why havent they??

T

tezmed

Dangerous to bathrooms
Messages
783
Name
terry
Edit My Images
Yes
all manufacturers of all lens are producing cheaper lens without optical stabilizers and more expensive lens with the optical stabilizers present etc....


why has no one created some kind of universal device/tripod head that could give the results of os to the user without having it on the lens.... maybe even using/adapting the body in some way....


i only say as havent seen anything (more than likely because it doesnt exist), but it could be desirable to pay for universal os once than specifically for each and every lens....
 
it's mainly to avoid shake when handholding
Click to expand...

if someone made up a gel hand grip then the image stabilisation would be better.... less vibrations etc a simple idea but no where to be seen- unless i coming up with bad ideas whilst being sleep deprived
 
Pentax have the optical stabilisation built into the camera body and it works with any lens.
I believe it involves moving the sensor to counter camera shake.
 
Along with Pentax I think Sony, Samsung and Fuji also use in camera IS.

Very nice to have IS with all lenses.

Dave
 
Could always get one of the gyro stabilised outfits that they use for outside broadcasts!!
 
Minolta invented in body sensor shift stabilisation something like 10 years ago (first production body the Dynax 7D out in 2004). Sony still use this system following their acquisition of KM's DSLR business.
Subsequently, Pentax & Olympus developed their own similar systems which they still use.
Samsung used Pentax's system on their bodies that were essentially clones of Pentax ones but I believe that they no longer do since they started developing their own unique bodies.
 
tezmed said:
if someone made up a gel hand grip then the image stabilisation would be better.... less vibrations etc a simple idea but no where to be seen- unless i coming up with bad ideas whilst being sleep deprived
Click to expand...

You would need a different gel for each lens/body/person as the damping effect would have to take lens/body weight and amount of vibration into account to be effective. A non-starter I think.

In-lens stabilisation is (if the marketing hype is true) supposed to be better than in-body as it can be tuned for the individual lens type. Dunno if it's true, or not, but I do know that both Nikon and Sigma produce lenses with stabilisation that work :)
 
tezmed said:
all manufacturers of all lens are producing cheaper lens without optical stabilizers and more expensive lens with the optical stabilizers present etc....
Click to expand...

I don't think this is actually true. Whenever Nikon bring out a version of a lens with VR it is to replace the older, non-VR version not to suppliment it. Can't comment on other manufacturers though.

It is true that there are still non-VR lenses in Nikon's line-up but they don't have direct VR equivalents.
 
Optical image stabilisation is specific to and optimised for individual lenses. That's why it's better than in-camera systems.

It's not particularly expensive to produce, and is fitted to the cheapest kit zooms.
 
To some extent, the heavier the body/lens combination, the less it's affected by vibration but the flipside is that the user may vibrate more as they try to lift a system they're not pyhsically able to carry and hold properly.

In lens VR/OS/IS has one big advantage over in body - you can see it working through the viewfinder but, in body has the advantage that it works with all lenses. You generally don't get the choice between the 2 systems but when you do, it's often easier to turn off the lens's stabilization since the in body can need to be turned off via menus rather than an easy switch. However, a friend with a Pentax usually switches the in body system off because he finds the lenses' systems work better.
 
HoppyUK said:
Optical image stabilisation is specific to and optimised for individual lenses. That's why it's better than in-camera systems.
Click to expand...
there is no reason that in-body can't be tailored to individual lenses - all it requires is a look up table similar to that already used for lens correction in modern bodies. Body manufacturers are unlikely to implement that for 3rd party lenses though.

Nod said:
In lens VR/OS/IS has one big advantage over in body - you can see it working through the viewfinder
Click to expand...
actually some in-body systems do this as well e.g. Olympus's OM-D EM5.
Also, some people may suffer from something akin to motion sickness when viewing through a stabilised vf - this is 1 reason that Canon recently introduced a new mode on it's latest IS lenses that switches this off.
 
Last edited:
heidfirst said:
there is no reason that in-body can't be tailored to individual lenses - all it requires is a look up table similar to that already used for lens correction in modern bodies. Body manufacturers are unlikely to implement that for 3rd party lenses though.
Click to expand...

The problem with in-body IS is longer lenses that require more movement than in-body systems can manage.

actually some in-body systems do this as well e.g. Olympus's OM-D EM5.
Also, some people may suffer from something akin to motion sickness when viewing through a stabilised vf - this is 1 reason that Canon recently introduced a new mode on it's latest IS lenses that switches this off.
Click to expand...

Yes, if you have an electronic viewfinder, in-body sensor-shift IS can stabilise this as well. As for motion sickness, that's often put forward as a reason against in-lens IS. It's nonsense.
 
HoppyUK said:
The problem with in-body IS is longer lenses that require more movement than in-body systems can manage.
Click to expand...
Not convinced, sorry. *
IBIS works on 400 & 500mm lenses in my own (& others) experience. By the time that you are at 600mm+ I would imagine that if possible you are looking for some kind of support anyway (but the guys with Minolta 600/4s say that it works with those too).
You can't believe everything that companies with opposing technologies say - Canon said that it wasn't possible to have sensor-shift stabilisation with a FF (35mm) sensor but guess what, Sony did it.

As for motion sickness, that's often put forward as a reason against in-lens IS. It's nonsense.
Click to expand...
well, some people definitely suffer from it & Canon have introduced a mode on some IS lenses that switches off vf stabilisation so they must have a reason to do that ...

* upon reflection I can see a potential for this with an FF sensor but not when using an APS-C sensor in an FF mount i.e. Alpha or Pentax K.

We are also approaching an era when stabilisation may not be done by physical means at all - Sony have already switched to electronic stabilisation for video, Lytro are looking at changing focus after the fact etc. etc.
Just found this too http://yuzhikov.com/articles/BlurredImagesRestoration1.htm
 
Last edited:
How can an SLR (which is true WYSIWYG) have it's viewfinder stabilisation switched off? Or are you talking about compacts/bridges? My wife suffers from motion sickness but has never had a problem when using my Nikon VR lens. It also has a mode where the VR is disabled to stop the VF motion (or lack thereof) - it's the Off switch.
 
Nod said:
How can an SLR (which is true WYSIWYG) have it's viewfinder stabilisation switched off? Or are you talking about compacts/bridges? My wife suffers from motion sickness but has never had a problem when using my Nikon VR lens. It also has a mode where the VR is disabled to stop the VF motion (or lack thereof) - it's the Off switch.
Click to expand...
the lens IS is still switched on but only actually activates upon shutter release so prior to shutter release the vf is not stabilised. Canon call it Mode 3.
 
Doesn't that result in missing the moment? Most in lens OS/VR takes a few milliseconds to stabilise the image, by which time the action could be past and missed?
 
heidfirst said:
the lens IS is still switched on but only actually activates upon shutter release so prior to shutter release the vf is not stabilised. Canon call it Mode 3.
Click to expand...

Canons' mode 3 IS is to assist with panning, nothing to do with motion sickness.
 
Nod said:
Doesn't that result in missing the moment? Most in lens OS/VR takes a few milliseconds to stabilise the image, by which time the action could be past and missed?
Click to expand...
Ask Canon.

HoppyUK said:
Canons' mode 3 IS is to assist with panning, nothing to do with motion sickness.
Click to expand...
so what you are saying then (or rather Canon are) is that an unstabilised vf is better than a stabilised one at least for panning ...
But wait, Mode 2 IS was for panning ... " To resolve this problem, Canon developed Optical Image Stabilizer Mode 2. In this mode, if you move the lens to follow a subject for a pre-determined time, the Optical Image Stabilizer continues to correct any camera shake that's perpendicular to the panning motion. However, the Optical Image Stabilizer doesn’t try to correct for the intentional panning, giving you a smooth viewfinder image as you follow the moving subject."
http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/standard_display/Lens_Advantage_IS

Bear in mind what I said previously about believing everything that companies say.- Canon no doubt are aware that a proportion of users are uncomfortable with a stabilised vf but actually saying that we've developed a solution for you could potentially magnify the issue & be counterproductive.
I've got nearly 30 years in sales & marketing (incl. working for Agfa & Canon & several other blue chip multinationals) upto & incl. director level - I know how the games are played out. ;)
 
heidfirst said:
Ask Canon.


so what you are saying then (or rather Canon are) is that an unstabilised vf is better than a stabilised one at least for panning ...
But wait, Mode 2 IS was for panning ... " To resolve this problem, Canon developed Optical Image Stabilizer Mode 2. In this mode, if you move the lens to follow a subject for a pre-determined time, the Optical Image Stabilizer continues to correct any camera shake that's perpendicular to the panning motion. However, the Optical Image Stabilizer doesn’t try to correct for the intentional panning, giving you a smooth viewfinder image as you follow the moving subject."
http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/standard_display/Lens_Advantage_IS

Bear in mind what I said previously about believing everything that companies say.- Canon no doubt are aware that a proportion of users are uncomfortable with a stabilised vf but actually saying that we've developed a solution for you could potentially magnify the issue & be counterproductive.
I've got nearly 30 years in sales & marketing (incl. working for Agfa & Canon & several other blue chip multinationals) upto & incl. director level - I know how the games are played out. ;)
Click to expand...

Mode 3 IS is only available on four of Canon's best super-primes, the cheapest of which is over £5k. Are you seriously suggesting that Canon has developed Mode-3 IS, not for the reasons actually stated to improve panning performance, but in fact to stop users feeling sick?

Check this user review, from someone that has actually spent some time shooting with Mode-3 IS. It improved his hit rate, and no mention of motion sickness http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-300mm-f-2.8-L-IS-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
 
They are also the most recently developed. It will trickle down as lenses are updated.
Call me a cynic but you learn to look for the story behind the story ;)

You can't deny (because it's there in b+w on their own page) that Canon says that Mode 2 is better for panning because it has a smooth (i.e. stabilised) vf & then comes out with Mode 3 is better for panning because it has inactive stabilisation (i.e. an unstabilised vf) until shutter release.
The "motion sickness" affect is real for some people although I don't deny it's only a minority.
The other possible reason for Mode 3 is to counter the perception that in-lens stabilisation is less suited to grab shots than in-body due to the normal settling time for the optics.

btw the chap behind the digital picture is regarded as 1 of the biggest Canon fanboi/shills going ... he's not exactly consider to be unbiased.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top