Patent: Further breakdown of Canon’s upcoming IBIS technology

[Canon Rumors]

A patent showing a breakdown of Canon’s IBIS development has appeared at the USPTO.
From Northlight:
Here’s one of the diagrams, which I’ve annotated to show the magnets (blue) and control coils (red)

We expect to see Canon’s IBIS technology to arrive in the next major EOS R series camera.

Continue reading...

 

[SV]

"We expect to see Canon’s IBIS technology to arrive in the next major EOS R series camera. "

Let's hope so, and soon!!

 

[keithcooper]

My hope is that they include a high res multishot mode using the IS such as I recently tested with the Panasonic S1R. Sure, there are limits with using it, but the results can be impressive.

See the examples in a thread here and in the review at

Panasonic Lumix S1R review. Using the 47MP full frame mirrorless camera

Panasonic Lumix S1R review. Using the 47MP full frame mirrorless camera with special emphasis on the 187MP multi-shot high resolution mode

www.northlight-images.co.uk

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Reading thru the patent (I did not bother with the really complex stuff, and there is a lot of it in this patent), I notice something that had not occurred to me, but its obvious now that they discuss it.

The effect is to cause optical distortion of the image undergoing stabilization. Below is just a snipped of the problem statement.

The patent proposes a correction of the effect using software.


[0003] Another element that degrades the captured image,
other than the image blur, is diffraction due to the aberration
of the lens, the aperture, or the like. An example of a
technique for reducing the degradation of captured images
due to the image blur and aberration, described above, is
disclosed in Japanese Patent Laid-Open No. 2016-045488,
in which image stabilization and correction of astigmatism
and the curvature of field are achieved by moving part of the
imaging optical system in a direction different from the
optical axis. Japanese Patent Laid-Open No. 2016-045488
discloses a configuration including a first correcting lens that
optically corrects an image blur by moving in a direction
different from the optical axis and a second correcting lens
that corrects aberration that has occurred when the first
correcting lens is moved in the direction different from the
optical axis.

The patent description seems to cover a mirrorless camera as in figure 1A, and also for a DSLR where in the flow chart, there is a step of deciding if the camera is in live view.

 

[unfocused]

Serious Question: Can someone please explain why they care about IBIS?

Video: It makes sense if you shoot video, as a lens-based stabilization system is designed to work only when the shutter button is pressed and not continuously.
Old or Cheap Lenses: For those who don't want to pay to have stabilization in their lenses or have lenses that don't come with stabilization.

So many people talk as thought it is a "must have" and I'm trying to figure out why.

For context, I am primarily a stills shooter. About half of my work is sports, and about half of my hobby shooting is birds in flight. No point in stabilization in those cases.
Most of my other work and hobby shooting involves people, often at events with limited light. With today's stabilized lenses, I can hand hold the camera and lens down to the point where motion blur from the subject is going to be a bigger detriment than shutter speed. So, no point in additional stabilization in those cases.

What am I missing?

 

[keithcooper]

There was a US patent application from back in March [USPTO] that has a very similar sensor mount included, that I remember looking at. There is another earlier that month [USPTO] which looked at aberrations and defocus as part of the IS controlled by two lens IS elements.

As expected, after Canon actually mentioned sensor IS, we see examples of aspects of doing it...

 

[Deleted member 378875]

Serious Question: Can someone please explain why they care about IBIS?

Video: It makes sense if you shoot video, as a lens-based stabilization system is designed to work only when the shutter button is pressed and not continuously.
Old or Cheap Lenses: For those who don't want to pay to have stabilization in their lenses or have lenses that don't come with stabilization.

So many people talk as thought it is a "must have" and I'm trying to figure out why.

For context, I am primarily a stills shooter. About half of my work is sports, and about half of my hobby shooting is birds in flight. No point in stabilization in those cases.
Most of my other work and hobby shooting involves people, often at events with limited light. With today's stabilized lenses, I can hand hold the camera and lens down to the point where motion blur from the subject is going to be a bigger detriment than shutter speed. So, no point in additional stabilization in those cases.

What am I missing?

From my point of view I would like to fit a cheap prime lens such as a Sigma 85mm f1.4 art lens ... and then use it to photograph my family in our home without using either a tripod or flash lighting.

The provision of in-camera image stabilization means that the exposure time can be longer, which in turn means that the ISO can be lower and hence the noise reduced.

Whilst this is possible with stabilized lenses they are generally more expensive and generally it seems primes are unstabilized - whether thy be from Canon or anyone else.

I'm not a professional photographer and I'm not shooting for a magazine ...

However, I suspect that am probably NOT atypical of a substantial number of photographers known as "prosumers".

Hobbyists generally buy a lot of lenses because they want to play at everything ... unlike professionals who generally just want to do one specialized thing over and over again ...

 

[keithcooper]

Serious Question: Can someone please explain why they care about IBIS?

Video: It makes sense if you shoot video, as a lens-based stabilization system is designed to work only when the shutter button is pressed and not continuously.
Old or Cheap Lenses: For those who don't want to pay to have stabilization in their lenses or have lenses that don't come with stabilization.

So many people talk as thought it is a "must have" and I'm trying to figure out why.

For context, I am primarily a stills shooter. About half of my work is sports, and about half of my hobby shooting is birds in flight. No point in stabilization in those cases.
Most of my other work and hobby shooting involves people, often at events with limited light. With today's stabilized lenses, I can hand hold the camera and lens down to the point where motion blur from the subject is going to be a bigger detriment than shutter speed. So, no point in additional stabilization in those cases.

What am I missing?

I don't -need- it, but recent experience makes it something I'd like to see

It adds IS to my non IS lenses as an option - that's my expensive TS-E ones mainly
It gives the possibility of multi-shot high res imaging (see my earlier post and link)
If it works with lens IS, then I get even better IS for times it really helps me

I was so-so on it until I had the Panasonic S1R here for the review.

Downsides are that it tends to be more sensitive and prone to mechanical failure than not having it.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

Ibis breakdown:

 

[woodman411]

Serious Question: Can someone please explain why they care about IBIS?

Video: It makes sense if you shoot video, as a lens-based stabilization system is designed to work only when the shutter button is pressed and not continuously.
Old or Cheap Lenses: For those who don't want to pay to have stabilization in their lenses or have lenses that don't come with stabilization.

So many people talk as thought it is a "must have" and I'm trying to figure out why.

For context, I am primarily a stills shooter. About half of my work is sports, and about half of my hobby shooting is birds in flight. No point in stabilization in those cases.
Most of my other work and hobby shooting involves people, often at events with limited light. With today's stabilized lenses, I can hand hold the camera and lens down to the point where motion blur from the subject is going to be a bigger detriment than shutter speed. So, no point in additional stabilization in those cases.

What am I missing?

I'm in the same boat (not really caring about ibis), but only because I purposely got image stabilized lenses. If the lens doesn't need it, it would be relatively smaller, plus Canon's premium primes (RF 50, RF 85) don't have IS. For shooting people, IS is just some insurance, or peace of mind, against camera shake, at least for me. Combined with the R's accurate autofocus, my hit rate has been very high.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

My hope is that they include a high res multishot mode using the IS such as I recently tested with the Panasonic S1R. Sure, there are limits with using it, but the results can be impressive.

See the examples in a thread here and in the review at

Panasonic Lumix S1R review. Using the 47MP full frame mirrorless camera

Panasonic Lumix S1R review. Using the 47MP full frame mirrorless camera with special emphasis on the 187MP multi-shot high resolution mode

www.northlight-images.co.uk

I'm sure they are aware of it, I thought they had a P&S that did something similar. For landscapes or non moving subjects, it would work.

This brings to mind, one of the gadgets I purchased around 1995 when digital cameras were just beginning to hit the market, and were very expensive. It used multiple captured frames from a analog camcorder and merged them to form a higher resolution image. It was even possible to get a 1500 X 1125 resolution image.


So, its very old technology.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

For context, I am primarily a stills shooter. About half of my work is sports, and about half of my hobby shooting is birds in flight. No point in stabilization in those cases.

Sports and birds with long lenses and with no tripod- an IS is very useful in these cases.
Hand-held portraiture - the same. IBIS would make a lot of good EF no-IS lenses more useful.

 

[unfocused]

I don't -need- it, but recent experience makes it something I'd like to see

It adds IS to my non IS lenses as an option - that's my expensive TS-E ones mainly
It gives the possibility of multi-shot high res imaging (see my earlier post and link)
If it works with lens IS, then I get even better IS for times it really helps me

I was so-so on it until I had the Panasonic S1R here for the review.

Downsides are that it tends to be more sensitive and prone to mechanical failure than not having it.

Thanks.

I think I am having a negative reaction to the many people on this forum who act as though Canon cameras are utterly unusable or shamefully outmoded because they haven't offered in-body stabilization.

Part of me is always thinking: Am I going to regret not having that feature in my camera? That old FOMO (Fear of Missing Out). I'm inclined to think not in this case.

The only non-stabilized lens I own is the fish-eye zoom and obviously, it's not much of an issue for a lens of that focal length.

I did read your review and, as I recall, a significant portion of your business involves large-scale images for interior display, so I can see where every bit of sharpness you can squeeze out of an image would be important to you.

Thanks also for participating in this forum generally. Your insights and experience add some much needed context to many discussions.

 

[Kit.]

Old or Cheap Lenses: For those who don't want to pay to have stabilization in their lenses or have lenses that don't come with stabilization.

Adding extra, moving glass elements into the light path costs not only in money, but also in aberrations, flare, and size. If you need to add it inside a retrofocus lens, the lens will likely also need to be made more retrofocus.

For a company that manufactures both cameras and lenses, having IS in a camera means that some highest quality normal and wide-angle lenses could be made even better by not including the IS element.

 

[YuengLinger]

IBIS that works would be great, even if it helped just three stops. Be grateful if your hands are so steady you don't need any kind of stabilization for general photography. Personally, I benefit greatly from lenses with IS when taking portrait shots. If I'm using a longer lens, say a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, I see benefits up to 1/500th. Again, if your hands are steady--throughout the day--be grateful.

And please don't keep repeating the myth that it doesn't help unless the subject is completely still. Slight subject motion PLUS camera shake results in many more slightly blurred shots than slight subject motion and a lens that has IS. Simply put, the combination of motions results in more blur than if at least the lens is stabilized.

While there is a demand for IBIS, I don't see it expressed negatively on CR unless the poster is generally bashing Canon in favor of brand X, Y, or Z. And these posters bash Canon over pretty much any random feature Canon does or does not offer.

What puzzles me is why members of CR who seem to genuinely enjoy Canon products get so nervous (for lack of a stronger description) about IBIS. Are you afraid Canon will botch it so badly it makes your pictures worse? Or that it will fail a few days after the warranty period? That it can't be disabled if you hate it? Just kind of odd that some of those who routinely defend Canon have so little faith the company can reliably implement IBIS.

For now and the foreseeable future, Canon offers bodies without IBIS. In what way will a new body with IBIS affect your photography? Why fret about it?

 

[Photo Hack]

Serious Question: Can someone please explain why they care about IBIS?

Video: It makes sense if you shoot video, as a lens-based stabilization system is designed to work only when the shutter button is pressed and not continuously.

Are you sure?

 

[addola]

My hope is that they include a high res multishot mode using the IS such as I recently tested with the Panasonic S1R. Sure, there are limits with using it, but the results can be impressive.

Panasonic Lumix S1R review. Using the 47MP full frame mirrorless camera

Panasonic Lumix S1R review. Using the 47MP full frame mirrorless camera with special emphasis on the 187MP multi-shot high resolution mode

www.northlight-images.co.uk

All I hope is that Canon's IBIS come close to, or outperforms the one on Panasonic cameras

 

[Adelino]

Serious Question: Can someone please explain why they care about IBIS?

Video: It makes sense if you shoot video, as a lens-based stabilization system is designed to work only when the shutter button is pressed and not continuously.
Old or Cheap Lenses: For those who don't want to pay to have stabilization in their lenses or have lenses that don't come with stabilization.

So many people talk as thought it is a "must have" and I'm trying to figure out why.

For context, I am primarily a stills shooter. About half of my work is sports, and about half of my hobby shooting is birds in flight. No point in stabilization in those cases.
Most of my other work and hobby shooting involves people, often at events with limited light. With today's stabilized lenses, I can hand hold the camera and lens down to the point where motion blur from the subject is going to be a bigger detriment than shutter speed. So, no point in additional stabilization in those cases.

What am I missing?

The RF 28-70 f2.0 is certainly not an old or a cheap lens by any means.

 

[amorse]

Thanks.

I think I am having a negative reaction to the many people on this forum who act as though Canon cameras are utterly unusable or shamefully outmoded because they haven't offered in-body stabilization.

Part of me is always thinking: Am I going to regret not having that feature in my camera? That old FOMO (Fear of Missing Out). I'm inclined to think not in this case.

The only non-stabilized lens I own is the fish-eye zoom and obviously, it's not much of an issue for a lens of that focal length.

I did read your review and, as I recall, a significant portion of your business involves large-scale images for interior display, so I can see where every bit of sharpness you can squeeze out of an image would be important to you.

Thanks also for participating in this forum generally. Your insights and experience add some much needed context to many discussions.

It's a non-necessity for 95% of my shooting, but I've been in a number of situations where I'd of appreciated it and used it. The place I think it is needed most (for me anyway) is with the 24-70 f/2.8L ii in lower light, though the announced RF will have IS so that issue may drop off a bit. While I don't do a lot of event shooting, I find that when the shutter speed drops my hands are not as steady as many others - my keeper rate due to hand shake seems low (maybe I'm just looking too close). For me, I typically stick close to 1 / 2x(focal length) of a second as to prevent my hand shake issues (i.e. 1/50 for 24mm, 1/100 for 50 etc.), which means I'm really ramping ISO. I used to aim for 1/ (focal length), but I found my missed shot frequency was pretty bad. Would IBIS alone make my decision on a camera purchase? Probably not as again, 95% of my shots are on a tripod. Reliability and weather sealing are a lot more important for me than IBIS.

The concerns with usability of Canon cameras are (in my opinion) overblown, but there are no doubt places which can be improved. Whether it is worth it for Canon to invest in those places to create a meaningful difference for users remains to be seen.

 

[Don Haines]

The rule of thumb is that OS is best for long lenses, IBIS is best for shorter lenses, and a combination of both is better than either.

This is not to be confused with pixel shifting, which is the best way to do massive corrections in video.