A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital SLR Cameras
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Are IS lenses doomed ?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 11th 07, 07:16 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
VC
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9
Default Are IS lenses doomed ?

The release of Sony Alpha with the image stabilization in camera ( although
this is not new) highlighted the fundamental problem with Canon.
Canon have had IS lenses long ago as it would be very difficult to do
in-camera stabilization in film cameras. The digital cameras had to support
older lenses including the ones with IS. If Canon developed a camera with
in-body stabilization it would hurt Canon sales and reputation.
So I guess Canon will continue with its nonstabilized bodies and when Sony
or someone else will achieve the same image sensor quality Canon will find
itself in a very difficult situation.
There is a very small advantage in having IS in the lens but it is not
significant enough to grant double and triple cost of the same quality
lenses.
What do you guys think ?


  #2  
Old January 11th 07, 07:22 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
MarkČ
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,185
Default Are IS lenses doomed ?

VC wrote:
The release of Sony Alpha with the image stabilization in camera (
although this is not new) highlighted the fundamental problem with
Canon. Canon have had IS lenses long ago as it would be very difficult to
do
in-camera stabilization in film cameras. The digital cameras had to
support older lenses including the ones with IS. If Canon developed a
camera with in-body stabilization it would hurt Canon sales and
reputation. So I guess Canon will continue with its nonstabilized bodies
and when
Sony or someone else will achieve the same image sensor quality Canon
will find itself in a very difficult situation.
There is a very small advantage in having IS in the lens but it is not
significant enough to grant double and triple cost of the same quality
lenses.
What do you guys think ?


Until someone comes up with a sensor-based IS that is as effective as Canon
and Nikon IS/VR at all focal lengths, they have nothing to worry about save
for Sony's less-than-honest marketing tactics.

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by MarkČ at:
www.pbase.com/markuson


  #3  
Old January 11th 07, 09:19 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 37
Default Are IS lenses doomed ?

because in-camera IS would /eventually/ kill off their market for IS
lenses, but a huge number of photographers (including myself) would
consider in-camera IS on Canon DSLRs to be a godsend, & would be
saving their pennies to buy one ASAP.


There might even be a little to be gained by using an IS lens on an IS
chip. Probably not much, but possibly something.

Also, I'm thinking IS in a 300+ mm lens is going to do a lot better
than on a chip.

  #4  
Old January 11th 07, 12:37 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
David Littlewood
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 250
Default Are IS lenses doomed ?

In article , VC
writes
The release of Sony Alpha with the image stabilization in camera ( although
this is not new) highlighted the fundamental problem with Canon.
Canon have had IS lenses long ago as it would be very difficult to do
in-camera stabilization in film cameras. The digital cameras had to support
older lenses including the ones with IS. If Canon developed a camera with
in-body stabilization it would hurt Canon sales and reputation.
So I guess Canon will continue with its nonstabilized bodies and when Sony
or someone else will achieve the same image sensor quality Canon will find
itself in a very difficult situation.
There is a very small advantage in having IS in the lens but it is not
significant enough to grant double and triple cost of the same quality
lenses.
What do you guys think ?

AIUI, the problem with in-camera IS is that the range of movement
required in the chip is *much* greater than the movement required in an
optical correction element in the middle of the lens.

Thus, other things being equal, an in-lens system will always have the
advantage, and be capable of being smaller, lighter, faster acting, or
more effective (more f-stops effective benefit) or all of the above. The
corollary is of course that you will need one in every lens, instead of
just one in the body, but at least that one in each lens will be
optimised for that lens, not constrained to some generic compromise
value.

So it is probably a choice of cheapness versus maximum effectiveness. I
know which side I come down on, YMMV.

David
--
David Littlewood
  #5  
Old January 11th 07, 12:57 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Bill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 435
Default Are IS lenses doomed ?

"VC" wrote in message
...
The release of Sony Alpha with the image stabilization in camera (
although this is not new) highlighted the fundamental problem with
Canon.


There is no problem, that's just marketing hype.

Canon have had IS lenses long ago as it would be very difficult to do
in-camera stabilization in film cameras. The digital cameras had to
support older lenses including the ones with IS. If Canon developed a
camera with in-body stabilization it would hurt Canon sales and
reputation.


Where do you get that idea? Canon has a good reputation as it stands, so
how would adding another feature to the dozens of current features hurt
their market share?

Was Canons rep hurt when they introduced a sensor cleaner in the XTi?

While we know the sensor cleaners are mostly hype, it doesn't seem to
hurt image quality or camera performance, so how is it detrimental to
sales?

What do you guys think ?


I think you're an easy target for marketing campaigns.

:-)

  #6  
Old January 11th 07, 02:25 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
David Kilpatrick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 693
Default Are IS lenses doomed ?

Lionel wrote:

Also, I'm thinking IS in a 300+ mm lens is going to do a lot better
than on a chip.



On that, I agree with you. In-camera IS would need a huge amount of
travel to compensate for the amount of shake you get with big tele
lenses.

What actually happens with in-body IS is that the travel is the same in
extent, it's just the velocity (speed of travel) which increases with
longer focal lengths. Sony (Minolta) use angular momentum sensors, since
it is an angular shake which counts, so shake is not considered in mms
it's in degrees (or small fractions of a degree) plus velocity. When a
lens covers 8 degrees a quarter degree of shake is substantial, when a
lens covers 80 degrees it's not so much.

However, you are 'safe' to shoot at 1/30th without IS on an 18mm lens,
but you have to use 1/500th to be safe on a 300mm lens (both APS-C
examples). The long lens magnifies the shake in effect, so that the
image moves as far in 1/500th with the 300mm, as it moves in 1/30th with
the 18mm.

The long lens only gets into 'huge amount of travel' if you try to
hand-hold 1/30th at 300mm. With anti-shake, you can do 1/8th and maybe
1/4 at 18mm. You can do 1/250 or 1/125 at 300mm. In each case, the
sensor is travelling about the same amount, but it is having travel
faster for the 300mm.

Shake does not just keep going in one direction, anway. It tends to be
tremor or vibration-like when it is not a brief, fixed jerk caused by
pressing the shutter. Sony's SSS will cope with tremors between 1Hz
(swaying gently back and forth once a second - heartbeat, breathing) and
60Hz (someone just plugged you into a wall socket by mistake). Most
shake is apparently around 10Hz, a typical frequency of human body
tremor. So the system, whether in the lens or the body, has to respond
to acceleration, fixed velocity, vector (direction) including rapid
changes of all three.

Both in-lens and in-body IS appears to function equally well over a wide
range of conditions. It's not possible to state that in-lens IS is
definitely superior at long focal lengths, on in-body superior with
extreme wides and hand-held 1/4s. In practice I have found my KM and
Sony bodies very similar to Canon IS with 100-300mmm/70-300mm lenses
(the KM 100-300mm is much smaller and lighter than our early Canon IS
70-300mm, but I don't think this improves the efficiency - if anything
the large Canon lens is a bit easier to hand-hold steadily).

What I forget - and I suspect many others forget - is that you really
should not be able to use 1/30th with either system, if the lens is at
300mm. I do so regularly, and the result is nearly always perfectly
sharp. That's 4-5 stops of stabilisation, not the claimed 1-2 for the
older Canon lens, or 2-3 for the KM/Sony systems. Yet both, with a
little care, will give a high success rate.

David
  #7  
Old January 11th 07, 02:48 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Skip
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,144
Default Are IS lenses doomed ?

"VC" wrote in message
...
The release of Sony Alpha with the image stabilization in camera (
although this is not new) highlighted the fundamental problem with Canon.
Canon have had IS lenses long ago as it would be very difficult to do
in-camera stabilization in film cameras. The digital cameras had to
support older lenses including the ones with IS. If Canon developed a
camera with in-body stabilization it would hurt Canon sales and
reputation.
So I guess Canon will continue with its nonstabilized bodies and when Sony
or someone else will achieve the same image sensor quality Canon will find
itself in a very difficult situation.
There is a very small advantage in having IS in the lens but it is not
significant enough to grant double and triple cost of the same quality
lenses.
What do you guys think ?

The lenses are doomed, the companies that make them are doomed, photography
as we know it is doomed, we are all doomed.

--
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
www.pbase.com/skipm


  #8  
Old January 11th 07, 03:25 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Skip
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,144
Default Are IS lenses doomed ?




"VC" wrote in message
...
snip a bunch of words
There is a very small advantage in having IS in the lens but it is not
significant enough to grant double and triple cost of the same quality
lenses.
What do you guys think ?

I keep seeing this bandied about as the premium for IS/VR, but nowhere do I
see it in actual practice. It is about a $400-500 increase in price over
the non IS version, if such does exist in the lineup. The only times this
has occurred is with the old 75-300, a cheap lens with a gimmick, as far as
I am concerned, the 70-200 f2.8L ($1100 vs $1600) and the current 70-200 f4L
($600+ vs. $1100). Not exactly triple the price. When you get into the
long teles, the price premium becomes such an insignificant part of the
whole as to drop out of consideration, like with the 600mm f4L at more than
$7000.
So far, newer Canon IS lenses maintain their lead over sensor based IS, the
24-105 f4L and 70-200 f4L IS lenses give a minimum of 4 stops of correction.
--
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
www.pbase.com/skipm


  #9  
Old January 11th 07, 03:42 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,818
Default Are IS lenses doomed ?

David Kilpatrick wrote:
Lionel wrote:

Also, I'm thinking IS in a 300+ mm lens is going to do a lot better
than on a chip.


On that, I agree with you. In-camera IS would need a huge amount of
travel to compensate for the amount of shake you get with big tele
lenses.

What actually happens with in-body IS is that the travel is the same in
extent, it's just the velocity (speed of travel) which increases with
longer focal lengths. Sony (Minolta) use angular momentum sensors, since
it is an angular shake which counts, so shake is not considered in mms
it's in degrees (or small fractions of a degree) plus velocity. When a
lens covers 8 degrees a quarter degree of shake is substantial, when a
lens covers 80 degrees it's not so much.

However, you are 'safe' to shoot at 1/30th without IS on an 18mm lens,
but you have to use 1/500th to be safe on a 300mm lens (both APS-C
examples). The long lens magnifies the shake in effect, so that the
image moves as far in 1/500th with the 300mm, as it moves in 1/30th with
the 18mm.


No, you haven't worked out your math. Your 1/500 on 300 mm is
above the 1/fl guide, so IS is not needed. Newest IS on canon
claims 4 stops, so if 1/300 is the guide, then 4 stops
is 1/20 second. At 18mm, the guide is 1/20 second, and
4 stops is 1 second. The IS feedback loops don't work well
at 1 second.

Image shake of ~1 arc-minute per 1/20 second, and tracking needs
to be at least ~10 times that level (you can't keep your shake to
1 arc-minute pointing accuracy). Thus a range of 10 arc-minutes
is needed at a rate of 20 arc-minutes/second. For a 300 mm lens
that works out to a range of 0.9 mm (900 microns), and a rate of
1800 microns/second, with a required accuracy of ~ 2 microns
(pretty difficult.

Now try that with a 600 mm lens, then a 600 mm + 2x TC.
Rate goes up in proportion to focal length, but so does the
range, because you can't accurately point to the 1-arc-minute
limit, you need a larger limit, and that is at best constant
and in reality worsens as you hold more weight.
Thus 1200mm would require 3.6 mm range at a rate of 7200 microns/sec
with an accuracy of ~2 microns. It can be done in a lens because
you can tune the power of the optical element being moved
to give image movement within the range and accuracy of
the device doing the movement.

Also, in my experience, the 1/fl guide falls apart as the
lens size goes up, and the longer you hold the lens.
Try holding an 8-pound 500 mm f/4 lens for a while.

Thus, for telephoto work, in lens IS is the only reasonable
engineering solution.

Here are example of high magnification hand help in lens IS:

For this image, a friend was shooting with a 300 f/2.8 non IS lens
and got no good images, despite using faster shutter speeds
and lower magnification. My image was 1/1600 sec at 500 mm:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...598.b-700.html

This one even with IS, about half the images I took were
sharp, the other slightly blurry:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...wk.b-600..html

Roger


The long lens only gets into 'huge amount of travel' if you try to
hand-hold 1/30th at 300mm. With anti-shake, you can do 1/8th and maybe
1/4 at 18mm. You can do 1/250 or 1/125 at 300mm. In each case, the
sensor is travelling about the same amount, but it is having travel
faster for the 300mm.

Shake does not just keep going in one direction, anway. It tends to be
tremor or vibration-like when it is not a brief, fixed jerk caused by
pressing the shutter. Sony's SSS will cope with tremors between 1Hz
(swaying gently back and forth once a second - heartbeat, breathing) and
60Hz (someone just plugged you into a wall socket by mistake). Most
shake is apparently around 10Hz, a typical frequency of human body
tremor. So the system, whether in the lens or the body, has to respond
to acceleration, fixed velocity, vector (direction) including rapid
changes of all three.

Both in-lens and in-body IS appears to function equally well over a wide
range of conditions. It's not possible to state that in-lens IS is
definitely superior at long focal lengths, on in-body superior with
extreme wides and hand-held 1/4s. In practice I have found my KM and
Sony bodies very similar to Canon IS with 100-300mmm/70-300mm lenses
(the KM 100-300mm is much smaller and lighter than our early Canon IS
70-300mm, but I don't think this improves the efficiency - if anything
the large Canon lens is a bit easier to hand-hold steadily).

What I forget - and I suspect many others forget - is that you really
should not be able to use 1/30th with either system, if the lens is at
300mm. I do so regularly, and the result is nearly always perfectly
sharp. That's 4-5 stops of stabilisation, not the claimed 1-2 for the
older Canon lens, or 2-3 for the KM/Sony systems. Yet both, with a
little care, will give a high success rate.

David

  #10  
Old January 11th 07, 03:59 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
-hh
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 838
Default Are IS lenses doomed ?


Skip wrote:

I keep seeing this bandied about as the premium for IS/VR, but nowhere do I
see it in actual practice. It is about a $400-500 increase in price over
the non IS version, if such does exist in the lineup.


Canon's 8x25 IS Binoculars retail for $200 after rebate.

While implementation complexity (& cost) will obviously vary, this does
suggest at least that a low performance IS system has to cost less than
$200.

In general, I think that the "+$400-ish" rule of thumb is probably
around the mark (retail), which means that anyone claiming "double",
"triple", etc are only doing their comparisons based on one or two
cheap lenses, rather than considering a broader range of IS lenses.


-hh

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Full Frame Lenses vs Small Sensor Lenses measekite Digital Photography 15 September 13th 06 04:36 PM
FA: Minolta SRT-101 with 3 MC Rokker lenses, hoods, manuals macro lenses, MORE Rowdy 35mm Equipment for Sale 0 August 28th 06 10:42 PM
Main OEMs - Worst lenses compilations - lenses to run away from Alan Browne 35mm Photo Equipment 9 December 12th 04 02:36 AM
Some basic questions about process lenses vs. "regular" lenses Marco Milazzo Large Format Photography Equipment 20 November 23rd 04 05:42 PM
FS: Many Photo Items (Nikon Bodies/Lenses, Bessa Body/lenses, CoolScan, Tilt/shift Bellows, etc.) David Ruether General Equipment For Sale 0 December 16th 03 08:58 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:09 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.