[Michael Piziak]

This is likely already posted in the forums here, as it is nearly impossible to beat this bunch to any news concerning Pentax, but here's an article that came across a Pentax group I belong to. Regardless, post a comment/reply if you have any thoughts on the matter please.

Some replied that the tech was already in existence before Ricoh/Pentax even used it - I dunno


https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/news/canon-steals-old-tech-from-pentax

[pid]

years ago Nikon and Canon people told me how bad inbody stabilisation is and of cause the Pentax inbody stabilisation is not as good as the Lens stabilisation of their brands. ... now they all have inbody stabilisation and Canon steals another genious technic from Pentax ... wait and we will see Pixelshift as well ...

Hope Pentax patents will be strong enough to get money from them.

[Fogel70]

For Ricoh it may be a good thing if Canon start to IBIS based AA simulation, as they probably have to pay a licensing fee to Ricoh.

But I doubt Canon will start using it as on cameras today moiré is rarely a problem because of increasing sensor resolution. And software solutions to fix it in post have become better.
I have had cameras with IBIS based AA simulation for a number of years, but I do not think I have ever enabled it in the field. Only used it for testing.

[biz-engineer]

years ago Nikon and Canon people told me how bad inbody stabilisation is and of cause the Pentax inbody stabilisation is not as good as the Lens stabilisation of their brands.

Exactly, this is crazy. I recently watched Nigel Danson (Nikon) video comparing a Nikon D3300 to a Z7 , he is saying Z7 IBIS is so much better than in lens stabilization. This made me laugh because a few years back Canon / Nikon users were saying to opposite.

[Mistral75]

The title of the linked article is mere clickbait.

Canon are not stealing anything. They simply filed a patent application which, seen from the outside, resembles what Ricoh Imaging are doing in some Pentax cameras.

Either Canon's solution is too close to Ricoh Imaging's and the patent won't be granted, or the patent will be granted because there is some originality in Canon's solution. In any cases, it's not a theft.

[pimpim]

The title of the linked article is mere clickbait.

Canon are not stealing anything. They simply filed a patent application which, seen from the outside, resembles what Ricoh Imaging are doing in some Pentax cameras.

Either Canon's solution is too close to Ricoh Imaging's and the patent won't be granted, or the patent will be granted because there is some originality in Canon's solution. In any cases, it's not a theft.

Or the companies arrange a licensing solution. Where there's a lot of overlap, companies often arrange a cross license to access parts of each other's portfolio. Business as usual.

[StiffLegged]

Exactly, this is crazy. I recently watched Nigel Danson (Nikon) video comparing a Nikon D3300 to a Z7 , he is saying Z7 IBIS is so much better than in lens stabilization. This made me laugh because a few years back Canon / Nikon users were saying to opposite.

You would be more accurate to say he claimed his Z-7’s IBIS is more effective than a D3300’s kit lens (18-55) image stabilisation. Maybe Nigel has shaky hands.

[jslifoaw]

Also, IBIS had one key disadvantage prior to mirrorless - the optical viewfinder image is not stabilized. Now that those companies have made a bet on mirrorless, IBIS sheds that disadvantage.

You can tell IBIS is likely to be less effective at long focal lengths - in live view, you can hear the sensor bouncing around a lot.

[Class A]

Also, IBIS had one key disadvantage prior to mirrorless - the optical viewfinder image is not stabilized.

I don't regard that as a disadvantage. I'd rather see what I should be compensating, compared to not knowing how much and how I'm shaking the camera.

A stabilised image may support better AF, but this could be solved by moving the AF unit as well. It is also not clear to me under which conditions a stabilised image on the AF sensor would lead to better results.

You can tell IBIS is likely to be less effective at long focal lengths - in live view, you can hear the sensor bouncing around a lot.

The fact that the compensation range is exceed more often does not imply that the stabilisation is less effective (within the supported range).
Both lens-based and sensor-based stabilisation systems will reach their limits at some point; perhaps a lens-based solution allows more acceleration with less effort, but it just appears to be a question of how much effort to put into a sensor-based solution.

[Fogel70]

The good thing with IBIS on a DSLR is that it is only active when the shutter is open (unless using it in LV). So longer focal length is compensated by the faster shutter speed used for longer focal length.

The main difference with longer focal length is that the sensor has to move faster for a shorter time, but in the end the sensor will move the same distance regardless of focal length if getting same amount of stabilization.

Using 50mm at 1/3s the sensor will move the same distance as if using 500mm at 1/30s. But the sensor will move 10x faster at 1/10 of the time using 500mm. Moving the sensor faster may be more difficult, but on the other hand the longer shutter speed used for shorter focal length may mean that the camera shake become more complex and more difficult to compensate for.

[Rondec]

The title of the linked article is mere clickbait.

Canon are not stealing anything. They simply filed a patent application which, seen from the outside, resembles what Ricoh Imaging are doing in some Pentax cameras.

Either Canon's solution is too close to Ricoh Imaging's and the patent won't be granted, or the patent will be granted because there is some originality in Canon's solution. In any cases, it's not a theft.

Right. If Canon's patent is granted then they might use it in their cameras. If it is denied as being too close to Pentax's sensor shifted AA filter, then they have to decide if they want to pay a licensing fee to use Ricoh's solution. It's more of a way for them to test the waters with whether they can put this in a camera without having a patent infringement case.

If the patent isn't granted my guess is they won't bother using it and either use traditional AA filters or none.

[pinholecam]

Only blame can be put on Pentax for not marketing enough about all its features over so many years of the DSLR heydays.

One by one, the similar features are adopted by other brands and to add insult to injury, people begin to think it was the other brand who thought about it.
IBIS
Image composite shooting
pixel shift
long exposure timer in B mode
Fake blur - on the Pentax Q.

[Mistral75]

IBIS:

1. Minolta: Dynax 7D, September 2004
2. Sony: Alpha 100
3. Pentax: K100D, May 2006
4. Olympus: E-510, March 2007

Pixel Shift: implemented by Hasselblad before Pentax.