Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Did I read correct: Canon now has in body image stabilisation
#11
Quote: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, Tongue 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. 

Dave's clichés
#12
Quote: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. Smile
#13
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.

#14
Quote: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. Smile

#15
Quote: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!
Dave's clichés
#16
Quote:  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
Quote: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!
Dave's clichés
#18
Quote:... A very good reign though......the next question is the new title holder going to be the Nikon or the Sony?
Sigma.  Big Grin Forget Nikon.
#19
Quote: 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
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?

  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
2 Guest(s)