no 5-axis image stabilization in body

[Kit Lens Jockey]

Sony has had a reputation up until at least the current generation of cameras for having overheating problems, probably due to the complications of dissipating heat from a sensor that's not fixed in place. Canon probably didn't want that, or even the risk of that. I don't know how much more plainly I can put that.

 

[JonSnow]

Sony has had a reputation up until at least the current generation of cameras for having overheating problems, probably due to the complications of dissipating heat from a sensor that's not fixed in place. Canon probably didn't want that, or even the risk of that. I don't know how much more plainly I can put that.

as i wrote the overheating happend first in the A6300. that camera doesn´t even have IBIS.

to encode 4K videos you need a lot of processing power.
and the sensor is stressed too.

IBIS my add some challenges to this in the A6500 and other cameras but is not the reason for the overheating.

 

[Kit Lens Jockey]

I thought it was still an issue up until recently. I dunno, I don't follow them that closely.

 

[JonSnow]

I thought it was still an issue up until recently. I dunno, I don't follow them that closely.

temps are an issue but in fact later cameras that have IBIS behave better than the A6300 that had no IBIS.

 

[BillB]

The R was designed to price and schedule targets, and IBIS have been have been too far down the list to be included in the development strategy.

 

[3kramd5]

Sony has had a reputation up until at least the current generation of cameras for having overheating problems, probably due to the complications of dissipating heat from a sensor that's not fixed in place. Canon probably didn't want that, or even the risk of that. I don't know how much more plainly I can put that.

You can put it as clearly as you want, but you have no basis in which to claim “probably.” The Sony literature suggests they shut the electronics down to prevent the body from getting too hot, which implies a functional heat path from the sensor as well as the processor (which likely dissipates far more power).

It doesn’t really matter. I’m not trivializing the problem. The electronics product line I’m responsible for uses conduction to manage heat. I don’t use floating elements, but I understand the technical challenge. It’s not insurmountable. Even if canon doesn’t have the knowhow, the talent pool is not static; they have all the resources to hire people who are necessary to execute their strategy.

 

[bhf3737]

The argument about the need for IBIS is something like everyone in the neighborhood has it, so do I ...
Perhaps there is not enough reason/evidence to convince Canon that IBIS is needed and/or is useful.
For still photo:
- For long focal lengths in lens IS is more effective than IBIS. It is already well documented and understood.
- For short focal lengths we have heard so far that IS is not needed anyway and that is why short focal lenght lenses usually do not have IS. Are there substantial use-cases of need/usefulness of IBIS for short focal lengths?
For video:
- We have heard that IBIS is effective, but that is not the only technology available. Panasonic has digital IS in GH5s and Canon has digital stabilization technology in EOS-R and there is some evidence that it works fine. REF: ProAV TV's, Canon EOS R - Hands on Q & A ()

 

[BillB]

The argument about the need for IBIS is something like everyone in the neighborhood has it, so do I ...
Perhaps there is not enough reason/evidence to convince Canon that IBIS is needed and/or is useful.
For still photo:
- For long focal lengths in lens IS is more effective than IBIS. It is already well documented and understood.
- For short focal lengths we have heard so far that IS is not needed anyway and that is why short focal lenght lenses usually do not have IS. Are there substantial use-cases of need/usefulness of IBIS for short focal lengths?
For video:
- We have heard that IBIS is effective, but that is not the only technology available. Panasonic has digital IS in GH5s and Canon has digital stabilization technology in EOS-R and there is some evidence that it works fine. REF: ProAV TV's, Canon EOS R - Hands on Q & A ()

Canon's digital stabilization has no effect on blur in a single image because it only modifies an image to be stable with the preceding image when shooting video.

 

[Keith_Reeder]

It would help for things like this:

The stabilization in post caused a heavy crop, it would be nice to be able to avoid some of with the help of IBIS. But to be honest, I only use the video function on my Canon cameras twice a year or so.

I know what the merits of IBIS are - I asked why Canon should up it in their cameras "like Sony and Nikon", which is a different question.

 

[Mikehit]

The interview with the product development manager suggested to me that they have an IBIS technology but chose not to implement and my interpretation of that would be that it is technical in limitation - whether that is heat sinking (which from the early days of MFT was an issue because the mobility of the sensor meant they could not use conduction methods for reducing heat) or (admittedly optimistically) they want to get a workable hybrid IS that uses both in-lens and sensor and it is that final step that is not quite there.

Yes, they could license in but their sensor technology suggests to me that is there least favoured option and as long as they can get good product with in-house technology then that is what they will do. You only need look at commentary that Sony sensor division seems to be withholding their best tech from other camera manufacturers to see the risks that any competing manufacture faces when licensing in technology.

 

[3kramd5]

The interview with the product development manager suggested to me that they have an IBIS technology but chose not to implement and my interpretation of that would be that it is technical in limitation - whether that is heat sinking (which from the early days of MFT was an issue because the mobility of the sensor meant they could not use conduction methods for reducing heat) or (admittedly optimistically) they want to get a workable hybrid IS that uses both in-lens and sensor and it is that final step that is not quite there.

Yes, they could license in but their sensor technology suggests to me that is there least favoured option and as long as they can get good product with in-house technology then that is what they will do. You only need look at commentary that Sony sensor division seems to be withholding their best tech from other camera manufacturers to see the risks that any competing manufacture faces when licensing in technology.

Sony’s camera business said it wouldn’t sell its best sensor tech, but I expect that’s no small part of the reason Sony incorporated the sensor business into Sony Semiconductor Solutions. It’s its own corporation, not under pressure from the imaging leadership, except where the camera business funds development.

Canon licenses where it makes sense to. Maybe no one will sell them IBIS, or maybe they don’t want to license it.

 

[fullstop]

Sony’s camera business said it wouldn’t sell its best sensor tech,

sorry, did not read entire thread - do you have a source/link for that?

 

[3kramd5]

sorry, did not read entire thread - do you have a source/link for that?

This is the source from which many camera pundits conclude Sony won’t sell its best sensors.

Kenji Tanaka/Sony: As you know well, our key driver is the image sensor, and we already invested a lot of money for the image sensor development. And the sensor is a custom [design, meaning that] only Sony can use these sensors, and our strength is our in-house technology. So I invested in that and we will keep investing in the in-house technology like image sensors.

As stated above, I take that to mean sensors which are custom designed for the camera business, presumably at their expense, are exclusive. He has no authority over what products the semiconductor corporation develops and sells.

 

[fullstop]

As stated above, I take that to mean sensors which are custom designed for the camera business, presumably at their expense, are exclusive. He has no authority over what products the semiconductor corporation develops and sells.

agree.