5 axis IBIS coming to next Canon EOS R series camera [CR2]

[degos]

my expectations are:
* IBIS will not be in next up "entry level R"

* it will be in both pro level R bodies ... hi-rez model ("5D V")and hi-speed body ("1DX-III")

I disagree. Canon traditionally introduces new technology in the mid-tier mass-market models to debug it before putting it into the prosumer / pro models. That makes sense since they're not only testing on a much wide installation base but also those mid-tier users are going to be less demanding on the technology and also will probably benefit most, since they'll not have as much support equipment ( tripods, gimbals etc ).

For example in terms of stabilization the first Canon IS lens was the 70-300 f/4-5.6, not an L.

I therefore expect to see IBIS in the forthcoming sub-R model but probably not in the pro tier until after 2020.

I think the 70MP monster will be technically conservative, other than that, to attract studio / landscape users who will use it as their main camera for a decade.

The FF 1D-type will have to be out in mid / late-2019 to debug it for the 2020 Olympics so again might skip some more 'exotic' technology and focus on one aspect, pure FPS & AF for sports

 

[photonius]

Probably has been said before:
IBIS makes much more sense for RF:
- IS in lenses stabilises the image in the viewfinder. That argument falls away with mirrorless, no more viewfinder image to stabilise.
- The RF mount is made so as to allow fast lenses, like the new 50mm f1.2. But this has no IS. Quite likely it's not that easy to pack a good working
IS into such a lens: the glass diameter is big and heavy. And unlike the big white Tele lenses, the lens elements are packed more tightly. So, getting
a lens group that can move fast enough for efficient IS in a tight space, and also to cover a larger image circle with good IQ to the edge is putting
heavy demands onto the lens and lens design. By comparison, shifting the sensor instead suddenly starts to look more attractive, and only
needs to be done once.
So, with the RF mount, Pros and Cons of IBIS versus lens-IS has shifted, now it's more favourable for IBIS.
For EOS-M it is probably of lesser concern. No fast lenses for EOS-M, and bodies are supposed to be small, so no extra space for IBIS allotted.

 

[sdz]

This is a feature I welcome. I have a few fast primes that lack IS. This feature, hopefully, will compensate for this lack.

 

[Kit Lens Jockey]

that's exactly the market demand all brands are either overlooking or consciously ignoring: "pure stills, no video recording".

Because making a camera that only takes stills when there's nothing hardware related that needs to be added to allow it to take video is absurd. IBIS helps with both video and stills, so it's useful to have it there even in this hypothetical stills only camera.

If you don't take video, don't put the camera in video mode. It's not hard. Every digital camera I've owned has taken video. I just don't put the camera in that mode. I don't get why this is so hard for people. Having the video option there doesn't even complicate the controls that much. If the recording button bothers you that much, I'm pretty sure the EOS R lets you remap it to some other function. So hey, you even get a free button out of the deal.

 

[dak723]

Makes me jump with joy. Cant help but comment the funny comments people used to make that this is not necessary as lens has it. They were denying Sony's lead in this.

If your lenses have IS, then it is not necessary. Not sure what is funny about it or what is so hard to understand. So for some people - quite possibly the majority of people - it is not necessary as their lenses have IS. Not everyone has non-IS lenses.

 

[4fun]

Because making a camera that only takes stills when there's nothing hardware related that needs to be added to allow it to take video is absurd

there is lots added to 1. hardware and 2. firmware and 3. costs to add video recording.

Anything from different sensor design to (larger) heatsinks and bodies, additional control points (eg an utterly senseless mono-functional marked-in-red "record video button") to audio stuff like amps, stereo speakers, plus all sorts of connectors (+ cost to weather-seal them all), all the way to codecs/firmware stuff (does NOT come free of charge!), sucking up battery and CPU cycles ... for something the majority of stills camera buyers never use or need. Plus a lot of clutter in menus.
Thanks, but no thanks. Just make some pure stills cameras and see how well they'll sell and how few hybrid cameras will be bought, once dual use will cost some extra money rather than being demanded as free lunch by a few free-riders.

 

[Kit Lens Jockey]

there is lots added to 1. hardware and 2. firmware and 3. costs to add video recording.

Anything from different sensor design to (larger) heatsinks and bodies, additional control points (eg an utterly senseless mono-functional marked-in-red "record video button") to audio stuff like amps, stereo speakers, plus all sorts of connectors (+ cost to weather-seal them all), all the way to codecs/firmware stuff (does not come NOT free of charge!), sucking up battery and CPU cycles ... for something the majority of stills camera buyers never use or need. Plus a lot of clutter i menus. Thanks, but no thanks. Just make some pure stills cameras and see how well they'll sell and how few hybrid cameras will be bought, once dual use will cost some extra money rather than being demanded as free lunch by a few free-riders.

If we're talking mirrorless, which honestly is where everything is going, the sensor is continually reading what is coming through the lens at all times whether you're doing videos or stills. So, I don't think your idea that a camera that does video needs a bigger heatsink holds much water. All mirrorless cameras are essentially doing video all the time, whether you're actually recording it, or just doing stills shooting.

Again, I don't have my camera with me to confirm, but I think the video record button on the EOS R can be mapped to a variety of stills functions. So I guess just put some black tape over it and pretend it's a custom button if having a red button originally intended for video recording bugs you that much?

The idea that just having video functions in a camera is somehow sucking up processing power or battery life even when you aren't actually in video mode sounds like some serious tinfoil hat stuff to me. I'm not a software developer, but I would think that the code within a camera would be horribly inefficient if a mode you weren't even using were using battery power or processing power at all times. If this is actually somehow the case, I think the amount of battery or processing video functionality uses in stills mode is infinitesimally small.

If the menus bother you that much, set up your own custom menu... All the stills functions you could possibly want, no video stuff. Problem solved. Besides, don't the menus change depending on if you're in video or stills mode? I thought some of the video options disappear when you're not in video mode.

I will admit that you could get rid of a few connections and the microphone on a stills only camera. But you still need a speaker for focus confirmation beep.

But, the development costs to make a completely separate body that just deletes connections and the microphone, as well as unique firmware without video functions, would result in this mythical "stills only" camera costing just as much as the video camera. A microphone and some connectors are not adding that much to the cost of a camera. And if you factor in the smaller volume that such a camera would sell, it's unlikely that they would be able to sell a stills only camera any cheaper than one with video. That's the whole point of making one camera that can be used for both, you're able to sell it more cheaply because you will sell a greater volume since people who want to do stills and video will both buy the same camera.

 

[AlanF]

If your lenses have IS, then it is not necessary. Not sure what is funny about it or what is so hard to understand. So for some people - quite possibly the majority of people - it is not necessary as their lenses have IS. Not everyone has non-IS lenses.

"Necessary" isn't the right word - only a few things are "necessary". It's whether IBIS is useful or advantageous to you. Combining IBIS with IS by Olympus or Panasonic gives an extra stop or so above the IS, which is useful to some, especially telephoto shooters.

 

[David Hull]

I agree - not necessary for the vast majority (just my guess) of photographers. Most (like me) will have or will buy new lenses with IS. But for low light shooters with older lenses it will be a plus.

I do have to wonder, however, how much benefit FF IBIS will be. A number of Sony users have commented how poor it is with video - and it seems unlikely that it will be as effective as it is on M4/3rds cameras such as Olympus, as that format has a much smaller sensor. Also wonder how good it will be in the long run. Won't all that movement increase the likelihood that the sensor will get out of alignment after a number of years? For those who buy a new camera every two years, it may not be something that is thought about, but for those of us who will buy the R and keep it for 6-8 years (or more) I have to wonder....

Yes there will now be a bunch of more mechanical junk in the optical path that that will wear with time and possibly fail. I don't think a lot of people think about the reliability issues. Also, there is noise when that thing operates (I don't mean audible noise I mean positioning noise due to the servos). This is the reason you turn the machinery off to take a tripod shot. That noise is always there even when hand holding so there is always going to be some smear. One nice thing with Canon is that you can assemble a system with none of that stuff in play if you want. Once they put that thing in there that option is gone. Here is an interesting commentary on the whole IS issue that is worth a look:

https://blog.mingthein.com/2016/08/19/stabilisation-is-good-but-only-up-to-a-point/

The real question of IBIS (or any implementation) is does it bring more benefit than it takes away.

 

[mb66energy]

While not really relying on IS too much except with my 70-200 f/4.0 I will embrace IBIS because I have a lot of unstabilised lenses like old 2.8 24, 2.0 100, 2.8 100 macro, 5.6 400 and I hope there will be a APS-C IBIS system to help the EF-M 1.4 32 in these very dark situations where AF works well but ISO is to high or exposure time to high ... no miracles expected but a reliable 3 stop advantage would be very satisfying for me!

 

[crazyrunner33]

there is lots added to 1. hardware and 2. firmware and 3. costs to add video recording.

Anything from different sensor design to (larger) heatsinks and bodies, additional control points (eg an utterly senseless mono-functional marked-in-red "record video button") to audio stuff like amps, stereo speakers, plus all sorts of connectors (+ cost to weather-seal them all), all the way to codecs/firmware stuff (does not come NOT free of charge!), sucking up battery and CPU cycles ... for something the majority of stills camera buyers never use or need. Plus a lot of clutter i menus. Thanks, but no thanks. Just make some pure stills cameras and see how well they'll sell and how few hybrid cameras will be bought, once dual use will cost some extra money rather than being demanded as free lunch by a few free-riders.

You have three options; a camera that only shoots RAW, a film camera, or an old camera. You can try paying a premium for Lecia's black and white camera, but even that still shoots videos. You can buy an old 50D, but even that has been proven to create some of the most gorgeous 1080(slight upscale) footage that rivals modern 4K cameras. Oddly enough, a RAW only video camera is closer to what you want than a hybrid camera with a codec built in.

At the end of the day, you will not get the stills only product you want because capitalism and technology evolution is not your friend. All major camera manufactures have discovered that it's significantly cheaper to consolidate a product and have a slightly higher cost than the significant cost that comes from designing two products. Just the tooling alone is outrageous.

 

[Del Paso]

No matter what advantages IBIS could bring, I tend to prefer a rigidly mounted sensor over a vibrating something, which could (will) eventually run out of adjustment. I still cannot imagine a body fitted with IBIS to be as reliable as - say - the EOS 5 D3 in the long run. It certainly doesn't make sense to keep listening to internet whining in order to define the specs of coming cameras. If Sony did, they certainly would have a better wheather-sealing and an acceptable color rendition, not to mention the ergonomics.

 

[melgross]

Curious ... do you know if IBIS can be enabled and disabled in a camera body? I don't own an IBIS body, but was wondering if it's an always-on feature.

I don’t follow all the details of what all of these companies are doing. Every couple of years, they change the feature set. I’m sure others here know more.

 

[melgross]

I believe you and Sharlin that they made such statements. I don’t believe the statements, if the implication is that they tried but were unable due to the body design. That isn’t how system engineering works.

Had they started with a baseline body I would buy it, but this is a new body, designed to current hardware requirements. If anything, IBIS (for better or for worse) was an afterthought.

They probably know more about their sensor designs than you do. Likely it’s true about the body designs as well. I see no reason why they would lie about it.

 

[melgross]

The "jittery" quality is exactly what others have found in the Sony FF IBIS.

And, yes, the Canon execs said that they did not (as yet) consider IBIS to be usable due to heat issues. But, as we have seen before, whether IBIS is a good idea or not, Canon will have to add it because of the loud and persistant critics and internet reviewers. Unfortunately, for those looking for dependability and quality, camera companies will have to follow Sony's lead and produce cameras with lots of specs - regardless of how well they work or if they are actually ready for production. Sony has demonstrated again and again, that specs are the thing - not whether the specs actually work well.

They didn’t say they wouldn’t. In fact, they said they didn’t here because of those engineering reasons. Canon has extensive chip producing R&D and manufacturing. They produce many varied sensors. I believe that they’ve been working on it. It just takes time. Likely it wasn’t ready yet. But they had to have a system out now, so they didn’t include it.

 

[melgross]

Sony does it too. So I am guessing it is possible ;-)

Even Apple does it in their iPhones.

 

[melgross]

For certain both Olympus and Panasonic have multiple IBIS modes including OFF. In m43 world Olympus is considered the leader in IBIS with Panasonic not far behind and potentially benefitting from their 'partnership.' IBIS is critical for Vloggers - current generation effectively eliminates need for tripod or gimble. Sony invested in Olympus several years back supposedly in part to get access to Olympus IBIS technology, although implementing it with larger sensor is more challenging. Earlier IBIS iterations could, in rare conditions, drift to one side until the sensor was against the stops. It would then 'jump' back to center and restart stabilizing. This resulted in some noticing 'jitter' with IBIS. Current generations have corrected that and are remarkably stable. Users report success at 5 - 10 sec. hand held shots at moderate focal lengths.

Having the ability for precise positional control of the sensor can then lead to other features like Pentax's astrotracking or the high resolution modes on Panasonic and Olympus.

Remarkably stable, but still have jitter. The problem is also that these motions aren’t controlled in as smooth a fashion as optical. There’s some herky jerkiness in the corrections.

 

[Kit Lens Jockey]

For everyone harping on about rigidly mounted sensors... Canon's sensors have shaken themselves around for ages to clean themselves off. In a very quiet setting, you can even hear the sensor self cleaning on the EOS R. So, I dunno, I think pining away for a "rigidly mounted sensor" is kind of a misnomer. Canon's sensors have not exactly been that rigidly mounted for a long time. I mean, are we really going to get into a discussion about how little tiny movements for self cleaning are ok, but big movements for IBIS are not? I think we're heading down a deep rabbit hole here fretting about sensor misalignment due to IBIS.

 

[digitalride]

If you are camera shaking to the left for a moment, while the subject is turning his/her face slightly to the right at the same moment, the combined movements take a faster shutter-speed to overcome blur.

They should make a camera with a little motor that shakes the camera in different directions sequentially and vary the intensity while firing off shots rapidly - then automatically only keep the least blurry ones Hold on while I go file a patent for "AI Subject Panning" ...

Actually you don't even need a "spray and pray" approach - instead of using image stabilization to effectively hold the camera still, reprogram the image stabilization adjustment to try to hold the subject still in the viewfinder for a moment- if it is moving to the right momentarily move things right to match it.

 

[bhf3737]

Makes me jump with joy. Cant help but comment the funny comments people used to make that this is not necessary as lens has it. They were denying Sony's lead in this.

What is funny with arguments against usability and effectiveness of IBIS? Would you care to share your counter arguments?
FYI Sony is a leader in introducing some features like eye-focus, but definitely not a leader in IBIS technology.