Canon to announce at least 6 new RF lenses next week

Dec 13, 2010
4,932
1,608
Same here on quality. I'm not a person of means by any stretch of the imagination. I have to really sacrifice to buy a lens or camera. But when I do buy, I want something nice and that will last. My perception is that L glass does that for me, and lenses are more important to me than the camera. I believe all Canon cameras can take nice photos, though I prefer full frame after using APSc. This is my only hobby.
You’re lucky, my other hobby is cars:LOL:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
8,246
1,939
Canada
If we use the IBIS term to only mean mechanically-moving sensors, then Canon may never have it. I think the digital processing of the sensor data to achieve the same thing is advancing and will do the same thing. (Except for motion towards/away from subject; that can't be done digitally, exactly: you can't make something out of focus in focus. On the other, other hand, the Dual Pixel data actually allows some focus adjustment after the fact.)

If we use the IBIS term to mean stabilization in the camera somehow, though, then the R ALREADY does it, albeit digitally. It's not bragged about at all but there are little hints. For instance the diagram showing IS shows "five-axis IS" including roll. You can't fix roll with optics! Only by counter-rolling your sensor physically... or counter-rolling your sensor DATA digitally...

My best guess is that the digital IBIS Canon already has in the R is not the 4-stop stuff of headlines, so they can't simply discontinue IS on wide and normal lenses yet. Further, they don't want to cannibalize sales of the IS stuff. So my guess is that when they start actively promoting the digital IBIS, they'll say, yeah, we got it but it's 2 stops, so there's still a value in buying the IS lenses. Then the next model will claim 3 stops, and so on.
The current "5 axis IS" is only for video and involves manipulating the data. To get "stabilized" 2K video, you sample the video to a larger size (say 2.5K) and select a 2K image out of the approximate centre of the 2.5K image to get a steadier image. This has been done for quite a while in post-processing, but now cameras have the computing power to do this on-the-fly. I believe the 6D2 was the first Canon DSLR to do this... The "5 axis IS" can shift the image by hundreds of pixels, but can not shift to sub-pixel accuracy.

IBIS involves moving the sensor. IBIS moves the sensor only a few pixels, and can me moved with sub-pixel accuracy. This is the best system for short focal lengths.

OIS is optical Image Stabilization, and involves moving lens elements to stabilize the image. This is the best system for long focal lengths.

Hybrid IS is using OIS and IBIS together, and will outperform either. So far, Panasonic and Olympus are the only two who use it. Olympus has hit 7 stops of IS with it.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,099
12,863
Do you have any reference that "the "5 axis IS" can shift the image by hundreds of pixels, but can not shift to sub-pixel accuracy" in the EOS R? Page 33 of the EOS R white paper talks of fixing yaw, pitch, and roll. To do these surely requires sub-pixel accuracy, and I can't imagine why they'd do that for these more complicated transforms but not for simple X and Y offsets.
Because physics – large shifts don’t require as much precision.

However for reasons I can't figure out this is only described for video, not stills.

For me, if the camera can do it for video, why NOT do it for stills?
It’s only for video because video doesn’t use the whole sensor. Still images do, so there aren’t extra pixels to allow shifting the image.

The point is, the sensor isn’t moving. It’s not IBIS. Canon states, “During video recording there is the added ability to combine any optical Image Stabilization in the lens with electronic Image Stabilization within the CMOS image sensor.” Electronic means data processing, not physical movement of the sensor.
 
Upvote 0

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
8,246
1,939
Canada
Because physics – large shifts don’t require as much precision.


It’s only for video because video doesn’t use the whole sensor. Still images do, so there aren’t extra pixels to allow shifting the image.

The point is, the sensor isn’t moving. It’s not IBIS. Canon states, “During video recording there is the added ability to combine any optical Image Stabilization in the lens with electronic Image Stabilization within the CMOS image sensor.” Electronic means data processing, not physical movement of the sensor.

Yes.

Think of it like this..... say you are shooting with a 6D2 and want to stabilize some 4K video. (I know it is 2K, but let's say 4K anyway)

You want a series of images that are 3840 by 2160 pixels, your sensor is 6240 by 4160 pixels.....

The first image is from the middle of the sensor, you have 1200 unused pixels to each side of your image and 1000 unused pixels to the top and the bottom. (hey! nice round numbers, I wonder why :) )

you moved a bit, so the next image might have a few less pixels to the size, and less above, so rather than build the second frame out of the same pixels used in the first image, it chooses a different set. Think of this as taking a whole lot of full sensor images and taking each frame and aligning it to the one before with photoshop, cropping it and rotating it as need be to get the best match. This is what the camera is doing in camera. We used to shoot at a higher resolution and do this in post-process, but we now have enough computing power in the cameras to let them do it.
 
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,099
12,863
The 4k mode doesn't use the full sensor. The "Movie Cropping" mode doesn't use the full sensor. Ditto various aspect ratios. But otherwise, movies on the EOS R use the whole sensor.
Video output is 16:9, the sensor is 3:2. So clearly, not using the whole sensor. But even if using the full width, for electronic IS Canon states, “Recording with Movie digital IS (p.220) further crops the image around the center of the screen.” So as I stated, not using the whole sensor.

Why do you totally rule out that one could theoretically "slightly magnify" still images in the same way? It's not as if the camera is unusable unless the images are exactly 6720 pixels wide! I can't believe anyone would think otherwise.
Canon quotes the resolution as 6720x4480. They probably feel they should deliver that, which makes perfect sense. Would you be happy with HD video output at 1880x1058?

I agree the resulting image would be usable, but that’s not the point. And yes, it’s theoretically possible, and moreover likely very easy to implement. But do keep in mind that correcting for roll is destructive, i.e. costs resolution. There’s also the ‘face’ aspect – Canon has touted lens IS as superior for many years. Implementing digital IS for stills that results in delivering less than specified pixel resolution and potential loss of image resolution...I’m not surprised that haven’t done it.

Why does IBIS require the sensor to be moving? Why is digital in-body image stabilization not IBIS while mechanical in-body image stabilization is? Why does the method matter? If it's stabilized in body, it's stabilized in body, right?
Technically digital IS is in the body, and it’s a form of stabilization. But in conventional use, the term IBIS means mechanical/optical stabilization. If you want to call digital IS something like IBIS or piezo-free anti-vibratification, go right ahead. But don’t expect others to understand what you mean.
 
Upvote 0
Wow...that 70-200 f2.8 LIS looks tiny compared to the ef version...and the 24-70 f2.8 is sporting an IS unit too....ok...now the Rf mount is starting to look attractive....aww...and a 15-35mm f2.8...with IS....very...very sweet....Canon are pulling out all their qudos for the Rf mount.
Ah...the 70-200 isn't a constant length....it's got and extending barrel like the 70-300L and 100-400 LIS II
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

koenkooi

CR Pro
Feb 25, 2015
3,574
4,110
The Netherlands
I was wondering that as well and that is a big concern to me as it is a great feature that sets Canon apart from the lesser antiquated lens systems.

The ring closest to the mount is knurled, so it looks like it does have the customizable ring. What's missing is a focus ring!
 
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,099
12,863
Equally clearly, using the whole width. You claim: "It’s only for video because video doesn’t use the whole sensor. Still images do, so there aren’t extra pixels to allow shifting the image." Just how do you think this works?!!? You think Digital stabilization never needs to move picture side to side?
I’m not the one who claimed video uses the whole sensor, that was you...and you were wrong. I also addressed the fact that while the full width can be used for non-4K / non-crop video capture, with digital IS enabled the full sensor width is not used. Either you didn’t bother to read what I wrote (you selectively omitted the relevant bit from your quoted text), you failed to understand what I wrote, or didn’t bother to read more carefully in the Advanced User Guide which you seem to enjoy liberally quoting. If you had done one of those, you would have seen (pasting from my post above): But even if using the full width, for electronic IS Canon states, “Recording with Movie digital IS (p.220) further crops the image around the center of the screen.” Further crops...in other words, not using the full width. I’m not sure why you cannot grasp the basic, underlying concept here – for digital IS to work, the output must be smaller in size than the sensor area used for capture. The full sensor width is sub-sampled to generate the video output, so for any given frame of the video the full width is not being used. Since the output video is being downsampled anyway (to 1080p or 720p), you don’t really notice the cropping. But it’s there. For the fifth or sixth time, the full sensor is not being used for the resulting output, with digital IS enabled.

You're saying Canon thinks users wouldn't understand 6720 pixels being cut a bit in still photos, in exchange for in-camera stabilization? Canon already cuts some pixels off stills if you use Digital Lens Optimization. Why would users shrug that off yet not even want the OPTION of digital image stabilization that likewise reduced some pixels? You're apparently aware digital image stabilization likewise costs a few more pixels, yet Canon's clearly offering that as an option to video users: trade off some width for stabilization.
No, I’m not saying that at all. Please read more carefully. I’m saying Canon is choosing not to provide digital IS applied to still images for their users.

So for the fifth or sixth time, now, why not give the user the option? They can turn on digital stabilization in movies IF THEY CHOOSE. They can turn on distortion correction and the rest of the Digital Lens Optimization suite, IF THEY CHOOSE. There must be some reason Canon doesn't offer digital in-camera stabilization for stills. What could that reason be? Patent? Built-in limitation to protect IS lens sales? Or what? It's absolutely not because they wouldn't gleefully settle for 6600 pixels width in return for in-body stabilization, digital or not.
Obviously they have reasons for choosing not to implement dgital IS for still images, and just as obviously those reasons do not include lack of technical capability to implement it. I speculated on some of those reasons above, as did you, but ultimately our speculation is irrelevant – Canon makes the cameras, they get to decide on the feature sets. If you don’t like the lack of a feature, telling CR Forums for the seventh or eight time...or a few hundred more times, is useless. Tell Canon. Or don’t buy any Canon camera that doesn’t offer digital IS for stills. Or both.

Given that your explanations about why digital image stabilization isn't offered are so mistaken, I can't really take your word for this. You could be right but I don't trust you right now.
LOL. :rolleyes: There’s a clear distinction between optical image stabilization methods (which include both lens-based IS and IBIS) and digital image stabilization methods. Those familiar with the concepts understand that distinction, although it’s apparent that you do not. You might try starting with the Wikipedia entry on image stabilization. It’s a bit long although not technically complex, but given the evident lack of reading comprehensiveness and/or comprehension you displayed above, maybe it would help if I excerpt the most relevant bits for you:

Optical image stabilization
An optical image stabilizer, often abbreviated OIS, IS, or OS, is a mechanism used in a still camera or video camera that stabilizes the recorded image by varying the optical path to the sensor. This technology is implemented in the lens itself, as distinct from in-body image stabilization, which operates by moving the sensor as the final element in the optical path. The key element of all optical stabilization systems is that they stabilize the image projected on the sensor before the sensor converts the image into digital information.


Different companies have different names for the OIS technology, for example:
  • Image Stabilizer (IS) - Canon introduced the EF 75-300mm F4-5.6 IS USM) in 1995. In 2009, they introduced their first lens (the EF100mm F2.8 Macro L) to use a four-axis Hybrid IS.)
  • IBIS - In Body Image Stabilisation - Olympus
  • SteadyShot (SS), Super SteadyShot (SSS), SteadyShot INSIDE (SSI) - Sony (based on Konica Minolta's Anti-Shake originally, Sony introduced a 2-axis full-frame variant for the DSLR-A900 in 2008 and a 5-axis stabilizer for the full-frame ILCE-7M2 in 2014)
Digital image stabilization
Real-time digital image stabilization, also called electronic image stabilization (EIS), is used in some video cameras. This technique shifts the electronic image from frame to frame of video, enough to counteract the motion.[23] It uses pixels outside the border of the visible frame to provide a buffer for the motion.


Hopefully that clarifies matters for you.
 
Upvote 0

Joules

doom
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2017
1,801
2,247
Hamburg, Germany
Obviously they have reasons for choosing not to implement dgital IS for still images, and just as obviously those reasons do not include lack of technical capability to implement it.
I don't have any Problem with you guys beeing all up in arms about how much sensor is used for the digital IS in video.

But aside from that, what are you talking about? Image Stabilization for Stills is a technique that aims to reduce motion blur. For video, that is not the point of IS - in Video it is supposed to reduce camera motion, but motion blur is often actually desirable.

Digital Image Stabilization that crops the sensor or frame to keep it similar with regards to framing to the previously captured frames has no effect on motion blur. So, in which context does it even help to talk about implementing for Stills?

Or are you saying motion blur can be reduced during image capture without having to mechanically move anything?
 
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,099
12,863
But aside from that, what are you talking about? Image Stabilization for Stills is a technique that aims to reduce motion blur. For video, that is not the point of IS - in Video it is supposed to reduce camera motion, but motion blur is often actually desirable.
Assuming you mean subject motion blur, then absolutely not. IS (any type) is all about reducing camera shake and does nothing for subject motion blur (well, nothing good assuming you want to reduce it). To reduce subject motion blur, you need a faster shutter speed (or a slower subject). Optical image stabilization for stills enables using a slower shutter speed than would otherwise be possible when handholding the camera (which will accentuate subject motion – although sometimes that’s good, e.g. waterfalls without a tripod).

Digital Image Stabilization that crops the sensor or frame to keep it similar with regards to framing to the previously captured frames has no effect on motion blur. So, in which context does it even help to talk about implementing for Stills?
Same benefit – you move the camera in any direction, digital IS helps compensate. One obvious extension of that is automatic horizon leveling (same application as compensating for roll). But as I pointed out above, with digital IS that results in a loss of optical resolution, whereas optical IS (sensor shift) does not.
 
Upvote 0

Joules

doom
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2017
1,801
2,247
Hamburg, Germany
Assuming you mean subject motion blur, then absolutely not. [...] Optical image stabilization for stills enables using a slower shutter speed than would otherwise be possible when handholding the camera
Well, sorry that I didn't mention which kind of motion blur I was referencing. I didn't mean subject motion. But what you're saying is what I was refering to. While handholding, the camera is moving by small amounts in some direction relative to the subject (assuming that the subject is static, or moving on its own in a direction that is different from the shake direction). And the longer the shutter speed, the more prominent the motion blur resulting from this camera shake ks going to be. Unless it is compensated for - mechanically. I don't see how that could be done otherwise.

I may be missing something, but in the Wikipedia article you mentioned digital image stabilization is also just described for video aplication.

I mean, in the most basic example we have a sensor with 2 pixels and a static subject that fills just one of those pixels. Let's say over the duration of an exposure the camera moves slightly, so that half the light from a static subject falls on each pixel. For digital removal of the resulting blur, the camera would have to know during which intervals of time which pixel received light from the subject? And that is not possible with circuitry that reads each pixel only once the exposure is over.

So you're probably talking about something different, right? Something along the lines of taking multiple stills and using Photoshop's align layers option to make them overlap by cropping and shifting?
 
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,099
12,863
You didn't speculate. You stated as a matter of fact a bizarre scenario that has no understanding of photographers, or of camera firms' understanding of photographers. You said that still photographers were so attached to the exact pixel width of a still shot that they wouldn't accept digital image stabilization, and would dis Canon if it were even offered. That's absolutely ludicrous. The same users that are happy to exchange a few pixels for digital stabilization in movie mode, or for distortion correction in still mode, would joyously give up the same for digital IBIS.
Really? Is that what I said?

Canon quotes the resolution as 6720x4480. They probably feel they should deliver that, which makes perfect sense. Would you be happy with HD video output at 1880x1058?

So to you, statements including ‘they probably’ and ‘would you’ are not speculation but statements of fact?

I’m a big fan of intelligent discussion, but this is like a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent. Trying to engage in intelligent debate with someone who has manifest difficulties with basic reading comprehension and flagrantly misrepresents my statements is pointless. Hopefully the fact that you chose not to reply to my points about IBIS vs. digital IS means you actually learned something here, which would mean my prior posts weren’t a complete waste of time. But any further replies from me would be.
 
Upvote 0

Joules

doom
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2017
1,801
2,247
Hamburg, Germany
I'd say the main point it to reduce blur from camera movement.
I was trying to say the same thing.

As to taking multiple sub exposures of short length and combining them in camera to get close to a single long exposure shots, I think there are three reasons why we don't see that in Canon Cameras.

The first one is that full sensor readout seems to be too slow on most Canon sensors to even handle dual digit frames per second - taking tens or hundreds of shots in a fraction of a second just doesn't seem likely at this point.

The second one is that with this kind of stacking, motion artifacts often appear. And I feel like Canon would not implement a feature that would output results where a user who doesn't understand the technique could react with "Ugh, obviously the camera is bad because it produes weird results".

Ant with examples like cars or the moon, where relative motion between subject and camera is indeed constant enough for alignment, but the camera isn't moving itself, aligning is hard. I'm using Photoshop CC, Autostakkert, Sequator and Deep Sky Stacker for this kind of stuff. All of them take quite some time and memory to produces results on a Xeon E3-1230v3 and 16 GB ram PC. It would likely take extremely long to do such conputations with the minimalsitic Hardware inside a Canon ILC.

Apart from that, when imaging under low light, where longer handheld shutterspeeds would be desireable, you actually lose some quality by stacking multiple short exposures instead of taking one long one.

So, if "digital image stabilization for stills" is just stacking, it a) can be done with a number of Freeware software tools and b) is not an alternative to mechanical stabilization I think.
 
Upvote 0
73F8ExO.jpg


Left i the EF mount and on the right is the RF mount 70-200/2.8 IS.
 
Upvote 0