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

Mar 2, 2012
2,716
189
Mar 2, 2012
2,716
189
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.
Of course those statements are true.

I interpreted the canon statement as meaning the body they designed couldn’t support IBIS despite efforts. That would be a failure of system engineering. Perhaps the better interpretation is that they weren’t ready at the point in time that the body was released. I hope the second interpretation is correct.
 
Last edited:
Aug 16, 2012
4,430
662
only for tele lenses on mirrorslappers to get a stabilized viewfinder image. On mirrorfree IBIS works just as well (in principle, not necessarily every real life implementation). In 2018 lens IS is just a duplication of a costly element in each lens, that could be put into 1 camera body and work for all lenses.

Ah yes, a few cheap, tiny acceleration sensors [from any smartphone] could still be placed near front end of lens. But not the moving around of glass elements. But ... innovative Canon.
Whenever someone uses “mirrorslapper” it’s a good sign that they will substitute abuse and ignorance for logic and knowledge. Olympus and Panasonic had to introduce IS into their newer telephotos to get good image stabilzation as their IBIS is inadequate for longer focal lengths.
 

Talys

Canon 6DII
Feb 16, 2017
1,990
245
Vancouver, BC
I used a gen 2 A7 for a couple of years, and I wasn’t ever clear on whether there is independent control of the IS systems.

This posts suggests you can’t pick and choose, but maybe it’s lens and body combo dependent.

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1392917/0&year=2015#13247862
To be fair, when I was using the A7R3, most of the time I wasn't using the menu setting to enable/disable IS (or whatever Sony calls it). Mostly, I would compare, for example, Canon's 85/1.4IS with Sony's 85/1.8with no IS.

I did, however turn IBIS on/off on the 85/1.4 (the lens doesn't have built-in IS). It visibly reduces a jitter, as in what you see through the viewfinder, but it does not make enough of a difference, at least for me, to adjust the kind of shutter speeds that I would use to take a shot-- as opposed to the adapted 85L1.4IS, where ILIS definitely made a difference in terms of what I could get away with.

Now that you mention it, I do recall that on some lenses, the in-camera IS settings were disabled.
 

4fun

picture? perfect!
Nov 19, 2018
181
53
i prefer a 50/1.4 IS lens on a mirrorfree FF camera with IBIS over an RF 50/1.2 without IS on an EOS R without IBIS. :)

having both - IS and IBIS - and those 2 systems working together smoothly for combined maximum effect is best. having no stabilization at all is worst.

so, as long as Canon sells even brand new lenses without IS they better see to it that there is at least tstabilization in the camera ... which works with any lens, even when IBIS benefits are less than in-lens systems.

i therefore welcome laggard Canon finally putting IS into (some of?) their future cameras. it really was about time.
 

scyrene

EOS 6D MK II
Dec 4, 2013
2,318
158
UK
www.flickr.com
Whenever someone uses “mirrorslapper” it’s a good sign that they will substitute abuse and ignorance for logic and knowledge.
That's partly because 90% of the people using it here are sockpuppet accounts for the same person, i.e. AvTvM who seems to have originated it (as a term of derision at least).
 

YuengLinger

EOS 6D MK II
Dec 20, 2012
2,185
176
Southeastern USA
Looking at the big picture for a moment, I have to scratch my head. Is it only on Canon Rumors that a feature already on other FF mirrorless cameras, desired by a significant number of photographers, is some kind of existential controversy?
 
Likes: 4fun

4fun

picture? perfect!
Nov 19, 2018
181
53
Looking at the big picture for a moment, I have to scratch my head. Is it only on Canon Rumors that a feature already on other FF mirrorless cameras, desired by a significant number of photographers, is some kind of existential controversy?
yes. It is a small number of "very conservative" and vocal Canon [mirrorslapper] users. Somehow they seem over-represented here. :)
 

YuengLinger

EOS 6D MK II
Dec 20, 2012
2,185
176
Southeastern USA
yes. It is a small number of "very conservative" and vocal Canon [mirrorslapper] users. Somehow they seem over-represented here. :)
I don't know if you were the one who coined the term "mirrorslapper," but it is descriptive. I'm not sure how it came to be taken as insulting or derogatory, except in context. On its own, the term does describe what is becoming an archaic, RELATIVELY noisy technology.

Still, the kind of gleeful needling, the taunting, and otherwise irritating tone that some use (including myself from time to time, depending on the weather, mood of my spouse, number of drinks I've had, noise level of the toddlers, and pigheadedness of other posters) can be annoying and tiresome.

Who isn't tiresome from time to time? Only those who are tiresome ALL of the time. :alien:
 
Last edited:

Don Haines

posting cat pictures on the internet since 1986
Jun 4, 2012
7,521
633
Canada
Looking at the big picture for a moment, I have to scratch my head. Is it only on Canon Rumors that a feature already on other FF mirrorless cameras, desired by a significant number of photographers, is some kind of existential controversy?
Yes!

Once upon a time, long long ago, Canon decided to go with lens IS. Lens IS works best on long lenses and short lenses don't need this feature as much. It was a good decision and all was well.

Time passes.....

IBIS comes into use by Olympus and Panasonic, but those do not really count because they are "toy" cameras (not FF)….
Sony starts making cameras that use IBIS, and then a FF camera with IBIS, throwing the "toy camera" defense out the window....

We have the controversy, IS in the lens, or IBIS? Which is better? Once again, we go back to Canon's original decision, "Lens IS works best on long lenses and short lenses don't need this feature as much", so Canon stays the course....

Then Olympus and Panasonic start with lens IS AND IBIS, and the combination outperforms both....

Then Canon announces that an upcoming camera will include IBIS and the forum goes wackety wackety! Many are left scratching their heads and looking quizzical... perplexed.... confused.....
 

YuengLinger

EOS 6D MK II
Dec 20, 2012
2,185
176
Southeastern USA
Yes!

Once upon a time, long long ago, Canon decided to go with lens IS. Lens IS works best on long lenses and short lenses don't need this feature as much. It was a good decision and all was well.

Time passes.....

IBIS comes into use by Olympus and Panasonic, but those do not really count because they are "toy" cameras (not FF)….
Sony starts making cameras that use IBIS, and then a FF camera with IBIS, throwing the "toy camera" defense out the window....

We have the controversy, IS in the lens, or IBIS? Which is better? Once again, we go back to Canon's original decision, "Lens IS works best on long lenses and short lenses don't need this feature as much", so Canon stays the course....

Then Olympus and Panasonic start with lens IS AND IBIS, and the combination outperforms both....

Then Canon announces that an upcoming camera will include IBIS and the forum goes wackety wackety! Many are left scratching their heads and looking quizzical... perplexed.... confused.....
:ROFLMAO:(y)
IBIS on Canon Rumors is like a buzzcut for a two-year old! (Yes, that's my boy!) (ef 85mm f/1.4L IS, on-camera bounce flash)
 

Attachments

Nov 2, 2016
257
78
Canon chose a route that works for big white teles. They were not innovative enough to even think about anything else. that's all.

From a customer perspective, it would be best to have as much functionality in camera body and as little as possible duplicated in each lens. Most of us have 1 (or max. 2) cameras but multiple lenses.
Canon didn’t just “choose”. They basically invented the technology. This was way before digital came out. Sony has licensed Canon’s IS optical technical technology for decades. I don’t know if Nikon has too.

Some of you guys are trying to make this seem so simple. It’s not.
 
Nov 2, 2016
257
78
There was a recent rumor that showed the IBIS mechanism. Even though it was drawn in schematics, the IBIS mechanism showed quite a few moving parts.

Contributors are not saying that the engineers are going to mess it up, rather, they pointed out that reliability is an issue that Canon takes seriously and that Canon would delay release until a reliable mechanism is developed,... versus some of the competition who would just deliver less robust systems.

Professionals expect Canon cameras to take a significant beating. Professionals don't expect Sony Cameras to take a beating. That's the difference.
Well, Sony hasn’t really made a high end pro camera yet. Their “pro” lines are equivalent to both Canon and Nikon’s Mid lines.
 
Yes!

Once upon a time, long long ago, Canon decided to go with lens IS. Lens IS works best on long lenses and short lenses don't need this feature as much. It was a good decision and all was well.

Time passes.....

IBIS comes into use by Olympus and Panasonic, but those do not really count because they are "toy" cameras (not FF)….
Sony starts making cameras that use IBIS, and then a FF camera with IBIS, throwing the "toy camera" defense out the window....

We have the controversy, IS in the lens, or IBIS? Which is better? Once again, we go back to Canon's original decision, "Lens IS works best on long lenses and short lenses don't need this feature as much", so Canon stays the course....

Then Olympus and Panasonic start with lens IS AND IBIS, and the combination outperforms both....

Then Canon announces that an upcoming camera will include IBIS and the forum goes wackety wackety! Many are left scratching their heads and looking quizzical... perplexed.... confused.....
Canon developed lens IS back in the film days.. because, shifting an entire roll of film is kinda difficult.

When digital came along, it was Minolta (which became the Sony camera division) who developed IBIS. Olympus and Panasonic followed suit.
 

Talys

Canon 6DII
Feb 16, 2017
1,990
245
Vancouver, BC
We have the controversy, IS in the lens, or IBIS? Which is better?


Then Olympus and Panasonic start with lens IS AND IBIS, and the combination outperforms both....

Then Canon announces that an upcoming camera will include IBIS and the forum goes wackety wackety! Many are left scratching their heads and looking quizzical... perplexed.... confused.....
I'm not sure I've seen any cogent arguments that IBIS + ILIS is a BAD thing. Most people who want in-lens stabilization simply say that they wouldn't give it up, whether or not the camera body has IBIS. I don't think there are a lot of folks who say "no, I don't want IBIS!".

In many cases (like me), it really comes down to this: the only way to get IBIS on full frame enthusiast camera is to buy a Sony, and that just has a bunch of other compromises that makes it unattractive as a system. Like, if I'm going to use a mirrorless, and I have to choose between IBIS and DPAF, I'll choose DPAF every time. But would I take both? Sure!
 
Nov 2, 2016
257
78
A difference between IBIS and lens based stab. is that with the optical elements at the nodal point on the lens, the module only needs to move a microscopic amount to have a very large affect on the sensor. But sensor based IS is different because the sensor needs to move the entire amount of the shake at the rear of the camera. It also has to account for the wobble of the lens itself. Lens based IS can deal with larger movements than can IBIS.

While controlling the module in the lens can be quite difficult, it’s been refined for decades by Canon. In fact, it worked well way back then on video cameras for which it was first developed for photographic purposes. Yes, it was used in binoculars early on, where shake can be quite a problem in the higher magnification lengths.

One variation of IBIS has a sensor with a much larger sensing area, and pixel count, than the image needs. As the image moves around on that large sensor it can account for some camera shake. It’s not really used much because it’s not effective on all modes of shake.

But again, IBIS simply doesn’t look as good when everything is considered. There’s a difference between sharp, and etched. In lens looks sharp, while IBIS looks etched.

It’s better than nothing, but since cost is the real issue here, not quality, we see that Sony also has in lens IS. Wonder why?
 
Mar 2, 2012
2,716
189
A difference between IBIS and lens based stab. is that with the optical elements at the nodal point on the lens, the module only needs to move a microscopic amount to have a very large affect on the sensor. But sensor based IS is different because the sensor needs to move the entire amount of the shake at the rear of the camera. It also has to account for the wobble of the lens itself. Lens based IS can deal with larger movements than can IBIS.

While controlling the module in the lens can be quite difficult, it’s been refined for decades by Canon. In fact, it worked well way back then on video cameras for which it was first developed for photographic purposes. Yes, it was used in binoculars early on, where shake can be quite a problem in the higher magnification lengths.

One variation of IBIS has a sensor with a much larger sensing area, and pixel count, than the image needs. As the image moves around on that large sensor it can account for some camera shake. It’s not really used much because it’s not effective on all modes of shake.

But again, IBIS simply doesn’t look as good when everything is considered. There’s a difference between sharp, and etched. In lens looks sharp, while IBIS looks etched.

It’s better than nothing, but since cost is the real issue here, not quality, we see that Sony also has in lens IS. Wonder why?
One of the peculiarities of camera forums is the propensity of people to latch onto single techniques or architectures as panacea for all problems.

Personally, I enjoy discussing and learning about technology without advocating for any flavor of it.
 

YuengLinger

EOS 6D MK II
Dec 20, 2012
2,185
176
Southeastern USA
And now Canon is being bashed for a feature that hasn't been officially announced, that hasn't been demonstrated, and that hasn't been reviewed.

"It won't work! It will break the camera! It isn't necessary and I don't want to pay for it! Stop responding to the competition!"

And of course those who want IBIS are being bashed too, directly and implicitly.

"You are so naïve! Can't you take good pictures without it? Real photographers use tripods! Don't you know how great high ISO looks these days? Why would you want to take MOVIES with a STILLS camera? Aaarrggghhhh!"

Echoes of the dawn of digital dSLRs?

Thankfully, in some parts of the world, The Market still has some influence. If it works, great! If it doesn't, on to the next indispensable feature.
 
Last edited:

4fun

picture? perfect!
Nov 19, 2018
181
53
But again, IBIS simply doesn’t look as good when everything is considered. There’s a difference between sharp, and etched. In lens looks sharp, while IBIS looks etched.
sorry, but i cannot follow you here and consider the statement BS. No disrespect to you, just to this statement.

I Do NOT believe any human being can differentiate "the look" of images captured using a) in-lens stabilizer (IS) or b) in-body (IBIS) or c) both systems active.

But maybe it's just my poor pair of eyes. My ears also fail to hear significant differences between a well mastered CD and a well-mastered Vinyl LP. But I do notice bandwidth compressed streams.