p.2 #1 · 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?
p.2 #2 · 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.
p.2 #3 · 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
p.2 #4 · 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.
p.2 #5 · Is build-in image stabilizer & self cleaning sensor good for the long run?
This thread really got away from itself, thanks mostly to the OP. Nonetheless, he started out questioning the long term reliability of features like in-body IS and sensor cleaning. I do too. Even among forum rats, most people don't buy a new camera body every time one is introduced or switch systems because of some perceived minor advantage. And simply because Nikon and Canon come out with a new doodad for their cameras, it doesn't make everything else obsolete. Sensor cleaning just shakes the glass cover over the sensor but in-body IS moves the sensor itself around. That creates a potentially serious problem if anything does go wrong, see Murphy's Law. That coupled with the fact that it's less effective makes it an unnecessary risk IMO.
p.2 #6 · Is build-in image stabilizer & self cleaning sensor good for the long run?
So moving the senor is more problematic and less reliable than moving glass in th lens? I really don't see it. I have been shooing with the KM Maxxum 7D since 2004 and and KM A2 before that. I shoot an A700 now -all have AS/SSS. On the forums AS failure is not that common. Don't get me wrong it does happen but IMO it's fairly rare.
Which is better? not one is better than the other. It all depends on what you need/want.
IMO if you need a stabilized prime like an 85 1.4 or a 135 1.8 you have to go in body AS/SSS. If you need stabilized long lenses 400mm/600mm in lens IS in better IMO.
Just like if you NEED a weather/water resistant camera and only have $2000 to spend you need a Nikon D300/Oly E3 or Pentax K20D---not an Sony A700 or Canon 40D.
p.2 #9 · Is build-in image stabilizer & self cleaning sensor good for the long run?
Steve Torelli wrote:
If something goes wrong with your IS or VR lens, you can can use another lens.
... and if something goes wrong with your camera due to the in-body IS (which would be akin to winning the lottery-- the shutter and other components are much more likely to break), you can get it repaired, same as you'd need to do with your lens.
p.2 #10 · Is build-in image stabilizer & self cleaning sensor good for the long run?
Steve Torelli wrote:
This thread really got away from itself, thanks mostly to the OP. Nonetheless, he started out questioning the long term reliability of features like in-body IS and sensor cleaning. I do too. Even among forum rats, most people don't buy a new camera body every time one is introduced or switch systems because of some perceived minor advantage. And simply because Nikon and Canon come out with a new doodad for their cameras, it doesn't make everything else obsolete. Sensor cleaning just shakes the glass cover over the sensor but in-body IS moves the sensor itself around. That creates a potentially serious problem if anything does go wrong, see Murphy's Law. That coupled with the fact that it's less effective makes it an unnecessary risk IMO....Show more →
You could boil this all down to "I don't value stabilization on my shorter fast lenses", "I just don't like the feature", etc. It isn't for you. But to claim that it is because of a "risk" disregards the real-world implementations that show the opposite.
p.2 #11 · Is build-in image stabilizer & self cleaning sensor good for the long run?
I'd have to say that, most people do not have two bodies handy, most don't own two bodies. Few people shooting with an SLR own only one lens.
?You could boil this all down to "I don't value stabilization on my shorter fast lenses", "I just don't like the feature", etc. It isn't for you. But to claim that it is because of a "risk" disregards the real-world implementations that show the opposite.
What real world implementations? In-body IS has only been around for a short while. Sony and Pentax use it and they don't sell anywhere near what Nikon and Canon do, enough of 'em haven't been sold for long enough to say that. Now, how did you come to the conclusion from what I wrote that I don't like image stabilization? I've had half a dozen IS lenses including, currently a 24-105 and 70-200. What I said was, I think it poses potential problems when implemented on the body. Do you just accept every new technology without question? If it's new it's good? I don't. I think the OP's question about in-body IS and it's potential affect on camera life was a valid one.
p.2 #12 · Is build-in image stabilizer & self cleaning sensor good for the long run?
Steve Torelli wrote:
What real world implementations?
All the ones out there. You can't point to any actual problems with reliability, just made-up ones. Prove me wrong!
Now, how did you come to the conclusion from what I wrote that I don't like image stabilization?
Obviously, I didn't come that sneakily worded realization, but the realization that you're quite obviously bashing in-body stabilization, the only solution to possibly offer stabilization for shorter fast lenses in the short term. And you're doing it with what seems a lack of information and a lot of bias.
p.2 #13 · Is build-in image stabilizer & self cleaning sensor good for the long run?
I don't think any stabilization or anti-dust system has proven to be either unreliable or superior. Or any more or less reliable than the focus systems, shutter systems, aperture systems, etc. I could look at "lifetime" issues on my old film slrs and the problems I would have these days come from battery availability, sticky old lube or deteriorating seals.
However, an engineering or scientific evaluation of cost versus usability versus reliability would rely on real data not idle speculation about "moving parts."
"Shooting down satellites" has always been more a political problem than a technological one. GPS and satellite communications, etc., are a relatively new technology, oceans were crossed, planes were flown, wars were fought, without them for thousands of years. It would be a fatal error to assume that they are necessary now.
p.2 #14 · Is build-in image stabilizer & self cleaning sensor good for the long run?
I don't think I'm bashing anything, only pointing out that it hasn't been around long enough to make a long term evaluation of it yet. Long term questions were the OP's original topic.
Look, anybody that wants it can have it. Just get into the Sony or Pentax system. Nikon and Canon don't just aim their products at the entry level, they have pros and advanced amateurs that expect the top of the line from them. If they both think that in-body IS is a compromise that isn't worth it AFA performance, there's gotta be a reason for it other than they're just a couple of money grubbing companies out to take every dime they can get from us. Maybe one day all cameras will have it. Maybe not. Right now, AFAIC, I would rather have an IS unit designed for the lens I'm using, rather than a generic unit that kind of works for all lenses. YMMV.
p.2 #15 · Is build-in image stabilizer & self cleaning sensor good for the long run?
So, there hasn't been enough time to evaluate it? How much time do you think is enough? It's performed well through the life of any of the cameras released with it. Roughly 4 years when you consider the KM 7D.
There is no evidence that either Nikon nor Canon consider body based systems a compromise that isn't worth it. There are those that suggest that Nikon and Canon are too invested in their own systems and advertising claims to move to body based AS. You've probably noticed, or should have, that advertising claims aside, there is no "industry" standardized testing regimen that the companies have all agreed to or test to. The point is the different systems all work, work reliably and there is no definitive quality nor performance evidence to suggest the contrary.
