New Canon Patent Finds

Canon Rumors
1 Min Read

More Patent Fun
A couple of New Patents filed by Canon this month.

Just remember, not all patents make it to market.

Sensor Based Stabilization?
Sensor Based Stabilization?

The first patent found is for what appears to be sensor based stabilization. Could this be for a powershot, and SLR or perhaps a new EVIL camera system?

US Patent: 20100003025

LCD in Viewfinder

Viewfinder LCD
Viewfinder LCD

This one adds a small LCD in the viewfinder. You can keep the camera up to your eye and see through the viewfinder while reviewing previous images taken.

US Patent: 20100002109

from PetaPixel via Photography Bay

cr

When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Here's how it works.

Share This Article
81 Comments
  • Noooo! I just left Canon because I wanted to use a sensor based image stabilisation system with fast primes! Now that I am with Sony, don’t tell me that Canon will have in-body is now!!!

  • isn’t the whole point of chimping to get a good look at whether or not your IQ is on the dot?

    what would be the point of chimping on a tiny, cruddy LCD in your tiny VF window?

  • I’m surprised no one is complaining about this camera already based on the patent. Wait, someone is. My bad.

  • Yes, I alerady bought the excellent 50mm 1.7 and 200 f/2.8 but I shure would like my old 85mm 1.8 and 35mm f/2 lens back in a sony mount.

  • Both of the patents are for SLR’s. They have flip up mirrors and pentaprism / mirror box type viewfinders.

  • You mean there is a point in chimping ???

    Seems to chimping is caused by a lack of IQ !!! :D

  • I would be happy enough if the mini LCD was used just to display the RGB histogram of the last image. You can’t judge much by eye on a camera’s LCD anyway.

    And sensor based stabilization! I wish I could read patent-eze to confirm if that’s what it’s saying.

  • well if you’re not shooting tethered, there’s not really any other way to check sharpness immediately except by chimping.

    this does come into major play when you are taking low-light handheld architectural photography in places that don’t allow tripod use. I’m sure there are other scenarios, but that’s my common application of chimping

  • Or there’s the “Oh my god! Did I actually GET that play” chimping? Usually preceded by the “Oh my god! I MISSED that play because I was chimping!”.

    Or maybe that’s just me.

  • Now all those NIKON fanboys will start saying things like in camera Image Stabilization isn’t needed on Nikons. I can’t wait to hear their rebuttals about this! Congrats to CANON for taking the initiative and being the innovator and progressing photography! I for one couldn’t be happier with Canon, their initiative, style, technology, quality, and desire to continue to be the worlds best SLR manufacturer.

  • I wonder if this might explain the “extra large bump” on the 1Ds Mark IV mentioned earlier by test photographers? OR is it too soon to release a product based on the release of these patents. Seems to me they would want to keep the technology secret as long as possible without releasing a patent, then post the patent just before the products release date to avoid letting the competition catch up before you even release the product. What do you all think? To me it seems like perfect timing for the 1Ds.

  • That would be awesome to pull off a real time histogram in the viewfinder. I use that feature constantly on my G10.

  • Paragraph 34 (noted as “[0034]” in the patent description) specifically states image stabilization via the sensor.

  • let’s wait to see the technology, and the implementation, before we blow an o-ring, shall we?

  • My girlfriends SX20IS has a electronic viewfinder and it works really well for reviewing photos. Especially in the the bright sunlight.

  • The 1Ds III already has a bigger bump when compared to the 1D III. So nothing new here…

    And I would guess a feature like this LCD in the viewfinder would not make it to the 1 serie line. It’s probably too “gadget for pro use”… As most would say hehe.

  • Sensor stabilisation please!!! I love the combination of that and a f/1.4 prime. It is something I miss badly when I jumped ship from Sony to Canon (*cough*A700 replacement*cough*).

  • If you have a fast, wide prime, any type of stabilization is kind of unnecessary, unless you’re shooting video in low light and slower ISO’s. Also, Sony’s sensor shift stabilization only really starts to provide benefits at tighter angles. Plus, it’s been almost proven that lens stabilization works better than in-camera sensor shift stabilization, and Canon has a 200mm F/2 IS, that is faster and sharper than Sony’s 200mm F/2.8. And sensor shift stabilization can lead to off setting of the sensor, which ironically isn’t covered by their manufacturer’s warranty, I believe. Sorry you went to Sony for no good reason.

  • any modern lens, especially a 2.8 or faster prime is going to be sharp if used properly. i find it funny you mention canon’s lens being sharper than sony. have you tried both? doubt it.

    i do agree about IS being overrated for shorter focal lengths.

  • Live histogram would be awsome! I like the idea of being able to view previous image in viewfinder and still see image. Could be good for sports photographers/nature photographers checking previous shot but keeping eye on stuff happening in the now. Would be nice if you had prisim for photos and could use liveview in viewfinder for movie. Best of both worlds and help movies in bright lights.
    ….……………
    * I help support my wife and 10 staving kids with these comments and my website. If you like what you read please donate to my Bank account in the Caymen Islands. Jut $5 the price of a book could help support kicking my nasty Nikon addiction. Please give generously – I have some money tied up in a bank in Nigeria so if you send me $500 to help release my fundsi will return the favor by sending you $50000

  • Awesome! And you know, it’s Canon, so how many megapixels do you think they’ll try and cram on that stabilization unit? They seem to be packing pixels everywhere they can these days…

  • No, I haven’t had a chance to use either. But judging from the performance I’ve seen from other Sony and Canon prime lenses, I can make a pretty educated guess as to the performance of both, and Canon edges out ahead. Plus, Etienne wants fast primes, Canon’s 200mm F/2 is faster, with better stabilization.

  • Heh, didn’t think that there was anything resembling plain English in that, but live and learn.

    You’d probably have to use one or the other with double stabilization–kind of what you’d have to do with Sony/Pentax/etc. bodies with Tamron/Sigma VC/OS lenses. It’s possible that any new bodies would detect that lens IS is on and automatically disable sensor IS.

    But if Canon could get working what you’d think “hybrid IS” should have meant… 5-6+ stops IS? This might even give Canon the excuse to relaunch their IS lenses with additional price increases to make them simultaneous-IS compatible.

  • “But if Canon could get working what you’d think “hybrid IS” should have meant… 5-6+ stops IS?”

    Gosh, 5-6 stops IS? Amazing, let’s get rid of tripods now.

    So let’s see, say shooting full frame, at 200mm. The rule of thumb say 1/200s, let’s apply our new and amazing SSS (six stop system) – 1/3 of a second. Wow. Those models sure would have to sit still to make sure that the pictures come out sharp.

  • Also there is a zoom/focus/IS circuit in first image, and it’s a SLR camera.

    [0042]The zoom/focus/image stabilization drive circuit 134 can perform zoom control and focus control for adjusting the position of the lens groups (i.e., the lens groups 121, 167, and 123) in the optical axis direction. The zoom/focus/image stabilization drive circuit 134 can further perform image stabilization control for moving the position of the lens 167 in a direction perpendicular o the optical axis.

  • Garbage. On low-light, for general photography, IS is such a relief. The 50mm f/1.8 is barely an improvement over the kit lens in low light, since by stopping down to f/1.8, while you get really nice shallow depth of field, the entire image turns soft. It doesn’t matter all that much since at high ISOs your pictures will be soft anyways due to noise, but it’s a bit depressing to have your prime perform the same as the consumer kit lens that comes with every Rebel.

    It’ll be great for Canon to have sensor-based IS if only as a compliment to their superb lens-based IS, and in the long-term, it would be wonderful if they could get the sensor-based IS to couple with the lens-based IS.

  • That is tough stuff to engineer.

    As to soft images; what’s wrong with that? Some film had a naturally soft look to it, and people liked it. I don’t know of any film that was sharp enough to blow up beyond 11×14 or 16×20, in 35mm format, without being in a Lieca, on a tripod with a timer or cord release and wide angle lenses. What’s with everyone’s crazy obsession with sharpness?

  • “[0045]Therefore, the object image can be guided to the light-receiving surfaces of the image sensor 127. The camera performs an image capturing operation. In this state, an image stabilization mechanism 171, which is connected to the image stabilization control circuit 172, can shift and rotate the image sensor 127 in a predetermined direction to cancel the blur of an image. Thus, the image stabilization mechanism 171 can prevent the image from shifting undesirably and lowering the resolution.”

    “Shift and rotate the image sensor”; does any of the other competitors who use sensor shift stabilization actually rotate the sensor?

  • Guess I’m wrong, both lens and camera shown have stabilization.

    “[0045]Therefore, the object image can be guided to the light-receiving surfaces of the image sensor 127. The camera performs an image capturing operation. In this state, an image stabilization mechanism 171, which is connected to the image stabilization control circuit 172, can shift and rotate the image sensor 127 in a predetermined direction to cancel the blur of an image. Thus, the image stabilization mechanism 171 can prevent the image from shifting undesirably and lowering the resolution.”

    “Shift and rotate the image sensor”; do any of the other competitors who use sensor shift stabilization actually rotate the sensor?

  • “What’s with everyone’s crazy obsession with sharpness?”

    Sharpness is now easy to check on a monitor. Same goes for noise, auto focus accuracy, camera shake (due to lack of IS), vignetting, distortion, chromatic aberration, etc. We are obsessed because it is now technically possible for us to be obsessed.

    If all we ever did was take a photo and make a print, we wouldn’t notice these minor flaws and wouldn’t be so obsessed about minor improvements to counter them. I take photos, look at them on the monitor, feel gutted that some aspect of IQ was not quite right, print them out, and then cannot tell that anything is wrong when viewed at a normal distance. People should make more prints to cheer themselves up.

    Even more important, if someone else looks at your photos, they will consider what you are trying to communicate more than what equipment was used and what level of technical perfection was achieved. Images do not need to be perfect to be good. Look at all those great photos that are technically flawed and you don’t think, “Hey, that picture isn’t very sharp.”

    http://www.neatorama.com/2007/01/02/13-photographs-that-changed-the-world/

    In the picture (linked above) from the D-Day landings, the lack of contrast, the graininess and the severe motion blur probably add more than they take away from the image.

  • For low light applications get yourself a tripod, monopod or simply a pod. There are thousands of possible ways to reduce the movement of your camera, which are cheaper than a good IS.
    This, however will not help you in any way, if you are taking pictures of anything that moves (neither the IS nor the ___pods).
    Therefore I prefer fast lenses over lenses with IS (and fast lenses with IS are too expensive for me ;) ).

  • I doubt that you would be happy with that. An IS is engineered for photos, not for videos. The IS wont remove the shaking of the camera caused by your own movement (or only to a very small degree). To get good results you’ll still need a steadycam or a dolly…

  • Exactly! It’s only because we can that we do, and we should stop, and concentrate more on the aesthetics of the photographs we are taking. At least that’s what I believe.

    OK, so for the second part of all this; does Sony, Pentax, Olympus, actually rotate the sensor as it stabilizes the image, and not just shift it up/down, left/right?

  • or canon will introduce a new ultra-crop-dslr instead of an evil…
    sounds crazy to me, but hey, it’s canon

  • I tought at first that Canon had better lens (sharpness, contrast, colors) then Sony. I had a big surprise when i tried the Minolta 50mm f/1.7 for the first time. It was sharper then my old canon 50mm 1.8 and 1.4 wide open. Contrast and color is about the same between Canon and Sony (sony having silghtly cooler colors).

    The second lens I bought is the Minolta 200mm f/2.8 G. Before buying it, I had my doubts because it was “only” a f/2.8 prime but when I had the chance to play with it, I was astonished! It perform exaclty like my old canon 135mm f/2; sharp!!! and contrasty wide open. It’s a real pleasure to use it and especially when I can shoot at 1/25 sec and still manage to get sharp results!

    On top of that is the price of these lens. The Minolta 50mm f/1.7 with build in lens hood and uv filter in perfect condition cost me only 40$ and the Minolta 200mm f/2.8 G with build in lens hood and uv filter cost me 550$

    Now I am waiting to recieve a Minolta 28-135mm f/4-4.5. I bought it on ebay for only 230$. From what I read on the internet, it’s supposed to be one of the best zoom Minolta ever made.

    I had my doubts on in-body stabilisation but it works really well. Of course, the stabilisation from Canon is a little bit better but, in real world use, it dosen’t make any difference.

  • Yes, I really like this “reference image” in the viewfinder, it should be fun.

    For example, if you spot an interesting setting (or several) but wait for some action or light to appear, you just take a picture to help memorize the spot and the framing.

    Just an idea out of a thousand possible applications…

  • Well lens based IS works quite well for stills and video, you can see how well it works for video just by activating the IS as you look through the view finder. Hence why even Sony uses a lens based IS system in their video cameras.

  • Well Nikon could not be considered the innovator! Their cameras are good but could never be considered innovations of the industry. They simply improve upon existing technology. While they are good at it, they are not creating much “new” technology and incorporating it in their cameras.

    Canon was the first to really push good, quality, high ISO.
    Canon was the first to really use good extremely fast primes and still has the fastest f/1.2
    Canon Introduced IS lenses to their incredible and industry leading telephoto lenses.
    The list goes on and on…

  • You may think otherwise, but still in my opinion it’s the difference between bad and worse.
    Of course it depends on the use. If you want to shoot videos quickly and without too much demands regarding the quality, just a short family video, something funny or whatever, then I agree that IS is useful. As long as you don’t move and the only shaking is the shaking of your hands (ok and maybe a bit more ;) ), which is hopefully only a few mm or less, it will work ok (better with tripod). But in the moment you start to move the camera, we talk about cm (or inches) and the IS is not enough to avoid shaking anymore.
    I’ll rather use a tripod/steadycam/dolly…

  • Thanks! Not sure most get the joke, but if you have experience reading the ‘original’ website legend (that I am) each page is loaded with this signature-esque commets so you get the sarcasm. LOL

  • Just before this escalates any further, I’d like to say neither of you is experienced enough to judge any “chimpers”. Try rolling out twenty prints a week along with monthly editorial deadlines.

  • Uh, yeah… Because you know anything about either one of us. Don’t be ignorant.

    And nothing was getting escalated. I was however, interested in why he was saying what he was saying.

  • Noooo! I just left Canon because I wanted to use a sensor based image stabilisation system with fast primes! Now that I am with Sony, don’t tell me that Canon will have in-body is now!!!

    ^^ if I leave Canon one day, it will be for Nikon, but never for sony or others brand, espcially because of few lenses choice

  • …but the list does not include in-body image stabilisation, the topic of the original post. Neither Canon nor Nikon have led the way there.

  • but canon is leading Nikon, the only other major SLR player in the current market. Thats good enough for me!

  • Neither Canon nor Nikon have any DSLR using in-body image stabilisation. How can one be leading the other in that respect?

    Canon has no production camera at all with sensor-shift image stabilisation, but Nikon put it in the Coolpix P90 a year ago. The fact that it is not in any of their DSLRs has nothing to do with the technical feasibility of the system–who would doubt that they know how to do it? They are the dominant players, so they can afford to delay the introduction of the system in an effort to sell their more expensive IS/VR lenses.

    However, it is becoming harder and harder for them to release new cameras that have significant enough improvements over the previous generation to entice existing owners to upgrade. When they run out of other ideas (video, articulating screens, improved ISO and DR, etc.), they’ll eventually have to introduce in-body stabilisation to make their sales. They will do that last of all, because that will hurt lens sales, but as soon as one does it the other will follow immediately. It would not surprise me if they both have the system ready to go, so that they can add it to the very next model they announce if their competitor blinks first.

  • Holy cow…..
    Finally Canon admit their IS-system sucks.
    In-lens IS can and will never have an edge over sensor stabilization, as in-lens only works for those lenses having the IS, but not all the other lenses one have.
    This is the same debate as what is the worlds best camere ? It is the camera you have in you hand/on your body whenever a photo opportunity appears.
    I see Canon people turning off their IS because as they say and i quote: “it only sucks more power and is too slow to react, getting too many blurred photos with it turned on because i shoot before IS is ready”

    And Canon is in front of inventions ? Hey….how many Kodak Patents do they pay for ?
    Who made AF ? And you can carry on…

    One up the thread made a move from Canon to Sony…You shouldnt worry, you are among a really nice group of people…and you can always claim better colors than Canon-users, you even have autofocus Zeiss lenses.

    Luckily i uses not only one brand of cameras…so i can luckily compare :-)

  • Sure, but it’s often not practical to carry and deploy a tripod or even a monopod, and IS is a godsend for hand-holding in low light. And while I agree a fast lens would generally be preferable to the equivalent level of IS, that’s just not possible; consider that modern IS gets you around 3 – 4 stops equivalent stability whereas a fast lens is perhaps 2 stops faster (also while the additional bokeh is welcome more often than not, sometimes you want more DOF.)

  • #2 with the US patent body because they like to file their patents there, but way, way down the list with other patent bodies like WIPO.

Leave a Reply