Image stabilisation in camera bodies

DDCSD wrote in post #6038221
I am certain that the camera would explode in your hands, more than likely taking at least one eye out......

Or the camera would turn against you. Conflicting missions.....
http://en.wikipedia.or​g/wiki/HAL_9000

Derek has it right! Make sure that you have on full body armor.

Having two control systems trying to drive a system to achieve the same goal just means that they will wind up driving each other into either hard over saturation or oscillation.

The HAL9000 (from the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey) reference on Wikipedia, while having basic information that is factual, also has errors, conjectures, and rumors that make it a not completely reliable source.

bill boehme wrote in post #6039692
The HAL9000 (from the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey) reference on Wikipedia, while having basic information that is factual, also has errors, conjectures, and rumors that make it a not completely reliable source.

It is on the internet. It is true.


Just put that up so people understood the enormity of what we are talking about here.

Hermeto wrote in post #6031316
Okay, but why shouldn’t we have both?
In-body image stabilization that could be turned off when using IS lenses..
That’s not the rocket science, both technologies already exist..

Exactly. I would love to have in-body IS for my short primes and macros.

Both technologies have their place. I suspect there is not a clear winner across the board, either. Canon believes (and has invested much) in their lens-specific stabilization, and believes it is the best solution. It is proven to work. But so has the in camera.

A cynic might say the lens-specific stabilization is just an attempt to extract more money from the consumer.

We're comparing a fairly mature technology (in-lens) to an emerging technology (in-camera). We've not seen the limits of either.

That, and a host of other features, is what goes into a decision process when chosing a camera line. Fretting about it after the fact will accomplish nothing. You paid your money, you got your compromise.

Throw it on the fact pile and move on.

One other point to note about in-body IS - if the sensor has to move very far at all to compensate for the shake, it may have to move out of the design image circle, or at least the "sweet spot" of the lens. In order to avoid this, you'd need to refrain from using "crop" lenses on the "crop" cameras. As Canon and Nikon make full-frame (and film) bodies too, in-lens IS is the only option that will cover the gamut of their product lines. Take a look at the vignetting a "crop" lens produces when mounted to a FF body and figure out how much room that lens would give you for in-camera sensor travel.

On the "have both" premise, the feedback issue Bill mentioned is exactly why newer Canon IS lenses are "tripod-aware" and deactivate IS when they sense they're on a tripod, and why the earlier models include specific directions to turn off IS when using a tripod. Not an insurmountable obstacle, but something else to be included in the camera.

I did a bit of research on this topic a while ago and also asked on Pentax forums about how much they get out of their in-body IS. There was a unanimously positive response where people said that a two-stop advantage is the minimum I could expect and many reported more than that depending on focal length etc etc.

Interestingly unlike the suggestions here, their observation was that in-body IS works fine till 300-400mm but doen not remain effective beyond that.

Off course you could also attribute their response to "brand loyalty". But at the same time I also feel that since they are the one's who actually use these cameras on a day-to-day basis so they are in a better position to report the actual field usability of this feature rather than those who base their opinions on web reviews etc. And even dpreview in their latest review of K20D said that you should expect atleast a 2 stop advantage (and dpreview has never been very kind to pentax in their past reviews)

If there truly is a two sop-advantage to all my lenses, then thats plenty for me. There are many advantages to lens-based IS (being able to see it wffective in the viewfinder is certainly a major one). However put a 50 1.4 on a camera with two-stop advantage and you get an ultimate low-light combo (for a pretty modest price). Thats hard to emulate on a canon or nikon.

And the performance of in-lens IS varies as well. I havent used any of Canon's higher end IS lenses but have heard that their IS is excellent. But on the mid-range 28-135 IS which I used briefly, the IS didnt excite me at all. The IS in 17-85 IS and 70-300mm lenses on the other hand was much better.

One day I would like to get my hands on a K20D and test out myself how much improvement I get. Lets see when that day comes

Well, Photography Magazine ran a head-to-head test of an in-body (Sony, IIRC) and in-lens IS a while back. They included 100% crops from the pictures and tested at various focal lengths out to 300 mm. By 300, the Sony was offering less than 1 stop gain over no IS at all. In-lens was still doing better than 2 stops. I really wouldn't be surprised if in-body IS reached a point where it actually made things worse due to the sensor hitting the limiters as it tried to keep up.

Jon wrote in post #6058855
Well, Photography Magazine ran a head-to-head test of an in-body (Sony, IIRC) and in-lens IS a while back. They included 100% crops from the pictures and tested at various focal lengths out to 300 mm. By 300, the Sony was offering less than 1 stop gain over no IS at all. In-lens was still doing better than 2 stops. I really wouldn't be surprised if in-body IS reached a point where it actually made things worse due to the sensor hitting the limiters as it tried to keep up.

Sure I am not suggesting that in-body IS is as good as in-lens IS (atleast the current implementations). All I am saying is that depending on one's needs it could be very useful for a lot of people (but not necessarily for everyone or for all situations). I dont use lenses above 200mm so peformance beyond that is not a matter of concern for me. And truning my fast primes to fast IS primes could me great indoor low-light capability.

I think there is another angle to look at as well.

In lens IS means that the IS system is designed and calibrated for the exact conditions to which it will be subjected ie on a 70-200 F2.8 IS, the system is designed to operate between 70 and 200. Stabilising the image at that focal length will have a different set of parameters than an 17-50 f2.8 or a 400mm prime.

In camera IS is limited by having to cover a very large set of parameters with limited range to do so ( there is only so far the sensor can move).

Thats my take on it anyway.