02-06-2008, 05:00 PM
|
|
Editor Emeritus
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,968
|
|
Image Stabilization - Body or Lens?
"The origins of Image Stabilization for 35mm DSLR lenses lies back in the EF75-300/4-5.6IS USM which was released by Canon back in September of 1995. Prior to this Canon had shown a prototype 300/2.8 with stabilization, but the 75-300 was the first IS lens to be commercially released. The Canon EF 300/2.8L IS USM didn't make it to market until July 1999. Of course these lenses predated the adoption of digital technology by a long way. The EOS D30, the first "affordable" DSLR didn't appear until October 2000. In 1995 you could buy an EOS DCS 3, but it was 1.3MP and would have cost you around $20,000, so it didn't sell in volume! Clearly then, for film based cameras, if you wanted image stabilization you'd have to put it in the lens. Moving the film up and down and left and right would be an engineering nightmare, though Contax did move the film (rather than the lens) to focus in their unsuccessful Contax AX." 
This is a really nice article and really apropos given the recent set of cameras that are being released with IS built into the body. The article talks about the history of image stabilization (IS), the advantage of IS in the lens - it can be tuned specifically for that lens, among others; and the advantage of IS in the camera body - any non-IS lens can be used and take advantage of IS. A lot of cameras are smart enough to know if the lens is an IS capable one but I wonder what would happen if an IS camera is used with an IS lens. The article also hypothesizes on the future of IS, both in cameras and in lenses. This really is an interesting read. Where would you prefer to see IS?
|
| |
|
|
|
02-06-2008, 05:03 PM
|
|
Executive Editor
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 29,160
|
|
As much as I adore my Nikon D300, I'm ticked off at Nikon for not putting IS in the body - it's a useful feature that I should have for ALL my lenses, not just the expensive ones. And, hell, even my $1800 f/2.8 lens doesn't have it - the assumption being, I assume, that because the lens is so fast you don't need IS...but I've certainly managed to take blurry pictures with it. 
|
| |
|
|
|
02-06-2008, 05:36 PM
|
|
Executive Editor Emeritus
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,471
|
|
As much as I'd like it in the body, I kind of like the idea of having it in the lens better. The main reason? I like the idea that as technology improves, the IS could improve also without me having to buy another body.
I also agree that having an IS mechanism tuned for the lens is a good idea, btw.
|
| |
|
|
|
02-06-2008, 05:38 PM
|
|
Executive Editor
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 29,160
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent Ferrari
I like the idea that as technology improves, the IS could improve also without me having to buy another body.
|
Well, the thing is, once you invest in an expensive lens (or a lot of inexpensive lenses), you'll be keeping the lenses and swapping the body out more over time. Camera body technology is improving much faster than lens technology.
|
| |
|
|
|
02-06-2008, 05:47 PM
|
|
Ponderer
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 100
|
|
I guess I like it in the body. I am never going to make a dime off of taking pictures but I sure have and will spend money to keep my gadgets in the 'up to date' category.
I am sure that lens stabilization is a better engineering decision but for the hobby guy it comes down to cash.
If I wasn't a Minolta/Sony guy (Kills me to say I am a Sony guy  ) I would sure be tempted to buy IS lenses and just shell out more and more cash for my hobby.
I am glad to see Sony made a big splash at PMA and that Sigma is beginning to come back to making lenses for the A-Mount. Now I can put them on my A-700 and get some stabilization.
|
| |
|
|
|
02-06-2008, 05:58 PM
|
|
Executive Editor Emeritus
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,471
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Dunn
Camera body technology is improving much faster than lens technology.
|
True.
In the end I only have one IS lens and it set me back about $1000. If a new body came out tomorrow that would take EF-S lenses and had IS in the body, I'd snap it up and just remember I had to turn one of my IS mechanisms off ;-)
|
| |
|
|
|
02-06-2008, 07:00 PM
|
|
Sage
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 639
|
|
Is there really still a need for mirroring systems in DSLRs? It seems to me that the biggest drawback for body-based IS (assuming Canon/Nikon are spouting marketing blabber when they say that they achieve "optimized' IS for each lens) is that the user experience is poorer because the sensor shifts but (obviously) not the view finder. It also seems to be the reason why combining both lens-IS and body-IS wouldn't work (or at least would be insanely complicated since you'd have to tie in the data from the autofocus sensors with the stabilization mechanisms in the sensor). Note also that this is also the major cause of trouble with live-view and auto-focus--two separate sensors.
What is preventing them from doing away with optical viewfinders altogether? Why not eliminate the mirrors (and along with it the concept of a shutter) and have the lens project only on the primary sensor? You could then have a little lcd screen visible through the viewfinder for those (like me) who still prefer to hold a camera up to our eyes, and perhaps it would only come on when it detected that you were looking into the viewfinder (someone has an AF system that works this way I think). It may use a little more power, but it seems like it would do away with all of the negatives that the mirrors bring and be FAR simpler and cheaper. Obviously it would no longer be an "SLR", per se, but wouldn't it be better? You could still have interchangeable lenses and larger format sensors (obviously you'd still need some method of protecting the sensor when changing lenses) and you'd gain all of the benefits of P&S cameras. It seems to me that the concept of an SLR was a brilliant solution to a problem that faced film cameras, but aren't we introducing way too much complexity and cost by trying to maintain this (seemingly unnecessary) legacy in the digital age?
What do you think?
Note: I admit to being a little less than technically astute when it comes to this particular technology so be kind if I'm missing something obvious...
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hybrid Mode
