How nice if Canon/Nikon SLR also have in-camera IS/VR?


Status
Not open for further replies.

wong1979

New Member
Aug 16, 2005
543
0
0
#1
Wonder if optical image stabiliser can work together with in-body sensor stabilizer?
Would there be an accumulative effect?
Wouldn't it be great if you can do precise handheld macro with the image optically stabilized thru your viewfinder and have another 3 stops of in-body IS working together.

Just some silly thoughts :)
 

ihub88

New Member
Mar 3, 2007
586
0
0
#2
haha

you must be thinking too much.
 

Kit

Senior Member
Jan 19, 2002
11,691
42
48
42
Upper Bukit Timah
Visit site
#3
Wonder if optical image stabiliser can work together with in-body sensor stabilizer?
Would there be an accumulative effect?
Wouldn't it be great if you can do precise handheld macro with the image optically stabilized thru your viewfinder and have another 3 stops of in-body IS working together.

Just some silly thoughts :)
You can have it already. Its called the tripod and gives you as many stops as you want.....
 

theRBK

Senior Member
May 16, 2005
2,048
1
0
#5
you can try out when the new Oly camera E-510 comes out...pair it with the Leica D 14-50mm lens with OIS and you have stabilization on both body and lens...but probably you can only use one or the other or something is going to be koyah...:)
 

Vulpix0r

Senior Member
Oct 2, 2002
3,136
0
0
West
#6
And eat their own words about how CCD-IS is lousy? Fat hope.
 

AQVA

New Member
Apr 5, 2006
241
0
0
singapura
#7
if both body and lens were to have VR/IS it would counter react each other and cause blurring instead of image stablising.
 

wong1979

New Member
Aug 16, 2005
543
0
0
#8
I was thinking if the camera is able to know the shift movements in glass and compensate/cooperate accordingly, then it can work. In other words, the lens have to tell the camera I have done this much, the rest is up to u. Crazy :bsmilie:
 

Hobbesyeo

New Member
Feb 16, 2005
990
0
0
Singapore
www.sxc.hu
#9
I was thinking if the camera is able to know the shift movements in glass and compensate/cooperate accordingly, then it can work. In other words, the lens have to tell the camera I have done this much, the rest is up to u. Crazy :bsmilie:
I think the cam would be insanely expensive. :sweat:

Tripod is a much cheaper option. ;p
 

AQVA

New Member
Apr 5, 2006
241
0
0
singapura
#10
nice imagination u got, but imho.. having too many moving elements in the body and lens is not such a good idea. the slightest drop/shock will be enuff to cause misalignment.
 

V

vince123123

Guest
#11
Yeap, just like how we all already have AF. Its called your eyes and your fingers and it gives you as much AF as you'll need.

And just like how we dont need computers with spreadsheets already - its called your brain and calculator.

You can have it already. Its called the tripod and gives you as many stops as you want.....
 

michhy

New Member
Oct 21, 2005
780
0
0
#12
I was thinking if the camera is able to know the shift movements in glass and compensate/cooperate accordingly, then it can work. In other words, the lens have to tell the camera I have done this much, the rest is up to u. Crazy :bsmilie:
This is what I would think too. Maybe when the camera body detects in-lens stabilizer, either one of it will be disabled. I think this is the most straight-forward solution.
 

Adelfin

New Member
Dec 18, 2005
495
0
0
31
Earth
#14
This is what I would think too. Maybe when the camera body detects in-lens stabilizer, either one of it will be disabled. I think this is the most straight-forward solution.
then it wouldn't be much of a point would it? imagine a photographer get a stabilising camera and lens.. so that only 1 of the systems will work...

IS on a camera can only do so much... a slight degree of movement in the lens can have a much larger effect on the stabilisation, compared to the camera ones... sensors have a limited space to move about... or risk severe vigenetting if the goes too far out... so if u use a telephoto the minimal movements of the sensor aren't going to help much... that's y i feel the lens system is better...
 

michhy

New Member
Oct 21, 2005
780
0
0
#15
then it wouldn't be much of a point would it? imagine a photographer get a stabilising camera and lens.. so that only 1 of the systems will work...
Yes, either one will work. Existing lenses with VR or IS do not communicate with the camera body about the VR/IS movement (like, how much, etc) so if someday the bodies comes with built-in IS/VR, the body wont know how much to compensate for the IS/VR inside the lens. Of course, not unless the lens manufacturer introduced a new line-up of IS/VR lenses that could talk to the camera body about the stabilizer compensation.
 

Adelfin

New Member
Dec 18, 2005
495
0
0
31
Earth
#16
Yes, either one will work. Existing lenses with VR or IS do not communicate with the camera body about the VR/IS movement (like, how much, etc) so if someday the bodies comes with built-in IS/VR, the body wont know how much to compensate for the IS/VR inside the lens. Of course, not unless the lens manufacturer introduced a new line-up of IS/VR lenses that could talk to the camera body about the stabilizer compensation.
my point is it isn't pratical financially and logically speaking.. no one will spend on 2 systems of IS coz there's only so much that the systems can do.. u either only have one or the other.. if not it will be so expensive i rather buy a gitzo...

canon lens systems already offer up to 3-4 stops of IS.. u really want to have more?
 

michhy

New Member
Oct 21, 2005
780
0
0
#17
canon lens systems already offer up to 3-4 stops of IS.. u really want to have more?
well unless sensor technology manages to catch up and give us clean noise-free ISO 6400, then IS will still be a marketing point that manufacturers must bow down too... :confused:
 

Adelfin

New Member
Dec 18, 2005
495
0
0
31
Earth
#18
well unless sensor technology manages to catch up and give us clean noise-free ISO 6400, then IS will still be a marketing point that manufacturers must bow down too... :confused:
IS can never compare to high ISO... u can't freeze motion with IS... and IS helps a bit.. but i don't think they'll go as far as 10 stops... 3-4 is already alot.. unless u're willing to pay thousands of dollars more... when u can just get a tripod..

anyway i bet they already know how to make noise free pics at ISO 6400... it's just a matter of how they release their technology... u gotta release such technology slowly so that u can get maximum revenue at each stage...
 

wong1979

New Member
Aug 16, 2005
543
0
0
#19
Let's say even if optical IS & in-body IS cannot work together, I feel that canon/nikon would have to introduce in-body IS sooner or later to catch up with its competitors. Just like having anti-dust sensor, live preview etc.

Though it may seem like killing their IS/VR lens business, they couldn't possibly incoperate IS in all of their future lenses and/or old remake models, ya?
 

Vulpix0r

Senior Member
Oct 2, 2002
3,136
0
0
West
#20
Let's say even if optical IS & in-body IS cannot work together, I feel that canon/nikon would have to introduce in-body IS sooner or later to catch up with its competitors. Just like having anti-dust sensor, live preview etc.

Though it may seem like killing their IS/VR lens business, they couldn't possibly incoperate IS in all of their future lenses and/or old remake models, ya?
You underestimate Canon's marketing and advertising team.:bsmilie:
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom