Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
new Sony Alpha A7 II (Japan only)
#11
Quote:Just as an example:

The Canon 100-400L IS has an image stabilizer providing an equivalent again of 2 f-stops.

During its long lifespan, IBIS started at 2 f-stops and it's now at 4.5 f-stops and it will surely get even more efficient over time - thus you were able to "upgrade" your lens by upgrading your camera. And you simply upgrade your camera more often than your lenses.
 

The doubt I have ist the following ... in-body stabilization has obvious limitations set by the physical

limits in which the sensor can move (obviously, it can not move indefinately). So, the longer the

focal length gets, the less good IBIS will work ... if shake is too strong, it simply stops working at all.

With ILIS, this is not that much of a problem, since you basically disalign a lens (or a group) ...

this might be done by shifting the lens, or by turning it ... nevertheless, it is much less limited.

 

For your example you had to take one of the oldest IS lenses, and you had to name about the

most sophisticated IBIS to make your point. (And I still doubt, the point with 4.5 stops is valid for

long focal lengths).

 

In general, yes IBIS is really nice, and certainly lenses without IS are likely more robust than

those with IS ... still I personnaly found your statement of "ILIS being a desing flaw" unqualified ...

but eventually, this is just me.

 

Rainer.

#12
I agree regarding the efficiency with long tele lenses. Conversely ILIS can't compensate rotational shake.

 

Interestingly both methods can degrade the bokeh, BTW. 
#13
I'd want both as the best of both worlds Smile

 

About degrading bokeh, what would be the mechanism? Are we talking about the design requirements or something to do with the shift itself?

<a class="bbc_url" href="http://snowporing.deviantart.com/">dA</a> Canon 7D2, 7D, 5D2, 600D, 450D, 300D IR modified, 1D, EF-S 10-18, 15-85, EF 35/2, 85/1.8, 135/2, 70-300L, 100-400L, MP-E65, Zeiss 2/50, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300/2.8, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Olympus E-P1, Panasonic 20/1.7, Sony HX9V, Fuji X100.
#14
Quote:The doubt I have ist the following ... in-body stabilization has obvious limitations set by the physical

limits in which the sensor can move (obviously, it can not move indefinately). So, the longer the

focal length gets, the less good IBIS will work ... if shake is too strong, it simply stops working at all.

With ILIS, this is not that much of a problem, since you basically disalign a lens (or a group) ...

this might be done by shifting the lens, or by turning it ... nevertheless, it is much less limited.

 

For your example you had to take one of the oldest IS lenses, and you had to name about the

most sophisticated IBIS to make your point. (And I still doubt, the point with 4.5 stops is valid for

long focal lengths).

 

In general, yes IBIS is really nice, and certainly lenses without IS are likely more robust than

those with IS ... still I personnaly found your statement of "ILIS being a desing flaw" unqualified ...

but eventually, this is just me.

 

Rainer.
 

First post, but felt like weighing in here: The new A7II can combine both IBIS and ILIS (for lenses that have it), for arguably the best of both worlds, and potentially renders the efficacy at longer focal lengths argument moot. I really doubt anyone can complain with having IBIS available on it's own as well, that's for sure, and removes the need for shorter FL lenses (<100mm) to have ILIS. I'd be really curious to see how effective the over all stabilisation effect will be when combined with the OSS of the FE 70-200mm F4.
#15
Quote:I'd want both as the best of both worlds Smile

 

About degrading bokeh, what would be the mechanism? Are we talking about the design requirements or something to do with the shift itself?
 

Well, think about it. The IS stabilizes the focus point whereas the out-of-focus area suffers from a parallax effect:

http://www.bokehtests.com/page2/index.html

 

Think of a balancing a stick (=stabilized light ray) on your finger. The anchorage (=stabilized focus point) on your finger remains in place when moving the stick. Now think of the out-focus-area as one of the stick's ends.

This movement of the stick is equivalent to smearing in the out-of-focus area (e.g. a OOF highlight).

This is affecting mostly long tele lenses. 

#16
Ok, I've now read the link and also understand your description. My gut feel is that it is insignificant an effect, and even if it was there, how critical would you have to be to notice it? I'd also question if it was necessarily negative, but this might depend on the exact composition of the out of focus areas.

 

It is late here now, but I can grab my 100-400L tomorrow and try some relatively longer exposure shots hand held with IS, vs. fast exposures without. See if I can really notice this. I've lent out my teleconverters so can't try longer for now.

<a class="bbc_url" href="http://snowporing.deviantart.com/">dA</a> Canon 7D2, 7D, 5D2, 600D, 450D, 300D IR modified, 1D, EF-S 10-18, 15-85, EF 35/2, 85/1.8, 135/2, 70-300L, 100-400L, MP-E65, Zeiss 2/50, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300/2.8, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Olympus E-P1, Panasonic 20/1.7, Sony HX9V, Fuji X100.
#17
Quote:If it only had been named Pentax... Smile)))

I do not know how IBIS will work on this camera, but on Pentax it works with any fully manual lens - you just need to input the FL. However, I have tried some Nikon VR lenses, and really liked stabilzed view in viewfinder.

 

A.
In order to have SSS on an A-mount Sony with a manual lens, you need a chipped adapter that reports focal distance to the body. Of course this is not too practical for zooms, but pretty convenient for primes. There exist fixed adapters (one FL) and switchable adapters where you can loop through several settings.

I guess the same applies for E-mount bodies with LAE-4/LAE-3 adapter. Without the latter (if you attach to your manual-lens adapter to E-mount directly), I cannot tell anything.
#18
I've seen shots of A7II menus where you have to input focal length in various increments (8, 9, 10mm... 250, 300, 350, 400, 500, 600 etc.)

All in all, another winner from Sony. No wonder it's Japan only yet - no way they would be able to cope with the inevitable rush.

#19
Quote:I've seen shots of A7II menus where you have to input focal length in various increments (8, 9, 10mm... 250, 300, 350, 400, 500, 600 etc.)

All in all, another winner from Sony. No wonder it's Japan only yet - no way they would be able to cope with the inevitable rush.
It's not japan only. That's initial rumour BS (same "admin" as 43rumours... go figure). medias have been translated worldwide, shipping dates too.

 

Now the "hot" sales have to be relativised... It's cheap relative to other FF cameras but it's definitely not cheap to the overall market so I'm not sure if there are so many units sold. Heck I've spent thousands in various things and somehow always considered this price bracket "difficult" to fund. 
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)