Another speculative thread - In-camera Image Stabilization

[daaaveman]

I'm seeing lots of theoretical threads this morning and thought I'd add my own... Canon is producing the S1 IS and I know there are others besides Canon doing it.

What are your thoughts on in-camera IS? Will it make lens IS a thing of the past? Will in-camera IS and lens IS work together? Is in-camera IS not advanced enough to be considered for DSLR's? Why wasn't it incorporated in the 1DMKII? Where does it stand and where is it going?

[garethhhhh]

If only... That would be really cool! Just think: IS with a 50mm f1.8 (never need a flash again!) 8)

here is an explanation from canon about how IS works http://www.usa.canon.com/html/eflenses/technology/imagestabilizer.html
Once you read it you start to wonder how practical in-camera IS would be... Imagine having that IS lens group shoved inside your camera, I mean, just think how BIG your camera would have to be! :shock:

Also I think, if my understanding is correct, is that the IS lens group needs to be fairly close to the front lens element to get the best effect, so it probably wouldn't help with telephoto lenses. :(

[scottbergerphoto]

The new Olympus DSLR has the IS built into the camera.
Scott
Correction:
I think this may be an error. CDS is correct below that the Minolta DiMage A1 has it built in to the camera, but it is not a DSLR.
Scott

[nosquare2003]

In fact, the S1 IS is using optical image stabilizer. Perhaps it is just the same as the IS lens in DSLR.

[garethhhhh]

The new Olympus DSLR has the IS built into the camera.

Any reviews on it? is it any good? I tried looking around but couldn't find anything.

[CyberDyneSystems]

I think the Olympus, Panasonic, and obviously the Canon IS is in the lens group.. at least it was with the Oly C2100UZ

However, Minolta's latest flagship EVF Camera has IS built into the CCD... it is obviously not an interchangeable lens camera.. but the technology is right there in that camera..

Thus if applied to Minolta's up coming DSLR.. it will be the first DSLR to have the IS on camera.. and all of Minoltas existing lenses will benifit from IS.

[5 Type]

Thus if applied to Minolta's up coming DSLR.. it will be the first DSLR to have the IS on camera.. and all of Minoltas existing lenses will benifit from IS.

Then canon will do the same.... then all of us will want a piece of that. Even those waiting for their 1D MkII

[Belmondo]

I wouldn't expect Canon to migrate to in-camera IS anytime soon; not with the money they're making off selling lenses at premium prices that have that feature built-in. I think this is one of those technologies that will have to be proven elsewhere before too many others climbs on the bandwagon.

One of the problems as I see it is that IS built into a camera body, especially one with interchangeable lenses, will be the need to adapt itself to focal lengths covering a vast range. Right now, that would be 14mm to 600mm just in the Canon line of lenses alone (I'm not counting the 1200mm beast). Technologically, that would be difficult enought, but then there are yet other concers: If they design an in-camera IS system that precludes the use of third-party lenses, the backlash could be extreme.

I don't see it for a long, long time.

[PacAce]

Thus if applied to Minolta's up coming DSLR.. it will be the first DSLR to have the IS on camera.. and all of Minoltas existing lenses will benifit from IS.

Then canon will do the same.... then all of us will want a piece of that. Even those waiting for their 1D MkII

I highly doubt Canon will follow suit and switch to an inter-body IS system. For one thing, inter-body IS usually means IS is achived digitally using the CCD and electronics/firmware to virtually shift the image around on the CCD for stabilization. This will usually do the job of IS but it's not fool-proof or not very good when compared to the optical/mechanical IS that's achieved via the in-lens IS system. THat's the reason optical/mechanical IS cost a lot more the digital IS.

They might be able to fit an optical/mecahnical IS system into an SLR body but then the body would have to get bigger to accomodate the IS system unless they can really miniaturize the mechanisms of the optical/mechanical IS system.

[Tom W]

Thus if applied to Minolta's up coming DSLR.. it will be the first DSLR to have the IS on camera.. and all of Minoltas existing lenses will benifit from IS.

Then canon will do the same.... then all of us will want a piece of that. Even those waiting for their 1D MkII

I highly doubt Canon will follow suit and switch to an inter-body IS system. For one thing, inter-body IS usually means IS is achived digitally using the CCD and electronics/firmware to virtually shift the image around on the CCD for stabilization. This will usually do the job of IS but it's not fool-proof or not very good when compared to the optical/mechanical IS that's achieved via the in-lens IS system. THat's the reason optical/mechanical IS cost a lot more the digital IS.

They might be able to fit an optical/mecahnical IS system into an SLR body but then the body would have to get bigger to accomodate the IS system unless they can really miniaturize the mechanisms of the optical/mechanical IS system.

Somebody on another thread mentioned their idea of an optical IS adapter, to be placed on the camera like a teleconverter that could provide IS functions and, perhaps, TC functions as well. Now That would be interesting.

[chris maddock]

Somebody on another thread mentioned their idea of an optical IS adapter, to be placed on the camera like a teleconverter that could provide IS functions and, perhaps, TC functions as well. Now That would be interesting.

Interesting but, I fear, somewhat impractical;
1) The degree of stabilisation depends on the lens fitted, so a generic stabiliser wouldn't do the job as well as a dedicated one in the lens.
2) The best place for the stabilisation is where Canon have fitted it - at or very close to the optical centre of the lens. That minimises the amount of correction required and allows the use of a mechanism that only has to move very tiny amounts - faster, smaller, lighter, less power needed. If you put something behind the lens, that is almost the worst place for all those reasons since it's almost at the point of maximum image movement.

KRs
Chris

[CyberDyneSystems]

Somebody on another thread mentioned their idea of an optical IS adapter, to be placed on the camera like a teleconverter that could provide IS functions and, perhaps, TC functions as well. Now That would be interesting.

Interesting but, I fear, somewhat impractical;
1) The degree of stabilisation depends on the lens fitted, so a generic stabiliser wouldn't do the job as well as a dedicated one in the lens.
2) The best place for the stabilisation is where Canon have fitted it - at or very close to the optical centre of the lens. That minimises the amount of correction required and allows the use of a mechanism that only has to move very tiny amounts - faster, smaller, lighter, less power needed. If you put something behind the lens, that is almost the worst place for all those reasons since it's almost at the point of maximum image movement.

KRs
Chris

That was me,. and I can dream can't I :)

The current position of the IS systems in Canon's lenses is towards the rear of the lens.. ? The further to the rear the smaler the amount of glass that is being moved a round...

The IS built into the Minolta by the way is not software.. it ggyro stabilizes the ccd in a similar way that Canon's current IS moves a lens group to compensate.

[chris maddock]

That was me,. and I can dream can't I :)

Of course ;-)

The current position of the IS systems in Canon's lenses is towards the rear of the lens.. ? The further to the rear the smaler the amount of glass that is being moved a round...


No, it's towards the centre - more because that is the point where the amount of correction movement required is least. Also, I suspect, at the centre is the point where the elements can be smallest, because further back the light rays are diverging as they leave the lens.

There's a fairly simplistic entry about it in the Canon Museum at;
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/tech/room/f_index.html

KRs
Chris

[ron chappel]

We can safely forget about any optical groups being implanted into a DSLR body.
No-any practical high quality in camera image stabilization will be like the minolta system-either on chip or a moving chip.
One can't help but think that this is one technology that canon has 'got wrong' ...eventually all cameras will have in-camera IS and canon have all these IS lenses that will be abit pointless.......... :?

Oh-and to answer thew tech question on can body IS and lens IS work together-it will depend on the design of the body and the lens.But the quick answer is 'a little', 'maybe-if they are designed for each other' and 'using both together will give no extra gain'.
It really depends on many factors,including wether the lens actually has a big enough image circle to move around in!

[slin100]

I saw a discussion about in-camera stabilization on Usenet around the time when Minolta announced their DSLR. As I recall the discussion, the conclusion was the same as what Chris has stated, that stabilizing the sensor requires much larger physical movement than required by a lens group. Therefore, in-camera stabilization is much less effective than in-lens stabilization.

Someone mentioned electronic stabilization. I also seem to recall that optical stabilization is much more effective. I remember when shopping for camcorders that the optical IS in Canon's models were easily seen as superior to the electronic IS in Sony's models.

[KiwiRob]

According to the dp review article on the new Minolta DSLR it has in camera IS. I guess it's another first for minolta, it just a pity they can't get there act together in other areas.

[slin100]

Somebody on another thread mentioned their idea of an optical IS adapter, to be placed on the camera like a teleconverter that could provide IS functions and, perhaps, TC functions as well. Now That would be interesting.
Interestingly enough, Nikon may very well be developing this, if this guy's predictions (http://www.bythom.com/2004predictions.htm) turn out to be true.

His other predictions are quite interesting, btw. He predicts that the 10D will only receive a modest update. ETTL-II would be my guess. He also predicts that Canon will release more EF-S lenses, plus a 200/2 IS. If he's to be believed, Kodak is doomed and Nikon's future is in question. :shock:

Something I find personally troubling is his view on the fate of film. If he's right, my decision to dust off my old FD lenses and bodies instead of selling them off will have been a bad one. :cry:

[CyberDyneSystems]

Chris,.. I guess relative to a 28-135mm the IS assembly is near the center,.. but on all of Canon's big primes.. the IS is well toward the rear of the lens.. however,. the IS does not use the element/group at the very rear..

[chris maddock]

Chris,.. I guess relative to a 28-135mm the IS assembly is near the center,.. but on all of Canon's big primes.. the IS is well toward the rear of the lens.. however,. the IS does not use the element/group at the very rear..

Sorry, I was meaning the optical centre not the physical one - on the big guns I imagine that is well back in the contsruction.

KRs
Chris