Patent: Canon camera with in-body stabilization and in-lens stabilization working together.

[caffetin]

Crazyrunner

To put things straight: Sony's IBIS and everything Sonyish are absolutely perfect!
Whoever pretends the opposite should be banned for life from this forum for proferring perverted subversive insanities.
Shame on you!

Sony will never be as good as Canon or fuji. It is just no camera factory. Go to Sony services and see whats hapend Sony cameras. Yes it is Sonyish yellowish.

 

[caffetin]

Yes, Canon do not even build large screen TVs, SONY do....

Are we talking for photography. Go to cinema man

 

[SecureGSM]

Are we talking for photography. Go to cinema man

That was a joke. Take a chill pill. I shoot with pro Canon bodies. Better now?

 

[Photo Hack]

You forgot the most important:

"Old Sensor tech. Not enough base ISO DR!"

Genius! How could I have missed that one??

 

[Rixy]

When? 2030? I get tired of waiting for you Canon

 

[Ozarker]

When? 2030? I get tired of waiting for you Canon

Move along.

 

[Antono Refa]

Are EF lenses even firmware-upgradeable? I've already upgraded an RF lens and never upgraded any EF since getting into Canon in 1996.

Several Canon lenses had firmware updates. Some of the supertele lenses had firmware upgrades as well, but IIRC had to be shipped to a Canon authorized service center to get them.

All the lenses that had firmware updates (at least, those I'm aware of) are newer models, so I wouldn't bet on older models capable of having their firmware updated.

 

[Mikehit]

Canon has a history of including capabilities in their new models (especially lenses) whose capabilities may not be realised for years afterwards when fully functional bodies are released. It is not beyond possibility that even EF lenses may have options for some form of dual-IBIS compatability. I am not saying the knew at the time precisely how it would work, but left things open.

Also, as far as I am aware, an IBIS camera body (on Panasonic and Olympus, anyway) simply needs to know the focal length of the camera so it can calculate the amount of correction and on those bodies if you are using a non-AF lens you manually enter the focal length and the camera does the rest. That should not be difficult to emulate in Canon bodies.
Also, for lenses with in-lens IS, some Panasonic bodies the dual IS works by letting the lens IS do the donkeywork and the IBIS just perfects it by adding correction for translational movements. So there is precedent.

 

[koenkooi]

Canon has a history of including capabilities in their new models (especially lenses) whose capabilities may not be realised for years afterwards when fully functional bodies are released. It is not beyond possibility that even EF lenses may have options for some form of dual-IBIS compatability. I am not saying the knew at the time precisely how it would work, but left things open.
[..]

I think that this is the actual reason Canon did the 70-200 f/2.8L III update, not "just new coatings" as Canon says. I have zero proof for this, though

 

[BillB]

Canon has a history of including capabilities in their new models (especially lenses) whose capabilities may not be realised for years afterwards when fully functional bodies are released. It is not beyond possibility that even EF lenses may have options for some form of dual-IBIS compatability. I am not saying the knew at the time precisely how it would work, but left things open.

Also, as far as I am aware, an IBIS camera body (on Panasonic and Olympus, anyway) simply needs to know the focal length of the camera so it can calculate the amount of correction and on those bodies if you are using a non-AF lens you manually enter the focal length and the camera does the rest. That should not be difficult to emulate in Canon bodies.
Also, for lenses with in-lens IS, some Panasonic bodies the dual IS works by letting the lens IS do the donkeywork and the IBIS just perfects it by adding correction for translational movements. So there is precedent.

In 2012, Roger Cicala at Lensrental posted that recent EF lenses (40mm, 28mmIS etc) could report back to recent EOS DSLR's (5DIII) making PDAF much more accurate and comparable to manual and live view contrast detect. https://wordpress.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/08/autofocus-reality-part-3b-canon-cameras/ It seems likely that EF lenses and EOS cameras made since 2012 have had this iterative communications capability.

 

[shutterlag]

When Canon does implement anything they do it right. I wonder when....

I would strongly dispute that. The video capabilities their DSLRs, their EOS-M line, and now their first two RF mount bodies are absolute garbage compared to the competition. You can find $400 m4/3s bodies that shoot far better video. I miss shooting Canon, but I'm not lugging a 2nd body around just for video.

 

[MartinF.]

I can't imagine them disabling IBIS for non-IS EF lenses. That would go against everything they've done so far to make the adapter fully functional for EF lenses. They also seem to be leaning heavily on EF for affordable lenses at the moment.

I do agree that the EF mount may not have enough throughput to coordinate OIS+IBIS, so there may be a limitation there with EF lenses.

I makes perfect sense from a technical point of view as well from a marketing point of view (making RF lenses to stand out), that IBIS+IS will be for RF lenses only. However a EF lense with no IS (as 24-70 f/2.8) will benefit from IBIS in an RF body. (but the buyer of an prof "R-series" camera will probably but at least a couple of RF lenses to do the daily work.
Canon is a high tech engineering company, but they are also very good at marketing, and product differentiation.

 

[Kit.]

I makes perfect sense from a technical point of view as well from a marketing point of view (making RF lenses to stand out), that IBIS+IS will be for RF lenses only.

It doesn't. Canon is not a monopoly in FF mirrorless, they cannot afford crippling their own products.

 

[MartinF.]

It doesn't. Canon is not a monopoly in FF mirrorless, they cannot afford crippling their own products.

No - it is not a monopoly, but it has always been Canons strategy to divide their cameras into consumer segments. So does Nikon, so does almost every other manufacturer in a lot of other industries, also computer and cell phone industry.
Even Sony with their A9 model and different models in the A7 series. (but not in the same extend as Canon I agree).
However if the hardware is 100% identical (which it often is not) it is very difficult to cripple functionality in software alone. (but Windows OS is an example of that).
That is market segmentation and the high-end users pay premium prices for products that is not produced in as high volumes than the cheaper ones for the average consumer.

 

[Kit.]

No - it is not a monopoly, but it has always been Canons strategy to divide their cameras into consumer segments.

And what relation does it have at all to an idea of not supporting in-body roll stabilization on pro RF cameras with pro EF lenses?

 

[andreig]

Is there any clear, known technical reason why this would only work with RF lenses?

 

[MartinF.]

And what relation does it have at all to an idea of not supporting in-body roll stabilization on pro RF cameras with pro EF lenses?

It is actually an guess from another user, and only relate to EF lenses with IS. The guess is that having IS and IBIS working together on the EF dataprotocol could be a problem becuase of slow datacommunication between EF lens and "R-series" body.

 

[Kit.]

It is actually an guess from another user, and only relate to EF lenses with IS. The guess is that having IS and IBIS working together on the EF dataprotocol could be a problem becuase of slow datacommunication between EF lens and "R-series" body.

In-body roll stabilization does not require fast data communication (as a lens is not able to do roll stabilization anyway).

Canon also has a patent for a backward-compatible faster EF mount communication, but that's another story.

 

[caffetin]

I think this patent is under consumer pressure but it is not very rational.(on my opinion).try to clean the sensor and starts the problems.for photography I would like not have in body stab.

 

[masterpix]

An idea: Canon can take it or not, it's up to them. I've been in an event, and there was a guy with Sony camera, 7 something. I looked at the EVF and, have to say, I didn't like what I've seen. the Image was NOT the one that the eye saw, the whole image was brighter than the one I've seen with my eyes, it was pixeleted too, which was extremely annoying when looking at moving objects. I also understand that the world is going to mirrorless cameras, that is without the flipping mirror. But since the viewfinder is, i my view, much better than any EVF, I looked to see if there is a way to combine the two technologies. And to my surprise there is! A simple search for "mirror liquid crystal" revealed that there is such a thing, an electronic controlled mirror, that can flip from transparent to mirror by changing the current it is exposed to (for example: https://cen.acs.org/articles/92/web/2014/10/Liquid-Crystal-Goes-Transparent-Mirrorlike.html ). Not sure any camera manufacturer will adopt this technology, but it seems to have the best of the two. Non moving mirror while keeping the viewfinder optical.