EOS R TECH THREAD- Its time for others who will jump into canon Mirrorless bodies

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19010940
.
And not just for our primes, but for some zoom lenses, as well.

It would give me stabilization when using my Sigma 300-800mm, which has none.

IBIS and focus peaking, being used simultaneously in very low-light situations with stationary subjects, could combine to give me a lot better performance than I currently get when I'm shooting 800mm at 1/25th or 1/30th of a second.

.

Absolutely!!

gjl711 wrote in post #19010882
I've been thinking about this from an engineering standpoint. I think that IBIS does not need to know if an image is stabilized or not. The two can work perfectly well independently from one another. Think of an un-stabilized lens. IBIS evaluates the image, senses movement, and adjusts appropriately. Replace it with a stabilized lens. The ILIS stabilizes the image as best it can without any communication with the body. All it does is delivers an image circle with less image movement. The body now need do nothing. Now turn on IBIS. All it needs to do is sense any movement and adjust just as it does with an un-stabilized lens. It doesn't need to know that the image circle has already been stabilized in lens. It just needs to know that there has been some movement and adjust appropriately. Of course, this is just a wild a$$ guess. but it does make sense. IBIS needs to do nothing within the lens to work so no communication needs to happen.

Which I suspect is no different than it's doing right now without IBIS and will continue to do after IBIS is released. I only suspect it needs to know if one or both is present in order to "guess" the number of stops to make available for automated fcns as it relates to shutter speed.

mccamli wrote in post #19010745
What focusing method are you using?

With my 7Dii I used to like the full 65 point zone for BIF most of the time. Once the initial single point locked on the tracking was generally really good and you could easily see exactly where the camera was focusing. On my 7Dii the 65 point zone AF was more accurate than single point AF which gave me all sorts of MFA issues.

With the EOS R the equivalent method is Face Detect plus Tracking. I'm really not having much success with the initial focus lock using that method. The initial focus point just doesn't seem very capable at all and is a complete non starter using a dot sight.

The EVF lag makes it difficult to use single point for BIF (interestingly, the single point initial focus lock is way better than the single point in Face Detect plus Tracking)

I tend to use the Zone AF methods, they lock on really quickly and hold the tracking well. The only downside is you can't select an initial starting point. They're great when using a dot sight.

The 100-400 plus 2x is slow but I find that using the zone AF it still works pretty well as long as I pre-focus.

I primarily used single point, Zone and 65 point with my 7D2. When in large zone I'd been cases 5 or 6 (mostly 6) exclusively. With single point you have to be more diligent when acquiring and tracking. Just more challenging.

While I have one of the C1-3 functions sets up for Zone and Face I only use that for people and I don't shoot many. It worked good on my wife. I primarily use Single point and Zone AF.

A few things that told us this was not really a sports/birding camera however people exceed a camera's expectations. Slow FPS, no Case numbers and no 1st and 2nd priority settings for AI Servo. Perhaps using Contrast detect does not require 1st and 2nd so I'm not really sure about that. While Case Numbers are not really required they sure are handy. I had each Case tweaked and it just much faster to switch using the 7D2.

gjl711 wrote in post #19010882
I've been thinking about this from an engineering standpoint. I think that IBIS does not need to know if an image is stabilized or not. The two can work perfectly well independently from one another. Think of an un-stabilized lens. IBIS evaluates the image, senses movement, and adjusts appropriately. Replace it with a stabilized lens. The ILIS stabilizes the image as best it can without any communication with the body. All it does is delivers an image circle with less image movement. The body now need do nothing. Now turn on IBIS. All it needs to do is sense any movement and adjust just as it does with an un-stabilized lens. It doesn't need to know that the image circle has already been stabilized in lens. It just needs to know that there has been some movement and adjust appropriately. Of course, this is just a wild a$$ guess. but it does make sense. IBIS needs to do nothing within the lens to work so no communication needs to happen.

Except that each system would be sensing the same movement simultaneously, not successively, and independently applying counter-movement correction simultaneously, not successively. Double correction applied to a single movement.

WilsonFlyer wrote in post #19010819
I'm fully willing to bet that IBIS works in conjunction with lens stabilization on legacy EF glass. Just name your pain threshold.

How can they work together? We have no reason to believe that the body can even know if an EF lens is actually using IS. All a body can do is supply the power for IS, or not supply it. If IBIS works with an EF lens attached, then the camera probably won't supply power for IS if IBIS is enabled.

You can't have IS and IBIS working at the same time, without a communication protocol that divides different types of motion correction between them. If two general-purpose stabilizations are engaged independently at the same time, you will get more blur than if you had no stabilization at all.

John Sheehy wrote in post #19011072
How can they work together? We have no reason to believe that the body can even know if an EF lens is actually using IS. All a body can do is supply the power for IS, or not supply it. If IBIS works with an EF lens attached, then the camera probably won't supply power for IS if IBIS is enabled.

You can't have IS and IBIS working at the same time, without a communication protocol that divides different types of motion correction between them. If two general-purpose stabilizations are engaged independently at the same time, you will get more blur than if you had no stabilization at all.

Tell ya what. I'm sure it will be re-visited after the R5 is released and by then we'll know. Without anything in the press release as it directly relates to the interoperability or lack thereof, anything is nothing more than sheer speculation anyway.

gjl711 wrote in post #19010882
I've been thinking about this from an engineering standpoint. I think that IBIS does not need to know if an image is stabilized or not. The two can work perfectly well independently from one another. Think of an un-stabilized lens. IBIS evaluates the image, senses movement, and adjusts appropriately.

IBIS doesn't do that. Enhanced stability features of video can do that. The sensor does not see motion during a single exposure!

It doesn't work like that for ILIS + IBIS. That is how it works for ILIS + software video stabilization.

IBIS on top of ILIS will blur the image, becasue the same correction is done twice, recreating the blur in the opposite direction, PLUS the two sources of jitter due to imperfect individual corrections.

WilsonFlyer wrote in post #19011074
Tell ya what. I'm sure it will be re-visited after the R5 is released and by then we'll know. Without anything in the press release as it directly relates to the interoperability or lack thereof, anything is nothing more than sheer speculation anyway.

We don't know exactly how Canon will address the issues, but it is a hard cold fact that you can not have two systems that independently stabilize the same motions, because two corrections of the same movement recreate the original motion blur in the opposite direction, plus they add more blur due to the imperfections in the independent.

Stabilizers(other than software ones that work with aligned multiple frames) do not stabilize, per se, as their method; they produce counter motions, and two counters summed is an inverted version of the original motion.

Agreed, since both IS systems are gyroscope-based and detect physical movement, you cannot have both operating independently, they need to be in communications with each other, one talking to the other.

Digital stabilization is not good because it requires cropping of the sensor down to allow the software to be able to stabilize, just look at the current Canon digital stabilization, you have to reduce the video resolution when using stabilization in this manner.

Other systems have already figured this out.
Discussion: https://www.fredmirand​a.com/forum/topic/1531​627/0
Canon Patent: https://www.canonrumor​s.com …ization-working-together/

John Sheehy wrote in post #19011078
IBIS doesn't do that. Enhanced stability features of video can do that. The sensor does not see motion during a single exposure!

It doesn't work like that for ILIS + IBIS. That is how it works for ILIS + software video stabilization.

IBIS on top of ILIS will blur the image, becasue the same correction is done twice, recreating the blur in the opposite direction, PLUS the two sources of jitter due to imperfect individual corrections.

Somebody needs to tell Sony this because they promote them as working in unison.

John Sheehy wrote in post #19011082
We don't know exactly how Canon will address the issues, but it is a hard cold fact that you can not have two systems that independently stabilize the same motions, because two corrections of the same movement recreate the original motion blur in the opposite direction, plus they add more blur due to the imperfections in the independent.

Stabilizers(other than software ones that work with aligned multiple frames) do not stabilize, per se, as their method; they produce counter motions, and two counters summed is an inverted version of the original motion.

With the Canon adapter, I get lens OS on EF lenses with electronic stabilization on the M6 Mk II.

This is really getting tiring. No one here is going to convince you that they can work in unison, obviously. So that's sort of the end of that. None of us know how Canon will implement it all. So that's sort of the end of that. You're just arguing to argue that Canon can't do something that other manufacturers have obviously already done, and I'm not really sure why.

I'm out. I'll be back in July to say, "I told you all so." Loudly.

arthurbikemad wrote in post #19011115
Maybe I missed something but Canon have already said the R5 IBIS works in harmony with Lens IS?

"New standards in stability
For the first time on any Canon camera, In Body Image Stabilisation is offered which works in harmony with Canon RF lenses with IS to provide the ultimate in shake-free super-sharp images and movies. Film or shoot without a tripod in the knowledge that you’ll always achieve the smoothest, sharpest result."

Not sure if it works together (internal IS plus external IS) with EF IS lense, maybe this is one of the things the new RF comms system provides.

I pointed that out in my earlier post. Yes, for sure the IBIS in R-mount cameras will work cooperatively with the IS in R-mount lenses. Canon's IBIS patent describes how they will work together.

Canon's statement is very precise. "...works in harmony with Canon RF lenses..."

John Sheehy wrote in post #19011072
How can they work together? We have no reason to believe that the body can even know if an EF lens is actually using IS. All a body can do is supply the power for IS, or not supply it. If IBIS works with an EF lens attached, then the camera probably won't supply power for IS if IBIS is enabled.

You can't have IS and IBIS working at the same time, without a communication protocol that divides different types of motion correction between them. If two general-purpose stabilizations are engaged independently at the same time, you will get more blur than if you had no stabilization at all.

we can debate this up until Canon finally tells us, but to counter your query,
How do we know if they need to be aware of each other to work together?

- EF IS lens presents to the R an image stabilized by the lens onboard IS.
- R has no way of knowing if it has been stabilized or not, it just has the image.
- IBIS detects that the image projected requires stabilization (Lens IS is not enough) and begins to engage IBIS to compensate.

You can now proceed to post all kinds of ideas as to how that won't work, but it's gibberish and not based on any fact, just hypothesis. Just like my hypothesis above. Both sides of this discussion are just running to keep up.

Irony: Earlier in this thread, a LOT of people were arguing that Canon couldn't turn IS off on EF lenses and how much of a problem that would be with battery consumption. I guess since they can't turn it off we'll have to throw away all of our EF OS lenses once Canon introduces IBIS because they'll be worthless if we forget to turn the switch off. Wait. I remember people saying that didn't work either.

#CakeAndEatItToo

WilsonFlyer wrote in post #19011122
Irony: Earlier in this thread, a LOT of people were arguing that Canon couldn't turn IS off on EF lenses and how much of a problem that would be with battery consumption. I guess since they can't turn it off we'll have to throw away all of our EF OS lenses once Canon introduces IBIS because they'll be worthless if we forget to turn the switch off. Wait. I remember people saying that didn't work either.

#CakeAndEatItToo

As I mentioned earlier, the camera knows what lens is mounted. We know it can turn IS on and off with EF lenses, and it obviously does. That previous discussion was about why it did not turn off IS when we thought it should. No irony involved.