Sony's SSS automatically detects horizontal panning and adapts accordingly. This has been the case since Konica Minolta DSLRs.
I believe that Canon doesn't include in-body IS for two reasons. 1) it would cannibalize IS lens sales 2) they've been issuing white papers for years arguing that in-body IS is inferior.
A dual system would certainly be ideal.
Regardless, there is no better IS system than body-based IS when it comes to alternative lenses.
Wow, there is just so much misinformation in this thread about IS that it's not even funny.
One of the greatest advantages to lens-based IS has to be the stabilization of the image in the optical viewfinder, which enables two very critical features: first, the accurate composition of subjects, and second, the accurate acquisition of AF due to the stability of the resultant optical projection through the AF system.
These significant advantages cannot be denied and are NOT possible with sensor-based IS.
To hear all these people go on about lens IS being nothing more than a holdover from the film days and/or an excuse for larger profit margins, really does a disservice to the research that went into this technological development. It also reflects paranoia and ignorance.
I haven't seen any misinformation. I said that Canon isn't introducing body based IS as a complimentary system to lens based IS because of profit margins (partly.) Both body based and lens based IS have their advantages, and having the option of both in one system would be ideal.
douglasf13 wrote:
I haven't seen any misinformation. I said that Canon isn't introducing body based IS as a complimentary system to lens based IS because of profit margins (partly.) Both body based and lens based IS have their advantages, and having the option of both in one system would be ideal.
Then why wouldn't they do it? By your reasoning, adding in-body IS would simply give Canon all the more reason to charge more for their bodies, which easily sell at far higher volumes than the big whites. You can't have your argument both ways.
In fact, many optical designs cannot accommodate an optical IS group because there simply is no space for it to fit, such as in the EF 85/1.2L II, not to mention virtually all wide and ultra-wide primes. Because these designs could not be produced with in-lens IS, you would think the option to have in-body IS for these lenses is a no-brainer. And yet they don't because...? How does your reasoning make any sense in this context when lens-based IS cannot be implemented at all?
At the risk of repeating myself--lens-based IS would never be functionally supplanted by in-body IS for many of those lenses in which in-lens IS exists. Would it be nice to have the option of both? Sure. But to state that sensor-based IS would cut into profit margins on lens-based IS designs is misinformed. It's not like the non-IS versions were all that much cheaper, sharper, or lighter. It's not like Canon/Nikon can't set their profit margins however they want. And most importantly, it's not like the sensor-based IS performance could ever be a match for the lens-based IS for the precise reasons I mentioned earlier.
Many people said the same stuff about USM, and Canon's decision to put the AF motor in the lens when they developed the EF mount. And look at where we are now. Nobody questions the superiority of having AF housed in the barrel instead of the body.
When phase detect AF + SLR technology is replaced by something better and faster, then we can expect to see changes in IS implementation.
wickerprints: it is probably all true what you write.
For me the benefits that outweigh the lens based IS are numerous but most significantly the fact that I can use my old manual focus lenses and have IS in camera. Which works great by the way.
With a camera that would only allow for lens based IS I would not be helped at all.
With Sony there is the odd chance that they could introduce longer glass with IS in the lens. All there is to it would be to hit that switch on the back of the camera and turn off in camera IS.
With Canon there is the odd chance that they might introduce in body IS and allow their users the best of both - with the added bonus of having an existing IS lens line.
As long as they don't they are doing their users a disservice.
I agree with Brainiac to a certain degree that stabilizers are not a replacement for really fast glass and good high ISO performance. But in my case it has stretched the possibilities a lot. With the 135/1.8 I have had success down to 1/8th of a second at close range which to me is simply amazing. Had the subject moved at all I would still not have gotten the shot.
If I have to choose between in body IS and a "noise free" ISO setting or no in body IS and a noisy ISO setting that introduces banding and other artefacts that completely ruins the image the choice is easy. IS any day. Oh, and a lot of sedative in the drinks and have the DJ pitch down the beat so people dance in slo mo.
wayne seltzer wrote:
Both Canon and Nikon go with the stabilization in the lens because you can get more stablization than the in camera type for long tele lenses.
That might be true (at the moment) but how many people shoot handheld with long teles at slow shutter speeds?
Both Canon and Nikon went with stabilization in the lens because they developed the system during the days of film when body stabilization wasn't as feasible.
As a by product tests suggest that lens stabilization wins at the long end and body at the short end (esp given that most short lenses do not have stabilization).
I've heard mixed review on the a900 in body stabilization; a sample of one indicated that it was easily confused at certain (downward) angles. My experience with an olympus camera was also mixed. Normally it seemed to do the job but occasionally it went wacky.
wayne seltzer wrote:
Both Canon and Nikon go with the stabilization in the lens because you can get more stablization than the in camera type for long tele lenses. The ultimate case would be to have both kinds so that you can use the in camera for lenses that don't have IS and still have the better in lens IS for your teles that have IS.
Go shoot a bird-in-flight(BIF) handholding a 500L with IS and you will see the benefits of in lens IS.
douglasf13 wrote:
Actually, you've got ISO 12800, too, Jim, because you can just boost exposure in the RAW converter. There isn't a camera around that I know of (haven't heard about the D3s yet) that benefits from shooting over ISO 1600. DR is preserved to keep most cameras at ISO 1600 (A900 at ISO 800) and boost exposure in raw converter after that. I haven't shot the A900 over ISO 800 in many months, and I've had good results boosting at least to the equivalent of ISO 6400. Granted, ISO 12800 is probably a stretch, depending on your output size.
+1
I would have few qualms about shooting an α900 at settings equivalent to iso 12800. Results will be quite close to the very best once sensible chroma NR has been applied. Here's the D3x at iso 12800, and I don't believe there is a huge difference: http://cyberphotographer.com/d3xv5d2/d3x_12800_lowrez.jpg
It would be great to see some α900 examples of iso 12800 in dark conditions.
digitalbug30d wrote:
not every pic is a f1.2 iso 12,800 world
So you want me to carry two camera kits instead of one? Seriously, people need to remember that IS only works for fairly static subjects. If you primarily shoot moving things, i.e. people, and you need low light capabilities, then aperture and iso is the answer.
kosmoskatten wrote:
I agree with Brainiac to a certain degree that stabilizers are not a replacement for really fast glass and good high ISO performance.
Let me just clarify that I'm not saying I don't want ibis, just that I am realistic about what it achieves, and therefore for me, great high iso and bright lenses are far more important. I'm even a bit fed up with my awesomely sharp 24-105 because I find f4 constricting. I just don't shoot static subjects enough for IS to be much use to me. For others who shoot static scenes more, it will be more useful.
Although your image somewhat seems to benefit from the blur... it adds life and puts a smile on my face... now I want to hear what's so funny in that conversation!
Marco wrote:
Although your image somewhat seems to benefit from the blur...
No - this picture went in the bin because he is not recognisable and looks deformed. With a faster shutter speed you still get the laughter, and you can see his expression too. In situations like this 100 stops of IS is no substitute for even half a stop of aperture/shutter speed.
wickerprints wrote:
Wow, there is just so much misinformation in this thread about IS that it's not even funny.
(...lots of rants...)
To hear all these people go on about lens IS being nothing more than a holdover from the film days and/or an excuse for larger profit margins, really does a disservice to the research that went into this technological development. It also reflects paranoia and ignorance.
Wow, are you part of NIkon's or Canon's marketing team? If not you should join them....
So much words for denying the obvious: That body IS is the best overall solution for camera shake at low shutter speeds, it simply covers ALL lenses.
I have currently roughly 15 lenses or so, both for Canon and Nikon mount. Only one of them (the Nikon 16-85mm 3,5-5,6) has VR (Nikon's IS), all the other ones don't. I love all my fixed focal lenses for their excellent optical quality and I'd love them even more if in camera IS could give me an additional 1-2 stops of low light performance.
Yes I know that it doesn't help with moving objects, but in many situations it would help, I guess that patent fees and the fear of cutting into their own lens sales and R&D that goes into lens IS Canon and NIkon do not change that policy, but there is no denying that both - in camera and in lens IS/ VR would be the ideal solution.
In camera IS at Canon and Nikon will come one day, the question is only whether it is in 5 years or in 15 years. Pentax does it, Oly and Sony as well, as soon as they gain more market share, Nikon and Canon have to follow. Simple law of competition.
wickerprints wrote:
Wow, there is just so much misinformation in this thread about IS that it's not even funny.
To hear all these people go on about lens IS being nothing more than a holdover from the film days and/or an excuse for larger profit margins, really does a disservice to the research that went into this technological development. It also reflects paranoia and ignorance.
I think your paranoia is evident in your trolling about. I won't even bother arguing with you, you should just go back to your nikcan group and talk about how much you love your own camera. Why are you here in the alternative group promoting in lens stabilization when it isn't even available in alternative solutions? I cannot help but label you a troll.
alba63 wrote:
Wow, are you part of NIkon's or Canon's marketing team? If not you should join them....
So much words for denying the obvious: That body IS is the best overall solution for camera shake at low shutter speeds, it simply covers ALL lenses.
1. The importance of IS increases proportionally with focal length.
2. Lens-based IS stabilizes the image in the optical viewfinder.
3. "Best overall" does not apply when you consider that many professionals need "best for their current shooting situation."
You ignored ALL of these statements of fact. Just because I could have in-body IS on a 16-35mm zoom doesn't mean I particularly care to; whereas I *need* lens-based IS if I'm shooting @ 600mm f/8 handheld.
Look, I NEVER said Canon shouldn't implement some kind of in-body IS. I am specifically addressing this persistent myth that lens-based IS is just a marketing ploy or an expensive boondoggle. For the last time, it is NOT. There are very real and tangible advantages to having lens-based IS, almost to the point of being VITAL on the big whites. But go ahead and insult me for daring to speak about using the best technology for the task at hand, especially when we're talking about $7000 lenses. All it does is make your position appear even more absurd.
Theresa_N wrote:
I think your paranoia is evident in your trolling about. I won't even bother arguing with you, you should just go back to your nikcan group and talk about how much you love your own camera. Why are you here in the alternative group promoting in lens stabilization when it isn't even available in alternative solutions? I cannot help but label you a troll.
You must be new around here.
This thread is about the Sony A900, which has in-body IS. Then people in this forum make false statements about the justification for lens-based IS, for which I provided a logical counterargument. Now you're calling me a troll simply because you disagree but can't provide a coherent rebuttal.
Frankly, there are people with multiple systems around here. Nobody should be confined to a particular subforum on the basis of statements that are not confined to a single system, as is the case with image stabilization technology.
Oh, and by the way, Canon and Nikon are not the only manufacturers that use lens-based IS. Several Four Thirds lenses also have IS.
brainiac wrote:
No - this picture went in the bin because he is not recognisable and looks deformed. With a faster shutter speed you still get the laughter, and you can see his expression too.
kosmoskatten wrote:
wickerprints: it is probably all true what you write.
For me the benefits that outweigh the lens based IS are numerous but most significantly the fact that I can use my old manual focus lenses and have IS in camera. Which works great by the way.
With a camera that would only allow for lens based IS I would not be helped at all.
With Sony there is the odd chance that they could introduce longer glass with IS in the lens. All there is to it would be to hit that switch on the back of the camera and turn off in camera IS.
With Canon there is the odd chance that they might introduce in body IS and allow their users the best of both - with the added bonus of having an existing IS lens line.
As long as they don't they are doing their users a disservice.
I agree with Brainiac to a certain degree that stabilizers are not a replacement for really fast glass and good high ISO performance. But in my case it has stretched the possibilities a lot. With the 135/1.8 I have had success down to 1/8th of a second at close range which to me is simply amazing. Had the subject moved at all I would still not have gotten the shot.
If I have to choose between in body IS and a "noise free" ISO setting or no in body IS and a noisy ISO setting that introduces banding and other artefacts that completely ruins the image the choice is easy. IS any day. Oh, and a lot of sedative in the drinks and have the DJ pitch down the beat so people dance in slo mo. ...Show more →
I think both Canon and Nikon have shown the ability for low noise high ISOs in cameras that are being used for things such as weddings..Ive seen some nice shots done with 30Ds & 1600 so pretty sure cams like a 1dmk3 is able to do more well I know it can...btw I wouldnt rely on IS for this type of work..sports,birding,airshows yeah...and if you are making money do weddings there is NO excuse not to get the fast glass anyway...
