Opticallimits

Full Version: Did I read correct: Canon now has in body image stabilisation
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
Just read tha M6 has 5 axis body and lens stabilisation....

Is that true will Canon start with camera body stabilisation ?

   Have you a link?

Quote: 

 

The Canon EOS M6 features an in-camera five-axis digital image stabilization to help reduce camera shake when shooting videos. When shooting with a compatible lens featuring IS the EOS M6 will leverage both the optical IS in the lens as well as the in-camera digital IS through a Combination IS system, to help deliver tremendously smooth videos.
 

https://www.dpreview.com/news/2937046154...tional-evf

 

Why isn't this big news?

 

Edit: Ah, because it's digital IS for video only.

       Yawn!

       Oh right just the boring old "digital image stabilization" that has been used by Pentax for some time, the K01 was my (now sold) video camera at the model club, the results were however way better than no stabilization at all, the D500 also uses IS in 1080P video, I've not used it yet due to current .... "air flooding"...............you know bloody rain!

I thought that in cameras with in camera IS the imager physically moved to counteract the shaking motion of the camera.  Is "digital image stabilization something a little more phony?  Like, ha, ha, "Digital Zoom"?  I'm pretty sure with Oly MFT, and Sony they use a sensor shift method.  I'm not quick to laugh at sensor shift stabilization for a couple of reasons.  Namely reduced elements and sharper, cheaper lenses.  I have to admit I don't understand the in lens form of stabilization.  I had imagined it was gyroscopic, but lens diagrams show lens elements that are stabilizing. 

 

The only functional thing I care about stabilization is that Canon IS allows you to see a steady image in the viewer, where other systems cause you to see a shaky or jumping image that does not reflect the state of the capture.  Again, my impression is that Oly MFT imager shift stabilization is 100% legit.  And even adds addition high resolution mode.

 

So in Pentax IS not legit, somehow?  I've liked the K1 camera in reviews.  Not the same as using one, I guess!  Oh, wait, the K01 is not the same camera, right?

 

Is model club another way of saying stripper bar?

Quote:I thought that in cameras with in camera IS the imager physically moved to counteract the shaking motion of the camera.  Is "digital image stabilization something a little more phony?  Like, ha, ha, "Digital Zoom"?  I'm pretty sure with Oly MFT, and Sony they use a sensor shift method.  I'm not quick to laugh at sensor shift stabilization for a couple of reasons.  Namely reduced elements and sharper, cheaper lenses.  I have to admit I don't understand the in lens form of stabilization.  I had imagined it was gyroscopic, but lens diagrams show lens elements that are stabilizing. 

 

The only functional thing I care about stabilization is that Canon IS allows you to see a steady image in the viewer, where other systems cause you to see a shaky or jumping image that does not reflect the state of the capture.  Again, my impression is that Oly MFT imager shift stabilization is 100% legit.  And even adds addition high resolution mode.

 

So in Pentax IS not legit, somehow?  I've liked the K1 camera in reviews.  Not the same as using one, I guess!  Oh, wait, the K01 is not the same camera, right?

 

Is model club another way of saying stripper bar?
If you look at the prices for non stabilized Sony lenses, you will realize that in-lens IS has very little to do with the price. Also, you do not need more elements for IS stabilization, you just need to choose which group is stabilized and that will be one of the design parameters.

 

The Pentax K01 is not the Pentax K1. The Pentax K01 is a failed little camera which has a mirrorbox but no mirror, creating a mirrorless camera with senseless bulk. The K1 is Pentax' first full frame 135 fotmat DSLR. Pentax has used IBIS for many years, it used to be the worst performing IBIS implementation but I have no idea how they perform nowadays, my bet is that they have improved a lot.

 

Sony bought out Konica-Minolta pioneered IBIS since their first digital SLR (Dynax/Maxxum 7D). Sony continued to offer IBIS in their DLRs and SLTs, but dropping it with the NEX series. Only the  newest models of the APS-C cameras formerly known as NEX ( CFKAN) and A7 series began to offer IBIS again.

Olympus has offered IBIS in most models, Panasonic used to use OIS which created a strange duality for MTF. Olympus, in their most expensive camera, offers a combination of OIS and IBIS with a select (very few?) lenses for improved 5 stops of stabilization, now.

 

The digital image stabilization Canon offers for video on the M5/6 seems to work pretty well, but is of no use for photography.

Quote:Also, you do not need more elements for IS stabilization, you just need to choose which group is stabilized and that will be one of the design parameters.

 
That's not true. Look at the lens parameters of the Canon 70-200's (2.8 vs 2.8 IS and 4 vs 4 IS) and you'll see that the number of elements is higher on the IS lenses. I think that you're looking at some lenses that are produced at the same time in 2 flavours like the NIkon AF-P 18-55 VR and non-VR (or the AF-P 70-300 VR and non-VR). Those are exactly the same but the VR ones have extra components to let the VR elements move. The non-VR lenses have the VR-elements fixed.

The same trick has been done many times before with stabilised Sigma and Tamron lenses that are made for Pentax and Sony (or Pentax lenses that are rehoused Tamron lenses). They just fixed the stabilising elements of these lenses.

Quote:That's not true. Look at the lens parameters of the Canon 70-200's (2.8 vs 2.8 IS and 4 vs 4 IS) and you'll see that the number of elements is higher on the IS lenses. I think that you're looking at some lenses that are produced at the same time in 2 flavours like the NIkon AF-P 18-55 VR and non-VR (or the AF-P 70-300 VR and non-VR). Those are exactly the same but the VR ones have extra components to let the VR elements move. The non-VR lenses have the VR-elements fixed.

The same trick has been done many times before with stabilised Sigma and Tamron lenses that are made for Pentax and Sony (or Pentax lenses that are rehoused Tamron lenses). They just fixed the stabilising elements of these lenses.
You are confusing new versus old. 

In your theory, the Sigma 50mm f1.4 Art has IS and the old Sigma 50mm f1.4 DG HSM does not have IS.
WTF. Universal Creations has put it exactly right. What does that have to do with the two 50mm f/1.4 Sigma lenses which are simply very different (and none has any relation to IS). But, say, the Sigma 17-70/2.8-4 OS C lens has the same construction in whichever mount, despite the "OS is not available for the Sony and Pentax mount" side note on the Sigma site, and the block diagram is the same. The OS seems permanently disabled in the A- and K-mount units however, and there's no switch.

 

If you compare the block diagrams of the Canon 70-200/2.8 L lenses - IS and non-IS - you can see that in the IS one there's a 3-element group added towards the rear of the (otherwise broadly similar) optical assembly. Smile

Non-IS:

 

[Image: ef325-lens-construction.gif]

IS non-II. The group isn't marked as IS in the site's block diagram...

[Image: ef365-lens-construction.gif]

... but the block diagram of the IS II version, while having more special elements, reveals a similarly shaped group now marked as being IS:

[Image: ef406-lens-construction.gif]

Peace. Smile

And the IS lens is newer, and the IS lens shows other elements as well. Funny. that. Like I said, choosing which group to move for IS is one of the design parameters. It can well mean that you don't end up with more elements than you already want for all the corrections you design in.

 

It certainly does not mean lenses with IS are more expensive either, Sony lenses without IS were more expensive than their Canon counterparts with IS.

Pages: 1 2 3