Is build-in image stabilizer & self cleaning sensor good for the long run?

Moderated by: guardian

Visit the FM Store · Image Upload · Buy & Sell
FM Forum Rules

FM Forums | General Gear-talk | Join Image Upload

2 end

hans98ko
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #1 · Is build-in image stabilizer & self cleaning sensor good for the long run?

I notice a lot of photographers like or asked for built in image stabilizer or self cleaning sensor for their professional digital cameras, but have you ever consider the possibility of these added features generating one of the most problematic issue face with digital photography? And that is tiny particles within the mirror chamber.
For short term wise one will see the benefit of both these features. But long term wise the very features that once offer benefits will turn to problem that they fear most and that is micro dust particles that were generated by the moving mechanism like the rocking arms, rods and hinges that were wearing out. Now once these happen the cost of service will be higher than one that does not have these features. The next thing is these parts will not be available in the long run and you will end up with a piece of junk in your backyard.
So what will your opinion be after finding out both the benefits as well as the disadvantages of these added features? Would you still like to have them on your pro camera which you paid $3k and above?

Edited on Jul 08, 2008 at 03:39 AM

Jul 08, 2008 at 03:32 AM

runamuck
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #2 · Is build-in image stabilizer & self cleaning sensor good for the long run?

So maybe a pinhole camera is best? Anything can and will break at some point. The shutter on my Petri rangefinder just gave up the ghost after 50 years. Maybe they should have put a simple pinhole in that, too?

No longer are cameras little mechanical marvels suited to last for decades. Given electronic technology, most cameras are "obsolete" in a couple of years, replaced by more megapixels and better low-light performance.

More and more, parts are being standardized. Interchangeability is the name of the game. One part will often fit several cameras. Everything is just off-the-shelf parts. Look at Canon cameras and their "russian hacks" to enable features found in higher-end cameras.

Following your line of thought we would all be riding around in wooden wheeled carts drawn by horses.

Jul 08, 2008 at 08:12 AM

hans98ko
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #3 · Is build-in image stabilizer & self cleaning sensor good for the long run?

runamuck wrote:
Following your line of thought we would all be riding around in wooden wheeled carts drawn by horses.

Maybe you interpreted it with the wrong perception and that is even without the above 2 features a photographer can still be able to get good pictures, the sensor can still be kept clean, image stabilization can still be integrated on the lens or s/w, so what makes you think that we are not moving forward?
Do you know that the sensor on the optical radar used on satelites does not have self cleaning sensor and does not have moving parts to compensate for image stabilzation? (they use s/w to perform that function) I think you are the one who is still living in a world riding around in wooden wheeled horse drawn carts instead.
Because of people like you who underestimate the capability of others, that's why you are all shock when one country other than the US shot down a satelite with an all simple to build missile. Do you really need a space shutter, a SR-71, a F-22, a F-117 and a B-2 to do it when all your communication are down without GPS guildance? A real joke here

Why bring out the missile shooting down a satelite incident? Because they are the same people who invented the wooden wheel, the compass and gun powder.

Edited on Jul 08, 2008 at 11:34 AM

Jul 08, 2008 at 10:40 AM

dcains
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.1 #4 · Is build-in image stabilizer & self cleaning sensor good for the long run?

One big downside of in-body IS (along with the fact that it doesn't work as well as in-lens systems seem to) is that the effects of IS can't be seen through the viewfinder. Take a look through something like a Sony A-100 (my wife uses one) with a 300mm lens, and it's amazing how unsteady things appear as compared to a 40D with a 300 f/4L IS mounted.

Jul 08, 2008 at 12:00 PM

binary visions
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #5 · Is build-in image stabilizer & self cleaning sensor good for the long run?

hans98ko wrote:

Why bring out the missile shooting down a satelite incident? Because they are the same people who invented the wooden wheel, the compass and gun powder.

Wow.

Your whole post had nothing whatsoever to do with what he said.

Nice rant on American technology, though, even if most of it was absurd...

Edited on Jul 08, 2008 at 12:03 PM

Jul 08, 2008 at 12:01 PM

hans98ko
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #6 · Is build-in image stabilizer & self cleaning sensor good for the long run?

binary visions wrote:
[Wow.

Your whole post had nothing whatsoever to do with what he said.

Nice rant on American technology, though, even if most of it was absurd...

Yes, I do agree with you, but just trying to have some fun here and not trying to hurt anyone's feeling.

Edited on Jul 08, 2008 at 12:10 PM

Jul 08, 2008 at 12:10 PM

hans98ko
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #7 · Is build-in image stabilizer & self cleaning sensor good for the long run?

dcains wrote:
One big downside of in-body IS (along with the fact that it doesn't work as well as in-lens systems seem to) is that the effects of IS can't be seen through the viewfinder. Take a look through something like a Sony A-100 (my wife uses one) with a 300mm lens, and it's amazing how unsteady things appear as compared to a 40D with a 300 f/4L IS mounted.

Yes, I think I have read somewhere that because of the moving sensor, some section of the image might not be capture on the sensor depanding on the lens used, and the other thing is the response for longer focal length will not be as good.
Also we start reading about people who have in-camera sensor cleaning needing to clean their sensor now. Dust can be shaken off but moisture will not. To make things worst it will be more difficult to clean a sensor that also moves around within the chamber.
Hans

Edited by hans98ko on Jul 08, 2008 at 08:33 PM GMT

Edited on Jul 08, 2008 at 12:33 PM

Jul 08, 2008 at 12:14 PM

Sam tran
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #8 · Is build-in image stabilizer & self cleaning sensor good for the long run?

why you are all shock when one country other than the US shot down a satelite with an all simple to build missile.

Only naive would be shocked as you said, since shooting a "stationary" (well known orbit) satellite like shooting a sitting duck. On the other hand, "other countries" were scared &scream bloody hell when USA shot down a fast moving/falling satellite (i.e incoming ballistic missiles)
I apologize for the comment is out of the subject, but I couldn't help it!

Jul 08, 2008 at 12:27 PM

hans98ko
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #9 · Is build-in image stabilizer & self cleaning sensor good for the long run?

Sam tran wrote:
Only naive would be shocked as you said, since shooting a "stationary" (well known orbit) satellite like shooting a sitting duck. On the other hand, "other countries" were scared &scream bloody hell when USA shot down a fast moving/falling satellite (i.e incoming ballistic missiles)
I apologize for the comment is out of the subject, but I couldn't help it!
Do you mean the US government is also naive? Because they are totally shock out off their pants knowing that now all their satelites are vulnarable. Without their satelites it is as good as flying blind with bi-planes.
But one must understand that the trajectory of the falling satelite is also know and the data was fed onto the destroyer system, so this will not be as difficult as you make it to be. To be frank both possition are know and data are being fed onto the destroyer. I have worked on missile tracking system and so knew that it is not much a difference unless the trajectory are erratic and at very close range so that the destroyer cannot manuver itself, but than self detonation within destroyer range will also get the job done like what the US did.

Edited on Jul 08, 2008 at 12:52 PM

Jul 08, 2008 at 12:43 PM

gfiksel
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.1 #10 · Is build-in image stabilizer & self cleaning sensor good for the long run?

Never mind that the OP of "Mr. missile technology insider" was questionable. Moving rods, arms, and hinges

But what follows is just pathetic and totally inappropriate for a photo forum.

Jul 08, 2008 at 01:07 PM

hans98ko
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #11 · Is build-in image stabilizer & self cleaning sensor good for the long run?

gfiksel wrote:
Never mind that the OP of "Mr. missile technology insider" was questionable. Moving rods, arms, and hinges

But what follows is just pathetic and totally inappropriate for a photo forum.
Totally agree with you so we should divert back to in-camera sensor cleaning and image stabilization.
Moving rods (the little round pin that goes thru a hole to form the hinge), arms and hinges

Please take a look at one of those cameras that has these features build-in and you will understand what I meant.

Edited on Jul 08, 2008 at 01:15 PM

Jul 08, 2008 at 01:13 PM

gfiksel
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.1 #12 · Is build-in image stabilizer & self cleaning sensor good for the long run?

hans98ko wrote:
gfiksel wrote:
Never mind that the OP of "Mr. missile technology insider" was questionable. Moving rods, arms, and hinges

Please take a look at one of those cameras that has these features build-in and you will understand what I meant.

Ok, so show me moving arms and rods

Besides, the average camera lifetime nowadays is much shorter than that of a lens. So if you are all set on worrying about things like that you should switch your attention to lens IS, variable apertures and moving focusing and zooming parts. Taking a lens on and off also wears out the base, drastically reduces its lifetime and creates tons of aluminum dust.

2008 © gfiksel

Edited on Jul 08, 2008 at 01:39 PM

Jul 08, 2008 at 01:38 PM

hans98ko
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #13 · Is build-in image stabilizer & self cleaning sensor good for the long run?

Take a look at your own picture. Do you see those little holes and blue pins?
That is where they go thru each other and when they shake they wear. If you compare this to one that has its sensor mounted fixed you will have less movable parts to wear and tear, so less particles created.
Nice picture that you pull from either Sony or Pentax but did not include the electro mechanical section that create the moments.

Edited on Jul 08, 2008 at 02:13 PM

Jul 08, 2008 at 02:10 PM

panos.v
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #14 · Is build-in image stabilizer & self cleaning sensor good for the long run?

You might be a satellite expert but you clearly have no clue what a piezoelectric element is. So here it is: you pass current through it and it vibrates. No springs, no rods, nothing. Just a solid block of a special material which sits idle and when voltage is applied to it it vibrates rapidly. Magic!

Jul 08, 2008 at 02:17 PM

hans98ko
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #15 · Is build-in image stabilizer & self cleaning sensor good for the long run?

panos.v wrote:
You might be a satellite expert but you clearly have no clue what a piezoelectric element is. So here it is: you pass current through it and it vibrates. No springs, no rods, nothing. Just a solid block of a special material which sits idle and when voltage is applied to it it vibrates rapidly. Magic!
Wow! How do you know that I do not know what a piezoelectric element is? When my name was mentioned in technical magazines for working on this subject.
The other thing is did you ever see how one of those in-camera image stabilizer and self cleaning works? We have a number of exposed working display model at a couple of Sony showrooms here.
Nice going trying to discredit someone you haven't met or even know.

Jul 08, 2008 at 02:28 PM

gfiksel
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.1 #16 · Is build-in image stabilizer & self cleaning sensor good for the long run?

hans98ko wrote:
Take a look at your own picture. Do you see those little holes and blue pins?
That is where they go thru each other and when they shake they wear. If you compare this to one that has its sensor mounted fixed you will have less movable parts to wear and tear, so less particles created.
Nice picture that you pull from either Sony or Pentax but did not include the electro mechanical section that create the moments.

1. The holes and the pins are to fix the parts so the DO NOT move relative to each other.
2. This is piezoelectric element that creates the FLEXING. There is nothing moving relative to each other so there is no wear and tear. There is no ropes and pulleys, dude, to create a "mechanical" moment. What century were you born?
3. This is a Canon own picture

Three strikes and you're out. No need to post anymore.

Edited on Jul 08, 2008 at 03:10 PM

Jul 08, 2008 at 03:04 PM

panos.v
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #17 · Is build-in image stabilizer & self cleaning sensor good for the long run?

hans98ko wrote:
panos.v wrote:
You might be a satellite expert but you clearly have no clue what a piezoelectric element is. So here it is: you pass current through it and it vibrates. No springs, no rods, nothing. Just a solid block of a special material which sits idle and when voltage is applied to it it vibrates rapidly. Magic!
Wow! How do you know that I do not know what a piezoelectric element is? When my name was mentioned in technical magazines for working on this subject.
The other thing is did you ever see how one of those in-camera image stabilizer and self cleaning works? We have a number of exposed working display model at a couple of Sony showrooms here.
Nice going trying to discredit someone you haven't met or even know.

Well if you do know what it is, you can clearly read the diagram provided and realise that there are no moving parts. Unless you'd like to explain to the rest of us where the moving parts are in that diagram. As explained the holes and pins you mentioned are fixed and do not move.

You're right, I don't know you and frankly have no interest in knowing you or replying to any of your misinformed posts. I'm gone. Ciao.

Edited on Jul 08, 2008 at 03:55 PM

Jul 08, 2008 at 03:54 PM

hans98ko
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #18 · Is build-in image stabilizer & self cleaning sensor good for the long run?

gfiksel wrote:
hans98ko wrote:
Take a look at your own picture. Do you see those little holes and blue pins?
That is where they go thru each other and when they shake they wear. If you compare this to one that has its sensor mounted fixed you will have less movable parts to wear and tear, so less particles created.
Nice picture that you pull from either Sony or Pentax but did not include the electro mechanical section that create the moments.

1. The holes and the pins are to fix the parts so the DO NOT move relative to each other.
2. This is piezoelectric element that creates the FLEXING. There is nothing moving relative to each other so there is no wear and tear. There is no ropes and pulleys, dude, to create a "mechanical" moment. What century were you born?
3. This is a Canon own picture

Three strikes and you're out. No need to post anymore.
Go take a look at the actual model from Sony and you will see what I meant.
It is ok for me to be strike out, anyway I like reading rather than posting anyway

Jul 08, 2008 at 04:00 PM

hans98ko
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #19 · Is build-in image stabilizer & self cleaning sensor good for the long run?

gfiksel wrote:
3. This is a Canon own picture

Now I see what went wrong with our discussion, all the while I was assuming the picture you posted was from either Sony or Pentax which has their image stabilizer build onto their camera and not the one from Canon that does not.
The issue I am trying to bring out is the one with the build-in image stabilizer will have a lot more moving part than the one that does not. Yes I do agree that the piezo-electric element does not have physical movement (only skin effect) but this whole element is mounted onto the same frame that sensor is mounted on the build-in image stabilizer. If you compare the difference between the one from Sony (with build-in IS) and Canon (without Build-in IS) you will see what I meant about having more moving parts. That is why I was asking where's the electro-mechanical portion? for Canon they don't have any because it is mounted right onto the chasis. Maybe this is where I missed out initially to cause the confussion.
Going into the detail of the design was not my main intention, my intention is to point out that having more moving parts will eventually create more particles within the chamber. And also having a self cleaning sensor does not mean that no cleaning is ever needed, as you can see some users are already saying that they still need to clean their sensors (or filters actually) if there is a smear or something other than loose particles.

Edited on Jul 09, 2008 at 05:24 AM

Jul 09, 2008 at 03:55 AM

goodwrench
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #20 · Is build-in image stabilizer & self cleaning sensor good for the long run?

Well in body AS/SSS has proven to be very reliable. Also I'm sure some lens elements are heavier than a CCD/CMOS sensor and will require more force to move/stop them (of course some lens elements will be lighter like the Canon Kit lens with IS). As well as that MOST people change bodies far more often than lenses-so what will be more reliable?. I know from my own testing with my brothers 10D and Canon 28-135 and 70-300 IS (I think) VS my 7D and various lenses AS and IS have virtually the same effectiveness up to 200mm and lens IS has a slight advantage in the longer lengths >300mm.

Here is a pic from another post ISO 800, 85mm, 1/15

This image is copyrighted by the owner

I'm really tempted by the D700 but lack of in body AS/SSS makes me wait for the new Sony FF

Garth

Jul 09, 2008 at 05:54 AM

hans98ko
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #21 · Is build-in image stabilizer & self cleaning sensor good for the long run?

I really like the way you took that picture with all the tools and screws lying around, a piece of cleaning tissue in one corner and another lens in the background. And it sure is sharp too.
Yes you brought out a very good point about: "As well as that MOST people change bodies far more often than lenses-so what will be more reliable?"
Yes either we prefer to have AS/SSS/IS/OIS/VR on the body or the lens, sooner or later we will have to fix it or replace it. With this I think most would not mind having it on the body so that we get to keep the lens longer without having to fix it. For those nature and sports photographers maybe they will like it to have it on the lens so as to give them better response. With this I think it still is a tough call for camera manufacturers because they can't have it both ways. So we are still in a catch 22 situation where we have no winner nor looser either way.

Edited on Jul 09, 2008 at 09:43 AM

Jul 09, 2008 at 09:36 AM

jvarszegi
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #22 · Is build-in image stabilizer & self cleaning sensor good for the long run?

hans98ko wrote:
Take a look at your own picture. Do you see those little holes and blue pins?
That is where they go thru each other and when they shake they wear. If you compare this to one that has its sensor mounted fixed you will have less movable parts to wear and tear, so less particles created.
Nice picture that you pull from either Sony or Pentax but did not include the electro mechanical section that create the moments.

I think you have established that you really don't have a point. Witness also your "point" about a satellite not containing anti-dust features. Maybe that's because a satellite is in space and doesn't have interchangeable lenses, hmm? Do you think you might need to think this through a bit more?

Jul 09, 2008 at 09:55 AM

hans98ko
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #23 · Is build-in image stabilizer & self cleaning sensor good for the long run?

jvarszegi wrote:
I think you have established that you really don't have a point. Witness also your "point" about a satellite not containing anti-dust features. Maybe that's because a satellite is in space and doesn't have interchangeable lenses, hmm? Do you think you might need to think this through a bit more?

As I already mentioned above that I had initially mistook the picture for that of a Sony or Pentax module, so was asking for the missing electro-mechanical linkage. I will not get into the other item because some people don't think it is relevant to this forum and it is not.
What I am trying to do here is to find out the pros and cons of having/or not having them on the camera or the lens. And some users here did offered a couple of good feedbacks.
As to if it is a "point" or not is up to each individual to decide. You might not think so but some might. This is what we call freedom of speech and expression. No one is here to force you to accept the information posted here.

Jul 09, 2008 at 10:39 AM

walnutroof
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #24 · Is build-in image stabilizer & self cleaning sensor good for the long run?

goodwrench wrote:
Well in body AS/SSS has proven to be very reliable. Also I'm sure some lens elements are heavier than a CCD/CMOS sensor and will require more force to move/stop them (of course some lens elements will be lighter like the Canon Kit lens with IS). As well as that MOST people change bodies far more often than lenses-so what will be more reliable?. I know from my own testing with my brothers 10D and Canon 28-135 and 70-300 IS (I think) VS my 7D and various lenses AS and IS have virtually the same effectiveness up to 200mm and lens IS has a slight advantage in the longer lengths >300mm.

Here is a pic from another post ISO 800, 85mm, 1/15

This image is copyrighted by the owner

I'm really tempted by the D700 but lack of in body AS/SSS makes me wait for the new Sony FF

Garth
I am bleeding it's too sharp

Jul 10, 2008 at 04:53 AM

frank kayser
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #25 · Is build-in image stabilizer & self cleaning sensor good for the long run?

Canon and Nikon believe that an image stabilization mechanism can be tailored better to each lens, rather than body IS.

Other makers are satisfied that they have solved the technical hurdles of interchangeable lens in-camera stabilization.

Who is right?

Lets look at benefits:
In camera stabilization means all their lenses are now IS of VR. That is WAY cool.
Canon and Nikon believe in lens-by-lens for optimal IQ.

Downsides?
Not all C & N lenses are IS.
They do come out with new models of older lenses, or new designs with IS regularly, with a hefty premium (at least the "L" lenses - i.e., the 70-200 series of lenses)
Many times when a new IS lens comes out, the non-IS lens is discontinued - and for those situations where IS doesn't help, a big price premium for the focal length.

With in-camera IS/VR, the allegation is that there is an IQ penalty to pay, in that the system cannot be as optimal as C & N.

Well, Canon and Nikon will certainly design, build, and sell lots of new glass, and obsolete much older glass.

Jul 10, 2008 at 01:23 PM


FM Forums \| General Gear-talk \| Join Image Upload 1 2 end