Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Lens IS or Sensor-Shift IS?

  1. #1

    Default Lens IS or Sensor-Shift IS?

    as per the article:

    although this is from a Nikon site, it's comparing Optical IS vs Sensor-shift IS.

    https://nikoneurope-en.custhelp.com/...UlV6Y3ZJeWs%3D

    is Optical IS better? or Sensor-shift IS better? feel free to debate the idea.

  2. #2

    Default Re: Lens IS or Sensor-Shift IS?

    so far i've not seen any reviews/studies between the superiority of either IS.

    if the claims comes from the manufacturers, i'll take these articles as marketing gimmicks rather than facts...

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    792

    Default Re: Lens IS or Sensor-Shift IS?

    abit funny, about the diagrams.. when u shake.. by right shouldnt both body+ lens shake together regardless of which type?

    the sensor IS manufacturer can just say that their IS in body will rectify throughout the whole body + lens, instead of just from lens first. or whatever excuse haha.
    M10|M6 Millenium|50mm f1 e58|35 f1.4 FLE|35mm f2 V1 germany|15mm V f4.5 VIII|50mm Zeiss f2

  4. #4
    Moderator rhino123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    NA
    Posts
    5,247

    Default Re: Lens IS or Sensor-Shift IS?

    Both are equally useful... In fact I would very much like inbody stabilization system... Of course having optical IS is suppose to be good enough, but not all lens come with it and have to pay premium for these lens (price not low when compared to non-IS version).

    The main reason I believe why Canon didn't put in inbody IS was marketing decision rather than technical restriction. So that they can sell their IS lens more since people might be forced to buy these much more expensive lenses.

  5. #5
    Senior Member Canew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Tampines
    Posts
    2,229

    Default Re: Lens IS or Sensor-Shift IS?

    Quote Originally Posted by rhino123 View Post
    Both are equally useful... In fact I would very much like inbody stabilization system... Of course having optical IS is suppose to be good enough, but not all lens come with it and have to pay premium for these lens (price not low when compared to non-IS version).

    The main reason I believe why Canon didn't put in inbody IS was marketing decision rather than technical restriction. So that they can sell their IS lens more since people might be forced to buy these much more expensive lenses.
    LOL! Many have said this with respect to Canon's lens IS.

  6. #6
    Moderator rhino123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    NA
    Posts
    5,247

    Default Re: Lens IS or Sensor-Shift IS?

    Quote Originally Posted by Canew View Post
    LOL! Many have said this with respect to Canon's lens IS.
    Yeah... but not that Canon IS lens is not good or anything... but it is still wayyyy over priced... and I would definitely believe that if they actually have IS built into their body, their IS lens will not cost that much because less people will find those lens necessary.

  7. #7
    Member blaz7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    523

    Default Re: Lens IS or Sensor-Shift IS?

    When looking through the viewfinder using an in-lens IS, the VF does not shake so much, when using the in-body IS, you look into the viewfinder, the image is shaking but end result is pretty much the same. So their diagram is actually correct.
    α Cameraman
    flickr

  8. #8
    Senior Member giantcanopy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    SG
    Posts
    6,232

    Default

    My hunch is probably lens IS does better job at telephoto end where similar movements translate to a need for larger compensation at the longer focal lengths

  9. #9

    Default Re: Lens IS or Sensor-Shift IS?

    Comparing Nikon and Canon, you will realised that Nikon VR lenses are probably more expensive than Canon IS. (Nikon lenses in general are more ex than Canon whether Canon have IS or not). Sony has body VR or IS. Their top line lenses are not any cheaper than equivalent models of C & N as well.

    If it was for marketing, then I believe C&N should be smart enough to come out with something that cost less, more gimmicky as well as more visual. Eg. like white colour lenses which they claim that will keep the lens cooler which I believe is more for product line differentiation and probably attract more attention among other competitors lenses. Things like these that are simple and cheap yet consumer buys the idea and jumping into it is marketing. If you have to invest a ton of money to make your product outstanding, then I think its more than just plain marketing.

    Nikon's article did state that this is mainly due to how the photogs will see through the viewfinder. Which I buy that idea. IS or VR on lenses make more sense because lenses gets longer, body don't. Especially on a lens that increase in size eg. zoom lenses.

    Having said that, as long as the the VR or IS or whatever you call that technology actually works, I guess I will still buy 1.

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    120

    Default

    Bit bias view but it is the reason I got in body IS. My lenses are simpler in construct, and hopefully more reliable.

  11. #11

    Default Re: Lens IS or Sensor-Shift IS?

    Based on Nikon's presentation. Both should achieve the same results, camera shake is taken out of the captured image.

    Per Nikon; the eye will benefit from the Optical IS whereas the it will continue to see the shake in the case of Sensor IS.

    The assertion is true for mirror reflex cameras viewed through its OVF. With LV, there is no difference since the image at the sensor see no image shake, thus the LCD image is what will be recorded.

    Put it this way, if your camera uses/has an optical viewfinder, you should be using Lens IS, Sensor IS will be a wrong implementation.
    Last edited by qystan; 14th July 2011 at 06:30 PM.

  12. #12

    Default Re: Lens IS or Sensor-Shift IS?

    u can wait for E mount lenses to be available usage on A mount DSLR. Then u have both Lens n Body IS. But i guess the E mount gonna AF very slow on A-DSLR..Since E to A is already slow. Vice Versa for other brands. Perhaps next time Canon, Nikon will come up with IS body too.
    Anything is possible but.. whether u willing n have the money to purchase.

  13. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TWmilkteaTW
    u can wait for E mount lenses to be available usage on A mount DSLR. Then u have both Lens n Body IS. But i guess the E mount gonna AF very slow on A-DSLR..Since E to A is already slow. Vice Versa for other brands. Perhaps next time Canon, Nikon will come up with IS body too.
    Anything is possible but.. whether u willing n have the money to purchase.
    This is difficult to implement. Imagine the number of canon and nikon shooters who'll curse and swear because they spent so much money on optically stabilized lens.

    Oh and btw, E to A? U do know that's impossible right? Due to the flange focal distance.

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    120

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kei1309

    This is difficult to implement. Imagine the number of canon and nikon shooters who'll curse and swear because they spent so much money on optically stabilized lens.

    Oh and btw, E to A? U do know that's impossible right? Due to the flange focal distance.
    Can get 3rd party lenses with IS today in native mount.

  15. #15

    Default Re: Lens IS or Sensor-Shift IS?

    Well I think one good thing about lens IS is that over the years if IS technology gets upgraded together with the optical performance of a lens then consumers can get the updates together in a single lens. If it is in-body IS, the optical aspect of a lens and IS technology gets a major upgrade, then a consumer might have to get both a new body and lens together.

    Just some random thought...

  16. #16

    Default Re: Lens IS or Sensor-Shift IS?

    Technically speaking, you can implement both Lens and Sensor IS together, practically, it'll be a nightmare. This is one case where more is not better.

    If you have both - imagine the lens moving to center the image on the sensor, the sensor is also moving to keep the image centered, effectively you are trying to align 2 things - lens, sensor with the moving image, I doubt it will ever work without complex handshake between both systems to avoid over-correction. The complexity may not be worth the results. It does mean that each item moves less, the up side is that it will be able to compensate for much larger shakes than an single system can handle - is it necessary????

    With 1 system, you only need to move 1 item to keep the image static. Much simpler and realistic.

  17. #17
    Senior Member UncleFai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    4,429

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by qystan
    Technically speaking, you can implement both Lens and Sensor IS together, practically, it'll be a nightmare. This is one case where more is not better.

    If you have both - imagine the lens moving to center the image on the sensor, the sensor is also moving to keep the image centered, effectively you are trying to align 2 things - lens, sensor with the moving image, I doubt it will ever work without complex handshake between both systems to avoid over-correction. The complexity may not be worth the results. It does mean that each item moves less, the up side is that it will be able to compensate for much larger shakes than an single system can handle - is it necessary????

    With 1 system, you only need to move 1 item to keep the image static. Much simpler and realistic.
    Aiyah the camera knows what lens is currently attached mar. Just turn on sensor IS if lens not IS, and if both has let user select lor.

  18. #18

    Default Re: Lens IS or Sensor-Shift IS?

    Quote Originally Posted by kei1309 View Post
    This is difficult to implement. Imagine the number of canon and nikon shooters who'll curse and swear because they spent so much money on optically stabilized lens.

    Oh and btw, E to A? U do know that's impossible right? Due to the flange focal distance.
    yea i know.. im just saying.. it will be really dumb n pointless for Sony to do that since the focal length are already covered in A lenses.. unless Sony have a better justification to it.

  19. #19

    Default Re: Lens IS or Sensor-Shift IS?

    Quote Originally Posted by TWmilkteaTW View Post
    yea i know.. im just saying.. it will be really dumb n pointless for Sony to do that since the focal length are already covered in A lenses.. unless Sony have a better justification to it.
    that's not what i meant. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flange_focal_distance

    read this.

    the flange focal distance for the E Mount is 18mm. for the Alpha it's around 44mm. so technically you can mount A Mount lenses via an adaptor on the E-mount. but you can't mount E Mount Lenses on an A-mount due to it being shorter. you would need to recess the lens into the body... and typically... it can't be done

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    120

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by qystan
    Technically speaking, you can implement both Lens and Sensor IS together, practically, it'll be a nightmare. This is one case where more is not better.

    If you have both - imagine the lens moving to center the image on the sensor, the sensor is also moving to keep the image centered, effectively you are trying to align 2 things - lens, sensor with the moving image, I doubt it will ever work without complex handshake between both systems to avoid over-correction. The complexity may not be worth the results. It does mean that each item moves less, the up side is that it will be able to compensate for much larger shakes than an single system can handle - is it necessary????

    With 1 system, you only need to move 1 item to keep the image static. Much simpler and realistic.
    Dunno. Canon filed a patent that has both IS working in tandem last year. Application no. 20100003025. If a technology delivers the intended value better and at a lower cost than competing technology, it's a winner. If it doesn't, i don't even want to break a sweat over it.

    Anybody can write a white paper to justify their superior technology. IMHO, If the performance difference is not significant, cost benefit bears greater weight.

    I'd be more interested to see what Canon can achieve with their new invention

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
  •