Are IS lenses doomed ?

"David Littlewood" wrote in message
...
In article , Neil Harrington
writes

"David Littlewood" wrote in message
...
In article , Neil
Harrington
writes

"David Kilpatrick" wrote in message
...
[ . . . ]

One slightly ironic point is that so far all the sensor-stabilised
cameras
have been 1.5X APS factor. [ . . . ]

Off topic for the thread, but this is the first time I've seen that
term,
"APS factor," used. I think it's a very good one, much better than the
common "crop factor" (and variants) which I have always objected to on
the
grounds that nothing is actually being cropped, and even if it were,
nothing
is being *multiplied* by the so-called crop and the 1.5x or other number
given is obviously a multiplier.

"APS factor" is very good.

Well, up to a point, Lord Copper.

Now that sent me to Google to find out who Lord Copper was.



The reference to APS indicates that the sensor is the same size as APS
film (more specifically, IIRC, APS-C).

Well, up to a point, Lord Copper. (dang, that's handy already.)

Glad you like it! It's a very funny book, BTW.

In fact, last night I checked my local library's online catalog and I see
they have a copy. I mean to take it out, perhaps this weekend. Thanks for
pointing me to it.



APS-C, yes, but not *exactly* the APS-C size in any digital SLR as far as
I
know. Since it's inexact in the first place, and there are at least two
other APS sizes in the second place, "APS factor" should be understood to
be
taken somewhat loosely. As I'm sure you know, the APS factor is about 1.5x
for Nikons and about 1.6x for the majority of Canons. I'm aware that there
are some other dSLR formats smaller than "full frame" too, but don't know
(or care) much about 'em. As long as the sensor size is within the general
ballpark of some APS format, the term seems good enough -- particularly
when
used with the multiplier number, which does make it more specific.

I realise there is more than one APS size, that is why I referred
specifically to APS-C; this is the format generally understood to be meant
when a reference is made to APS-sized sensors.

As for the lack of exact correspondence, this simply increases my
conviction that it is not really a good term to use in this context.

But a) it's close enough, especially since without the "-C" it's vague as to
exact dimensions, and b) it has already achieved considerable currency. I
can never remember the exact dimensions anyway, only that it's a bit less in
area than a half-frame 35.



This is decidedly specific; there are many other sensor sizes in use in
digital cameras, so the term would not do for a general case.

Not for digital cameras in general, most of which have much tinier
sensors,
but for dSLRs of less than "full frame." I'm only suggesting that "APS
factor" is a huge improvement on the rather silly term "crop factor" or
any
variation on that. People who use "crop factor" do so only in connection
with dSLRs, as far as I'm aware. There isn't any obvious reason to use any
such term for cameras without interchangeable lenses.

To me, that just confirms that the kind of sloppy usage involved is bound
to result in a messy compromise or inconsistency at some point in the
logic chain.

But how? Since it's almost always going to be used with the specific
multiplier -- "APS factor 1.5x" or whatever -- just as the nonsensical "crop
factor" is now, how is it messy or inconsistent?



Would be a lot more rigorous if the exact sensor size in mm were to be
quoted.

But that wouldn't even begin to serve the same purpose. When people say
"crop factor" what they really mean is the multiplier needed to convert
the
actual focal length to 35mm equivalency. It's not a crop factor (whatever
that might mean) at all that they're talking about. How, for example,
could
you crop anything by 1.5 times? You can't crop 150% of something.

Factors - ratios - can be denominators as well as numerators, especially
in the hands of those to whom linguistic precision is some kind of
offence. We are all familiar with this in the usage f/1.4, which many
people sloppily quote as f1.4. We just have to get used to it.

Well, *we* convert that to f/1.4 in our minds when we read it. It only lacks
the virgule to be correct. But whether you take "crop factor" to mean a
denominator or a numerator it makes no sense when used as it is used.
Nothing is cropped by 1.5 times, and nothing is cropped by 1/1.5 either.
That should mean *removing* two thirds, not *leaving* two thirds. And
linear, or in area? Now there's messiness for you.



Some folks used to call it a "focal length multiplier," which is not
really
bad, but was objected to by nitpickers on the grounds that the focal
length
wasn't actually multiplied.

Personally don't see why a term is required. It's an image size ratio,
everything else works as before; why not call it image size ratio? Better,
since the "ratio" is to a film format which will become increasingly
irrelevant to new generations of photographers, eventually it will be
enough to just quote size, as I said

You do have a point on the increasing irrelevance of 35mm. I agree with
that, but for the time being and probably some considerable time to come, we
are used to thinking of magnification and angles of view in terms of
familiar 35mm focal lengths and those numbers are useful for that reason. It
may be the case that the equivalency will long outlast the source and even
become permanent, so that for example "35-105mm equiv." will convey the idea
of a certain range of angles of view for users who have never used or seen
an actual 35-105mm lens, including your new generations of photographers.

Stranger things have happened. After all, in compact cameras it is standard
practice to describe sensor sizes in video tube terms, even though that's
completely irrelevant to compact camera use and the number given is
meaningless as far as the actual sensor dimensions are concerned. And this
appears to be a permanent practice.



"APS factor" dodges that complaint neatly and seems to me a very good
solution. It's certainly handier than, say, "multiplier for converting
actual focal length into 35mm equivalency." If you can't even get people
to
say "fixed focal length" when that's what they mean, you'd never get them
to
say *that*.

Sorry, Neil; we'll have to agree to differ on this one. IMO, to refer to
the ratio between a given sensor size and a 35mm film (36x24mm) by using a
term which is in fact the name of a particular film format (and not even
the one being compared) is not just confusing, it's downright perverse.

Well, the alternative then is what? You suggest just quoting size, but there
are so many sizes -- at least four sub-"full frame" sizes in dSLRs, several
more (the so-called 2/3 type, 1/1.8, 1/2.5, 1/2.7, . . .) in compact and
ultracompact cameras. This is a problem that we never had in 35mm, which
unless otherwise specified was always assumed to be 24x36. Where "APS size"
is used, it seems to be used only in connection with dSLRs having either the
1.5x or 1.6x f.l. equivalency factor.

So when you speak of quoting size, how exactly would you do that? My Nikon
dSLRs I think are 15.something by 23.something. What size would you call
that? I know most Canons are slightly smaller. Would you call them "Nikon
size" and "Canon Rebel size," something like that? Neither of those really
serves the purpose the user most wants: what the actual focal lengths he may
use will mean in terms that are familiar to him.

Neil

In article , David Littlewood
writes

------- Cut, on sensor and lens multiplier or divider ---------

Personally don't see why a term is required. It's an image size ratio,
everything else works as before; why not call it image size ratio?
Better, since the "ratio" is to a film format which will become
increasingly irrelevant to new generations of photographers, eventually
it will be enough to just quote size, as I said

Why not quote the angle of view that the lens gives with the sensor?
Most users are not interested in the focal length per se. I realise that
macro work and photometry can require more than the angle of view.
--
Ian G8ILZ
There are always two people in every pictu the photographer and the viewer.
~Ansel Adams

"Prometheus" wrote in message
...
In article , David Littlewood
writes

------- Cut, on sensor and lens multiplier or divider ---------

Personally don't see why a term is required. It's an image size ratio,
everything else works as before; why not call it image size ratio? Better,
since the "ratio" is to a film format which will become increasingly
irrelevant to new generations of photographers, eventually it will be
enough to just quote size, as I said

Why not quote the angle of view that the lens gives with the sensor? Most
users are not interested in the focal length per se. I realise that macro
work and photometry can require more than the angle of view.

And long lenses require more too. You're quite right, angle of view is the
important thing -- but only with normal to wide-angle lenses. Users could in
time get used to the idea that "28mm equivalent" meant "75 degrees corner to
corner" and end up just calling such a lens a 75-degree lens. There is a
small fly in that ointment, in that third-party lenses made in more than one
mount would be slightly different on a Nikon than on a Canon, 1.5x and 1.6x
focal length multipliers respectively and the necessary adjustments to
angle, but those adjustments in most cases would be small.

With long lenses however it's the magnification that the user is interested
in, not the angle of view. Sure, one is necessarily related to the other,
but for example calling a 200-400mm zoom a
12-degree-20-minute-to-6-degree-10-minute lens gets a little unwieldy, isn't
very informative for most users -- and is only correct for the 24x36 format
anyway.

So I think using an appropriate multiplier to relate sensor focal lengths to
some familiar standard continues to be useful, and while there's nothing
cosmically significant about the 35mm format at least it is a familiar
standard, and by far the most familiar one.

Neil

"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 ?


I doubt they are doomed but if you can get a good percentage of the
performance for a fraction of the cost then in lens IS will certainly be
less desirable for many. I will note however that many talk the talk about
in lens IS over in camera IS but I have still yet to see good comparisons of
the two systems and as long as idiots like Phil Askey does testing the way
he does many will be uninformed on the subject and they will continue to do
a lot of talking about a subject that is yet to be well demonstarted.

On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 22:16:14 -0800, VC wrote
(in article ):

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 ?



I think you don't know what you are talking about. There have been rumors of
a Nikon VR body for awhile; it may even be released for PMA. I would not be
surprised if Canon is working on something similar. I doubt very much that
either company would think that in-body IS would hurt sales.

Too many camera manufacturers are being seriously dishonest about IS. Some of
the "IS" is nothing more than bumping up the ISO, as Sony does when they show
the "IS" freezing sports action. That is not IS; it is fraud. Some
manufacturers qualify it by calling it "digital" stabilization. I think that
is even more dishonest than "digital" zoom. These "digital" IS schemes hurt
picture quality instead of enhancing it.

Sony has real IS, but it is not as strong as Sony would like you to think.

Lens-based stabilization is here to stay, but I think you will eventually see
Nikon and Canon offering in-body stabilization that will work in tandem with
lens stabilization for even greater effectiveness.

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 ?

My IS lenses will out-live my camera bodies... So the idea of buying in-body
IS only carries so much weight...
Bodies will come and go, but good lenses (and the IS built in ot them) span
accross future body development.
IF...they can come up with sensor-based IS that is demontrated to be
superior, then great. So far, I've only heard talk, but no tests.

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 06:25:15 -0800, Skip wrote
(in article ):




"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.

That is because it does not exist. Among Nikon lenses VR is about a $200-$250
premium, not even 1/2 again as much as a comparable lens. the double and
triple cost thing is more Sony disinformation. That company is beginning to
irritate me some. Can't they do anything honestly?

On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 21:07:42 -0800, Pete D wrote
(in article ):


"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 ?


I doubt they are doomed but if you can get a good percentage of the
performance for a fraction of the cost then in lens IS will certainly be
less desirable for many. I will note however that many talk the talk about
in lens IS over in camera IS but I have still yet to see good comparisons of
the two systems and as long as idiots like Phil Askey does testing the way
he does many will be uninformed on the subject and they will continue to do
a lot of talking about a subject that is yet to be well demonstarted.



Actually, if I had to guess whether it was Phil Askey or you who knew what he
was talking about, it would be Phil, hands down. Phil is hardly an idiot.

His impression is that the Sony A100 "Steady Shot" delivers only 2.5 stops
improvement instead of the 3.5 stops claimed. That is probably about right.
The fact that he is right does not make him an idiot.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
e.com...
On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 21:07:42 -0800, Pete D wrote
(in article
):


"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 ?


I doubt they are doomed but if you can get a good percentage of the
performance for a fraction of the cost then in lens IS will certainly be
less desirable for many. I will note however that many talk the talk
about
in lens IS over in camera IS but I have still yet to see good comparisons
of
the two systems and as long as idiots like Phil Askey does testing the
way
he does many will be uninformed on the subject and they will continue to
do
a lot of talking about a subject that is yet to be well demonstarted.



Actually, if I had to guess whether it was Phil Askey or you who knew what
he
was talking about, it would be Phil, hands down. Phil is hardly an idiot.

At least I admit my mistakes, Phil never does even when proven wrong
repeatedly.

His impression is that the Sony A100 "Steady Shot" delivers only 2.5 stops
improvement instead of the 3.5 stops claimed. That is probably about
right.
The fact that he is right does not make him an idiot.

2.5 stops at no extra cost for every lens it still pretty nice for those
that do not have huge amounts of cash.

Never said anything about Sony but his testing on the K10D was certainly
flawed, what many also forget is that in lens IS does not deliver all the
time and that there is some limitations, it is not the panacea that Canon
would have you believe, both Sony and Canon marketing is not as truthfull as
it could be.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
e.com...
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 22:16:14 -0800, VC wrote
(in article ):


I think you don't know what you are talking about. There have been rumors
of
a Nikon VR body for awhile; it may even be released for PMA. I would not
be
surprised if Canon is working on something similar. I doubt very much that
either company would think that in-body IS would hurt sales.

Why not ? IS devises is a good portion of the lens business. Who would buy
an IS lens if the equal stabilization is already provided by the body ? I
know something how the business is done. A company usually would like you to
spend all your money on their product. If there were no competition I am
sure the remaining company would put shutter, sensor and almost everything
else in each lens and leave you with a neck strap which you could
interchange between "lenses".

Sony has real IS, but it is not as strong as Sony would like you to think.

Lens-based stabilization is here to stay, but I think you will eventually
see
Nikon and Canon offering in-body stabilization that will work in tandem
with
lens stabilization for even greater effectiveness.

That would be extremely difficult to do though.