Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Image Stabiliser on Image Stabiliser

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Ang Mo Kio
    Posts
    1,325

    Default Image Stabiliser on Image Stabiliser

    Haha! Just curious.

    Some dSLR cameras have in-built Image Stabilisers. Some lens have built-in IS as well... So what happens when you mount an IS lens onto an IS body? Will the IS "cancel" each other out if they're out of phase? Or will it be worse than no IS? Or will there be super IS? Hahaha!

    I don't expect this thread to live long... coz once the queries are answered, this thread will go down into the depths of the archives...
    incywincyspider climbup the waterspout...

  2. #2

    Default Re: Image Stabiliser on Image Stabiliser

    a picture says a thousand words

    so a video should say a million or a billion

    link

  3. #3
    Senior Member giantcanopy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    SG
    Posts
    6,232

    Default Re: Image Stabiliser on Image Stabiliser

    I dun think there is such a combination at the moment ?
    The makers will probably have to come up with a smart IS in the body to calculate what has been stabilised by the lens and what not.

    It will just be lots of speculation. But meanwhile the traditional stabilisation has worked well.

    Ryan

  4. #4
    Senior Member ZerocoolAstra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    rainy Singapore
    Posts
    9,523

    Default Re: Image Stabiliser on Image Stabiliser

    Very interesting and informative video
    Wow, I must say that you've really done your research!


    Quote Originally Posted by night86mare View Post
    a picture says a thousand words

    so a video should say a million or a billion

    link

  5. #5

    Default Re: Image Stabiliser on Image Stabiliser

    IS lens shifts the image by shifting the lens so the image on the sensor would be stable. If the camera shifts the sensor based on what it sees than you proably have additional 1-2 stops on top of the lens 2-4 stops. If the camera uses gyro-stabilization, than I think it would just cancel out the effect of IS.
    Shahrul Esa

  6. #6
    Moderator spidey89's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    South Western Singapore
    Posts
    8,123

    Default Re: Image Stabiliser on Image Stabiliser

    some photo magazine did a test on Olympus E-510 and one of Panasonic's lens,since both have IS,it's possible,and at the end of the day,the idea of super IS just poofs into thin air,with both IS on,the image taken looks like you're suffering from withdrawel symptons,horrible shaking with live view on,it's on youtube,can go look for it
    A wise man said, "Any available light is good light"

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Cons digger.
    Posts
    3,924

    Default Re: Image Stabiliser on Image Stabiliser

    the video shown is just a simple laymen demonstration of 2 independent IS systems being mated together.

    double IS will only be possible if both IS units communicates with each other and compensates for different axis of movement. all in all, there are 5 axis of movements pitch, roll, yaw as well as the flat long/lat axis(up/down/left/right).

    From what i understand, sensor shift stabliisers compensates for the long/lat axis but cannot do roll, pitch and yaw. while lens IS deals with pitch and yaw.
    No system can does roll compensation because the assumption is that roll axis movement is negligible.

    There are different considerations and assumptions that lump different axis of compensation so that the system is simplified and dealt with as a single parameter instead of 2.
    eg: a lens pitching up and down moves the image up/down, so the correction lens pitches to correct this movement OR the image sensor shifts up/down in latitude to make the image stay in the right position.
    Pitch axis is can be treated as a latitude movement while yaw and longitude together.

    It is a sweeping statement to say that lens and sensor IS cannot work together just because manufacturers do not put a simple feedback link from the lens IS unit to the body IS. When they do that one day, the first brand who does it will say they have achieved some sort of miracle and claim all fame to it.
    “How fortunate for leaders that men do not think.” - Adolf Hitler

  8. #8

    Default Re: Image Stabiliser on Image Stabiliser

    Quote Originally Posted by spidey89 View Post
    some photo magazine did a test on Olympus E-510 and one of Panasonic's lens,since both have IS,it's possible,and at the end of the day,the idea of super IS just poofs into thin air,with both IS on,the image taken looks like you're suffering from withdrawel symptons,horrible shaking with live view on,it's on youtube,can go look for it
    i linked it

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Ang Mo Kio
    Posts
    1,325

    Default Re: Image Stabiliser on Image Stabiliser

    Wow! That was a cool video!

    I was thinking of IS in-body, like the Pentax (is it?) ones or the Sony ones... But I didn't know that they didn't produce any lens that had IS. Well, there you go! Nice demo on YouTube!

    Anyways, would anyone think of creating an in-body IS AND an IS lens? I think for Nikon or Canon, when they do produce a built-in IS body, people will stop buying their IS lens (for those who bought the newer body). Wonder if that will deter them from going into that line...
    incywincyspider climbup the waterspout...

  10. #10

    Default Re: Image Stabiliser on Image Stabiliser

    Quote Originally Posted by karnage View Post
    Anyways, would anyone think of creating an in-body IS AND an IS lens? I think for Nikon or Canon, when they do produce a built-in IS body, people will stop buying their IS lens (for those who bought the newer body). Wonder if that will deter them from going into that line...
    it has, and the excuse they give is that IS on lens works better than inbody stabilisation because it is more catered to the focal lenght of that particular lens. something like that.

    you saw the video, so what do you think? i think they look the same to me. maybe the difference comes with extremely long focal lengths, but i doubt many will be able to buy a super telephoto, let alone a IS supertelephoto.

    they definitely have the technology, it's written all over the prosumers.. but hehehehe!

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Ang Mo Kio
    Posts
    1,325

    Default Re: Image Stabiliser on Image Stabiliser

    Hmm... I was JUST wondering about my Panasonic FZ20: whether its IS is considered lens or body. Hahaha! Yes, I'm boh liao. But since Panasonic labels it OIS, I would think it's lens. So maybe Nikon's prosumers' IS is also OIS, redubbed as VR? Haha!

    Anyways, I agree, both IS seems to work perfectly. And ya, maybe Nikon's statement holds true for super telephoto, maybe 500mm and above. Haha! Well, for normal folks like us (me?), I guess we can only pray hard for Nikon to come out with in-body IS. Or go to other brands...
    incywincyspider climbup the waterspout...

  12. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Cons digger.
    Posts
    3,924

    Default Re: Image Stabiliser on Image Stabiliser

    Quote Originally Posted by night86mare View Post
    it has, and the excuse they give is that IS on lens works better than inbody stabilisation because it is more catered to the focal lenght of that particular lens. something like that.

    you saw the video, so what do you think? i think they look the same to me. maybe the difference comes with extremely long focal lengths, but i doubt many will be able to buy a super telephoto, let alone a IS supertelephoto.

    they definitely have the technology, it's written all over the prosumers.. but hehehehe!
    In-lens IS indeed works better than in camera sensor shift if you understand the technology. The moving element in lens IS corrects for pitch and yaw movements while the camera shifts translates and makes assumptions of pitch and yaw into long/lat movements. Correcting pitch/yaw movements projects and image that is still parallel to the sensor plane while sensor shifting in the long/lat axis does not take into account the shift of image projection plane.

    However, to correct for roll axis movements only sensor shift IS is able to do it. but it is expensive to make an actuator to rotate the sensor, AFAIK, I don't see any brands doing it yet.
    “How fortunate for leaders that men do not think.” - Adolf Hitler

  13. #13
    Senior Member Override2Zion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Singapore/Bangkok Thailand
    Posts
    2,111

    Default Re: Image Stabiliser on Image Stabiliser

    Quote Originally Posted by karnage View Post
    Haha! Just curious.

    Some dSLR cameras have in-built Image Stabilisers. Some lens have built-in IS as well... So what happens when you mount an IS lens onto an IS body? Will the IS "cancel" each other out if they're out of phase? Or will it be worse than no IS? Or will there be super IS? Hahaha!

    I don't expect this thread to live long... coz once the queries are answered, this thread will go down into the depths of the archives...
    Dun think this will happen unless manufacturers design their IS lenses to work togther with their IS bodies. Currently, the control loop for lenses works independently of the body's IS mechanism, having both on now (if possible) would probably make things worst. Even if manufacturers does make lenses and bodies that communicates with each other to form a single feedback loop, it'll probably be very proprietary since calibration of control systems needs to be rather precise.
    Last edited by Override2Zion; 22nd May 2008 at 01:17 AM.
    Nikon D200/D700/D800 User :)
    [www.PositiveStudioProductions.com]

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    1,109

    Default Re: Image Stabiliser on Image Stabiliser

    Quote Originally Posted by karnage View Post
    Anyways, I agree, both IS seems to work perfectly. And ya, maybe Nikon's statement holds true for super telephoto, maybe 500mm and above. Haha! Well, for normal folks like us (me?), I guess we can only pray hard for Nikon to come out with in-body IS. Or go to other brands...
    It is an interesting video. However, whether Nikon or Canon will put in-body IS or not doesn't really affect me. I only buy what I need. Let's see now. I only have 1 VR lens, 1 prime & 1 wide angle, and the others are mainly kit lenses, which comes with the camera body.

    It is however useful to know how both technology works, although it is not really neccessary for all kinds of photography.
    "Photography is an austere and blazing poetry of the real" -Ansel Adams

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Ang Mo Kio
    Posts
    1,325

    Default Re: Image Stabiliser on Image Stabiliser

    On a side note, anyone knows what happens when you couple an AF-S lens to a Nikon body with in-built focussing motor? Say... D80? Which mechanism will the camera use to focus the lens?
    incywincyspider climbup the waterspout...

  16. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Volcano Land
    Posts
    2,351

    Default Re: Image Stabiliser on Image Stabiliser

    It's electronically communicated to the SWM motor. Since there is nothing there to mate the AF screw to.

  17. #17

    Default Re: Image Stabiliser on Image Stabiliser

    Quote Originally Posted by karnage View Post
    On a side note, anyone knows what happens when you couple an AF-S lens to a Nikon body with in-built focussing motor? Say... D80? Which mechanism will the camera use to focus the lens?
    Everyone who has used D70/s, D50, D80, D200, D300, D2-series, D3 with AF-S lenses (the kit lenses for D50, D70/s and D80 are all AF-S lenses) will know that the focusing is done by the motor in the lens and the screw drive is there so that it can drive the non-AF-S AF lenses.

  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Ang Mo Kio
    Posts
    1,325

    Default Re: Image Stabiliser on Image Stabiliser

    Oh-h-h... I see... haha! Sorry ah, I have never used any of those. =P

    In that case, if Nikon is gonna produce more AF-S lenses in the future, most probably the camera bodies they produce will become more and more like the D60: without autofocus motors... can I say that? Of course, I'm sure there would still be bodies with inbuilt motors. Just that they will eventually become the minority?
    incywincyspider climbup the waterspout...

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •