From: Outing Trolls is FUN! on 25 May 2010 12:46
On Tue, 25 May 2010 09:29:49 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote:
>On 24/05/10 7:55 PM, David J. Littleboy wrote:
>> But the IS in the Canon 70-200/4.0 IS is seriously amazing. Sharp images at
>> 1/15th (with a lot of care and elbows supported or locked) at 200mm,
>> reliably sharp images at 1/30 and 200mm. I doubt in-camera IS will be
>> competing, ever. And, of course, in-camera IS doesn't stabilize the
>> viewfinder image.
>Yes, that's an incredible lens.
>In-camera IS on D-SLRs (and other interchangeable lens cameras) is more
>cost effective, but has serious performance disadvantages, as all the
Point us to "all these experts" that agree to this.
Oh that's right. You can't. They only exist in your imagination. Just like
that computer-controlled geyser that you helped to install in Yellowstone
Nat. Park on one of your imaginary trips.
You really should quit. We all already know you're a delusional
pretend-photographer troll. You prove it with every post you ever make.
From: nospam on 25 May 2010 12:56
In article <89snv5pi3oe29i5kc32q90aona17ti5sg9(a)4ax.com>, John Navas
> >.. low-cost, and /still/ works better than in-body stabilisation.
> Not necessarily.
> Advantages of in-body stabilization include:
where's the list of disadvantages? talk about biased.
> * Lower cost, especially with multiple lenses
some people want quality, not cheapest system.
> * Serious processing power available
same for in-lens.
> * Integration with shooting functions
same for in-lens.
> * Image movement detection by image sensor
motion sensing is sensed by accelerometers, not the sensor.
> * No optical compromise
the difference is negligible, if any (it would require pixel peeping to
notice), and some stabilized lenses are better than non-stabilized
versions (e.g., nikon 55-200). furthermore, moving the sensor has its
own set of issues.
> * No effect on Bokeh
nor with stabilized lenses. this has more to do with overall lens
design, not whether or not there's stabilization. there are
non-stabilized lenses with awful bokeh just as there are stabilized
lenses with good bokeh.
> * Simpler and more rugged lens design
nonsense. nikon/canon 70-200 are rugged and weather sealed, as are many
> * Stabilization of non-stabilized lenses
that is one advantage, perhaps the only tangible advantage. however,
most people don't have a collection of lenses, so this is somewhat
moot. instead, they buy one or two kit lenses with their camera. the
nikon d40 and it's siblings clearly show that, not that it was not
> * Integration with dust removal system
nikon/canon manage to have a dust removal system without sensor
stabilization, and a $10 blower is all that's necessary anyway.
advantages of in-lens:
- can be tweaked per lens rather than one size fits all.
- is more effective as focal lengths get longer, significantly so,
which is where it's needed most. sensor based stabilization cannot
fully stabilize lenses at long telephoto lengths because the sensor
can't move that far that fast. roger clark had some measurements he
posted long ago. it's physically impossible.
- viewfinder is stabilized, which makes using the camera easier and
helps the autofocus system lock a target.
- lenses last longer so you aren't replacing a perfectly good
stabilization system every time you want a few more megapixels or some
other feature on a new camera.
From: nospam on 25 May 2010 12:57
In article <c0tnv5pe0gdb4pdv236et7f64f72p7vq4p(a)4ax.com>, John Navas
> >> For people moving to a D-SLR from a P&S or ZLR, they are unlikely to
> >> understand the advantages of in-lens VR/IS.
> >They only need to look through the viewfinder with a long telephoto lens
> >attached! Watch the image stabilise when the VR is enabled. Little
> >understanding required - just a demonstration at the local shop.
> His claim is absurd (what a shock), since so many compact digital
> cameras have image stabilization.
he's talking about slrs, not compact digicams.
From: nospam on 25 May 2010 13:00
In article <n3tnv596p4heg130j8o7o1jckhvcodu871(a)4ax.com>, John Navas
> >.. and if your new camera only has in-body IS you /still/ won't get the
> >advantage of a stable image in the optical finder.
> What real advantage is that?
it's a lot easier to work with a stabilized viewfinder and the
autofocus sensors can track more accurately and effectively. exposure
too but that's not as critical and there's some latitude anyway.
> When IS is turned on for viewing, not only
> do you get less feedback on how still you are holding the camera,
all that's needed is seeing a stable image.
> also the IS is less effective when the image is captured.
> It's why
> better cameras give you the option to turn off IS for viewing, which is
> what I do.
From: nospam on 25 May 2010 13:03
In article <MPG.266600fba991c19598c30e(a)news.supernews.com>, Alfred
Molon <alfred_molon(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> > .. and the disadvantages are that the image in the viewfinder, and on the
> > exposure and focus sensors aren't stabilised.
> At least the exposure sensor does not need stabilised images.
sure it does, but it's not as critical as autofocus sensors. for
instance, if you're trying to keep something bright at the periphery
out of the picture and it keeps moving in and out, the exposure is
going to fluctuate. that's not good.
> I would also guess that also the focus sensor does not, otherwise the AF
> would fail when the subject is moving, and cameras seem to be able to
> focus on moving subjects.
once it has a lock maybe. if the focus sensor can't stay on target it
won't get a lock, or worse, it will lock on something you don't want,
like the trees behind the subject, not the subject itself.