Sony + Tamron 17-55 VC ? Possible ?

[Justintime]

Hihi

Apologies in advance if this is an irrelevant question. Maybe just a crazy idea. :sweat:

Tamron 17-50 non VC is available for Sony right now. Possible for a Sony variant of Tamron 17-50 VC to match with a Sony Body ?

How many stops of stabilization would there be ? Lens IS + Inbody IS 4 + 4 stops ? :bigeyes:

 

[ExplorerZ]

alpha mount doesn't come with VC.

 

[lenrek]

...
Maybe just a crazy idea. :sweat:

Yes... Is a crazy idea...

... Possible for a Sony variant of Tamron 17-50 VC to match with a Sony Body ?

Nope...

How many stops of stabilization would there be ? Lens IS + Inbody IS 4 + 4 stops ? :bigeyes:

How would this work? The Lens IS tell the sensor/image processor it is now stabilized, then in-body IS continue to stabilize on a stabilized image? Does this implementation make sense to you or anyone??

 

[soons]

It will be 3 stop - 3 stop = no VC/IS/SS/OS.

You can try mounting a Lecia Mega OIS lens onto a Olympus camera and see both stabilization neutralize each other. lolx

 

[Rashkae]

It will be 3 stop - 3 stop = no VC/IS/SS/OS.

You can try mounting a Lecia Mega OIS lens onto a Olympus camera and see both stabilization neutralize each other. lolx

It didn't neutralize. It amplified.

This has already been extensively tested.

 

[soons]

It didn't neutralize. It amplified.

This has already been extensively tested.

My friend tried his EP-1 with a Panasonic 14-42mm Mega OIS lens wor. He say he can see his viewfinder wobbing a little when he activated in camera stablization and Mega OIS wor...

So amplified = 3 + 3 = 6 stops??

Got any link article on this?

 

[Justintime]

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/image_stabilization.html

This article's a bit old but the points seems to be relevant. Apparently, effects of the lens based and body based IS are not cumulative. Although it seems theoretically possible to actively use both types of IS at the same time.


"If you had both lens and body stabilization operating independently at the same time, you'd run into trouble. The lens would stabilize the image, but the body would still sense the camera movement and move the sensor to compensate for the (now stabilized) image motion. That would put back all the motion that the lens took out! "

"If you could tell how stable the image was from lens based stabilization, it's theoretically possible to also use sensor-shift and possibly get even more stability. Is this practical? I think so, though it requires some innovative engineering to do it. "

Please do post other articles or experiments on this topic that u came across. Interesting

 

[Rashkae]

So amplified = 3 + 3 = 6 stops??

Got any link article on this?

No. It amplified the SHAKE, not the stabilization.

 

[dormy]

hey check out this video, it proves that activating both lens and body IS will cause more shakes~
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPdy52mR6Io

im also intending to get the tamron 17-50 non vc, maybe if buy together get better price?

 

[night86mare]

How many stops of stabilization would there be ? Lens IS + Inbody IS 4 + 4 stops ? :bigeyes:

i think you will get negative IS

 

[biggorilla]

For example.. I placed my video camera on a tripod(so now i have a stable shot) and the image stablization was turned on, so when ever people moved about within the shot, the camera took it that the image was not stable and in the end caused shake... GEt it?

So Basically.. once the lens stabilizes the image... to the camera IS it has not done its job yet so the camera will then look for shake which will end up causing more shake because