Image stabilization - which works better, sensor or lens shift?

On 2007-08-02 09:47:26 -0400, Pat said:

On Aug 2, 9:04 am, Bob G wrote:
Image stabilization - which works better, sensor or lens shift?

Tripod

Indeed!
--
Jim

Pete D wrote:
"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" wrote in
message ...
Pete D wrote:
"Kennedy McEwen" wrote in message
...
That is precisely the point - with in-camera IS there is no difference
on the AF when hand holding whether IS is on or off. There is a
difference in AF between hand holding and tripod mounting. With In lens
systems there IS a big difference in the AF when IS is enabled while
hand holding. You don't get that benefit with in-camera IS because the
AF sensor is unstabilised.
This well may be the case but does not show that it makes any difference
in the final result.
I track fast moving subjects often and occasionally have
IS off (forgot to turn it back on after different shot),
and I can assure you that IS on with supertelephotos
really helps stabilize the image and keeps the AF sensor
steady on the subject. With predictive AF, AF wander
results in focus shift and focus error, degrading
the final image.

Can't you turn predictive focusing off then?

Of course you can, but then you lose focus tracking on moving
subjects. Predictive AF is 20+ years old technology and
works well for action photography. You would not want to
turn it off for fast moving subjects.

With IS, the AF tracking can focus
on the subject velocity not position wander (pun intended).
Example: keep 1 AF point on the bird's eye:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...717.b-700.html
The 1/2500 sec at 700 mm meant IS probably wasn't needed for the
exposure, but it helped AF tracking.

Roger

Pretty extreme examples but does show that to improve from a basic system
that works under many "normal" conditions there is quite a premium to pay
both in improved AF systems/cameras and the huge cost of monster lenses, for
the other 99.99% however cheaper systems are working quite well.

No, these aren't extreme examples. Whether super telephoto
at large distance to short telephoto at a short distance,
for frame filling subjects, whether it be a grizzly bear
charging, or your child's first steps, the principles are
the same. When the subject fills the frame and is moving,
focus is changing rapidly, predictive autofocus gets the image,
and IS saves the AF as well as steadies the image during the
exposure.

Roger

Pete D wrote:
"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" wrote in
message ...
David Kilpatrick wrote:
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:

But people tend to NOT hand hold super telephotos. However,
they do get used with support in low light situations
from rocking/moving platforms and/or when tracking moving
subjects. In these cases, which are often the best conditions
for wildlife action (sunrise/sunset) and in lens IS is
crucial to push that envelope, both during the exposure,
and steadying the AF points for AF tracking.

Examples:
700 mm 1/100 sec:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...0264b-700.html

1,000 mm 1/10 sec (yes, 0.1 second) ISO 400:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...1500b-700.html

So the ideal solution would appear to be in-body IS to deal with
vibration, a non-stabilised lens to ensure maximum sharpness and
resolution, and an external stabiliser - a gyro/gimbal mount as used for
movies under the same conditions. Then you get the stability of viewing,
the floating smooth camera handling, stable AF, plus counteraction of any
transmitted human or vehicle tremor/vibration.

At the moment, you can't limit the frequency range of AF response. It
would be ideal to have the sensor operating in the 10-100Hz region and
the lens stabilising 0.5Hz to 10Hz but neither system allows limiting -
yet.

I guess that if Nikon or Canon ever use sensor stabilisation, they could
make it react properly with lens stabilisation - unlike the Olympus
example, the only current system where you can enable both, which just
makes a huge mess if you do so.

David
I disagree with your multi level solution for a couple of reasons.
I work in the field and battery power and weight are a consideration.
A gyro and its power to stabilize a 500mm super telephoto
would simply be too much added weight and power.
Why add all this weight to compensate for a system that
already works well (in lens IS)?

Roger

Works well, mmmm, don't want any improvements? Surely that can't be true? If
that was the case Roger you would still be shooting with a Box Brownie.

Now you're just being plain stupid. Go find out what
the weight of a gyro system would be that would stabilize
a 500mm f/4 telephoto plus 1D Mark II camera (weight
around 10 pounds) plus estimate how many batteries
would be needed to operate a day in the field,
operating in the on position for 6 hours. Add that
to typical photo pack of 50 pounds. When you've got the
total weight of the gyro and battery get back to us.

Roger

Pete D wrote:
"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" wrote in
message ...
Pete D wrote:
"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" wrote
in message ...
Alan Browne wrote:
Kennedy McEwen wrote:
How many in-camera stabilisation systems also stabilise the
viewfinder?
Answer: 0

In-lens systems stabilise the image presented to the sensor, the AF
and the viewfinder. In-camera systems stabilise the sensor only.
This last point is a non issue. I have never had focus hunt with in
camera stabilization.
It is an issue when tracking fast moving subjects that fill
the frame. IS on large telephotos makes tracking and holding
the AF point on the subject much easier.

Roger
'And it is likely only to work on the more premium cameras with superior
AF systems anyway.
It works on Canon D60, 10D, 20D, 30D, hardly premium cameras.

Roger

LOL, sure, they are all rubbish.

Now you are trolling, and it is becoming obvious that
this thread is really about your bias and need to justify
your purchase of in camera IS. You are becoming more
hostile as evidence mounts that IS in lens does better.
Your comment above is totally unjustified.

You are now a troll and I will no longer respond.

Roger

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" wrote in
message ...
Pete D wrote:
"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" wrote
in message ...
Pete D wrote:
"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)"
wrote in message ...
Alan Browne wrote:
Kennedy McEwen wrote:
How many in-camera stabilisation systems also stabilise the
viewfinder?
Answer: 0

In-lens systems stabilise the image presented to the sensor, the AF
and the viewfinder. In-camera systems stabilise the sensor only.
This last point is a non issue. I have never had focus hunt with in
camera stabilization.
It is an issue when tracking fast moving subjects that fill
the frame. IS on large telephotos makes tracking and holding
the AF point on the subject much easier.

Roger
'And it is likely only to work on the more premium cameras with
superior AF systems anyway.
It works on Canon D60, 10D, 20D, 30D, hardly premium cameras.

Roger

LOL, sure, they are all rubbish.

Now you are trolling, and it is becoming obvious that
this thread is really about your bias and need to justify
your purchase of in camera IS. You are becoming more
hostile as evidence mounts that IS in lens does better.
Your comment above is totally unjustified.

You are now a troll and I will no longer respond.

Roger

No Roger I have agreed with everyone I have just asked for some data that
shows how each system performs and no one has any, they have lots of
feelings and we know for sure that at long sizes in lens is better but you
of all people should be able to quantify the goodness level. If you think I
am trolling because of that then so be it.

Should I have added this ;-) ?

Pete

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" wrote in
message ...
Pete D wrote:
"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" wrote
in message ...
David Kilpatrick wrote:
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:

But people tend to NOT hand hold super telephotos. However,
they do get used with support in low light situations
from rocking/moving platforms and/or when tracking moving
subjects. In these cases, which are often the best conditions
for wildlife action (sunrise/sunset) and in lens IS is
crucial to push that envelope, both during the exposure,
and steadying the AF points for AF tracking.

Examples:
700 mm 1/100 sec:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...0264b-700.html

1,000 mm 1/10 sec (yes, 0.1 second) ISO 400:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...1500b-700.html

So the ideal solution would appear to be in-body IS to deal with
vibration, a non-stabilised lens to ensure maximum sharpness and
resolution, and an external stabiliser - a gyro/gimbal mount as used
for movies under the same conditions. Then you get the stability of
viewing, the floating smooth camera handling, stable AF, plus
counteraction of any transmitted human or vehicle tremor/vibration.

At the moment, you can't limit the frequency range of AF response. It
would be ideal to have the sensor operating in the 10-100Hz region and
the lens stabilising 0.5Hz to 10Hz but neither system allows limiting -
yet.

I guess that if Nikon or Canon ever use sensor stabilisation, they
could make it react properly with lens stabilisation - unlike the
Olympus example, the only current system where you can enable both,
which just makes a huge mess if you do so.

David
I disagree with your multi level solution for a couple of reasons.
I work in the field and battery power and weight are a consideration.
A gyro and its power to stabilize a 500mm super telephoto
would simply be too much added weight and power.
Why add all this weight to compensate for a system that
already works well (in lens IS)?

Roger

Works well, mmmm, don't want any improvements? Surely that can't be true?
If that was the case Roger you would still be shooting with a Box
Brownie.

Now you're just being plain stupid. Go find out what
the weight of a gyro system would be that would stabilize
a 500mm f/4 telephoto plus 1D Mark II camera (weight
around 10 pounds) plus estimate how many batteries
would be needed to operate a day in the field,
operating in the on position for 6 hours. Add that
to typical photo pack of 50 pounds. When you've got the
total weight of the gyro and battery get back to us.

Roger

Whatever!! Carrying a 1DsMkII is far too much weight for me, so there you
go.

In article
, Pete D
writes

Must be true cos you say so???? Where is the evidnce other than taking what
you say on faith alone.

No, quite the opposite. It isn't true just because I say so and linking
to a web page that suggested one system was on average 2x better than
the other would not make it any more true. Anything can and often is
published on the web. It is true because I have provided you with a
very precise set of conditions under which you can INDEPENDENTLY
REPLICATE and VERIFY the benefit of in-lens over in-camera systems FOR
YOURSELF. That is much more that whether I say it is true, whether I
believe it is true or whether dozens of web pages suggest it is true.

However, you have made it clear that this is a pointless discussion
since every example which has been cited where in-lens is demonstrably
better than in-camera solutions has solicited an "I never encounter that
situation" response from you. So for you, the question is entirely moot
- you have made your purchase and are attempting to justify it. Either
system would work as well for you as a 1/4" Whitworth bolt looped on a
taught cord around your foot.

If you want to find the difference then you need to exercise each system
to the point where those differences become apparent. There is no more
point to living in both systems comfort zone than there is in buying
good prime glass instead of a kit zoom lens if you only ever print 6x4".
There is no point in asking the question of which IS is better if you
never shoot under the conditions or with the lenses and cameras where
that difference becomes apparent and, indeed, rather obvious.

You have made it eminently clear that you only work in the comfort zone,
so your question it entirely irrelevant to your circumstances. Outside
of your comfort zone, you have bought the wrong IS system, but you'll
never know.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

"Pete D" wrote in message
...

"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
...

"nospam" wrote in message
...
In article
, Pete D
wrote:

You don't have to read them all, just the page on the link. German mag
Fotocolor did some testing and that was the results.

Here it is.

In the recent German FotoColor is a test of vibration reduction
systems.
The Sony A100, the Pentax K10D, the D80 with the 18-200VR and the 30D
with
17-55IS were tested. The test was done with a shaker. A movement
similar
to camera shake was applyed with a frequency of 2 Hz and 4 Hz. The
focal
lenght was about 35 mm (equivalent), the time was 1/2sec and 1/4 sec.
First a picture was done without shake, than with shake and shake
reduction. The sharpness of the reference picture was compared to the
shaked camera with shake reduction. The resulting sharpness was
still:
Pentax K10D--------85% D80 + 18-200VR---78% 30D + 17-55IS------77%
Sony
A100-----------51% in comparison to the 100% of the unshaked camera.

*only* 35mm? you've *got* to be kidding me. what happened to the rest
of the focal lengths? try 400mm in-lens versus in-camera and let's see
how they compare...

Just so. The fact that only results at 35mm are mentioned makes it look
like they're trying to cook the results. Who would use such a short f.l.
only and expect to arrive at a meaningful conclusion?

If you read the responses to that in the forum, you'll see that somebody
named John Bean (who must be the most patient guy in the world) tried
again and again to point out how meaningless this test was for that
reason, but got almost nothing but stupid replies from people who'd
accepted it as "proof" that in-body stabilization is better than in-lens.

Neil

Agree, but did you see Alans testing?

No, I did not.

Neil

"Pete D" wrote in message
...

"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
. ..

"Pete D" wrote in message
...

"Kennedy McEwen" wrote in message
...
In article
, Pete D
writes

"Somebody" wrote in message
...
Lens works a bit better.

Data? Tests? Proof? Just what you think? Guessing?

How many in-camera stabilisation systems also stabilise the AF sensor?
Answer: 0

How many in-camera stabilisation systems also stabilise the viewfinder?
Answer: 0

In-lens systems stabilise the image presented to the sensor, the AF and
the viewfinder. In-camera systems stabilise the sensor only.

Even if in-camera systems could be made to work as well as in-lens
systems it isn't much use if your image is bouncing around in the
viewfinder too much to catch the perfect moment or for the AF system to
lock accurately or even onto the desired point of focus at all.

For these reasons alone, in-lens stabilisation will always be superior
to in-camera stabilisation.

Not a photographer are you? Never used a camera have you?

What a bloody weird thing to say!!


What he says makes perfect sense to me, and I've used cameras for well
over 50 years.

Neil

You have seen images "bouncing around"? Cool, never seen this effect
myslef!

Try using a 300mm lens (especially on an APS-C format camera) hand held,
standing, with nothing to brace against. That ought to do it for you.

Neil

On Wed, 8 Aug 2007 16:27:23 +1000, "Pete D"
wrote:


"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" wrote in
message ...
Pete D wrote:
"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" wrote
in message ...
Pete D wrote:
"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)"
wrote in message ...
Alan Browne wrote:
Kennedy McEwen wrote:
How many in-camera stabilisation systems also stabilise the
viewfinder?
Answer: 0

In-lens systems stabilise the image presented to the sensor, the AF
and the viewfinder. In-camera systems stabilise the sensor only.
This last point is a non issue. I have never had focus hunt with in
camera stabilization.
It is an issue when tracking fast moving subjects that fill
the frame. IS on large telephotos makes tracking and holding
the AF point on the subject much easier.

Roger
'And it is likely only to work on the more premium cameras with
superior AF systems anyway.
It works on Canon D60, 10D, 20D, 30D, hardly premium cameras.

Roger

LOL, sure, they are all rubbish.

Now you are trolling, and it is becoming obvious that
this thread is really about your bias and need to justify
your purchase of in camera IS. You are becoming more
hostile as evidence mounts that IS in lens does better.
Your comment above is totally unjustified.

You are now a troll and I will no longer respond.

Roger

No Roger I have agreed with everyone I have just asked for some data that
shows how each system performs and no one has any, they have lots of
feelings and we know for sure that at long sizes in lens is better but you
of all people should be able to quantify the goodness level. If you think I
am trolling because of that then so be it.

Should I have added this ;-) ?

Pete



I have had the Pentax K10D and the Nikon D80. I used both for some
time with zoom lens up to 300mm. My experience is that the Nikon with
VR lens yields better results at shutter speeds down to 1/8 than the
Pentax with in-body IS. Not scientific, but sufficient to keep the
Nikon and sell the Pentax.