Image Stabilizers

Y

yeoboy

Messages
468
Name
Bruce
Edit My Images
Yes
Have been using a Lumix FZ18 and amaxed at the images at max range, question is, What DSLR could i upgrade to that would have IS built in to the body and have a mininmum of about 12mp, The lens will probably break the bank!!
 
Olympus too - 3 stop advantage on the lower models (E-520, E-620), 5 stop advantage on the upper ones (E-3, E-30).

They also have a sensor dust reduction system that actually works...
 
Sony and Olympus ehh, Any disadvantages with the 2 thirds system when sourcing third party lenses price wise to use on the Olympus, Have seen great reductions on the Olympus DSLR range here and there, Thanks Andy.
 
yeoboy said:
Sony and Olympus ehh, Any disadvantages with the 2 thirds system when sourcing third party lenses price wise to use on the Olympus, Have seen great reductions on the Olympus DSLR range here and there, Thanks Andy.
Click to expand...

The fourthirds system and lack of options from third party makers other than Sigma is overstated. The lens range is comprehensive and when you have glass of the quality that Olympus make, I don't see the need to look elsewhere. And yes, they do make lenses for the cost-conscious too. Their 'standard' grade lenses are better than competitors basic ranges. For example, the 9-18mm wide-angle is better than a lot of premium lenses costing a lot more!

Andy
 
Found the e-600 at £329,Appears to be exclusive to Curry`s but a feature range thats impressive and good pics at 200-400, Getting less so above like most I guess.
 
Hey Scott, I was in Honiton last night, Will check Pentax out b/4 I get an Olympus, My first SLR was a Pentax Spotmatic!!
 
Found a K10d body for £250 with a 6 month guarantee, Kind of like the Olympus E-600 ***, Just retired so have time to develop my life time hobby really, I enjoy the use of the Lumix because of its 18x optical zoom for birds and wildlife but struggle with macro, Went to Thailand last year and shot a 1,000 pics, My orchid shots cried out for a DSLR!!
 
scottthehat said:
what is your budget if you dont mind me asking also the k10 is very well weather sealed and pentax do a good range of sealed lenses from 79 pound and up
Click to expand...

I dont have a budget as such, But looking for a bargain body really, Problem will be the cost of a long focus lens, So, Maybe the greater availability of 2nd hand glass would tip me away from the two thirds system.
 
I've used a Samsung GX10 in the past, pretty good - it's just a rebadged Pentax K10D with the exception that it only uses RAW in .DNG format

I now use the Pentax K20D which I find excellent, IS is very effective, great image detail for landscapes and produces lower image noise then the K10D/GX10. Pentax also offer some very good lenses although new ones are now a bit pricey after recent price hikes, wide range of used ones around though
 
Chaz Photos said:
For me IS in the lens is best, it can detect movement much better at the point where there is greater movement. The body will move but not as much as say a 400mm lens will in the body of the lens.
Click to expand...

That's just not true! The IS system is quite near the body, and as tests quite conclusively prove, it isn't better. Most lens-based systems give less benefit. The in-lens systems add optical complexity and can reduce the sharpness of the lens overall, as well as making them less reliable. Most lens-based systems give 2-3 stops benefit, with the rare exception giving 4 stops. The body-based system on the Olympus E-3 is rated at 5 stops. It is worth remembering that all manufacturers over-claim, but the relative performance of the systems would appear to hold true.
 
yeoboy said:
Found the e-600 at £329,Appears to be exclusive to Curry`s but a feature range thats impressive and good pics at 200-400, Getting less so above like most I guess.
Click to expand...

It's fourthirds, not two thirds!!

It's quite usable at 800-1600 depending on how high you want to crop. The dynamic range and colour clarity is good. This review of the E-620 is pretty comprehensive: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/OlympusE620/. (The 600 is a slightly reduced functionality version of the 620, but basically the same camera)

The kit glass with the Olympus is sharper than most of the competitors. There's plenty of long reach sigma glass available second hand.

Check out my picasa pages to see what Olympus gear can achieve...
 
Whichever camera body you go for, it might be worth considering an older manual focus lens (e.g a Nikon 300mm f2.8 or 400 f3.5) for long tele work. They will work with Pentax and Olympus with an appropriate adapter and will give you top-drawer optics for under £1000 if you wait for a bargain on ebay. I used both a Nikkor 300/2.8 and Zuiko 350/2.8 before getting my new autofocus Zuiko 300/2.8 with excellent results.

They will generally stand teleconverters much better than cheaper zoom lenses, and are obviously brighter too (downside is the lack of AF and weight).

Andy

This was taken with the Zuiko 350mm f2.8:
P9027500.jpg
 
AndyElliott said:
That's just not true! The IS system is quite near the body, and as tests quite conclusively prove, it isn't better. Most lens-based systems give less benefit. The in-lens systems add optical complexity and can reduce the sharpness of the lens overall, as well as making them less reliable. Most lens-based systems give 2-3 stops benefit, with the rare exception giving 4 stops. The body-based system on the Olympus E-3 is rated at 5 stops. It is worth remembering that all manufacturers over-claim, but the relative performance of the systems would appear to hold true.
Click to expand...

According to a Canon PDF I came across there is a problem with body based image stabilistion systems. They're fine for relatively short focal lengths but become impracticable on very long lenses due to the amount of sensor movement required to compensate for any camera shake. In a lens based system, the amount of movement required is much less so long lenses are much easier to handle.

Mind you, Canon are trying to sell lens-based systems so they are ever so slightly biased in their opinions. I would be interested to here the views of any optical engineers out there on this issue.
 
AndyElliott said:
That's just not true! The IS system is quite near the body, and as tests quite conclusively prove, it isn't better. Most lens-based systems give less benefit. The in-lens systems add optical complexity and can reduce the sharpness of the lens overall, as well as making them less reliable. Most lens-based systems give 2-3 stops benefit, with the rare exception giving 4 stops. The body-based system on the Olympus E-3 is rated at 5 stops. It is worth remembering that all manufacturers over-claim, but the relative performance of the systems would appear to hold true.
Click to expand...

Forgive me if I am wrong but don't ' in camera' IS systems use the sensor to 'stabilize' images which can introduce unecessary noise?
 
trencheel303 said:
Forgive me if I am wrong but don't ' in camera' IS systems use the sensor to 'stabilize' images which can introduce unecessary noise?
Click to expand...

How so? They don't affect the operation of the sensor. They could only introduce noise if they caused power fluctuations, which clearly they don't. The sensor is mechanically moved - there are no effects on the digital output.
 
alexhcowley said:
According to a Canon PDF I came across there is a problem with body based image stabilistion systems. They're fine for relatively short focal lengths but become impracticable on very long lenses due to the amount of sensor movement required to compensate for any camera shake. In a lens based system, the amount of movement required is much less so long lenses are much easier to handle.

Mind you, Canon are trying to sell lens-based systems so they are ever so slightly biased in their opinions. I would be interested to here the views of any optical engineers out there on this issue.
Click to expand...

That sounds like rot! I can hand hold a 300mm (600mm equiv) with IS turned on and shoot at 1/30s or slower - definitely not true with IS off. It may be true that they get impractical with full-frame sensors (heavier and higher inertia), but there is no particular hard limit. In actual fact, the sensor is much lighter than a chunk of glass and should be able to react faster to movement changes than an in-lens system. Obviously you can beef up the actuators that move those components, but that must have an impact on power drain too.

Sounds like marketing guff to me. I have also hand-held a 500mm mirror lens with a 1.4x TC (okay, a stupid idea), but the IS did not seem to suffer. For manual lenses where you need to set the IS focal length, Olympus will allow you to configure a lens up to 1000mm (2000mm equivalent). If that isn't a long lens, I don't know what is! :D

Andy
 
What concerns me more on the in-lens systems is the additional optical complexity and the reliability of those systems. It makes me wonder how many of the 'bad copies' of lenses are down to problems in misalignment of the IS lens components.
 
AndyElliott said:
That's just not true! The IS system is quite near the body, and as tests quite conclusively prove, it isn't better. Most lens-based systems give less benefit. The in-lens systems add optical complexity and can reduce the sharpness of the lens overall, as well as making them less reliable. Most lens-based systems give 2-3 stops benefit, with the rare exception giving 4 stops. The body-based system on the Olympus E-3 is rated at 5 stops. It is worth remembering that all manufacturers over-claim, but the relative performance of the systems would appear to hold true.
Click to expand...

can you point me to this info i like to read it thank you
 
scottthehat said:
i could hand hold my k20d with my 170-500mm at 500mm 1/80th sec no probs,
my nikon d300 and sigma 150-500mm i struggle with any thing under 1/200th.

also i have seen a review of the 150-500mm stating with the os turned of it is shaper.
Click to expand...

Indeed - the idea that in-body IS is somehow less effective on long lenses is just not born out by the practise. Maybe it was slightly true years ago when Canon decided to put the IS in the lenses (although I suspect that may have been 70% motivated by getting people to spend money on new lenses!). I have heard the contrary for the Sony system, whereby it seems to be less effective on shorter lenses, but I have no direct experience.

Andy
 
AndyElliott said:
How so? They don't affect the operation of the sensor. They could only introduce noise if they caused power fluctuations, which clearly they don't. The sensor is mechanically moved - there are no effects on the digital output.
Click to expand...
but the movement will be using current which might cause noise
 
Chaz Photos said:
but the movement will be using current which might cause noise
Click to expand...

But it doesn't... you can quite easily demonstrate with IS on and off that the sensor characteristic is the same. This would be a schoolboy error for an electronics engineer if this was not the case. And in any case, so would the in-lens system, which is served from the same batteries and is likely to draw higher current because of the relative weight of the sensor vs the glass element/element-groups in the lens-based IS.

Andy
 
AndyElliott said:
But it doesn't... you can quite easily demonstrate with IS on and off that the sensor characteristic is the same. This would be a schoolboy error for an electronics engineer if this was not the case. And in any case, so would the in-lens system, which is served from the same batteries and is likely to draw higher current because of the relative weight of the sensor vs the glass element/element-groups in the lens-based IS.

Andy
Click to expand...

but in lens is not attached to the sensor and as it will be moving in more then one way it will be like an ac current.
 
AndyElliott said:
The sensor is mechanically moved .
Click to expand...

Right, I never knew that the sensor physically moved, I thought it was some in camera processing trickery that tried to remove blur after the shot was taken. I was sure I read somewhere that in camera IS can cause noise. Seems like a better idea, would mean all my age old lenses could be used at lower shutter speeds since none of my 'active kit' has IS.
 
taken from the pentax k7.

New-generation SR mechanism for improved shake-reduction effect
The K-7 features the PENTAX-developed SR (Shake Reduction) mechanism, which effectively compensates the adverse effect of camera shake by approximately 2.5 to four shutter steps, assuring sharp, blur-free images even under demanding shooting conditions. This innovative mechanism is compatible with all PENTAX interchangeable lenses - even most of the lenses designed for film-format cameras.* Since this new-generation version can freely shift the image-sensor unit to keep it level regardless of the camera's inclination, it also provides such user-friendly new functions as automatic level adjustment and minute angle adjustment (in the direction of up/down, right/left and clockwise/counterclockwise), helping to compose the image exactly the way the photographer wants.
 
Chaz Photos said:
can you point me to this info i like to read it thank you
Click to expand...

The original Canon IS systems quote between 2 and 3 stops benefit in their specifications. The later lenses like the new 100mm f2.8 USM IS macro specify 4 stops - and state that this is a 'new system'. Canon also say that only a 2 stop benefit should be expected at higher magnifications (I reading most of this sort of third hand from DPReview). Olympus claim up to 5 stops (depending on lens focal length) for the E-3 and up to 4 on the E-620.

Some review sites, like DPReview, do attempt to review the effectiveness of the IS systems. Their approach has merits, but is somewhat subjective.

All of the reviews I have read which take into account IS performance seem to be happy that they are effective, but never seem to quite get to the level of performance the manufacturer claims.

Some more info on IS is to be found on Wikipedia, and seems to make sense:

Body IS: Disadvantage of not seeing the effect in the viewfinder and may not benefit AF performance. I've not seen the lack of effect in the viewfinder to be particularly a problem. The AF lack of benefit is very difficult to ascertain as the different camera systems have quite different AF systems with difference capabilities anyway. Again, not something I have noticed as a problem and I shoot a lot of birds in flight - something that would show this up if it was a practical problem.

Lens IS: Also, because light passing through the lens is shifted from its true optical path when it projects out the rear element onto the sensor, poor 'Bokeh' can result. This is the subjective quality, but highly valued by professional photographers, of the out-of-focus area around an image. In-body image stabilization does not have this problem because the light is not altered, only the sensor's position. I think this is another tricky one to ascertain, but I have seen examples where it can cause weird diagonal striping to the bokeh. This was taken with a 50D and a 300 f4 IS lens with the 1.4x TC: http://www.flickr.com/photos/sarahlefley/4368427093/

Andy
 
trencheel303 said:
Right, I never knew that the sensor physically moved, I thought it was some in camera processing trickery that tried to remove blur after the shot was taken. I was sure I read somewhere that in camera IS can cause noise. Seems like a better idea, would mean all my age old lenses could be used at lower shutter speeds since none of my 'active kit' has IS.
Click to expand...

That is the big benefit - any lens, no matter how old, has IS.
 
Chaz Photos said:
but in lens is not attached to the sensor and as it will be moving in more then one way it will be like an ac current.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I understand you correctly...

You will only get an inductive effect on the sensor if it is moved in a magnetic field (and then only on the connecting wires). The actuators for the IS sit either side of the sensor and do not create a magnetic field around it.

It is also worth saying the relative frequency of the IS (relatively low) and the sensor transmission(very high) are so different in magnitude that and signal cross-talk seems very unlikely.
 
Its been fascinating seeing the posts and I looked at your pics Andy, I was very impressed, My bridge Lumix FZ18 achieves results that could be bettered but, It looks like a spend of over £1000 and more to get 18x!! Thanks for all comments, I may well get an E-600 and wait for a long telephoto.
 
yeoboy said:
Its been fascinating seeing the posts and I looked at your pics Andy, I was very impressed, My bridge Lumix FZ18 achieves results that could be bettered but, It looks like a spend of over £1000 and more to get 18x!! Thanks for all comments, I may well get an E-600 and wait for a long telephoto.
Click to expand...

18x is the range of the zoom, not the maximum magnification. Given it starts out at the wide-angle, the maximum for the FZ-18 is 504mm equivalent. This means about a 250mm on the fourthirds bodies.

You could get the E-600 and the 70-300mm zoom and get the same range for well under £1000.

Andy
 
yeoboy said:
Have been using a Lumix FZ18 and amaxed at the images at max range, question is, What DSLR could i upgrade to that would have IS built in to the body and have a mininmum of about 12mp, The lens will probably break the bank!!
Click to expand...

...and with a DSLR you dont really have to worry about megapixels, this isnt where your picture quality comes from!
 
I personally don't think in-body IS is as effective as in-lens IS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top