Image Stabilization - Body or Lens?

[Suhit Gupta]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/image_stabilization.html' target='_blank'>http://www.bobatkins.com/photograph...bilization.html</a><br /><br /></div><p><em>&quot;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 &quot;affordable&quot; 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.&quot;</em></p><p><img border="0" alt="" src="http://images.thoughtsmedia.com/resizer/thumbs/size/500/dht/auto/1202265285.usr14.jpg" /></p><p>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?</p>

[Jason Dunn]

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. :rolleyes:

[Vincent Ferrari]

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.

[Jason Dunn]

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.

[flooder]

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 :o) 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.

[Vincent Ferrari]

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 ;-)

[ptyork]

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...

[Vincent Ferrari]

It seems simple to me. I have a Samsung Pro 815 at work and that's exactly what they did. I'd much rather see the world through the lens than an LCD's interpretation of it. It's fine for framing shots, but it never looks quite right compared to what your eye sees through the lens.

[Jason Dunn]

I'd much rather see the world through the lens than an LCD's interpretation of it.

100% agreed. I've never seen an electronic viewfinder that I've liked the look of. It's fine for point and shoot stuff - I used to moan about P&S cameras that didn't have a viewfinder, but I got over that - but when I'm shooting with a DSLR, I want to see what the lens sees...

[yslee]

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...

LCDs stink. Optical viewfinders are superior. WYSIWYG optical viewfinders are even more superior.

[marlof]

I have IS in my camera body (Olympus E-3). I like the fact that all my lenses now can have IS, even when they say in body IS is a little less effective than in lens IS. But actually, I try to use IS as little as possible, and keep training myself in trying to handhold at the slowest possible speed. And use a good tripod / ball head combination when possible, which still beats IS in my opinion.

[Jason Dunn]

But actually, I try to use IS as little as possible, and keep training myself in trying to handhold at the slowest possible speed.

I definitely understand about trying to train yourself to handhold better, it's something I really need to work on, but do you actually turn IS off? Doesn't it just help a little more?

[Vincent Ferrari]

I have IS in my camera body (Olympus E-3). I like the fact that all my lenses now can have IS, even when they say in body IS is a little less effective than in lens IS. But actually, I try to use IS as little as possible, and keep training myself in trying to handhold at the slowest possible speed. And use a good tripod / ball head combination when possible, which still beats IS in my opinion.

I wish it was just a training / learning thing. Unfortunately for me, it isn't. I don't have the steadiest hands (I guess I inherited that from my father) so no matter how "right" I frame stuff and set aperture and shutter, it still could be an issue. Having IS gives me just enough where I don't have to compensate for it and makes my overall experience that much better.

Secondly, if you shoot a lot of street or lowlight indoors stuff (functions, get togethers, etc), tripods don't work. You're right that they solve the problem, but they aren't always practical.

[Jason Dunn]

Secondly, if you shoot a lot of street or lowlight indoors stuff (functions, get togethers, etc), tripods don't work. You're right that they solve the problem, but they aren't always practical.

Indeed. Tripods are GREAT when you can use them, but they tend to only work well with landscapes and posed portraits - pretty much everything else is too "live" for tripods. I bought a monopod for my video camera, it works well, I might try it with my DSLR...

[ptyork]

100% agreed. I've never seen an electronic viewfinder that I've liked the look of. It's fine for point and shoot stuff - I used to moan about P&S cameras that didn't have a viewfinder, but I got over that - but when I'm shooting with a DSLR, I want to see what the lens sees...

Okay, I can buy into the quality of the LCD being an issue but "seeing what the lens sees" is flawed logic. What you should care about (IMHO) is what the sensor "sees." This is what is getting translated into your image. Assume a very high quality/high resolution/high density/high color LCD/OLED/whatever screen for the viewfinder which closely mimics the real world (don't think about those crappy things they put in camcorder viewfinders or even what is on the back of most current P&S cameras but rather something akin to what you have on your desktop shrunk down with higher density). If you can toss out your bias against the viewfinder screen, then consider the benefits. In addition to what I first mentioned, you'd no longer have to worry about how lighting conditions would affect the photo--you'd SEE how it affects it. The camera would sample the image constantly using the parameters that you specify (ISO, "shutter" speed, aperture, etc.) and render a live view of exactly what will be captured when you press the shutter release. Heck, it could even try to simulate a flash (obviously difficult). Still, it just seems logical to me.

Perhaps it just needs to be a different product line...I know there are going to be holdouts for at least a generation that will never give up the true optical-TTL view. I'm looking for more than the Samsung Pro 815 and other super zooms though--something that offers the enhanced features of P&S with the upgraded electronics, sensors, optics, and manual controls of the DSLR. I guess in some ways a super zoom with a great viewfinder, bigger sensor, and interchangeable lenses.

Ahh, maybe it's just too small of a market niche, but it seems like that huge population of folks that get DSLRs simply for better lens options and higher quality pictures and keep them on full automatic would certainly be candidates...

[Jason Dunn]

Okay, I can buy into the quality of the LCD being an issue but "seeing what the lens sees" is flawed logic. What you should care about (IMHO) is what the sensor "sees."

In an ideal world, yes, the sensor is what matters most (because that's really what your picture is turning out like), but EVF technology has moved very slowly over the past few years and what you're talking about is purely theoretical - it would take some amazing advances to get a viewfinder that was truly close to real life. I don't see that happening for at least a decade or more - so we can continue this conversation then. :D

[Vincent Ferrari]

(marks calendar for that date)

[ptyork]

I don't see that happening for at least a decade or more - so we can continue this conversation then. :D

Sure, they haven't shown up in CE-friendly forms, but look at some of the LCoS and D-ILA stuff with pixel densities in the 3000+ ppi range. I don't think we're a decade away. We just haven't had anyone turn these into miniature displays or EVF's--good to use proper terminology rather than "little LCD screen" :-). I definitely think we could see it happen in the near term; I'm far less confident that we will...

I'll mark my calendar as well.

[marlof]

do you actually turn IS off? Doesn't it just help a little more?

What I meant: I don't have IS turned on by default. I want to control when I need some aid, and when I can do it by myself. I find this makes me more aware of technique, and it actually improves my results compared to when I lazily rely on IS.