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

[Kit Lens Jockey]

But ultimately it seems to me like a giant leap in complexity to solve a problem that barely exists. I know not all lenses can correct 5 stops of shake, but many can—many more will as time goes on I suspect. And I've got a tripod…..

Your inference that carrying around a tripod at all times and in all situations is practical is frankly pretty absurd. A good tripod is large, even when collapsed, heavy, and draws a lot of attention.

And setting up a tripod to take a shot can take anywhere from about a minute to several minutes. Holding the camera relatively still and taking a shot takes a few seconds. I'd much rather just have a camera or lens that can stabilize itself instead of having to carry around and set up a tripod every time I need an extra stop or two of shutter speed.

This doesn't even get into places where having a tripod just simply isn't even allowed.

Tripods have their time and place. But saying that they're just as practical or convenient as having stabilization in a camera or lens is ridiculous.

 

[CanonFanBoy]

Actually, it had extra sensors but still 2 axis of movement. What I read.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_stabilization

 

[CanonFanBoy]

Your inference that carrying around a tripod at all times and in all situations is practical is frankly pretty absurd. A good tripod is large, even when collapsed, heavy, and draws a lot of attention.

And setting up a tripod to take a shot can take anywhere from about a minute to several minutes. Holding the camera relatively still and taking a shot takes a few seconds. I'd much rather just have a camera or lens that can stabilize itself instead of having to carry around and set up a tripod every time I need an extra stop or two of shutter speed.

This doesn't even get into places where having a tripod just simply isn't even allowed.

Tripods have their time and place. But saying that they're just as practical or convenient as having stabilization in a camera or lens is ridiculous.

Absolutely right.

 

[Durf]

I just recently bought a Pentax K1 that has IBIS for shooting my vintage lens collection and immediately noticed my keeper rate has drastically increased. Best investment I made in a long time!
IBIS and lenses with IS make a HUGE difference in my opinion; especially with my long lenses and now that I'm getting older.

A tripod is nice to use for certain types of photography but sucks to have to constantly carry it everywhere!

All of my modern lenses with my main Canon kit have IS and my keeper rate is almost 100%....unless I'm in a rush and not being careful. I know my keeper rate would be much lower without IS.

If the EOS R would of had IBIS I highly likely would of bought that instead of the K1. But I'm not waiting on Canon any longer! (and I got a GREAT deal on the K1) The K1 is actually a really nice machine, no regrets!

 

[nchoh]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_stabilization

"Development of the new HYBRID Image Stabilizer (HYBRID IS) began with the search for a system that would sense and compensate for both types of camera shake. Simultaneous compensation for both angle and shift camera shake is an elusive goal: the solution was two sensors and a new algorithm. In addition to the conventional angular velocity sensor to detect angle-based camera shake. HYBRID IS incorporates a new acceleration sensor. Camera movement detected by the two sensors is integrated by a newly developed algorithm to calculate the amount and direction of movement"
https://global.canon/en/imaging/l-lens/technology/hybrid_is.html

All literature that I found indicate that there are extra sensors, not extra actuators, to correctly determine how much to correct for pan/tilt and/or X/Y shift. It's a bit tricky to understand, but it does prove the point that ILIS can handle most stabilization needs.

 

[Quackator]

Looking at the breakdancer advice from Nikon how to clean stabilized sensors, on Sony's overheating problems and the fact that stabilizers don't neutralize object movement... I would prefer a body without in body stabilization.

 

[Aaron D]

Your inference that carrying around a tripod at all times and in all situations is practical is frankly pretty absurd.

I was KIDDING about the tripod! Sorry to get your blood pressure up...

 

[Aaron D]

This is why I am surprised by so many posts that seem to be intended to prove it can't work. Fine. Such posts are predicting Canon will either not offer IBIS, or will be embarrassed by its ineffectiveness once they do. But many of these same posters have cheered 75MP sensors without worrying about noise!

I'm not trying to prove anything. I think I said "makes ME nervous" and I explained why. My own personal opinion. And the 'carry a tripod at all times'—I was kidding.

 

[thomas2279@hotmail.com]

I've said it before on here:

The R series was rushed out the door. Canon puts together good products, so overall the R is a good camera. The control ring is brilliant, the feel of the camera is good, the lenses aside from the kit lens are spectacular (not that the kit lens is bad, it's just not as improved as you'd think it would be).

But the hardware driving everything is anemic, leading to video without chips fast enough to encode newer formats on the fly (leading to very watered down video), severely restrained autofocus modes when you want to take multiple shots fast, and lack of other features becoming standard in it's competition's price range like IBIS. (This feature requires processing to know how to adjust itself, and the chipset driving everything can't hump data fast enough).

I remember the rumors floating around on several sites that Canon was looking at using sony sensors in some new products. I'm actually wondering if they are considering using sony ARM chips that are used in multiple camera processing systems. These are built on smaller die technology and have faster throughput and processing. However it's just a programmable chip, which means it could still have Canon software running on them still. Both the chips canon uses now and the chips Sony makes for it's own (and other) cameras have the same reference ARM design at it's root. Sony's is just updated and on a smaller die process, which makes it faster.

Agree - however those RF lenses / releases out of the door by Canon were the best of the releases I've ever seen in a ML announcement be it from Canon rivals as well Sony and Nikon.

 

[Don Haines]

From a marketing perspective, tripods are a very hard sell to a huge part of the market. They are indispensable in some situations, but very inconvenient in many.

When using a tripod, even lens IS isn't needed, so they aren't 100% relevant to the discussion of reducing camera shake for handheld situations.

I'm glad you get along well without much need for IS. Ten years ago I felt that way. But as I've aged, and as sensors have become more unforgiving of shake with higher resolutions, I'm grateful for IS on prime lenses and the few non-White zooms that have it. I like it on the 16-35 f/4 IS, and need it on the 85mm f/1.4L IS (which is a big reason I traded in my 85mm f/1.2L). It helps. It works. And, for better or worse, videographers are swaying the market towards more and more IS.

Most fairly experienced photographers understand it is harder to compensate for shake within the body as opposed to within the lens. We get it. Lectures regarding the difficulties are a lot of wasted breath/typing, in my opinion, because if Canon produces a FF body that has 3-stop IBIS to help those of us with current ef 24-70mm f/2.8L II lenses, or who want a little help with the new rf 50mm f/1.2L, we will jump right on it, or maybe wait for reviews and some early adopters to let us know how things are working out.

This is why I am surprised by so many posts that seem to be intended to prove it can't work. Fine. Such posts are predicting Canon will either not offer IBIS, or will be embarrassed by its ineffectiveness once they do. But many of these same posters have cheered 75MP sensors without worrying about noise!

If Canon offers it, really, how likely is IBIS to be an ineffective failure?

If worried, don't be an early adopter. I don't plan to be, but within six months or so, with good reviews and no widespread reports of breakdowns, I'd love a robust, pro-level mirrorless FF body with IBIS.

Also, I have yet to see a venue that has a “no IBIS” policy, and there are a lot of places where tripods are banned.......

 

[flip314]

Also, I have yet to see a venue that has a “no IBIS” policy, and there are a lot of places where tripods are banned.......

There's an idea! Canon can pay venues to implement "NO IBIS" policies to sell more EOS R cameras.

 

[CanonFanBoy]

"Development of the new HYBRID Image Stabilizer (HYBRID IS) began with the search for a system that would sense and compensate for both types of camera shake. Simultaneous compensation for both angle and shift camera shake is an elusive goal: the solution was two sensors and a new algorithm. In addition to the conventional angular velocity sensor to detect angle-based camera shake. HYBRID IS incorporates a new acceleration sensor. Camera movement detected by the two sensors is integrated by a newly developed algorithm to calculate the amount and direction of movement"
https://global.canon/en/imaging/l-lens/technology/hybrid_is.html

All literature that I found indicate that there are extra sensors, not extra actuators, to correctly determine how much to correct for pan/tilt and/or X/Y shift. It's a bit tricky to understand, but it does prove the point that ILIS can handle most stabilization needs.

Well, I have no idea how many sensors / actuators it takes to qualify as controlling / compensating an axis. Canon seems to say the sensor/actuator are one and the same... calling them "angular velocity sensor (vibration gyro)" All I know is that Hybrid IS was developed specifically for macro and it is stated that it allows for 4 axis.

"Conventional image stabilizers of the type found in Canon IS lenses incorporate an angular velocity sensor (vibration gyro) to compensate for angular camera shake. Based on the amount of camera shake detected by the sensor, the IS system calculates the amount of blur on the image plane, after which lens elements in the IS are positioned to compensate for the shake. However, this type of image stabilizer can neither detect nor correct shift camera shake common to handheld macro photography.

The Hybrid IS includes an acceleration sensor in addition to the conventional angular velocity sensor (vibration gyro). Based on the amount of camera shake detected by the two sensors, a newly developed algorithm calculates the amount of blur on the image plane, after which lens elements in the IS are positioned to compensate for the two types of shake – a first in an interchangeable lens for SLR cameras and an excellent way to solve the problem of camera shake in macro photography."

And yes, I happen to think ILIS is superior in all cases.

 

[Don Haines]

And yes, I happen to think ILIS is superior in all cases.

ILIS in Canon lenses, I believe the best ones are 5 stops......

IBIS in Oly E-M1 Mark II, 5.5 stops....

IBIS in Oly E-M1 Mark II when used with an IS lens, 6.5 stops.....

 

[nchoh]

ILIS in Canon lenses, I believe the best ones are 5 stops......

IBIS in Oly E-M1 Mark II, 5.5 stops....

IBIS in Oly E-M1 Mark II when used with an IS lens, 6.5 stops.....

So in this confusing world of image stabilization, let's think about this a bit...

Is there a way of objectively measuring how many stops the IS works. OK. Let's just take Olympus at their word. They say it is 5.5 stops.

Firstly, it is supposed to be 5 axis

"The 5-axis covers up/ down, left/right and rotation movements. " https://www.hireacamera.com/en-gb/b...lympus-om-d-e-m1-mark-ii-image-stabilisation/ Whoa... that is actually only 3 axis of IS, up/down = 1, left/right =1 !

Then there is the question of the size of the sensor. Being a smaller sensor, the same travel of the sensor (during stabilization) would equate to more than 50% ~ 70% (someone do the math) more stabilization than a a Full frame sensor.

Throw in the fact that the M43 sensor has a variable image size... there's a lot of fudge room to play around with.

Panning IS is auto but not tilt. Why? My guess is that the amount of energy to stabilize vertical shake is significantly more. What happens when your sensor is 4 times larger?

We also know that image stabilization is of greater need in longer larger lenses. Throw that into the equation and the 5.5 stops does not translate well into FF cameras. Yes, there are advantages to being small, so let's be careful extrapolating to a FF camera.

No I am not against IBIS. I am just laying out the many challenges to implementing IBIS.

 

[CanonFanBoy]

So in this confusing world of image stabilization, let's think about this a bit...

Is there a way of objectively measuring how many stops the IS works. OK. Let's just take Olympus at their word. They say it is 5.5 stops.

Firstly, it is supposed to be 5 axis

"The 5-axis covers up/ down, left/right and rotation movements. " https://www.hireacamera.com/en-gb/b...lympus-om-d-e-m1-mark-ii-image-stabilisation/ Whoa... that is actually only 3 axis of IS, up/down = 1, left/right =1 !

Then there is the question of the size of the sensor. Being a smaller sensor, the same travel of the sensor (during stabilization) would equate to more than 50% ~ 70% (someone do the math) more stabilization than a a Full frame sensor.

Throw in the fact that the M43 sensor has a variable image size... there's a lot of fudge room to play around with.

Panning IS is auto but not tilt. Why? My guess is that the amount of energy to stabilize vertical shake is significantly more. What happens when your sensor is 4 times larger?

We also know that image stabilization is of greater need in longer larger lenses. Throw that into the equation and the 5.5 stops does not translate well into FF cameras. Yes, there are advantages to being small, so let's be careful extrapolating to a FF camera.

No I am not against IBIS. I am just laying out the many challenges to implementing IBIS.

And Olympus is Micro 4/3rds. I own a Canon FF and an Oly M4/3. I'll take the in lens IS any day of the week for longer focal lengths.

 

[AlanF]

ILIS in Canon lenses, I believe the best ones are 5 stops......

IBIS in Oly E-M1 Mark II, 5.5 stops....

IBIS in Oly E-M1 Mark II when used with an IS lens, 6.5 stops.....

Do you believe the reality of those figures? Download the CIPA instructions for measuring IS and you will see the caveats. They use a vibratory device that they admit is quite different from what happens in practice and that camera manufacturers can design their IS systems to do well in their artificial tests - a bit like the diesel emissions scandal. I take those figures with a big pinch of salt as well as those from lenstip etc who have their own arbitrary definitions of what is sharp. See http://www.cipa.jp/image-stabilization/index_e.html for CIPA.

 

[Don Haines]

And Olympus is Micro 4/3rds. I own a Canon FF and an Oly M4/3. I'll take the in lens IS any day of the week for longer focal lengths.

I agree with you.

I also have a FF Canon and an Oly. The Canon ILIS beats the Oly IBIS hands down at longer focal lengths. At shorter ones, it’s hard to tell.

My real point is that this is not an A or B choice. Both systems working together are better than either one on its own... Canon already has ILIS, they are not going to toss it out the window and go to IBIS only, and companies like Olympus and Panasonic has already demonstrated ( commercial products) that you can use the two systems together and that the result is better than either system on its own.

 

[old-pr-pix]

Another Canon/Oly user here, except most of my Canon lenses tend to be older generations with realistically 2-3 stop ILIS while my m43 equipment is newer. Hence, my personal bias is toward IBIS. However, for long lenses it was pretty well determined by Oly that IBIS alone wasn't up to task. It is well documented Oly had original prototypes of their ultra sharp 300 mm in the field for testing and quickly determined their existing IBIS implementation was inadequate. The 300 mm was optically redesigned and many body model's firmware was reworked. It took about two years, but ILIS was added to the 300 (and other in process lenses) and a method to sync. ILIS and IBIS was incorporated. The result per CIPA testing is worth 6.5 stops. At essentially the same time Panasonic, who had all ILIS implementations, added IBIS with similar results. Clearly moving around a FF sensor has engineering challenges beyond that of the much smaller m43 size, yet why not use the technology if it can simplify or allow improvements in the optical design of several lenses in the 'normal focal length' range?

 

[CanonFanBoy]

I agree with you.

I also have a FF Canon and an Oly. The Canon ILIS beats the Oly IBIS hands down at longer focal lengths. At shorter ones, it’s hard to tell.

My real point is that this is not an A or B choice. Both systems working together are better than either one on its own... Canon already has ILIS, they are not going to toss it out the window and go to IBIS only, and companies like Olympus and Panasonic has already demonstrated ( commercial products) that you can use the two systems together and that the result is better than either system on its own.

You are very right, I think. It would never hurt to have both and it fun to read the "one or the other" comments.

I got the Olympus for my wife, but also to have IBIS and focus peaking for my old manual lenses. Don, I have the Oly 12-40 Pro and it is a great lens. However, for use with my old manual lenses the sensor's crop factor is a killer. I'll need a FF Canon, but in wait and see mode right now.

 

[Mikehit]

I agree with you.

I also have a FF Canon and an Oly. The Canon ILIS beats the Oly IBIS hands down at longer focal lengths. At shorter ones, it’s hard to tell.

My real point is that this is not an A or B choice. Both systems working together are better than either one on its own... Canon already has ILIS, they are not going to toss it out the window and go to IBIS only, and companies like Olympus and Panasonic has already demonstrated ( commercial products) that you can use the two systems together and that the result is better than either system on its own.

Oly introduced IBIS very early, Panasonic were much later to the game because (so the cynics said) they wanted to protect their ILIS lens market. Olympus trumpeted their IBIS and how it was so good they did not need the cost and weight penalty of adding IBIS - then they added IBIS to their 300mm f4: the cynics said that to sell enough copies they had to do this to make it appealing to Pana owners who had bodies without IBIS.
Then Pana developed IBIS and both companies came out with hybrid IS that made all systems even better.
And as far as I am aware, in 10 years since MFT was introduced I have never heard a single comment about the fragility or unreliability of IBIS systems.