https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_stabilizationActually, it had extra sensors but still 2 axis of movement. What I read.
Upvote
0
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_stabilizationActually, it had extra sensors but still 2 axis of movement. What I read.
Absolutely right.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.
Your inference that carrying around a tripod at all times and in all situations is practical is frankly pretty absurd.
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'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.
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.......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.......
"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.
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.....
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.
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.....
I agree with you.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.
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.
I haven't heard such a comment either, but people don't generally talk to me about such things. However, https://www.fujirumors.com/now-pana...is-looking-forward-fujifilm-x-h1-ibis-anyway/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.