 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / May 2008In-camera stabilization or in-lens?
Which is preferable (since I only have hand-held stabilization and it's kind of shaky.) > Which is preferable (since I only have hand-held stabilization and it's > kind of shaky.) The general rule is in-camera for point and shoots and in-lens for SLRs. Both have their place. >> Which is preferable (since I only have hand-held stabilization and it's >> kind of shaky.) > > The general rule is in-camera for point and shoots and in-lens for SLRs. > Both have their place. Actually the general rule does not apply here or so it would seem, at least four manufacturers of D-SLR use in camera stabilisation while only two use in lens. Quite a number of P&S cameras actually use in lens stabilisation. However one general rule you can bank on is that in lens is a little better than in camera and has the advantage of stabilising the viewfinder but at some generally higher expense, with in camera all lenses will be stabilised. Cheers. Pete If you are only going to use it with one lens, I would choose lens. If you are going to use more than one lens I would choose in camera. I don't think this is one of those things that has a one size fits all. They both have their advantages, but in real live I don't see a big difference between the two types other than one in the camera can function with more than one lens. > Which is preferable (since I only have hand-held stabilization and it's > kind of shaky.)  SignatureJoseph Meehan Dia 's Muire duit > Which is preferable (since I only have hand-held stabilization and > it's kind of shaky.) What are your usual subjects and under what conditions do you often shoot? On Apr 28, 3:49 pm, "3Putt from CoastalSouth Carolina" <3putt@PawleysIslandSC> wrote: > Which is preferable (since I only have hand-held stabilization and it's kind > of shaky.) Unless you never ever plan to buy an older lens that doesn't have I.S., get it in the camera body. As a Nikon user I wish they had built IS into the camera body instead of the lenses. Image stabilization is a great advance in camera technology. The Nikon 18-200 VR has excellent image stabilization but it turns this mediocre optic into an absolutely obese Howitzer. The size/weight/price difference between, for example, the non-IS Sigma 18-200 and the Nikon is considerable, the difference in optical performance is not (I have both lenses and I have the pictures to prove it!). If I were not locked into Nikon I would look into Sony, Pentax and, gasp, the 4/3 vendors. Nikon and Canon will break down eventually and shovel IS into their dSLRs. > As a Nikon user I wish they had built IS into the camera body instead of > the lenses. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > the 4/3 vendors. > Nikon and Canon will break down eventually and shovel IS into their dSLRs. Perhaps they will :-) Nevertheless, sensor movement will allways be greater than lenselement movement. In-lens IS doesn't have to be that heavy: 705g Canon EF 70-200 f/4 L non-IS 760g Canon EF 70-200 f/4 L IS [] > In-lens IS doesn't have to be that heavy: > 705g Canon EF 70-200 f/4 L non-IS > 760g Canon EF 70-200 f/4 L IS or for Nikon.... 255g Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6 335g Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6 VR Less than 3oz more. > [] >> In-lens IS doesn't have to be that heavy: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Less than 3oz more. :-) > As a Nikon user I wish they had built IS into the camera body instead > of the lenses. > Image stabilization is a great advance in camera technology. In-body image stabilization will never be as effective as in-lens IS. > The Nikon 18-200 VR has excellent image stabilization but it turns this > mediocre optic into an absolutely obese Howitzer. The size/weight/price [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > gasp, the 4/3 vendors. > Nikon and Canon will break down eventually and shovel IS into their dSLRs. If they do, it will only be to satisfy the easily-fooled consumer public. SignatureWaddling Eagle World Famous Flight Instructor > Which is preferable (since I only have hand-held stabilization and it's kind > of shaky.) I have not compared examples of either myself, but general discussion suggests that in-camera is more economical and lenses are lighter, and in-lens works better at long focal lengths. SignatureJohn Rethorst jrethorst at post dot com >> Which is preferable (since I only have hand-held stabilization and it's kind >> of shaky.) > I have not compared examples of either myself, but general discussion suggests > that in-camera is more economical and lenses are lighter, and in-lens works > better at long focal lengths. That depends on how many lenses you have because the weight and cost of in-lens is cumulative as you add lenses. Obviously to span the range of lens characteristics in-camera IS would have to be more sophisiticated than in-lens, but there's no technical problem in making it sufficiently sophisticated to be as good. It's just a question of marketing and economics whether they bother to do that. The current big disadvantage of in-camera is that it doesn't work through the currently superior optical viewfinders. When EVFs have become as good as optical viewfinders that disadvantage will disappear. I'd guess we're about three to five years away from that. SignatureChris Malcolm cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205 IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/] >>> Which is preferable (since I only have hand-held stabilization and it's >>> kind [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > become as good as optical viewfinders that disadvantage will > disappear. I'd guess we're about three to five years away from that. Unless of course you are John Navas in which case they are great now!!!! ;-) > The current big disadvantage of in-camera is that it doesn't work > through the currently superior optical viewfinders. When EVFs have > become as good as optical viewfinders that disadvantage will > disappear. I'd guess we're about three to five years away from that. The other big disadvantages of in-camera is that it cannot stabilize the image as much as in-lens. In-camera stabilization is too close to the sensor to be as effective. From a white paper that Canon did for the Rebel XTi: "Some of Canon’s competitors have chosen to use in-body image stabilization. The technique involves moving the image sensor in a controlled fashion, based on signals from movement detecting sensors in the camera body. The obvious advantage of this system is that users have some sort of stabilization available with almost any lens they connect to the body. Short focal length lenses require smaller sensor deflections; 24 or 28 mm lenses might need only 1 mm or so. Longer lenses necessitate much greater movement; 300 mm lenses would have to move the sensor about 5.5 mm (nearly 1/4”) to achieve the correction Canon gets with its IS system at the same focal length. This degree of sensor movement is beyond the range of current technology. Short and 'normal' focal length lenses need stabilization much less often than long lenses, so the lenses that need the most help get the least." SignatureWaddling Eagle World Famous Flight Instructor > The other big disadvantages of in-camera is that it cannot stabilize > the image as much as in-lens. In most cases it can. In some cases it can stabilize considerable more (newest bodies vs. some old design lenses which are still manufactured) > In-camera stabilization is too close to > the sensor to be as effective. What are you talking about? Too close to the sensor? You must be thinking there is some kind of stabilization element between the lens and the sensor. No no no!!! The sensor itself is shifted, there is no extra element. If you don't even know how the different stabilization systems works, you really shouldn't talk so much about it. > From a white paper that Canon did for > the Rebel XTi: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > 'normal' focal length lenses need stabilization much less often than > long lenses, so the lenses that need the most help get the least." That is total BS! Full frame image is 24x36mm, APS-C sized sensors are around 16x24mm. 5.5mm is about 1/3th of the height of the APS-C frame or about 1/5th of the height of FF. Now, use 300mm lens (or even 500mm) lens, turn off any IS and look through the viewfinder. How much does the image shake? Definitely not 5.5mm (or 1/3th of the height of a APS-C frame) unless you have extremely shaky hands. And that's how much it's shakes in several seconds. Think about how little it shakes when the shutter speed is 1/50s or 1/30s (realistic shutter speed with a 300mm lens and 2-4 stops gain with stabilization). Actually the sensor have to move only less than 1mm. >> The other big disadvantages of in-camera is that it cannot stabilize >> the image as much as in-lens. [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > stabilization). > Actually the sensor have to move only less than 1mm. Some stabilization on/off tests op www.dpwreview.com: http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/nikon_70-200_2p8_vr_n15/page6.asp http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/nikon_18-55_3p5-5p6_vr_n15/page3.asp http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_18-55_3p5-5p6_is_c16/page3.asp http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_17-85_4-5p6_is_usm_c16/page3.asp > > The other big disadvantages of in-camera is that it cannot stabilize > > the image as much as in-lens. > > In most cases it can. In some cases it can stabilize considerable more > (newest bodies vs. some old design lenses which are still manufactured) sure, but that's hardly a fair comparison. if you are going to pick the latest and greatest of one system, you need to pick the latest and greatest of the other system as well. > > In-camera stabilization is too close to > > the sensor to be as effective. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > element. If you don't even know how the different stabilization systems > works, you really shouldn't talk so much about it. what he probably means is that the closer you get to the focal plane (the sensor) the more of a displacement there needs to be, compared with wiggling a lens element within the lens. > > From a white paper that Canon did for > > the Rebel XTi: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > That is total BS! actually it's not bs at all. > Full frame image is 24x36mm, APS-C sized sensors are around 16x24mm. 5.5mm > is about 1/3th of the height of the APS-C frame or about 1/5th of the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > stabilization). > Actually the sensor have to move only less than 1mm. it needs to track whatever movement there is, and as focal lengths get longer, the sensor has to move greater distances in the same amount of time. 5.5mm is reasonable, given the magnification of a 300mm lens. also, 300mm isn't all that long; canon has an 800mm stabilized lens, and with a 1.4x converter, that's 1120mm. sensor based stabilizers can't stabilize that very effectively. >> > The other big disadvantages of in-camera is that it cannot stabilize >> > the image as much as in-lens. [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > and with a 1.4x converter, that's 1120mm. sensor based stabilizers > can't stabilize that very effectively. Actually the Pentaxes will work on 600mm lenses so does that mean that they move thesensor 11mm or is Canon actually spinning BS? And to be honest just how many Canon or Nikon shooters are using 800mm lenses, even 500mm?? >>> > The other big disadvantages of in-camera is that it cannot stabilize >>> > the image as much as in-lens. [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] > honest just how many Canon or Nikon shooters are using 800mm lenses, even > 500mm?? Of course in-camera stabilization works, the question is how good it works. Pentax K10D SR 50mm lens (75mm equiv.) at 1/80s: 90% sharp http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentaxk10d/page12.asp with Canon EF-S 17-85 IS lens at 85mm (136mm equiv,) and 1/160s: 100% sharp. http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_17-85_4-5p6_is_usm_c16/page3.asp [] > Of course in-camera stabilization works, the question is how good it > works. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > sharp. > http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_17-85_4-5p6_is_usm_c16/page3.asp Thanks for those two pointers. The results are interesting for at least two reasons: - it surprises me how poorly the Pentax system appears to work - the Canon result gives lie to the statement that "you can't get any improvement from IS below 50mm focal length". Thanks, David In article <481b7af3$0$14284$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>, Pete D <no@email.com> wrote: > > also, 300mm isn't all that long; canon has an 800mm stabilized lens, > > and with a 1.4x converter, that's 1120mm. sensor based stabilizers > > can't stabilize that very effectively. > > Actually the Pentaxes will work on 600mm lenses so does that mean that they > move thesensor 11mm or is Canon actually spinning BS? the pentaxes work with any lens, but the effectiveness drops with the longer focal lengths. you won't get as much of an improvement at 600mm as you would at 50mm. > And to be honest just > how many Canon or Nikon shooters are using 800mm lenses, even 500mm?? probably quite a few. 500mm is relatively common, especially with wildlife photographers. sigma and tamron both have reasonably priced lenses that go to 500mm, while tokina makes an 80-400 that's very inexpensive. nikon has a stabilized 80-400 and canon has a stabilized 100-400mm that are very popular. add a teleconverter and go even longer. >>>> The other big disadvantages of in-camera is that it cannot stabilize >>>> the image as much as in-lens. [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > move thesensor 11mm or is Canon actually spinning BS? And to be honest just > how many Canon or Nikon shooters are using 800mm lenses, even 500mm?? I use an old manual 500mm lens sometimes with stacked teleconverters at 1400mm :-) and an old manual 300mm. I'm inclined to believe the Canon paper about in-body not being as effective for long lenses but I could use whatever benefit for those and other manual lenses. SignaturePaul Furman www.edgehill.net www.baynatives.com all google groups messages filtered due to spam >> The other big disadvantages of in-camera is that it cannot stabilize >> the image as much as in-lens. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > element. If you don't even know how the different stabilization systems > works, you really shouldn't talk so much about it. I am saying that if you have to move the sensor then you have to move it more than you would a lens element. >> From a white paper that Canon did for >> the Rebel XTi: [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > stabilization). > Actually the sensor have to move only less than 1mm. So now we see that it is you who does not know what you are talking about. Frankly, I would take Canon's word on how stabilization works over yours any day. SignatureWaddling Eagle World Famous Flight Instructor >>> The other big disadvantages of in-camera is that it cannot stabilize >>> the image as much as in-lens. [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > Frankly, I would take Canon's word on how stabilization works over yours > any day. And to amaze everyone, the word of Nikon :-) >>> From a white paper that Canon did for >>> the Rebel XTi: [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > about. Frankly, I would take Canon's word on how stabilization works > over yours any day. Suppose you get 5 stops gain with stabilization and sensor have to move 5.5mm to achieve that. If the shutter speed is x with 5 stops, it is half of that with 4 stops, and since the movement is more or less linear the amount the sensor moves is also half too. Next we count what amount of movement is needed with each shutter speed. We get the following results: gain,shutter speed,sensor movement 5 stops , x , 5.5mm 4 stops , x/2 , 2.75mm 3 stops , x/4 , 1.37mm 2 stops , x/8 , 0.69mm 1 stops , x/16 , 0.34mm 0 stops , x/32 , 0.17mm 0 stops means no stabilization needed, so the picture should be sharp without stabilization. Typical pixel pitch is ~0.006mm in an APS-C sensor, so 0.17mm is 28 pixels. 28 pixels is a lot of shake, it's not sharp at all! Besides 5 stops is more than manufacturers claim, and definitely more than you typically get. What if you get only 2 stops (still very useful) with 5.5mm movement. That would mean a picture with 1.37mm worth of shake should be considered sharp. That's ridiculous! So the conclusion is that 5.5mm claim is not true, just marketing BS! > Besides 5 stops is more than manufacturers claim, and definitely more than > you typically get. nikon claims 4 stops with their vr lenses and many people report getting as much as 7 stops improvement. in my experience, i routinely get 3-4 stops, and often more. >>>> From a white paper that Canon did for >>>> the Rebel XTi: [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > That's ridiculous! > So the conclusion is that 5.5mm claim is not true, just marketing BS! Focus length doesn't matter? >>>>> From a white paper that Canon did for >>>>> the Rebel XTi: [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > > Focus length doesn't matter? You mean focal length? Yep, different focal length, different shutter speed x but the same shake in the table above. Think about it. There is always shake. If the shutter speed is fast enough the shake is so small you think the picture you get is sharp. The maximum shutter speed depends on focal length and of course photographer and other conditions (remember the old 1/FL rule). If you go one stop beyond that the shutter speed is twice that and there is twice the shake, If two stops, 4 times longer shutter speed and 4 times shake, and so on. The amount the sensor moves is same with all focal lengths when you gain the same amount of stops, it's the speed it moves that varies! >Which is preferable (since I only have hand-held stabilization and it's kind >of shaky.) Those who sell only in-lens image stabilization (Nikon and Canon) say that it's easier to provide superior IS effects in a lens than in a camera body; that lens IS can be custom-tailored to provide the best IS for that particular lens (rather than the one-IS-fits all approach of in-body stabilization); and that in-lens IS is now simple and inexpensive, and doesn't bloat the size of the lens. (For the record, my 18-55 non-stabilized lens is almost identical in size and weight to my 18-55 stabilized lens from the same vendor. It's not particularly useful to compare stabilized/non-stabilized from different vendors, such as Nikon/Sigma.) Those who sell only in-camera image stabilization say other things. Your needs may lean you towards one approach or the other. In practice, I find that I need only a couple stabilized lenses, and I have them, so I don't miss having stabilization in the camera body. But those who own a lot of older, non stabilized lenses, especially telephotos, might gain something by getting a compatible image-stabilized body. Dave ------------------------------------- Everything I know, and then some: http://www.auctionmyths.com > Which is preferable (since I only have hand-held stabilization and > it's kind of shaky.) The major advantage of in-lens stabilisation is that the image in the viewfinder is stabilised, along with the image on the focus and exposure sensors. Especially at the longer focal lengths, this makes in-lens IS much nicer to use, and allows you to compose the image and frame the subject much more easily. It will also allow the camera focus and exposure sensors to function better. In-body IS would only provide stabilisation of the viewfinder image in compact cameras, or when a DSLR is used in its "live view" mode, and even then only when "continuous" stabilisation is selected. Cheers, David > The major advantage of in-lens stabilisation is that the image in > the viewfinder is stabilised, along with the image on the focus [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > It will also allow the camera focus and exposure sensors to > function better. I agree broadly with what you're saying, but I'm not convinced that lens-based IS is _always_ an advantage for the image in the viewfinder. Specifically, at the "normal" focal length (like the classic ~50mm on a full-frame 35mm camera), the viewfinder image through an unstabilised lens does not appear to move _at_all_ as you pan, whereas with an IS lens it is discontinuous. >> The major advantage of in-lens stabilisation is that the image in >> the viewfinder is stabilised, along with the image on the focus [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > unstabilised lens does not appear to move _at_all_ as you pan, > whereas with an IS lens it is discontinuous. The IS is faulty then, or not configured for panning mode. Cheers, David >>> The major advantage of in-lens stabilisation is that the image in >>> the viewfinder is stabilised, along with the image on the focus [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > The IS is faulty then, or not configured for panning mode. Ah, yes, panning mode - that would be it. Well spotted. :-) What if you're lens is set for horizontal panning but you find yourself tracking or scanning something vertically? >>>> The major advantage of in-lens stabilisation is that the image in >>>> the viewfinder is stabilised, along with the image on the focus [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > What if you're lens is set for horizontal panning but you find yourself > tracking or scanning something vertically? Canon's mode 2 IS stabilizes perpendicular the panning movement >>>>> The major advantage of in-lens stabilisation is that the image in >>>>> the viewfinder is stabilised, along with the image on the focus [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Canon's mode 2 IS stabilizes perpendicular the panning movement "... perpendicular _to_ the panning movement" ? What would you see if you were panning at 45 degrees to the edges of the frame? >>>>>> The major advantage of in-lens stabilisation is that the image in >>>>>> the viewfinder is stabilised, along with the image on the focus [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > What would you see if you were panning at 45 degrees to the edges of the > frame? A steady image of the subject. >>>>>>> The major advantage of in-lens stabilisation is that the image in >>>>>>> the viewfinder is stabilised, along with the image on the focus [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > A steady image of the subject. So you're saying it operates around any arbitrary dynamically detected axis during panning, not just the X and Y axes? Is that the case for all lens-based IS systems? >>>>>>>> The major advantage of in-lens stabilisation is that the image in >>>>>>>> the viewfinder is stabilised, along with the image on the focus [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > axis during panning, not just the X and Y axes? Is that the case for all > lens-based IS systems? I'm not sure, I have a Canon EF 70-200 f/4 IS. But when moving/panning erratically, it doesn't work at all :-) >>>>>>>>> The major advantage of in-lens stabilisation is that the image in >>>>>>>>> the viewfinder is stabilised, along with the image on the focus [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > I'm not sure, I have a Canon EF 70-200 f/4 IS. > But when moving/panning erratically, it doesn't work at all :-) So the system is deactivating the IS when it knows that it will make things worse. That fits with my understanding that Canon's mode 2 is designed specifically for horizontal panning (e.g. http://www.popphoto.com/cameras/255/canon-image-stabilization-vs-nikon-vibration -reduction.html). I haven't seen anything in this thread that proves that lens-based IS is _always_ (without exception) an advantage for the view through the viewfinder. I will accept "almost always". :-D > Which is preferable (since I only have hand-held stabilization and > it's kind of shaky.) Having tried both (Pentax K100D and Canon 40D with IS lenses) I prefer the visible reassurance offered by the lens stabilisation, especially with a long lens. Andrew McP > Which is preferable (since I only have hand-held stabilization and it's kind > of shaky.) In-lens will always be superior, as in 'works better.' Think about it. The further the IS elements are from the film plane, the less they have to move in order to achieve the same effect. Putting the IS inside the camera body requires far more movement. This means more moving parts, too, and greater vulnerability to damage. In-camera stabilization works better with wide-angle lenses and close focusing distances, where you need it least. In-lens stabilization works batter with telephotos and long focusing distances, where you need it most. The one single advantage that in-body IS is supposed to give you is that it works with all your lenses. However, this is not really true. It hardly works at all with long telephotos. It is not true that IS makes your lenses into big, fat cannons. Nikon's 18-200 mm VR is not bigger than Sigma's lens because it has VR. The VR is very tiny. If it were as big as some posters claim, you sure would not want it in the camera body! In-camera stabilization is a marketing stunt created to separate the stupid from their money. SignatureWaddling Eagle World Famous Flight Instructor >> Which is preferable (since I only have hand-held stabilization and >> it's kind [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > In-camera stabilization is a marketing stunt created to separate the > stupid from their money. Well phrased. Could also be the ignorant, or those who rely on the opinions of strangers. STELLA!! Signaturejohn mcwilliams > The one single advantage that in-body IS is supposed to give you is that > it works with all your lenses. Uh, NO ... there is another: in-body can also give you compensation for camera rotation about the lens axis. Doug McDonald >> The one single advantage that in-body IS is supposed to give you is that >> it works with all your lenses. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > in-body can also give you compensation for camera rotation > about the lens axis. Yep, a couple of pixelrows could be used. But they aren't. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.