Canon to announce at least 6 new RF lenses next week

Viggo

EOS 5D SR
Dec 13, 2010
4,216
782
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: CanonFanBoy

SwissFrank

EOS RP
Dec 9, 2018
301
116
I want that RF 85mm f/1.2L, but I really hope Canon implement IBIS because that heavy glass will need it.
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.
 

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
8,153
1,687
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: CanonFanBoy

Jethro

EOS R
Jul 14, 2018
241
116
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.
Is this a real thing? Is it being talked about as being in development?
 

SwissFrank

EOS RP
Dec 9, 2018
301
116
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.
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.

https://downloads.canon.com/nw/camera/misc-pages/eos-r/pdf/canon_eos_r_white_paper.pdf

Are you saying IBIS doesn't include digital, as fare as you're concerned, or it doesn't include it as far as anyone's concerned? Is this an accepted term that absolutely rules out in-body image stabilization being called IBIS if it is achieved digitally? Honest question--I'm coming from a EOS-1Ds MkIII and haven't followed the mirrorless world until just a couple weeks ago when I quickly determined I should get an EOS R (and have). So I don't know exactly how all these terms have evolved. If IBIS doesn't ever refer to digital stabilization I'm happy to use the accepted term. (Which is?)

Finally, do you have any idea why the digital stabilization is activated for film but not stills?
 

SwissFrank

EOS RP
Dec 9, 2018
301
116
Is this a real thing? Is it being talked about as being in development?
Page 33 of the White Paper shows the EOS R is absolutely doing it: "five axis degree of control electronic IS at the image sensor as shown in Figure 38, in addition to the up/down, left/right stabilization typically carried out in the lens." 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? Some patent they haven't licensed? Is it no improvement over OIS for stills? What? Jethro says the DIGIC can't (or didn't before?) do transforms involving partial pixels, but even if that's true of the DIGIC 8 it's certainly not the last graphics processor they'll have.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,610
2,072
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.
 

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
8,153
1,687
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.
 

SwissFrank

EOS RP
Dec 9, 2018
301
116
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.
> 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 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.

Further, the EOS R Advanced User Guide makes ABSOLUTELY CLEAR on page 220 that the exact tradeoff is made. With digital image stabilization, the image is "slightly magnified." That means, it uses slightly fewer pixels' width.

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.

> The point is, the sensor isn’t moving. It’s not IBIS.

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?
 
Last edited:

SwissFrank

EOS RP
Dec 9, 2018
301
116
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.
The manual makes ABSOLUTELY CLEAR on page 220 that the exact tradeoff is made. With digital image stabilization, the image is "slightly magnified." That means, it uses slightly fewer pixels. See p. 220 of the EOS R Advanced User Guide: using digital IS reduces the 4k image area further.

Further your explanation doesn't even make sense given that p. 194 of the same, or practically ANYTHING about the EOS R video resolution, shows you'll see the ENTIRE sensor is normally used for ALL video except 1) 4k, 2) except with "Movie Cropping" option turned on.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,610
2,072
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.
 

SwissFrank

EOS RP
Dec 9, 2018
301
116
So clearly, not using the whole sensor.
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?

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?
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.

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 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.

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.
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.
 
Aug 22, 2010
1,621
317
48
Uk
www.GMCPhotographics.co.uk
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:

koenkooi

EOS 7D MK II
Feb 25, 2015
493
291
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!
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,610
2,072
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.
 

Joules

EOS RP
Jul 16, 2017
324
253
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?