Why don't Canon and Nikon have Sensor Stabilization?

Mike.P said:
Well you just included 2 examples right there yourself.
Landscape and portrait shooters make up a good proportion of DSLR users.
Click to expand...

Yes, but surely most shots of that type will be taken in decent light where you won't be shooting at anything below the 1/focal length rule conducive to camera shake anyway?
 
manualfocus-g said:
Yes, but surely most shots of that type will be taken in decent light where you won't be shooting at anything below the 1/focal length rule conducive to camera shake anyway?
Click to expand...

The example I can think of is at church services where a 'no flash photography' rule has been imposed (for example a christening, where a pro tog with special dispensation is unlikely to be present) - much of the time people are reasonably static, so a speed of say 1/20 is fine with regards to motion blur - but without IS will be a tad slow using a 50mm
 
manualfocus-g said:
Yes, but surely most shots of that type will be taken in decent light where you won't be shooting at anything below the 1/focal length rule conducive to camera shake anyway?
Click to expand...

I have an aversion to tripods, hate the things .. bought a Red Snapper and a Velbon (for travel) nearly 3 years ago when I bought my first DSLR and can honestly say I have not used them once in that time.

I am not sure which is the better system, in body or in lens but if either means I don't have to use one of those metal legged monstrosities then I'm all for it.

The shots that do need a tripod, I miss out on mostly but sometimes .. just sometimes ... having inbody IS means I do get the picture. :thumbs:
 
In body IS is of course fantatsically useful for old manual focus lenses.
 
Byker28i said:
Erm?

From memory, primes with

Canon EF 200mm f2.0 L IS USM Lens
Canon EF 300mm f4 L IS USM Lens
Canon EF 500mm f4 L IS USM Lens
Canon EF 600mm f4 L IS USM Lens
Canon EF 800mm f5.6 L IS USM Lens
Canon EF 500mm f4 L IS II USM Lens
Canon EF 600mm f4 L IS II USM Lens
Canon EF 400mm f2.8 L IS II USM Lens
Canon EF 300mm f2.8 L IS II USM Lens
Click to expand...

100L IS Macro

arad85 said:
Generally don't need them as they tend to be landscape shots and are either hand held in good light or composed with a tripod.

Canon do a 24 1.4L, 35 1.4L and 50mm 1.2L. How fast do you want???
Click to expand...

85L f1.2
 
If I was Nikon I would add In-Body Stabilisation with the ability to switch it off and use In-Lens Stabilisation at other times dependent on lens selection.

Assuming the arguments I used as a brand for In-Lens being better, rather than In-Lens stabilisation being developed for film before sensor shift was an option;), then I would be confident that it would have a negligible effect on sales- certainly for longer focal lengths.

I think you could easily become number 1 for DSLR's with the dual system and the right marketing- lets face it, people predominantly choose Sony due to the In-Body Stabilisation not because of any photographic genuis:razz:;)

It's also interesting to note that Sony don't have In-Body in all their cameras now and are doing the In-Lens thing.
 
Alan Clogwyn said:
In body IS is of course fantatsically useful for old manual focus lenses.
Click to expand...

Certainly for smaller focal lengths, it works well. But at 300-400mm, for example, I could only really ever get a one stop improvement. I bought a Sony a450 and programmable adapter for exactly that purpose but was really disappointed with results. My canon 70-300 IS was much better in that regard.
 
Dr_O said:
It's also interesting to note that Sony don't have In-Body in all their cameras now and are doing the In-Lens thing.
Click to expand...

I believe that's only the case for the E-mount Nex cameras though, specifically because they were trying to make them as thin as possible, so ditched the in-body IS system.
 
manualfocus-g said:
Certainly for smaller focal lengths, it works well. But at 300-400mm, for example, I could only really ever get a one stop improvement. I bought a Sony a450 and programmable adapter for exactly that purpose but was really disappointed with results. My canon 70-300 IS was much better in that regard.
Click to expand...

I use a Pentax manual focus 300mm f2.8 normally with a Pentax 1.7x Tc which gives me 500mm f4.5. The lens is just over 3kg.

The other day I was testing a matched 2x teleconverter and took THIS handheld. That's a 3kg lens @ 600mm, 0.005 sec, handheld.

I would say that's not bad and shows the inbuilt SR works pretty well.
 
Mike.P said:
I use a Pentax manual focus 300mm f2.8 normally with a Pentax 1.7x Tc which gives me 500mm f4.5. The lens is just over 3kg.

The other day I was testing a matched 2x teleconverter and took THIS handheld. That's a 3kg lens @ 600mm, 0.005 sec, handheld.

I would say that's not bad and shows the inbuilt SR works pretty well.
Click to expand...

Definately, that is a very good result indeed! Can you do that consistantly? That's what I'm basing my testing on...I could get an occasional sharp shot with in built IS, but the majority showed camera shake.
 
manualfocus-g said:
I believe that's only the case for the E-mount Nex cameras though, specifically because they were trying to make them as thin as possible, so ditched the in-body IS system.
Click to expand...

You're correct but they set their stall out as In-Body Stabilisation. Clearly the NEX cameras were a huge strategic decision which would likely have required CEO approval where they decided that size was more important than stabilisation and that looking at Canon/ Nikon with In-Lens Stabilisation they thought that Sony users would be prepared to pay for stabilised lenses. If they really thought In-Body Stabilisation was that important it would be in there at the sacrifice of size.
 
manualfocus-g said:
Definately, that is a very good result indeed! Can you do that consistantly? That's what I'm basing my testing on...I could get an occasional sharp shot with in built IS, but the majority showed camera shake.
Click to expand...

I used the 300mm and 1.7x at a power boat race last year and seemed to get reasonable results. I would imagine having a stabilized viewfinder would be beneficial but I couldn't afford a IS 300mm f2.8 or 500mm f4.5 (even if Pentax made them) ... this way I can.
 
Mike.P said:
I used the 300mm and 1.7x at a power boat race last year and seemed to get reasonable results. I would imagine having a stabilized viewfinder would be beneficial but I couldn't afford a IS 300mm f2.8 or 500mm f4.5 (even if Pentax made them) ... this way I can.
Click to expand...

Some good ones there- I'd certainly like the option of both systems as it gives so many options although my main requirement at the moment centres around video capability of which Sony and Canon are the experts.

Sticking with the black stuff for the moment:)
 
I heard a sales person point out that the better option for him would be the Sony as it offered in-built IS saving money on lenses in the future.

So there it is the reason Sony has it in camera is to differentiate itself from Canon and Nikon. If it wasn't the case Sony would probably have to complete on price as sales people would struggle to justify why a Sony is better than the competitors.

In contrast prior to this I heard some saying that a customer should not get a Sony as they were a "gadget" manufacturer and not committed to making cameras. I was so tempted to point out that Sony purchased Konica-minolta and renamed the brand Sony !!!

Be it that one is better than or not there seems little to gain for Canon or Nikon to change.
 
DrRusty said:
I heard a sales person point out that the better option for him would be the Sony as it offered in-built IS saving money on lenses in the future.

So there it is the reason Sony has it in camera is to differentiate itself from Canon and Nikon. If it wasn't the case Sony would probably have to complete on price as sales people would struggle to justify why a Sony is better than the competitors.

In contrast prior to this I heard some saying that a customer should not get a Sony as they were a "gadget" manufacturer and not committed to making cameras. I was so tempted to point out that Sony purchased Konica-minolta and renamed the brand Sony !!!

Be it that one is better than or not there seems little to gain for Canon or Nikon to change.
Click to expand...

Sony's problem is that they have nothing to differentiate them from Canikon, and in-body stabilisation doesn't seem to swing it for them, even if their lenses were cheaper. Which evidently, they are not - that's a myth. Nor Olympus.

I would also question Sony's long term commitment to DSLRs. Their heart, and profits, lie with the little EVILs.

I agree that Canikon are unlikely to change anything with their current DSLR range. Why should they - their IS and VR systems work very well and they have over 80% market share between them, and that shows no sign of slipping :shrug:
 
HoppyUK said:
Sony's problem is that they have nothing to differentiate them from Canikon, and in-body stabilisation doesn't seem to swing it for them, even if their lenses were cheaper
Click to expand...

They have plenty to differentiate themselves with, the problem is the second hand market of Canon and Nikon lenses and pre-existing userbase.

SLT cameras (and therefore Phase Detection AF in video)
Twilight mode and other similar features which are fun, if not amazingly useful
SSS
a-mount lenses
Best "value" full frame body out right now (a850)
Burst rate (even ignoring the SLT's)

I don't particularly care whether the lenses are cheaper are not - I'd happily pay an extra £50 (even that doesn't look to be the case given Sony's current pricing) to add SSM to every single one of my lenses that I ever used.

I can't imagine Sigma would be particularly willing to, but I'd say a Sigma/Sony partnership in making a-mount 3rd party lenses more available, and reducing Sigma's need to reverse-engineer the mount data, could help with the lens market problems, though the second hand market would remain poor for a while.
 
Last edited:
Ksanti said:
They have plenty to differentiate themselves with, the problem is the second hand market of Canon and Nikon lenses and pre-existing userbase.

SSM


I don't particularly care whether the lenses are cheaper are not - I'd happily pay an extra £50 (even that doesn't look to be the case given Sony's current pricing) to add SSM to every single one of my lenses that I ever used.
Click to expand...

Isn't SSM just the sony equivalent of canon USM or nikon 'Silent wave' motors?
 
squishy said:
Isn't SSM just the sony equivalent of canon USM or nikon 'Silent wave' motors?
Click to expand...

Oops, I meant SSS: Sony Steady-Shot the in-body stabilsation system
 
Last edited:
HoppyUK said:
I would also question Sony's long term commitment to DSLRs. Their heart, and profits, lie with the little EVILs.
Click to expand...

Sony may well give up on the reflex mirror in the future and go to translucent only with all new bodies (possibly excepting FF bodies). There's certainly plenty of speculation about that and it appears the A700 replacement will be SLT (like the A33 and A55) rather than SLR.

I don't see them giving up on "full size" cameras (both with crop and FF sensors), not when they are still announcing and releasing serious full frame glass (Zeiss 24/2 last year, 500/4 on the way, 200/2 seems very likely if reports are to be believed).
 
Am I correct that in body stabilisation is a newer thing than in lens?
 
lawrie29 said:
Am I correct that in body stabilisation is a newer thing than in lens?
Click to expand...

Yes. Introducing in-body stabilisation would render the VR developments on many of Canikons lenses somewhat pointless in many cases, but either manufacturer introducing in-body stabilisation would likely force the other to make the same move.
 
Ksanti said:
They have plenty to differentiate themselves with, the problem is the second hand market of Canon and Nikon lenses and pre-existing userbase.

SLT cameras (and therefore Phase Detection AF in video)
Twilight mode and other similar features which are fun, if not amazingly useful
SSS
a-mount lenses
Best "value" full frame body out right now (a850)
Burst rate (even ignoring the SLT's)

I don't particularly care whether the lenses are cheaper are not - I'd happily pay an extra £50 (even that doesn't look to be the case given Sony's current pricing) to add SSM to every single one of my lenses that I ever used.

I can't imagine Sigma would be particularly willing to, but I'd say a Sigma/Sony partnership in making a-mount 3rd party lenses more available, and reducing Sigma's need to reverse-engineer the mount data, could help with the lens market problems, though the second hand market would remain poor for a while.
Click to expand...

onomatopoeia said:
Sony may well give up on the reflex mirror in the future and go to translucent only with all new bodies (possibly excepting FF bodies). There's certainly plenty of speculation about that and it appears the A700 replacement will be SLT (like the A33 and A55) rather than SLR.

I don't see them giving up on "full size" cameras (both with crop and FF sensors), not when they are still announcing and releasing serious full frame glass (Zeiss 24/2 last year, 500/4 on the way, 200/2 seems very likely if reports are to be believed).
Click to expand...

Whatever Sony has got to differentiate themselves, it isn't working. They have tried hard with their DSLRs and very good they are too. The A900 was a sterling attempt to take on Canikon at their best, and while they made a pretty good fist of it, the camera and the Sony system in general just hasn't got enough to pull people from Canikon, or it has to be said, to attract newcomers in significant numbers. And it's getting old now.

I wish it were otherwise because the Canikon duopoly is potentially unhealthy for consumers, but that's the way it is. Unless Sony can break through in a big way (and that rather silly transulscent mirror thing is woefully wide of the mark) then they have no commercial incentive to press on.

I'm sure they will make positive noises along the way, but their commercial heart lies in the EVIL market. They could make a big splash there, indeed they already are, while we have not (as yet) heard a peep from Canikon there. Actually, the silence is getting louder all the time and I expect something big from them sooner rather than later, that could shape the way enthusiasts take pictures over the next 10-20 years. I know that's a bold statement, but I believe it to be true. The potential is enormous for a camera that gets rid of all that reflex mirror and viewfinder stuff completely (and ultimately the mechanical shutter too).

Getting back on topic, future cameras could have either in-body or in-lens stabilisation, or both. Either system does the basic job, and both have advantages in certain areas. But I don't think it's a killer feature.
 
Hoppy, how can you be so sure that Sony's move towards translucent mirrors is a silly one? You sound rather naive and unwilling to accept that technology is changing. Sony are producing the BEST crop camera DSLR sensor at the moment, and that combined with potentially VERY fast burst rates makes for a very interesting camera in the A77. For wildlife / motorsport would you seriously ignore a camera with a sensor better than that of the a580/k-5/d7000 with shutter speeds of something silly like 15fps?

I think Sony are doing exactly the right thing and going in a different direction.
 
Sony has to go a different direction, it hasn't got the ability or time to catch up to Canon and Nikon now so will have to branch out in other directions.
 
Personally, my opionion is that if Sony goes 100% translucent, they are basically forfeiting the pro market for now. Even as a hobbyist, you'd have to give me much more than 15fps and continuous AF while shooting to replace my optical viewfinder with an EVF. Of course EVFs will get better and the gap with optical finders will slowly close but I'm pretty sure not many pros would go for one today. Personally I very rarely even use the 8-10fps my cameras give me, which only acts as an example that different users value different features.

I applaud the innovation but I hope that Sony keeps the traditional DSLR line along the translucent mirror ones. We need competition and innovation, with Panasonic/Olympus pretty much going EVIL only, we need someone with a big purse to kick Canon & Nikon to bring out better stuff for us traditional folk .. ;)
 
manualfocus-g said:
Hoppy, how can you be so sure that Sony's move towards translucent mirrors is a silly one? You sound rather naive and unwilling to accept that technology is changing. Sony are producing the BEST crop camera DSLR sensor at the moment, and that combined with potentially VERY fast burst rates makes for a very interesting camera in the A77. For wildlife / motorsport would you seriously ignore a camera with a sensor better than that of the a580/k-5/d7000 with shutter speeds of something silly like 15fps?

I think Sony are doing exactly the right thing and going in a different direction.
Click to expand...

I've been called a lot of things, but never that before! :D

Read this review before you think that Sony's translucent mirror idea actually does anything worth having. It actually fails at the very things it should be best at. This is the conclusion page from DPReview http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonyslta55/page18.asp

Tansluscent and 'pellicle' mirrors are not new of course and Canon in particular have had a go a few times. They have never caught on, and while Sony has an interesting new take on it, what that camera does is attempt to solve a problem that doesn't really exist, or is better addressed in other ways.

And what it singularly fails to do is actually get rid of the mirror, and liberate the space behind the lens which it still occupies. That is what the new EVIL MILCs do, and that is the key to their very significant and substantial benefits - smaller size and weight, less cost, better/cheaper lenses and the road cleared for a fully solid state camera.

I could say that it was naive to think that transluscent mirror technology would take us anywhere useful, or that underestimating the potential of EVIL/MILCs was an unwillingness to accept that technology really is changing, but that would be, well, uncalled for ;)
 
Last edited:
Having used both Pentax previously, and now Nikon, their respective stabilisation systems both work very well. I would say that the Nikon in lens VRII system is possibly better over 200mm at up to 4 stops extra handholdability than the in body SR of Pentax, but the Pentax system can pretty much match this at the shorter focal lengths up to maybe 200mm.

I would certainly welcome Nikon using in camera SR as it means that any Nikon lens would become stabilised, especially those where VR becomes too costly or make the lens too large to include it. Take the 24-70 f2.8, a stellar standard zoom lens by any standard, but it doesn't have VR as it would make it too large, too costly, and cause too many compromises IQ wise to include it, but would certainly benefit having in body stabilisation. Look at all the Nikon primes that do not have VR.

The other factor that may benefit in body SR to be included would be that both systems may actually work together to possibly get better stabilisation. If this cannot be achieved for some reason, then in body stabilisation could be made to work with lenses that do not have VR.

I really do not see that there are any downsides, but rather, all upsides to including in body SR.
 
HoppyUK said:
I could say that it was naive to think that transluscent mirror technology would take us anywhere useful, or that underestimating the potential of EVIL/MILCs was an unwillingness to accept that technology really is changing, but that would be, well, uncalled for ;)
Click to expand...

Fair enough! :lol:

But there are clear advantages to using a system like this:

1. Less camera shake from a moving shutter
2. Faster continuous shooting
3. Digital viewfinder with zoom capability for critical focus and extra info such as histograms (wouldn't it be nice to avoid leaving the viewfinder to check these things?)
4. Less moving parts. Now, this isn't necessarily a clear advantage (yet) but I should hope that shutter life should be improved ;)

Whilst I am not saying everyone should jump the CaNikon ship and sail into the sunset with Sony, I think writing the technology off before it's even matured past the nappy stage is a bit silly :)
 
manualfocus-g said:
Fair enough! :lol:

But there are clear advantages to using a system like this:

1. Less camera shake from a moving shutter
2. Faster continuous shooting
3. Digital viewfinder with zoom capability for critical focus and extra info such as histograms (wouldn't it be nice to avoid leaving the viewfinder to check these things?)
4. Less moving parts. Now, this isn't necessarily a clear advantage (yet) but I should hope that shutter life should be improved ;)

Whilst I am not saying everyone should jump the CaNikon ship and sail into the sunset with Sony, I think writing the technology off before it's even matured past the nappy stage is a bit silly :)
Click to expand...

Those are either minor or non-existent benefits, solutions to problems that don't exist, or are equally well addressed by other means.

I'm dismissing it because the technology doesn't have sufficient fundamental benefits, even if Sony had to will to take it forward. Which I don't believe they have.
 
manualfocus-g said:
A bit like liveview when it first came out? ;)

Anyway, time will tell! We're well OT here :lol:
Click to expand...

Haha yes we'll see ;)

I don't think it's such a crime to go a bit OT after 70-odd posts and it often throws up interesting views :)
 
Oh no, please don't start me off on that one :eek:
 
Hmm... All who mention the fact that the lens VR is visible in-viewfinder seem to see it as a benefit, I'd imagine I'd prefer seeing where the lens was pointing? Not so prevalent with VRII, but I've heard reports of the Bigma's OS being particularly irritating to see.

And on SLT I reckon it'll work up until the point where contrast detection AF is quick enough for the difference to be negligible, at which point it's back to DSLR and EVILs only.
 
Ksanti said:
Hmm... All who mention the fact that the lens VR is visible in-viewfinder seem to see it as a benefit, I'd imagine I'd prefer seeing where the lens was pointing?
Click to expand...

It definitely is a benefit when shooting handheld at 400mm. The view you get might be very slightly different to what comes out in the picture, but I've never noticed, and if it ever is, it's well worth it for the ease of framing/focussing.


I would like in body stabilisation if I shot with short fast primes a lot, but when I'm hand-holding my 100-400, I'm always glad of the stable viewfinder.
 
I think the conclusion we're rapidly coming to is that it would be nice to have both! In body stabilisation for a cheaper and effective solution for shorter lenses and in lens stabilisation for the long lenses.

Now all we need is for Canon and Nikon to give us that option!
 
I don't think canikon will offer both. Sony might. If sony do then I reckon pentax probably would too.

Seems logical to me that whatever stablisation systems that are currently on offer in canon/nikon fit lenses from third party manufacturers should be available in sony mount with one extra switcheroo to either turn off in lens IS if in body is turned on or vice versa. It seems very odd that it hasn't been tried yet.
 
If sony and pentax did it, canon and nikon would probably follow sometime.
Because then they would have no advantages to counter the advantages of sensor based stabilisation.

It wouldn't be hard for the camera to automatically recognise whether the lens on it has IS/VR and turn on or off sensor stabilisation accordingly.

Sensor stabilisation in a pro full frame camera would be diabolical, imagine a camera with the high ISO abilities of the D3s + sensor stabilisation + an f/1.4 lens.
 
squishy said:
If sony and pentax did it, canon and nikon would probably follow sometime.
Because then they would have no advantages to counter the advantages of sensor based stabilisation.

It wouldn't be hard for the camera to automatically recognise whether the lens on it has IS/VR and turn on or off sensor stabilisation accordingly.

Sensor stabilisation in a pro full frame camera would be diabolical, imagine a camera with the high ISO abilities of the D3s + sensor stabilisation + an f/1.4 lens.
Click to expand...

That'll be the Sony A900 then :thinking:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top