Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Panasonic / Leica dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jun 10, 2006, 7:23 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
HarjTT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,533
Default

What benefit does IS in the lens like the L1, Canon's IS and Nikons VR have over say Sony/KM in body IS ? I really like the fact that with the Sony/KM DSLR's that every lens automatically gets IS and like many existing Lumix owners was a wee bit suprised when Pana announced that the IS in the L1 was in the lens. Other than say Sony/KM patents on in body IS or an agreement with Oly to provide lens's with IS I like many others would have prefered IS in the camera body.

Cheers

HarjTT


:|:?
HarjTT is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jun 10, 2006, 8:00 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,396
Default

For the consumer IS in the body is the preferable way to go.
Buy it once and it works with all lenses.

For the manfacturers IS in the lens is a cash cow.
So my guess is they would prefer IS in the lenses.
I bet they were not happy with KM originally, but must be getting very worried now with the huge Sony jumping onboard and putting IS out in the body.

My guess it will be just like AF originally was, when it first came out Canon tried to put it into the lens. Then had to back down when others (KM I think) put it in the body.
PeterP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 10, 2006, 9:02 AM   #3
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

With in lens stabilization, it also stabilizes the viewfinder image, and helps the Autofocus by stabilizing what the AF sensors see.

But, the graph in the viewfinder to show how much shake you've got with KM models is a pretty neat feature, and I like seeing how steady the image is based on how I'm holding a camera. Pros and Cons to both.

Sony apparently made some improvements to the anti-shake mechanism and now claims 2 to 3 1/2 stops of improvement with the new Alpha 100.

My guess is that it's using faster hardware, which allowed Sony (or KM) to use more advanced algorithms for even better performance.

Quote:
My guess it will be just like AF originally was, when it first came out Canon tried to put it into the lens. Then had to back down when others (KM I think) put it in the body.
This article discusses Canon's efforts to use an in lens autofocus system, and how they abandoned them after Minolta launched their In body AF system in January 1985.

Minolta Maxxum 7000

Quote:
...a relatively low profile Minolta rocked the entire photographic community in January 1985 with a new breed of AF camera which has a revolutionary concept that made it differed from other "mainstream industrial design" adopted by other makers. "New" because there were two major factors of which one of them has a great impact to the existing Minolta users - the Company decided to drop support for the older MC/MD mount and replaced with an fully electronic lens mount with no backward compatibility.

But a more important element is, the Maxxum 7000 AF SLR camera was the first true system AF SLR with an body integrated AF design with a host of new AF lenses built around the camera.
Canon made a similar switch almost two years later in late 1986 with the introduction of their EOS system and new EF lens mount.

I've got two of these Maxxum 7000 bodies now, both acquired within the last year (purchased mostly to get lenses that came with them in package deals). One was $49 (buy it now price on Ebay) including a 50mm f/1.7 AF lens. The other was $52 (from keh.com) including a 35-70mm f/4 Macro AF lens. Both still work just fine (bodies and lenses).


JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 12, 2006, 9:56 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
zygh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 531
Default

Stabilization in-camera is preferable pricewise to in-lens. Just look at Canon and Nikon orientated lenses with built in stabilization and how expensive they are. What I absolutely love about Konica-Minolta is that one has so many brilliant inexpensive lenses to choose from.
zygh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 20, 2006, 6:09 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
meanstreak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,234
Default

HarjTT wrote:
Quote:
What benefit does IS in the lens like the L1, Canon's IS and Nikons VR have over say Sony/KM in body IS ? I really like the fact that with the Sony/KM DSLR's that every lens automatically gets IS and like many existing Lumix owners was a wee bit suprised when Pana announced that the IS in the L1 was in the lens. Other than say Sony/KM patents on in body IS or an agreement with Oly to provide lens's with IS I like many others would have prefered IS in the camera body.

Cheers

HarjTT


:|:?
Even if it were a little better having IS in each lens, it certainly doesn't justify the cost associated with paying for it in each lens. The real shame is for those who have their heart set on aCanon or Nikonandare stuck paying a premium to get antishake. Sony made a smart move aquiringthe KM IS design and adding a dust cleaning feature and going with 10 megapixal.
meanstreak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 20, 2006, 7:02 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,483
Default

It certainly "seems" like in-camera stabilization would be preferrable, but you can't argue the fact the one company that offered it isno longer making cameras and the ones that offer it in the lenses are, so itappearsto me like the market has decided which technology sells better, and that wins out every time over theory. We'llnowsee if adding to the mix trying to sell "Zeiss" lenses with it works. My guess is, until they introduce a pro body, not just a bunch of5D knockoffs, it will be a hard sell.
Greg Chappell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 20, 2006, 8:55 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
meanstreak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,234
Default

Greg Chappell wrote:
Quote:
It certainly "seems" like in-camera stabilization would be preferrable, but you can't argue the fact the one company that offered it isno longer making cameras and the ones that offer it in the lenses are, so itappearsto me like the market has decided which technology sells better, and that wins out every time over theory. We'llnowsee if adding to the mix trying to sell "Zeiss" lenses with it works. My guess is, until they introduce a pro body, not just a bunch of5D knockoffs, it will be a hard sell.
You can argue the fact because it is simply not true.... They are still making cameras, just under a different label.In camera stabilization is not why they had KM financial dificulties. It is a known fact KM was already in trouble before the release of the 7D and 5D. It is not about which technology sells better, Canon and Nikon already had a much larger market share.


meanstreak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 20, 2006, 9:06 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
zygh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 531
Default

I agree with meanstreak. My opinion is that KM had topull backdue bad management, having nothing to do with the technology it offered, which, in my opinion, it was right up therewith the best of the class. Still, I am glad to see a giant like Sony managed to take things over and develop what KM had when it left the business. The A100 is already a promising start and Sony has the know-how and resources to attack the bigger segment represented by the likes of Canon and Nikon. In the end, it'sus consumers that benefit.
zygh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 20, 2006, 9:14 AM   #9
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

In addition to the existing Konica Minolta models, and new Sony Alpha DSLR model using in body stabilization, Pentax has decided to go the same route.

They've already launched two non-DSLR models with SR (Shake Reduction), and the new K100D will also have it (due to ship in August):

http://www.steves-digicams.com/pr/pe...-k110d_pr.html

They'll also offer another new model without it for $100 less.

I suspect we'll see this technology showing up in the Samsung Branded DSLR models at some point, too.

JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 20, 2006, 11:03 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
zygh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 531
Default

Hmm, maybe that'll get Nikon and Canon to drop prices for stabilized lenses sometime in the future. I mean, in-lens stabilization is great but the lenses are darn pricey!
zygh is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 4:33 PM.