Patent: Further breakdown of Canon’s upcoming IBIS technology

Adelino

EOS RP
Jan 21, 2015
316
167
Whilst this is possible with stabilized lenses they are generally more expensive and generally it seems primes are Hobbyists generally buy a lot of lenses because they want to play at everything ... unlike professionals who generally just want to do one specialized thing over and over again ...
Sounds like me, I have random lenses including a Lensbaby, a macro, telephoto zooms, primes etc, I buy them when I find a nice bargain and play around with them. It helps me grow as a photographer, I like to take pics of everything and my assortment of lenses lets me try out everything.
 
Mar 14, 2012
2,305
193
How long does it take IBIS to settle down? I find that I often lose shots when switching subjects (sports) and engaging the shutter quickly (70-200 and 100-400) due to IS. The initial shot is bad but once the IS settles, the subsequent pics are sharp. If future cameras come with IBIS, I'd like to have the feature to disable and lock the sensor in place.

For shorter focal lengths (< 50mm), I find IS to be less useful. I've used the 16-35 f/4 IS, 24 f/2.8 IS, 35 f/2 IS and 28 f/2.8 IS, and they are more useful for still life than living subjects. Hypothetically, I would be able to use the 16-35 f/4 IS at 1/8s, but living subjects aren't typically still enough for that. Hopefully, IBIS + IS would be better. At 16mm, IS was only good for about 1-2 stops...
 

RayValdez360

EOS 7D MK II
Jun 6, 2012
431
187
Serious Question: Can someone please explain why they care about IBIS?

Video: It makes sense if you shoot video, as a lens-based stabilization system is designed to work only when the shutter button is pressed and not continuously.
Old or Cheap Lenses: For those who don't want to pay to have stabilization in their lenses or have lenses that don't come with stabilization.

So many people talk as thought it is a "must have" and I'm trying to figure out why.

For context, I am primarily a stills shooter. About half of my work is sports, and about half of my hobby shooting is birds in flight. No point in stabilization in those cases.
Most of my other work and hobby shooting involves people, often at events with limited light. With today's stabilized lenses, I can hand hold the camera and lens down to the point where motion blur from the subject is going to be a bigger detriment than shutter speed. So, no point in additional stabilization in those cases.

What am I missing?
sharper images in general. ability to shoot at lower shutter speeds with sarper image and at lower isos.. stable images for video.
 

Mt Spokane Photography

I post too Much on Here!!
Mar 25, 2011
15,547
770
As camera sensors add more and more photosites, even slight vibration keeps the user from getting revolutionist that the camera can produce.

Many of the fast primes might benefit from IS, but it is difficult to make them with IS. If A 70-100 mp body is coming out, IBIS would help with handheld shots of static where a fast shutter can't be used.

It is only useful for certain situations, but nice to have as another tool.
 
  • Like
Reactions: addola and pj1974

stevelee

FT-QL
Jul 6, 2017
1,257
287
Davidson, NC
Serious Question: Can someone please explain why they care about IBIS?

Video: It makes sense if you shoot video, as a lens-based stabilization system is designed to work only when the shutter button is pressed and not continuously.
Old or Cheap Lenses: For those who don't want to pay to have stabilization in their lenses or have lenses that don't come with stabilization.

So many people talk as thought it is a "must have" and I'm trying to figure out why.

For context, I am primarily a stills shooter. About half of my work is sports, and about half of my hobby shooting is birds in flight. No point in stabilization in those cases.
Most of my other work and hobby shooting involves people, often at events with limited light. With today's stabilized lenses, I can hand hold the camera and lens down to the point where motion blur from the subject is going to be a bigger detriment than shutter speed. So, no point in additional stabilization in those cases.

What am I missing?
If I recall my owners manual correctly, the 6D2 uses the lens’s stabilization for video in conjunction with the kind of cropping and shifting you can do in post (FCP X or Premiere, e. g.). So the in-lens version apparently does work with video. If you switch it off on the lens barrel, the camera will disable the software stabilization, too. I think if the lens doesn’t have stabilization built in, that the camera will still try to use the software, but I’m not sure. I know from using the feature in the computer, that can be a mixed blessing. After seeing the results, I occasionally turn it back off. Adding IBIS to the mix could give even better results if cleverly programmed to use the best features of each method.

Also note the message above (and has been stated on this board many times) that IBIS is most effective on shorter lenses (where it may be less needed), and in-lens stabilization is better for longer lenses. I’m amazed at how well it works in my 100-400mm II. In decent light, I have no trouble getting sharp hand-held shots at 400mm.
 

unfocused

EOS 1D MK II
Jul 20, 2010
5,029
1,403
66
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
So many responses that missed the point of my question -- which was not about the benefits of stabilization, but the benefit of in-body versus in-lens.

Working backwards:

Stevelee: I'm not familiar with the 6DII, but I think you are referring to the cropping of video to stabilize a scene, as can be done with Premiere Pro. That's actually a good argument in favor of 4K, which allows video shooters to crop and still retain a full HD image. I was aware that Canon's 18-135 EF-S lens has something they call Dynamic Image Stabilization to improve video performance, but was not aware that Canon used in-lens stabilization systems with specific cameras in conjunction with video, but that's a nice feature, although it's not relevant to IBIS.

Mt. Spokane: Good point about fast primes. Might be relevant to others, but I'm not a fast prime user, so doesn't apply to me. However, it certainly may apply to others.

Don Haines: I had not heard that rule of thumb regarding telephotos vs. wide angles. I'm curious what the reasons might be for the difference.

Amorse and Adelino: I can see where it would be nice as a way to essentially add stabilization to an expensive Canon lens like the 24-70. I don't think of that as an inherent benefit of IBIS, but rather as sort of an after-market solution for the manufacturer's failure to include it in the original.

Photo Hack: Your response is not clear.Maybe you are referring to the feature that Stevelee references.

YouengLinger: Most of your answer (if you were responding to me) seems to be about the benefits of IS generally. Also, I'm not sure who you think is "repeating the myth that it doesn't help unless the subject is completely still." That's certainly not what I said. In my experience, modern lens IS is good enough to allow handholding down to somewhere around 1/4 to 1/2 second. If you pick your shots carefully, you can catch a speaker during a pause, but when you get down in that range, is does get very difficult to get a sharp image of a person. Still, how is that going to be different with in-body stabilization?

What puzzles me is why members of CR who seem to genuinely enjoy Canon products get so nervous (for lack of a stronger description) about IBIS. Are you afraid Canon will botch it so badly it makes your pictures worse? Or that it will fail a few days after the warranty period? That it can't be disabled if you hate it? Just kind of odd that some of those who routinely defend Canon have so little faith the company can reliably implement IBIS.

For now and the foreseeable future, Canon offers bodies without IBIS. In what way will a new body with IBIS affect your photography? Why fret about it?
This portion of your post is truly perplexing. Who has ever said they were nervous about IBIS? And, who has ever said they don't think Canon can implement it. I've never read any post to that effect. Some people are concerned about the durability of IBIS, but I assume that before Canon introduces it, they will stress test it. The only concern that I stated was a very vague one that I was overlooking something that would cause me to regret purchasing a body without IBIS, if Canon releases one with IBIS.

So far, none of the answers to my question have given me cause for concern. I haven't found anything in these many answers that makes me feel that IBIS is so useful that I would have buyer's remorse for purchasing a body without IBIS.

Kit: You make a valid point. I'm not a lens designer, but it certainly does seem logical to me that some lens designs would be better served by in-body stabilization.

I've already responded to Keith Cooper and he makes valid points.

Quarkcharmed: I'm not questioning the value of IS in general. I use it routinely. Question was about the value of in-body over in-lens.

Apologies if I've missed or offended anyone.
 

max_sr

EOS T7i
Jan 8, 2019
71
55
How long does it take IBIS to settle down? I find that I often lose shots when switching subjects (sports) and engaging the shutter quickly (70-200 and 100-400) due to IS. The initial shot is bad but once the IS settles, the subsequent pics are sharp. If future cameras come with IBIS, I'd like to have the feature to disable and lock the sensor in place.
IBIS is a lot quicker than lens IS.
 
Jan 18, 2018
5
14
Bay Area
Serious Question: Can someone please explain why they care about IBIS?
It's just a different way of stabilizing the optical system versus lens OIS. It provides flexibility of stabilizing non-stabilized lenses, and it can sometimes be paired with lens OIS to take stabilization a step further. I agree - no advantage when tracking fast moving subjects or when movement induced motion blur is a factor, however I appreciate that it allows me to reduce shutter speeds (and therefore ISO) when capturing stationary subjects handheld.

The most extreme examples of IBIS open up some interesting opportunities like handheld long-exposures and ultra high-res modes, e.g. see Olympus E-M1X. It adds some new life to older non-stabilized lenses...think 400 5.6. Having a stabilized view when using a long lens like that is not insignificant.

Whether or not these features are beneficial for someone depends on the use case. They certainly should not be a dealbreaker for anyone though.
 

Rivermist

5D Mk3, RP & SL2
Apr 27, 2019
25
43
Houston
The RF 28-70 f2.0 is certainly not an old or a cheap lens by any means.
Indeed this is not about cheap or (always) old. I loved the EF 135mm f:2.0 L but in lower light it was less usable than the bulky white 70-200 L IS 2.8. After waiting forever for an EF 135mm IS L that never came, last year I finally bought the 85mm 1.4L IS because of the IS for low light / longer exposure capability. The IS adds a lot weight and bulk, and 85mm is a tad short of what I would really like. Prior to that I had also owned the only IS L prime short tele, the 100mm L macro 2.8 which was bulky and not very wide in aperture. The new RF lineup announces a 135mm 1.8 most probably without IS, and this is where IBIS helps. One could try also combining IBIS with the EF 135 2.0 and adapter, that lens can be had pre-owned for a handful of $$.
 
  • Like
Reactions: addola
Jun 13, 2019
1
0
unforced, in response to your original question:
Serious Question: Can someone please explain why they care about IBIS?

The main things I can think about are the cost benefit and upgrade potential. You'd only have to pay for Is once in camera instead of paying for it in every lens.

If there's some dramatic improvement in Ibis technology you'd just have to replace your body to avail of it with each of your lenses.

Your conclusion that it's unlikely you'll have buyers remorse sounds reasonable in your situation. There may came a time where the majority of lenses are produced without IS but that's probably a while away yet.
 

YuengLinger

EOS 5D MK IV
Dec 20, 2012
2,627
746
Southeastern USA
So many responses that missed the point of my question -- which was not about the benefits of stabilization, but the benefit of in-body versus in-lens.

Working backwards:

Stevelee: I'm not familiar with the 6DII, but I think you are referring to the cropping of video to stabilize a scene, as can be done with Premiere Pro. That's actually a good argument in favor of 4K, which allows video shooters to crop and still retain a full HD image. I was aware that Canon's 18-135 EF-S lens has something they call Dynamic Image Stabilization to improve video performance, but was not aware that Canon used in-lens stabilization systems with specific cameras in conjunction with video, but that's a nice feature, although it's not relevant to IBIS.

Mt. Spokane: Good point about fast primes. Might be relevant to others, but I'm not a fast prime user, so doesn't apply to me. However, it certainly may apply to others.

Don Haines: I had not heard that rule of thumb regarding telephotos vs. wide angles. I'm curious what the reasons might be for the difference.

Amorse and Adelino: I can see where it would be nice as a way to essentially add stabilization to an expensive Canon lens like the 24-70. I don't think of that as an inherent benefit of IBIS, but rather as sort of an after-market solution for the manufacturer's failure to include it in the original.

Photo Hack: Your response is not clear.Maybe you are referring to the feature that Stevelee references.

YouengLinger: Most of your answer (if you were responding to me) seems to be about the benefits of IS generally. Also, I'm not sure who you think is "repeating the myth that it doesn't help unless the subject is completely still." That's certainly not what I said. In my experience, modern lens IS is good enough to allow handholding down to somewhere around 1/4 to 1/2 second. If you pick your shots carefully, you can catch a speaker during a pause, but when you get down in that range, is does get very difficult to get a sharp image of a person. Still, how is that going to be different with in-body stabilization?



This portion of your post is truly perplexing. Who has ever said they were nervous about IBIS? And, who has ever said they don't think Canon can implement it. I've never read any post to that effect. Some people are concerned about the durability of IBIS, but I assume that before Canon introduces it, they will stress test it. The only concern that I stated was a very vague one that I was overlooking something that would cause me to regret purchasing a body without IBIS, if Canon releases one with IBIS.

So far, none of the answers to my question have given me cause for concern. I haven't found anything in these many answers that makes me feel that IBIS is so useful that I would have buyer's remorse for purchasing a body without IBIS.

Kit: You make a valid point. I'm not a lens designer, but it certainly does seem logical to me that some lens designs would be better served by in-body stabilization.

I've already responded to Keith Cooper and he makes valid points.

Quarkcharmed: I'm not questioning the value of IS in general. I use it routinely. Question was about the value of in-body over in-lens.

Apologies if I've missed or offended anyone.

Unless you are ignoring the fact that many prime lenses still do not have IS, then asking why photographers want IBIS seems to be asking why any IS would be worthwhile.

As for "nervous," perhaps "agitated" would be a better choice? I'm perceiving in the tone of many posts about IBIS an irritation, an anxiety...Because why else would a handful of posters continue to ask why IBIS is a desirable feature? If a photographer doesn't need it fine, but if a photographer thinks it will help and wants a camera with the feature, and the manufacturer sees a chance to meet a demand, why has there been so much negative posting about IBIS? That's what I'm hoping you can answer for me.

In other words, why must IBIS be in any way controversial?

We won't know how well Canon's FF IBIS works with and without IS lenses until such a body is released. I'm one Canon customer who looks forward to trying one, as long as reputable reviews give it a thumbs up. Durability will take longer to determine.
 
Last edited:

stevelee

FT-QL
Jul 6, 2017
1,257
287
Davidson, NC
Stevelee: I'm not familiar with the 6DII, but I think you are referring to the cropping of video to stabilize a scene, as can be done with Premiere Pro. That's actually a good argument in favor of 4K, which allows video shooters to crop and still retain a full HD image. I was aware that Canon's 18-135 EF-S lens has something they call Dynamic Image Stabilization to improve video performance, but was not aware that Canon used in-lens stabilization systems with specific cameras in conjunction with video, but that's a nice feature, although it's not relevant to IBIS.
Note that the point I was trying to make is that they already are doing hardware and software working together. With IBIS in the mix, it could work even better, particularly with certain focal lengths. Implementation would be an important issue. The crop-and-shift method can make for fuzzier pictures, though nowhere near what greater digital zoom does. Really optimizing the mix of methods could mitigate that somewhat. I've not tried tests comparing the effects in camera vs. FCP X or Premier or between the two programs.

BTW, the other camera I use regularly (mainly in traveling) is the G7X II. It has image stabilization that apparently combines hardware and software functions intelligently. I think the hardware part is optical rather than what you would mean by IBIS (other than the fact that of course whatever happens in that camera is in the body). Video can be very smooth taken as you walk. There is even a mode for dealing with tiny shakes on a tripod when shooting movies.

4K would give more to crop from, though if you are shaking enough to need that level of zoom, you might need to consult with a physician. But, yes, it could mitigate the problems. I shoot 4K on the rare instances that I shoot video on my iPhone. That compensates for using a wide angle lens all the time, and I can output to 1080p or 720p without upsampling the cropped results.
 

David - Sydney

EOS T7i
Dec 7, 2014
55
20
www.flickr.com
IBIS implementations tend to be 5 axis (yaw, pitch and roll movement, as well as shifting across vertical and horizontal axes ) whereas Canon lens IS is only yaw/pitch (pan/tilt). With 100mm macro being the exception with a hybrid 4 axis IS where angle/shift is included for handheld macro shots (released in 2009!). Roll is associated mostly with pressing the shutter button which lens IS cannot correct for. Note that IBIS will be silent whereas lens IS could have mechanical noise for quiet recordings.
Taking Wikipedia with a grain of salt (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_stabilization), there are some interesting points made...
Image circle size with moving sensor,
Dual sensor/lens IS complexity when yaw/pitch movements are combined... whereas the simplest implementation is to leave yaw/pitch to the lens IS (where available) and 3 axis stabilisation to IBS
Limitation for telephoto focal lengths (referencing a paper in German)....
"limited by the rotational movement of the surface of the Earth, that fools the accelerometers of the camera. Therefore, depending on the angle of view, the maximum exposure time should not exceed 1⁄3 second for long telephoto shots (with a 35 mm equivalent focal length of 800 millimeters) and a little more than ten seconds for wide angle shots (with a 35 mm equivalent focal length of 24 millimeters), if the movement of the Earth is not taken into consideration by the image stabilization process"
 
Last edited:

PGSanta

EOS 80D
Sep 5, 2018
140
105
San Diego, CA
Some of you come off like old cooks not wanting the world to progress. Every major manufacturer in the full frame segment has recognized the value and market demand in an IBIS offering. Canon isn’t going to sit idle because some of you “don’t see why it’s needed.”

Hopefully Canon will do it better than most. There’s an opportunity for them in this feature offering since Sony and Nikon have given us flawed IBIS systems at best. If Canon can match Panasonic, it’d be a huge win.
 

YuengLinger

EOS 5D MK IV
Dec 20, 2012
2,627
746
Southeastern USA
Some of you come off like old cooks not wanting the world to progress. Every major manufacturer in the full frame segment has recognized the value and market demand in an IBIS offering. Canon isn’t going to sit idle because some of you “don’t see why it’s needed.”

Hopefully Canon will do it better than most. There’s an opportunity for them in this feature offering since Sony and Nikon have given us flawed IBIS systems at best. If Canon can match Panasonic, it’d be a huge win.
Does Panasonic offer a FF body?

And, btw, please don't say "come off like old cooks," as it may offend the actual old kooks. :p
 
  • Like
Reactions: stevelee

BillB

EOS 6D MK II
May 11, 2017
1,153
390
Some of you come off like old cooks not wanting the world to progress. Every major manufacturer in the full frame segment has recognized the value and market demand in an IBIS offering. Canon isn’t going to sit idle because some of you “don’t see why it’s needed.”

Hopefully Canon will do it better than most. There’s an opportunity for them in this feature offering since Sony and Nikon have given us flawed IBIS systems at best. If Canon can match Panasonic, it’d be a huge win.
There is considerable space between the belief that IBIS is useless and the conviction that it could be a huge win, and I suspect quite a few of use are somewhere in the middle. If I am interested in sharp pictures, I know that one of the first things to think about is using a tripod. There are situations in which a tripod is inappropriate, but like many people, I will often try to get away without using one when I should do so. (One of the advantages of using Liveview on the back of the camera is that it is harder to avoid using a tripod, although people do--especially if they have a tilty-flippy screen.)

There are situations in which a tripod is inappropriate where IS or IBIS can permit slower shutter speeds, a smaller aperture or lower ISO than would be otherwise possible. In some of these situations, the subject will be sufficiently motionless for these shutter speeds, smaller apertures and/or ISO's to be useful. I have IS lenses and I use and value them. So for, me IBIS might be nice, but it would be something short of a huge win.
 

shunsai

EOS RP
Oct 15, 2011
215
105
IBIS that works would be great, even if it helped just three stops. Be grateful if your hands are so steady you don't need any kind of stabilization for general photography. Personally, I benefit greatly from lenses with IS when taking portrait shots. If I'm using a longer lens, say a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, I see benefits up to 1/500th. Again, if your hands are steady--throughout the day--be grateful.

And please don't keep repeating the myth that it doesn't help unless the subject is completely still. Slight subject motion PLUS camera shake results in many more slightly blurred shots than slight subject motion and a lens that has IS. Simply put, the combination of motions results in more blur than if at least the lens is stabilized.

While there is a demand for IBIS, I don't see it expressed negatively on CR unless the poster is generally bashing Canon in favor of brand X, Y, or Z. And these posters bash Canon over pretty much any random feature Canon does or does not offer.

What puzzles me is why members of CR who seem to genuinely enjoy Canon products get so nervous (for lack of a stronger description) about IBIS. Are you afraid Canon will botch it so badly it makes your pictures worse? Or that it will fail a few days after the warranty period? That it can't be disabled if you hate it? Just kind of odd that some of those who routinely defend Canon have so little faith the company can reliably implement IBIS.

For now and the foreseeable future, Canon offers bodies without IBIS. In what way will a new body with IBIS affect your photography? Why fret about it?
It's very reminiscent of the pre-flip screen days on this forum. There were so many people decrying the idea of an articulated flip screen, and I couldn't understand it. In general, I don't understand the concept of not wanting a new feature, simply based on the thinking that 'I don't use it now, so it will never be useful to me.' Nowadays, I hardly hear anyone complaining about the flip screens on Canon cameras. It actually now seems like one of the more beloved features.
 
  • Like
Reactions: YuengLinger

cellomaster27

Capture the moment!
Jun 3, 2013
353
51
San Jose - CA
Always late to the party. Time for Canon to really get it right.
You must be fairly new. Depends what you're talking about. Just to name some of the new things that they made, no catch up.. DPAF, AI focusing flash, control ring on lenses, lens adapter with control ring or drop in filters. I do agree that Canon should get things right but to say that they're always late to the party.. again, depends in what context. I think we can agree that Canon doesn't get things wrong to the point of having recalls such as Nikon and Sony.
 

unfocused

EOS 1D MK II
Jul 20, 2010
5,029
1,403
66
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
It's very reminiscent of the pre-flip screen days on this forum. There were so many people decrying the idea of an articulated flip screen, and I couldn't understand it. In general, I don't understand the concept of not wanting a new feature, simply based on the thinking that 'I don't use it now, so it will never be useful to me.' Nowadays, I hardly hear anyone complaining about the flip screens on Canon cameras. It actually now seems like one of the more beloved features.
When flip screens came out, people had legitimate concerns about their durability. Those concerns turned out to be unfounded, but it was never an objection to something new, rather it was a concern that proved to be unnecessary. (Personally, I never shared their concern, but I can see how some people were worried about the screens)

Nowadays, most of the criticism of flip screens comes from the fact that the real estate available on the back of cameras pretty much forces people to choose between a flip screen and joysticks and click wheels. There are many people, myself included, who do not want to give up the back ergonomics of the 1D, 5D and 7D to gain a flip screen. If one could have both, I imagine most people would take both. But at least with Canon so far, that has not been an option.