Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Which is better, VR/IS on camera CCD or on lens?

  1. #1

    Default Which is better, VR/IS on camera CCD or on lens?

    I just learnt that Konica Minolta DiMAGE A2 has Anti-Shake system built on the ccd.

    Here is the link : http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/konicaminoltaa2/.

    I am wondering if the new dslr can add this feature on their camera and how good will it be when compare to those IS/VR bulit onto the lens?

    It seems that the cost of adding this on a compact digi camera isnt alot more. So the % of cost on a dslr should be lesser.

    Since most telephoto lenses from nikon have yet to add VR to them, wouldnt it be good if VR is on the camera body. Then we can have VR on all nikon lens. I think this will be a welcome feature on dslr.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    12,938

    Default

    KM Digital SLR will have this feature in the camera.

  3. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by babycamera
    I just learnt that Konica Minolta DiMAGE A2 has Anti-Shake system built on the ccd.

    Here is the link : http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/konicaminoltaa2/.

    I am wondering if the new dslr can add this feature on their camera and how good will it be when compare to those IS/VR bulit onto the lens?

    It seems that the cost of adding this on a compact digi camera isnt alot more. So the % of cost on a dslr should be lesser.

    Since most telephoto lenses from nikon have yet to add VR to them, wouldnt it be good if VR is on the camera body. Then we can have VR on all nikon lens. I think this will be a welcome feature on dslr.
    Only true if you are a DSLR user.. Many Nikon users are still film/digital users. Thus VR in the lens makes more sense? Remember.. film unlike digital, where the film cannot move? Hence the reason why VR was created into lenses.. as was IS.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Tampines
    Posts
    3,287

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gadrian
    Only true if you are a DSLR user.. Many Nikon users are still film/digital users. Thus VR in the lens makes more sense? Remember.. film unlike digital, where the film cannot move? Hence the reason why VR was created into lenses.. as was IS.
    Totally agree with you Gadrian. It makes more sense to have it on the lens. If they have it on the camera then it has limited use. On the lens mean you can use it with other camera.

  5. #5

    Default

    Beside able to use on both film & digi camera, it there any technical superiority?

    I read a few comments about canon stealing the show, so a new feature like this may helps other dslr manufacturer to gain some interest from consumer. And also, an additional low cost feature may proof to be attractive for consumer who dont wish to spend too much on newer lens with VR/IS (so the option now is to buy a VR/IS dslr camera) or newbie who enter directly to digital.

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Jurong, Singapore
    Posts
    60

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jbma
    Totally agree with you Gadrian. It makes more sense to have it on the lens. If they have it on the camera then it has limited use. On the lens mean you can use it with other camera.
    Dun quite agree unless I misunderstood.

    If on camera, then I can use any lens and image will be 'stablised'. If on lens, then I have to buy all these ex. lens and it will cost me more.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Tampines
    Posts
    3,287

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by novaD70
    Dun quite agree unless I misunderstood.

    If on camera, then I can use any lens and image will be 'stablised'. If on lens, then I have to buy all these ex. lens and it will cost me more.
    What if you have other camera bodies?

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by novaD70
    Dun quite agree unless I misunderstood.

    If on camera, then I can use any lens and image will be 'stablised'. If on lens, then I have to buy all these ex. lens and it will cost me more.
    Well lets put it this way..

    If you get the new KM Digital Dynax - with AS. any lens is stabilised.. but if you are using a Dynax 7 as a backup (film) no AS.. lens would not be stabilised.

    However no matter you used an EOS33/30 or 1D Mk II, with an IS lens.. it is still stabilised.


    babycam, true, if you are a pure digital SLR user.. then yes.. it makes absolute sense. But for someone transitioning from film.. hmm may not be as straight forward.

    They are also other things that make me wonder.. ON a digicam - AS works fine.. AS is tested with the lens which is non removable. How light falls at which and what angle of incident or refraction can make lots of changes to an image.

    It is my believe. that stabilizing with a CCD as the moving part could produce some unwanted problems. This same item has/must produce prime image quality from any lens from 20mm - 600mm. It would be an engineering feat that would be baffling. Also would have to cater for the quirks of 3rd party lenses.. and how their optics respond to AS on the CCD.

    Right now.. I will wait to see and then believe. The AS on the Digital Dynax as of now still remains untested in the field. IS - Canon and VR - Nikon are.

    This reminds me of the time when Contax wanted to go AF. They decided to put AF into the Cam instead of the lens. That model didnt sell to well if I am not mistaken.

  9. #9
    Deregistered
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    509

    Default

    There are theoretical reasons why stabilisation on lens or sensor may or may not be superior to each other. Imagine you are holding the camera with a long lens attached. The end of the lens describes a wider arc than the body which you are holding onto. This means:

    1. Any gyroscopic movement sensor will be more accurate when placed at the end of the lens, but

    2. Lens mounted stabilisation will need harder working motors since the lens element is relatively heavy and the lenses will have to move over a wider range.

    I think at the moment the jury is still out as to whether lens mounted or body mounted stabilisation is more effective. If you ask me which is better I would say it would be hard to argue against the convenience of body mounted stabilisation.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    3,881

    Default

    Oh yes Contax, brings back memories. Contax AX !!! Autofocus by moving flim plane and everything inside !!!. Had tried it for a brief period. Most amazing camera for that time but I must say AF performance is not very good but will miss the split image screen of the camera in AF.
    Back to anti shake. Actually with anti shake build into body limits the usage and performance of the function. Every lens has its unique "shake" compensation and with zoom it will be worse. With antishake build into the body trying to perform antishake from fisheye to 2000mm and macro as well you think it will work ?. But than again in time to come they may developed it to a extent that the lens will tell the body what to do electronically and firmware upgrades will compensate for new lens design. This concept is good but is not matured at the moment.


    Quote Originally Posted by gadrian
    Well lets put it this way..

    If you get the new KM Digital Dynax - with AS. any lens is stabilised.. but if you are using a Dynax 7 as a backup (film) no AS.. lens would not be stabilised.

    However no matter you used an EOS33/30 or 1D Mk II, with an IS lens.. it is still stabilised.


    babycam, true, if you are a pure digital SLR user.. then yes.. it makes absolute sense. But for someone transitioning from film.. hmm may not be as straight forward.

    They are also other things that make me wonder.. ON a digicam - AS works fine.. AS is tested with the lens which is non removable. How light falls at which and what angle of incident or refraction can make lots of changes to an image.

    It is my believe. that stabilizing with a CCD as the moving part could produce some unwanted problems. This same item has/must produce prime image quality from any lens from 20mm - 600mm. It would be an engineering feat that would be baffling. Also would have to cater for the quirks of 3rd party lenses.. and how their optics respond to AS on the CCD.

    Right now.. I will wait to see and then believe. The AS on the Digital Dynax as of now still remains untested in the field. IS - Canon and VR - Nikon are.

    This reminds me of the time when Contax wanted to go AF. They decided to put AF into the Cam instead of the lens. That model didnt sell to well if I am not mistaken.

  11. #11

    Default

    The one thing that you can safely deduce from the Sensor based AS is that it will always require that the lens have an image circle significantly larger than the sensor.

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
  •