where there’s smoke there’s forum fire
Why do you think both Canon and Nikon do not offer in body image stabilization for their SLRs?
Is this really a feature for older lenses (most new lenses that need it will have it)?
Their point and shoot models have image stabilization , why not put it in the SLRs also?
They don't because in lens stabilization is more effective. As of now, nobody is able to make in body and in lens stabilization sync together for even more effective shake reduction.
If you put a Panasonic Mega OIS lens on an Olympus and leave the OIS on, then your results are not pleasing. I'm sure somebody is working on a dual IS, VR, or SR system.
The obvious reason is money... They would probably rather sell you IS\VR several times rather than just once.
Conventional wisdom is that lens based stabalization is better. I've yet to see anybody test that hypothesis. Measureing the efficacy of stabalization is tough to do in a controlled setting, and measureing it across lenses and camera bodies is going to be anecdotal at best.
Point & Shoots have to be sensor based because you need to keep the lens size reletively small.
Also... I own as many camera bodies as I do VR lenses... so for me at least, sensor based stabalization would have been a wash.
I haven't looked specifically for tests of in-camera vs in-lens effectiveness - do you have a citation for one being better than another?
In-body systems with a "floating" sensor, though, currently allow for +-1 degree of roll correction, something neither VR nor IS does at this point in time.
Nikon's VR page conveniently appears to leave out any mention of roll, and only focus on its pitch and yaw correction abilities.
http://www.nikon.com/about/technology/core/software/vr_e/index.htm
Soap... that's what I mean... I always hear people say lens based is better, but nobody has ever made a compelling side by side comparison... it may be one of those things that photographers just say.
I will say that there are definitely times when you want it turned off, and I like having the dedicated switch on my lens as opposed to having to dig around in my D40's menu and trying to figure out what the hell a pencil icon has to do with vibration reduction (Why Nikon why???).
" I always hear people say lens based is better, but nobody has ever made a compelling side by side comparison... it may be one of those things that photographers just say."
I believe why photographers will side with lens stabilization is that they see its effects in the view finder. This is especially desirable when you are just trying to cut-off something from your photo when you take.
My first Dig SLR was a Pentax with in body image stabilization, it worked OK. But now shooting Nikon with VR lenses, I do prefer the VR system, it is just better to see that the image is being stabilized.
Anyway have you seen how the New Pentax K7 can automatic make a picture level by slightly turning the sensor
Both at the same could work if they worked as team, the in body image stabilization have to be designed to assist the VR system, The Pana, Oly lens OIS and in body image stabilization are not designed to work together and properly what is happening is that the OLY body is sensing camera shake and will try to correct and the lens is preventing the movement from happening, a bit like the problem you can have if leaving VR on if you are shooting on a tripod.
Pete
Honestly, I do not compose so accurately that my image stabilization would throw off my composition.
I also hear in lens is better, but come on is it really that much better? My Canon G10 does a pretty good job in body.
I believe they want to charge you for it each time.
I wish Nikon would offer in body stabilization, seems like a no brainer to me.
Canon G10 has in lens IS as well as some Nikon Coolpixes.
Canon and Nikon invested very much in this technology, and it is probably better to put VR in and specifically made for the lens, but on the other hand this makes lens more expensive …
What they should probably do is to put VR in lower cost models like D3000 …
I'll say this Dellaaa, I'm about two lenses from having all the lenses I'll probably ever need. If anyone's counting, that will be 6 VR lenses. One of those is the 18-55 kit zoom, which I never should have bought (its not much better than the non-VR version.
So I've got five lenses that I can put on my D40, D80, D90, and my cheapo Nikon film camera (I expect film is another argument for lens based IS, but maybe there is a way to do it in camera). Once I get around to picking up an FX camera, I'll have 5.
I'll probably still upgrade my cameras every few years, as long as Nikon can improve them, but once you've got your glass your pretty much set in the lens department (as long as I stick with 35mm). So I'm pretty happy with the way Nikon does it.
Because Nikon and Canon both have long lenses in their collections. Imagine the amount of sensor movement that would be required to image-stabilize a small angular movement of a 400mm or 500mm lens. A much greater correction can be achieved practically within the lens by modifying the angle than through moving the position of the sensor.
If only Nikon or Canon would publish the performance of their vibration reduction systems (I haven't seen #s) we could do just that math, PatMann, but I think you might be on to something there.
We can start making some safe assumptions, as if the sensor can do 1 degree of roll correction (which has been claimed) that hints at the extent of sensor movement at the corners.
[Because Nikon and Canon both have long lenses in their collections. Imagine the amount of sensor movement that would be required to image-stabilize a small angular movement of a 400mm or 500mm lens. A much greater correction can be achieved practically within the lens by modifying the angle than through moving the position of the sensor.]
I agree. IS/VR is rather specific to the lens and varies greatly from lens to lens. At 200mm the 55-200 and 70-200 actually need two different variations of VR as these two lenses are built very differently. Sensor VR would be a catch all and would have to "guess" for each lens used.
Thats not quite the case, Gentoo.
VR is a game of correction for angular motion. I think we can all agree on that.
Sensor-based VR ONLY needs to know the focal length of the lens, and with that and an accelerometer it can calculate needed sensor motion. to compensate. Since all modern lenses communicate that information already nothing more is needed to "tweak" the system on a lens-by-lens basis.
The beauty of PatMann's theory, and why I like it so much, is that it points to where sensor-motion based VR systems would break down - and that is in a limited range of motion available to the sensor due to physical constraints within the body. (Longer focal length = mucho more sensor motion needed per arc-minute of motion.)
When doing a mechanical VR system the implementation is beyond my math, but it is apparent that the implementation would need to vary depending on which elements move during zoom and/or focus.
EDIT: If my talk of this being an angular issue at heart is confusing I can try to draw up some diagrams of the situation and resulting math tonight. It would be helpful to know if you grok trig or not, though.
EDIT 2: Though if you dig trig I think you can see where I am going with this, as the focal length increases the velocity of the image motion on the sensor increases (another possible point-of-failure in sensor-based VR) and therefore the range of motion needed (velocity times exposure time) grows in correlation to focal length. (Which is why wider lenses can normally be hand-held at slower speeds as the same angular movement @ 85mm and at 35mm have vastly different distance blurs on the sensor all other things being equal. Since it is that distance of movement across the sensor/film over the exposure time that we perceive as blur shorter focal length lens=less prone to blur.)
The more I think about it, lens based VR probably has its genesis in the fact that both Nikon & Canon have to cater to the film crowd. Especially a few years ago when they were still actively manufacturing film cameras.
That also sounds quite plausible, Willis. Likely also a factor. Combined with Nikon's history of backwards-compatibility it makes total sense.
That said - Canon seems more than willing to break backwards-compatibility at the drop of a hat. ;) +1 Nikon.
And pabnj, I think you have a good idea there too. Something I hadn't thought about - but the viewfinder = the picture is the whole bloody point of a SLR, and only lens-based VR gives you that.
Thanks for the ideas, boys.
You must log in to post.
