posts

Posted 16 February 2017 - 09:15 AM

 

 

The Canon EOS M6 features an in-camera five-axis digital image stabilization to help reduce camera shake when shooting videos. When shooting with a compatible lens featuring IS the EOS M6 will leverage both the optical IS in the lens as well as the in-camera digital IS through a Combination IS system, to help deliver tremendously smooth videos.

 

https://www.dpreview...th-optional-evf

 

Why isn't this big news?

 

Edit: Ah, because it's digital IS for video only.



#4 dave's clichés

dave's clichés

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,587 posts

Posted 16 February 2017 - 09:41 AM

       Yawn!

       Oh right just the boring old "digital image stabilization" that has been used by Pentax for some time, the K01 was my (now sold) video camera at the model club, the results were however way better than no stabilization at all, the D500 also uses IS in 1080P video, I've not used it yet due to current .... "air flooding"...............you know bloody rain!



#5 Arthur Macmillan

Arthur Macmillan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 179 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 16 February 2017 - 01:15 PM

I thought that in cameras with in camera IS the imager physically moved to counteract the shaking motion of the camera.  Is "digital image stabilization something a little more phony?  Like, ha, ha, "Digital Zoom"?  I'm pretty sure with Oly MFT, and Sony they use a sensor shift method.  I'm not quick to laugh at sensor shift stabilization for a couple of reasons.  Namely reduced elements and sharper, cheaper lenses.  I have to admit I don't understand the in lens form of stabilization.  I had imagined it was gyroscopic, but lens diagrams show lens elements that are stabilizing. 

 

The only functional thing I care about stabilization is that Canon IS allows you to see a steady image in the viewer, where other systems cause you to see a shaky or jumping image that does not reflect the state of the capture.  Again, my impression is that Oly MFT imager shift stabilization is 100% legit.  And even adds addition high resolution mode.

 

So in Pentax IS not legit, somehow?  I've liked the K1 camera in reviews.  Not the same as using one, I guess!  Oh, wait, the K01 is not the same camera, right?

 

Is model club another way of saying stripper bar?



#6 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,672 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 16 February 2017 - 02:14 PM

I thought that in cameras with in camera IS the imager physically moved to counteract the shaking motion of the camera.  Is "digital image stabilization something a little more phony?  Like, ha, ha, "Digital Zoom"?  I'm pretty sure with Oly MFT, and Sony they use a sensor shift method.  I'm not quick to laugh at sensor shift stabilization for a couple of reasons.  Namely reduced elements and sharper, cheaper lenses.  I have to admit I don't understand the in lens form of stabilization.  I had imagined it was gyroscopic, but lens diagrams show lens elements that are stabilizing. 

 

The only functional thing I care about stabilization is that Canon IS allows you to see a steady image in the viewer, where other systems cause you to see a shaky or jumping image that does not reflect the state of the capture.  Again, my impression is that Oly MFT imager shift stabilization is 100% legit.  And even adds addition high resolution mode.

 

So in Pentax IS not legit, somehow?  I've liked the K1 camera in reviews.  Not the same as using one, I guess!  Oh, wait, the K01 is not the same camera, right?

 

Is model club another way of saying stripper bar?

If you look at the prices for non stabilized Sony lenses, you will realize that in-lens IS has very little to do with the price. Also, you do not need more elements for IS stabilization, you just need to choose which group is stabilized and that will be one of the design parameters.

 

The Pentax K01 is not the Pentax K1. The Pentax K01 is a failed little camera which has a mirrorbox but no mirror, creating a mirrorless camera with senseless bulk. The K1 is Pentax' first full frame 135 fotmat DSLR. Pentax has used IBIS for many years, it used to be the worst performing IBIS implementation but I have no idea how they perform nowadays, my bet is that they have improved a lot.

 

Sony bought out Konica-Minolta pioneered IBIS since their first digital SLR (Dynax/Maxxum 7D). Sony continued to offer IBIS in their DLRs and SLTs, but dropping it with the NEX series. Only the  newest models of the APS-C cameras formerly known as NEX ( CFKAN) and A7 series began to offer IBIS again.

Olympus has offered IBIS in most models, Panasonic used to use OIS which created a strange duality for MTF. Olympus, in their most expensive camera, offers a combination of OIS and IBIS with a select (very few?) lenses for improved 5 stops of stabilization, now.

 

The digital image stabilization Canon offers for video on the M5/6 seems to work pretty well, but is of no use for photography.



#7 Universal Creations

Universal Creations

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 5 posts

Posted 16 February 2017 - 02:53 PM

Also, you do not need more elements for IS stabilization, you just need to choose which group is stabilized and that will be one of the design parameters.

 

That's not true. Look at the lens parameters of the Canon 70-200's (2.8 vs 2.8 IS and 4 vs 4 IS) and you'll see that the number of elements is higher on the IS lenses. I think that you're looking at some lenses that are produced at the same time in 2 flavours like the NIkon AF-P 18-55 VR and non-VR (or the AF-P 70-300 VR and non-VR). Those are exactly the same but the VR ones have extra components to let the VR elements move. The non-VR lenses have the VR-elements fixed.

The same trick has been done many times before with stabilised Sigma and Tamron lenses that are made for Pentax and Sony (or Pentax lenses that are rehoused Tamron lenses). They just fixed the stabilising elements of these lenses.



#8 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,672 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 16 February 2017 - 03:14 PM

That's not true. Look at the lens parameters of the Canon 70-200's (2.8 vs 2.8 IS and 4 vs 4 IS) and you'll see that the number of elements is higher on the IS lenses. I think that you're looking at some lenses that are produced at the same time in 2 flavours like the NIkon AF-P 18-55 VR and non-VR (or the AF-P 70-300 VR and non-VR). Those are exactly the same but the VR ones have extra components to let the VR elements move. The non-VR lenses have the VR-elements fixed.

The same trick has been done many times before with stabilised Sigma and Tamron lenses that are made for Pentax and Sony (or Pentax lenses that are rehoused Tamron lenses). They just fixed the stabilising elements of these lenses.

You are confusing new versus old. 

In your theory, the Sigma 50mm f1.4 Art has IS and the old Sigma 50mm f1.4 DG HSM does not have IS.



#9 Rover

Rover

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,471 posts
  • LocationRussia

Posted 16 February 2017 - 03:41 PM

WTF. Universal Creations has put it exactly right. What does that have to do with the two 50mm f/1.4 Sigma lenses which are simply very different (and none has any relation to IS). But, say, the Sigma 17-70/2.8-4 OS C lens has the same construction in whichever mount, despite the "OS is not available for the Sony and Pentax mount" side note on the Sigma site, and the block diagram is the same. The OS seems permanently disabled in the A- and K-mount units however, and there's no switch.

 

If you compare the block diagrams of the Canon 70-200/2.8 L lenses - IS and non-IS - you can see that in the IS one there's a 3-element group added towards the rear of the (otherwise broadly similar) optical assembly. :)

Non-IS:

 

ef325-lens-construction.gif

IS non-II. The group isn't marked as IS in the site's block diagram...

ef365-lens-construction.gif

... but the block diagram of the IS II version, while having more special elements, reveals a similarly shaped group now marked as being IS:

ef406-lens-construction.gif

Peace. :)



#10 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,672 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 16 February 2017 - 04:41 PM

And the IS lens is newer, and the IS lens shows other elements as well. Funny. that. Like I said, choosing which group to move for IS is one of the design parameters. It can well mean that you don't end up with more elements than you already want for all the corrections you design in.

 

It certainly does not mean lenses with IS are more expensive either, Sony lenses without IS were more expensive than their Canon counterparts with IS.



#11 dave's clichés

dave's clichés

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,587 posts

Posted 16 February 2017 - 06:25 PM

I thought that in cameras with in camera IS the imager physically moved to counteract the shaking motion of the camera.  Is "digital image stabilization something a little more phony?  Like, ha, ha, "Digital Zoom"?  I'm pretty sure with Oly MFT, and Sony they use a sensor shift method.  I'm not quick to laugh at sensor shift stabilization for a couple of reasons.  Namely reduced elements and sharper, cheaper lenses.  I have to admit I don't understand the in lens form of stabilization.  I had imagined it was gyroscopic, but lens diagrams show lens elements that are stabilizing. 

 

The only functional thing I care about stabilization is that Canon IS allows you to see a steady image in the viewer, where other systems cause you to see a shaky or jumping image that does not reflect the state of the capture.  Again, my impression is that Oly MFT imager shift stabilization is 100% legit.  And even adds addition high resolution mode.

 

So in Pentax IS not legit, somehow?  I've liked the K1 camera in reviews.  Not the same as using one, I guess!  Oh, wait, the K01 is not the same camera, right?

 

Is model club another way of saying stripper bar?

           We do of course incorporate "a bar" at our model aircraft club but as luck would have it the ladies always seem to be fully clothed!   :wacko:

  Yes, I had the K01, as BC said it had all the advantages of a mirror-box (good for storage) with none of the drawbacks of a mirror, :P as Pentax didn't want to change their lens registrations distance, so it was affectionately know as the 'brick". For stills it had "real" in body stabilization, which worked fine, and digital stabilization for video because the sensor movement created some noise.

   I liked my K01 great IQ and half decent video. It is currently drying out after having been under water with my old Samsung GX10 (Pentax K10) I had sold them to a friend....he had a pipe burst, both the bodies and three lenses submerged, a few days later he tried the GX10 and amazingly it came back to life...the jury's still out on the K01.

5 axis IBS has the advantage of stabilization of rotational movement which OS cannot correct. 



#12 Rover

Rover

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,471 posts
  • LocationRussia

Posted 16 February 2017 - 06:49 PM

And the IS lens is newer, and the IS lens shows other elements as well. Funny. that. Like I said, choosing which group to move for IS is one of the design parameters. It can well mean that you don't end up with more elements than you already want for all the corrections you design in.

 

It certainly does not mean lenses with IS are more expensive either, Sony lenses without IS were more expensive than their Canon counterparts with IS.

Not necessarily, but the producers have a golden opportunity to demand higher prices claiming "improved performance" which would be hard to argue with. :)



#13 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,672 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 16 February 2017 - 07:18 PM

You can argue the other direction too... the best 70-200mm f2.8 has IS (Canon EF 70-200mm f2.8 IS USM II). The best 85mm f1.8 has VC (the Tamron)... I guess you just can't make blanket statements.


  • Rover likes this

#14 Rover

Rover

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,471 posts
  • LocationRussia

Posted 16 February 2017 - 08:51 PM

You can argue the other direction too... the best 70-200mm f2.8 has IS (Canon EF 70-200mm f2.8 IS USM II). The best 85mm f1.8 has VC (the Tamron)... I guess you just can't make blanket statements.

I fully agree with this. I'm a big fan of IS (including the wide-angle lenses like the 16-35/4L) and would prefer an IS lens to a comparable non-IS in any range by default. :)


  • Arthur Macmillan likes this

#15 dave's clichés

dave's clichés

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,587 posts

Posted 17 February 2017 - 10:43 AM

You can argue the other direction too... the best 70-200mm f2.8 has IS (Canon EF 70-200mm f2.8 IS USM II). The best 85mm f1.8 has VC (the Tamron)... I guess you just can't make blanket statements.

  Don't you mean the "Ex" best 70-200mm IS? 

 

  Nikon has taken over with the VR accolade!



#16 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,672 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 17 February 2017 - 11:38 AM

  Don't you mean the "Ex" best 70-200mm IS? 

 

  Nikon has taken over with the VR accolade!

Any tests yet that show it to be better? Lets have a wait for that?



#17 dave's clichés

dave's clichés

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,587 posts

Posted 17 February 2017 - 12:11 PM

Any tests yet that show it to be better? Lets have a wait for that?

 Let's say "the current reigning undefeated title holder", pending the next championship defense!

 

   I see the result as the "Canon" going down in the fourth round and staying down, so unlike Rocky Marciano he will be defeated, 

 

  A very good reign though......the next question is the new title holder going to be the Nikon or the Sony?

 

   Let's face it you can't beat a good heavyweight title fight!



#18 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,440 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 17 February 2017 - 12:14 PM

... A very good reign though......the next question is the new title holder going to be the Nikon or the Sony?

Sigma.  :D Forget Nikon.



#19 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,672 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 17 February 2017 - 12:15 PM

 Let's say "the current reigning undefeated title holder", pending the next championship defense!

 

   I see the result as the "Canon" going down in the fourth round and staying down, so unlike Rocky Marciano he will be defeated, 

 

  A very good reign though......the next question is the new title holder going to be the Nikon or the Sony?

 

   Let's face it you can't beat a good heavyweight title fight!

Actually, I just now saw a lensrentals MTF test which totally escaped my attention. Indeed, the new Nikkor E FL beats the Canon by a small (70 and 200mm) to a slightly bigger (135mm) margin. Same applies: the best lens has VR.



#20 obican

obican

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 337 posts

Posted 17 February 2017 - 01:07 PM

That's probably because pretty much nobody cares about IS-less telephotos so most of the resources go towards designing the variant with IS. That is their big seller so why dedicate all the design and manufacturing effort into something that will sell for less and sell less at the same time?






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users



© by photozone.de