Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

Would In-body IS/VR conflict with Lens IS/VR ? (Canon/Nikon)

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

Leave a Comment
    • «
    • 1
    • »
    JackAllTog
    JackAllTog e2 Member 53534 forum postsJackAllTog vcard United Kingdom58 Constructive Critique Points
    24 Jun 2009 - 5:28 PM

    Hypothetically, If Canon/Nikon ever introduced an in-body IS/VR, would their IS Lenses work to double the IS capability? I think not, i think it would be one or the other - what do you think?

    With their current investment in IS lenses can they turn around and now offer in-body IS anyway?

    Is a 4 stop in-body IS possible that also caters for panning.

    My logic says in-body IS would be better as i'd not need costly IS in each Lens.

    Last Modified By JackAllTog at 24 Jun 2009 - 5:29 PM
    Sponsored Links
    Sponsored Links 
    24 Jun 2009 - 5:28 PM

    Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

    strawman
    strawman  1022002 forum posts United Kingdom16 Constructive Critique Points
    24 Jun 2009 - 5:52 PM

    Stuart the systems would fight so you would need to pick one or the other. For example where the sigma 150-500 turns up on non-Canon and Nikon bodies with its IS you turn off the in-camera IS.

    Technically in-lens IS has advantages, especially at longer focal lengths. Remember you stabilise the viewfinder and image projected to the AF sensor as well as the signal to the sensor. So if you take wildlife as an example where the subject may be small, DoF small then in-lens has an advantage.

    Also if you design the lens with IS then you can optimise the responses for the lens, while in-camera you may not get all the data you need etc.

    Panning wise no reason to not have panning ability built in. Lower cost IS systems often default to on/off IS.

    I guess the Nikon and Canon view is that for their premium lenses they have the technically best solution. At the lower cost end they will argue they have kit lenses with IS, and 55-250 Is lenses etc, so is there such a big cost issue. Also do you really want to be moving sensors, I can see quite a few extra failure modes being induced by moving the sensor.

    Personally both would be good, i.e in-camera you can turn off when you fit an IS lens. And for many people it will be a case of either is good enough.

    Helpful Post! This post was flagged as helpful
    cameracat
    cameracat  108578 forum posts Norfolk Island61 Constructive Critique Points
    24 Jun 2009 - 9:13 PM

    Somewhere deep in the pages on Nikons site, There is a long and detailed explanation as to why in lens IS or VR is better than in body image stabilising methods......!

    Now unless they do a U turn on this, It would seem they are not considering it anytime soon, Canon is probably the same....!

    My thoughts, There is enough gadgets like on-board sensor cleaning quivering around inside cameras already, I for one don't want my sensor doing a jig everytime the shutter fires.....Wink

    In lens IS/VR is now cheaper than ever, The stabilising is calibrated to the exact requirements of each lens.

    More camera less toys......Please.....Smile

    There is no substitute for a good fast lens.....Wink

    Last Modified By cameracat at 24 Jun 2009 - 9:15 PM Helpful Post! This post was flagged as helpful
    somnathchatterjee

    i think IS/VR on the camera is better option coz it can reduce the cost of lenses.At the same time i also feel using tripod can drastically reduce the need of IS/VR . i donot think that in camera and in lenses IS/VR both turning on will produce a great result.

    strawman
    strawman  1022002 forum posts United Kingdom16 Constructive Critique Points
    25 Jun 2009 - 9:38 AM

    I am intrigued as to whether the lens cost reduces significantly in the middle to higher costs lenses. For example if IS has a 60 premium in a 1,000 lens, and in-lens is technically the best solution, is it an issue.

    Certainly if you look at the better Sony lenses and compare to the better Canikon lenses you do not see a price saving. And technically I would rather float an optical assembly than a sensor.

    For entry level cameras in-camera IS is lower cost, go to the mid level and performance becomes important. For @ 60 why compromise?

    Carabosse
    Carabosse e2 Member 1139392 forum postsCarabosse vcard England269 Constructive Critique Points
    25 Jun 2009 - 9:46 AM

    Even some of the cheapest Canon lenses have IS (e.g. the 18-55 IS) so the cost of in-lens IS must be pennies really...... well not much anyway.

    strawman
    strawman  1022002 forum posts United Kingdom16 Constructive Critique Points
    25 Jun 2009 - 9:55 AM

    It must be low cost as I have a compact camera with optical IS and the whole thing cost me less than 60 new. So I am not convinced in-lens IS costs much more than in-camera.

    It is just you have two systems. Probably the in-lens solutions cost more in terms of up-from development. But the 3 biggest lens providers all offer in-lens IS now, Canon Nikon and Sigma that is. So I expect Sony to offer some when they provide the long focal length lenses if they intend to carry the fight to Canikon at the middle to higher market level.

    Helpful Post! This post was flagged as helpful
    Carabosse
    Carabosse e2 Member 1139392 forum postsCarabosse vcard England269 Constructive Critique Points
    25 Jun 2009 - 10:58 AM

    Could be but Sony currently offer 300mmm and 500mm primes which (one assumes) will work with their in-body IS.

    The 300mm f2.8 is a white Canon L lookalike and at around 4k is not a cheapie!

    Last Modified By Carabosse at 25 Jun 2009 - 10:59 AM
    digicammad
    digicammad  1121988 forum posts United Kingdom37 Constructive Critique Points
    25 Jun 2009 - 12:54 PM

    No problem, if there is a conflict just turn off one of them. Smile

    LenShepherd
    LenShepherd e2 Member 62434 forum postsLenShepherd vcard United Kingdom
    25 Jun 2009 - 9:26 PM

    The operational advantages of VR over in camera reduction are at this Nikon link http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/technology/vr/index.htm
    Differences between Nikon and Canon is Nikon VR centers the image in the optical center (Canon IS does not) for the highest possible optical quality with the trade off of a risk of a slight change in image framing, and most Nikon VR lenses automatically detect and compensate for panning, whereas most Canon do not.
    The main thing about IS/VR/in camera is extends the low shutter speed hand held range, and if kept running improves AF focus tracking of moving targets, as explained in the Nikon link.

    strawman
    strawman  1022002 forum posts United Kingdom16 Constructive Critique Points
    25 Jun 2009 - 11:13 PM

    Hmm swings and roundabouts there Len, it does not sound like a decisive difference, apart from auto panning where I would rather have manual control.

    Auto centring after every shutter press, might be better to stay alive for a few seconds just in case you want a follow on shot, then centre. So yes and no. Depends on how you work.

    Then auto panning, well if you on the spur of the moment decide to pan handy, but a pain if you twitch and the lens enters panning mode, or worse does not go tot panning when you want it. Me I would rather have the mode switch myself and know what it was going to do.

    Oh and by the way, the centring is to prevent the creep situation where you run out of IS travel and either it has to give up or flip. It is not for image quality and has the loss of initial speed of response down side.

    as for Nikon or Canon, I would take Canon's 100-400 over the 80-400 but Nikons 200-400 is a dream of a lens that has no Canon equal Smile And on and on it goes, if only there was only one lens mount then we could pick and mix. Smile

    In-camera systems have the advantage of always being centred before the first shot, but in burst mode will face the travel problems etc, unless it re-centres each time, but then it has shot to shot delay.

    Last Modified By strawman at 25 Jun 2009 - 11:17 PM
    LenShepherd
    LenShepherd e2 Member 62434 forum postsLenShepherd vcard United Kingdom
    26 Jun 2009 - 8:48 PM


    Quote: but a pain if you twitch and the lens enters panning mode,

    If you twitch in panning mode Nikon goes out of panning mode. If you twitch not in panning mode VR stays in "normal" mode, as with Canon in normal default.
    Either way if you are concentrating on holding the camera steady twitching is likely to be rare.

    strawman
    strawman  1022002 forum posts United Kingdom16 Constructive Critique Points
    26 Jun 2009 - 11:05 PM

    I like to decide what the lens will do, I know control freak. Smile

    JackAllTog
    JackAllTog e2 Member 53534 forum postsJackAllTog vcard United Kingdom58 Constructive Critique Points
    29 Jun 2009 - 2:30 PM

    Thanks Guys, it seems as if IS in lens wins in the quality stakes, But also noted is the markup for IS is perhaps much more thant the IS component cost. So maybe as IS becomes standard on all new lenses the premium price it carries will drop.

    V.good point Strawman "if only there was only one lens mount "

    joolsb
    joolsb  927115 forum posts Switzerland38 Constructive Critique Points
    29 Jun 2009 - 2:53 PM


    Quote: So maybe as IS becomes standard on all new lenses the premium price it carries will drop.

    In-lens IS has been around for more than 10 years. If it was ever intended to be standard on all lenses, it would be by now.

    Last Modified By joolsb at 29 Jun 2009 - 2:54 PM
    • «
    • 1
    • »

    Add a Comment

    You must be a member to leave a comment

    Username:
    Password:
    Remember me:
    Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.