jvarszegi wrote:
No, sorry. Lens-based IS is not better than in-body IS, just different.
That sir, is absolutely false.
Advantages of lens based IS:
1) stabilization of image in the viewfinder
2) New systems effective for 4 stops (both nikon and Canon) and full range of focal lengths.
3) Does not create distortion blur in non-rectilinear lenses.
4) Does not create perspective blur in perfectly rectilinear wide angle lenses
5) Works with full frame
6) Works with ef-s and "digital only" lenses
7) More effective at long focal lengths.
8) Designed to perfectly match the specific lens being used.
9) Does not move the sensor out of the "sweet spot" of the sensor for a percentage of the exposure creating a blur between max sharpness and something worse
If you are going to state that Lens IS is equal to sensor IS please back up the statement by creating a list of advantages for Sensor IS that is equal to the one I have just given you.
As a suggestion, do not include cost in your list. Currently there is no lens-IS based system that can equal the image quality of a XTi + 17-55IS and 70-200 f/4IS @ 3/focal length at ANY PRICE.
There are many ways to "skin a cat". Canon and Nikon
have chosen their effective way for good reasons and
others have chosen another path for different reasons
but that doesn't mean that tried and true should be rejected
just to keep up with the Joneses. If in-body IS proves out
to be more effective then most will eventually migrate to it
but that hasn't and likely won't ever be proven. IS is a help
to me only in long lenses and Canon has the widest range
of those so this argument is superfluous to me.
Greg Pavlov wrote:
Don't you think that it won't eventually be possible for the circuitry to vary iso
sensitivity in real time across individual elements of the sensor according to
maintain exposure within algorithmically calculated bounds ?
You mean a body that automatically either clips highlights or flattens contrast? Yes, I can't wait for that!
Again, I did not say lens-based IS had no advantages. In-body IS also has HUGE advantages. What I said was that it is comparing apples to oranges to say one is better than the other. Read better.
1) stabilization of image in the viewfinder
A complete non-issue at the focal lengths where in-body IS works well.
2) New systems effective for 4 stops (both nikon and Canon) and full range of focal lengths.
On a limited selection of lenses. Does not mean in-body IS is not effective. Here, in-body IS has an advantage on most of the lenses in the Canon lineup.
3) Does not create distortion blur in non-rectilinear lenses.
I think this is FUD. I don't see people complaining of distortion blur in non-rectilinear lenses on the Sony system etc.. Prove the effect of this, and start by saying better what you're talking about. Can you show an example of the two side-by-side to show the harmful difference? Also, what does it matter? In-lens IS is not available on the lenses I'd use with in-body IS.
4) Does not create perspective blur in perfectly rectilinear wide angle lenses
More empty talk
5) Works with full frame
So can in-body IS. All of the arguments against are wrong that I've seen so far. Even L lenses with baffles have larger-than-sensor coverage already-- and baffles can be removed. For all other lenses, the supposed vignetting issue is absolutely negligible.
With objections against, I feel that you should sustain the burden of proof. Show that you're right instead of just repeating empty words from the opinion of others.
6) Works with ef-s and "digital only" lenses
Ditto.
7) More effective at long focal lengths.
Go read my post. This does not make in-lens IS better. For me, in-body IS would be better, because I would have a stabilized 85L. This argument was thought of by a wishful-thinking sports or wildlife shooter, interested in feeling good about the money they've dropped on their IS lenses. It was certainly not concocted by a people shooter.
8) Designed to perfectly match the specific lens being used.
No IS in the majority of lenses in use today. Again, the fact that in-lens IS is superior on a few lenses does not mean in-lens IS, as a generic feature set, is superior. Read my post. It's simple.
9) Does not move the sensor out of the "sweet spot" of the sensor for a percentage of the exposure creating a blur between max sharpness and something worse
I guess I cannot match your logical prowess by entering into a debate about moving the sensor out of the sweet spot of the sensor. Instead, I'd like you to show some sort of evidence that you're not just blowing hot gas.
If you are going to state that Lens IS is equal to sensor IS please back up the statement by creating a list of advantages for Sensor IS that is equal to the one I have just given you.
Availability
Cost
You obviously don't shoot people in low light.
As a suggestion, do not include cost in your list. Currently there is no lens-IS based system that can equal the image quality of a XTi + 17-55IS and 70-200 f/4IS @ 3/focal length at ANY PRICE.
Your argument is specious. A body-stabilized 85L, for instance, would below the 17-55 IS away in its specialized area.
Edited by jvarszegi on Apr 21, 2007 at 05:14 PM GMT
nads wrote:
You mean a body that automatically either clips highlights or flattens contrast? Yes, I can't wait for that!
Me either. Cameras today already clip highlights or shadows when the dynamic range is too much for the sensor, whether you shoot manual or not. It would indeed be a useful feature to automatically expose to the right in other situations. And in many situations I would prefer a less-contrasty raw image than an image ruined due to clipped highlights.
nads wrote:
That was quite a leap of faith you took with my statement. My statement is that Canon CAN invest their money that way. Also, if such a hypothetical world existed where they chose to invest money in BIS, that money would simply be wasted in an effort to solve a problem that was previously solved with the 75-300 IS lens.
Let me be perfectly clear. I do not believe that Canon is working on IS in the body. I believe this because I feel the technology has severe drawbacks:
* It would destroy the market for a lenses like the 17-55IS, 70-200 f/4 IS, 70-200 2.8 IS and even 24-105 IS.
* It will not work with FF unless all lenses are redesigned with larger image circles
* It will not work with ef-s for the same reason
* It is not as effective as Lens IS at long focal lengths.
* It will deteriorate image when using most wide angle lenses
* An Xti + 18-55IS is indistinguishable from an alpha + 18-70 in the eyes of uneducated consumers who only learned that they want IS from P&S cameras.
* The competition is not truly forcing their hand... the 2 stops given by the alpha's IS are lost in the alpha's ISO performance.
* Body Based IS is a DOOMED TECHNOLOGY.
Seriously ask yourself why Canon would knowingly bring to market the 17-55 ef-s IS knowing that they would put out a body with IS within a year or two? This is a lens that can only be used on entry level products in the first place. Who out there would buy this over a Tamron 17-50 if they owned a Canon body with built in IS?
Canon has already "shown it's colors". They did so when they released an ef-s IS lens and they did so when they released an ad campaign meant to turn consumer opinion against this technology which they do not intend to bring to market.
Canon has shown it's colors by pursuing affordable FF. We know now that Full Frame and sensor-IS are mutually exclusive. We also know that sensor resolution is going to continue to improve, eventually to the point that crop sensors out resolve most lenses. At that point the only way to improve resolution given the same pixel density will be to use a larger image circle. Crop sensors are already dramatically hampered by diffraction, and this will only get worse as sensor resolution increases.
Now you can imagine a mythological electronic based version of IS all you want. But the reality is that the only way that will happen is through the advancement of processing power and the improvement of sensor technology. Unfortunately for those dreaming about this vapor ware, that kind of improvement will also yield more affordable FF sensors. The very technology required to make this imaginative version of IS work is the same technology that will make it obsolete!.
Now this is mostly a list of real world obstacles that I believe must be overcome to make sensor-IS a longterm, mainstream reality in the world of DSLR's. As I see it, the set of tools currently available from Canon is more than enough to take excellent photographs in every conceivable situation. I do not think that is rational to undermine what has been proven to work simply to give us this new technology that is in no way MEASURABLE BETTER than lens-based is.
Canon's long term goals have been based on the use of FF and lens-based IS for a long time now. Turning that strategy on it's head in order to serve the few vocal proponents of an inferior technology is not the way for a company to serve the people that really matter - it's shareholders.
Please, if you really hate that Canon is charging you so much for IS built into each lens, feel free to move to Sony. With Sony you will only lose two stops of usable ISO, but you will make those two stops back up with the use of their IS. (That is of course unless you are currently using a canon lens with IS and your subject isn't moving too fast for a shutter speed 1/4th of what you were going to use with the Canon body).
When electronic metering first came out, I’d witnessed owners of brands that didn’t offer this feature proclaimed they didn’t need it. Then the same people were the first to purchase such feature as soon as it became available in their brands. Over the years I’ve witnessed the same type of behavior for auto focus, lens IS, digital SLR, and now Body IS.
Personally, I doubt that those who have spent thousands, purchasing the-best-of-the-best lenses for a tiny amount of improvement in sharpness and contrast will pass up the opportunity to get Body IS, not wanting to squeeze the last pixel of sharpness out of their 50mm or 85mm f1.2L in low-light situation. Those who are bashing BIS will be the first to get it as soon as Canon offers it. Perfectionists will continue to purchase 70-200 f2.8L IS because lens IS will still be a little better than BIS so I don’t think Canon needs to worry too much. Just my 2¢.
Apr 21, 2007 at 01:02 PM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
A.Y. wrote:
When electronic metering first came out, I’d witnessed owners of brands that didn’t offer this feature proclaimed they didn’t need it. Then the same people were the first to purchase such feature as soon as it became available in their brands. Over the years I’ve witnessed the same type of behavior for auto focus, lens IS, digital SLR, and now Body IS.
Personally, I doubt that those who have spent thousands, purchasing the-best-of-the-best lenses for a tiny amount of improvement in sharpness and contrast will pass up the opportunity to get Body IS, not wanting to squeeze the last pixel of sharpness out of their 50mm or 85mm f1.2L in low-light situation. Those who are bashing BIS will be the first to get it as soon as Canon offers it. Perfectionists will continue to purchase 70-200 f2.8L IS because lens IS will still be a little better than BIS so I don’t think Canon needs to worry too much. Just my 2¢....Show more →
And a lot of the people here that suddenly need and must have IS in the body, they didn't need it in the lens before
Lars Johnsson wrote:
And a lot of the people here that suddenly need and must have IS in the body, they didn't need it in the lens before
I haven't seen anyone say that they must have IS in the body. Instead, what happens is that people say that body IS is worthless, and then people respond and say that it has value. It is natural to want improvements in function.
jvarszegi wrote:
I haven't seen anyone say that they must have IS in the body. Instead, what happens is that people say that body IS is worthless, and then people respond and say that it has value. It is natural to want improvements in function.
The thread started because the O.P wrote that ""Canon MUST show it's colours""
not because people respond with that they didn't like it
Lars Johnsson wrote:
The thread started because the O.P wrote that ""Canon MUST show it's colours""
not because people respond with that they didn't like it
Canon must...............
Heh, you're right. Sorry. It seems like the vast majority of times this has come up here, though, it has been because someone began by stating that the feature was worthless.
These systems are still fairly primitive compared to in-lens designs. If Canon poured the same research into sensor-based IS as into lens IS, it would surely improve quite a bit. Here are DPReview test results on the Sony body at 50mm:
Your statement that VF image stabilization is "A complete non-issue at the focal lengths where in-body IS works well." implies that there are some focal lengths where in-body IS doesn't work well, which would be unacceptable performance.
I have IS in lenses ranging from 17mm continuously up to to 400mm and it performs flawlessly. The stabilized viewfinder is very useful throughout the entire range, and way better than the absolute zero VF stabilization of inbody IS.
IIRC, Canon has already published ads stating their position and comparing the two IS schemes so I doubt all the chest pounding displayed here will change anything.
These systems are still fairly primitive compared to in-lens designs. If Canon poured the same research into sensor-based IS as into lens IS, it would surely improve quite a bit. Here are DPReview test results on the Sony body at 50mm:
Read a whitepaper or a real-world test; I'm not crawling the web for you. I will tell you in advance it's not 600mm and up.
I've seen that review and tried the camera, sorry but I wasn't very impressed. Still, in body IS by moving a sensor around will not provide stabilization for an optical VF.
RJJR wrote:
IIRC, Canon has already published ads stating their position and comparing the two IS schemes so I doubt all the chest pounding displayed here will change anything.
Canon has a very influential marketing division that will tell you what they want you to think now, with plans of what they want you to think later.
No need to get the two confused - they'll let you know when they're ready .
mirages wrote:
Canon has a very influential marketing division that will tell you what they want you to think now, with plans of what they want you to think later.
No need to get the two confused - they'll let you know when they're ready .
Canon isn't the least bit concerned if you hold your breath too long and expire -
they have functional plans to market the person who will inherit what you left .
.
.