[beholder3]

In-body Stabilisation: 5-axis in-body stabilisation is on board, promising up to 8 stops of shake suppression, along with automatic horizon correction (which has been only previously been available on Pentax cameras)

Interesting that there are no patents on this.

[Mbaez]

Interesting that there are no patents on this.

a
True. They also copied the closing of the shutter from the K-01. No reviewer had ever mentioned that. What's next? Astro-tracer? Pixel-shift? AA simulator?

[zapp]

Interesting that there are no patents on this.

How do you know?
Someone else can hold the patent, the patent owner can license the use, …

[reh321]

How do you know?
Someone else can hold the patent, the patent owner can license the use, …

You don’t patent an idea - only an implementation.
I don’t know how the idea is actually implemented in the two cases.

[FozzFoster]

AA simulator?

Canon Patents IBIS-Powered AA Simulation Tech, Similar to Pentax | PetaPixel

[biz-engineer]

True. They also copied the closing of the shutter from the K-01. No reviewer had ever mentioned that. What's next? Astro-tracer? Pixel-shift? AA simulator?

Yes, mirrorless cameras can potentially all come with Astro-tracer, pixelshift, AA simulator features, derived from IBIS. The reason why Canon/Nikon chose lens stabilization for DSLR was because it stabilized the image on the image sensor, on the autofocus sensor (advantage over Pentax) and the optical viewfinder (advantage over Pentax), especially when using long lenses. The Pentax choice of IBIS for DSLR was and still is technically awkward, when using long lenses. And now using sensor stabilization on mirrorless cameras is a logical choice. With the size of their R&D achievement, there is no doubt both Canon and Nikon can do what Pentax did, or even better. As for pixel shift, Canon may just come up with a 90Mpixels full frame sensor which blows Pentax pixel shift resolution and without the motion artifacts induced by pixel shift. The Pentax choice of IBIS favor the use of legacy glass, making all old lenses benefit from camera IBIS. The Canikon choice allowed for superior DSLR system performance.

[pinholecam]

Pentax did not do enough to market those advantages and now everyone has caught up and even worse, ppl start to think those companies were the first to 'innovate'

[Kunzite]

The reason why Canon/Nikon chose lens stabilization for DSLR was because it stabilized the image on the image sensor, on the autofocus sensor (advantage over Pentax) and the optical viewfinder (advantage over Pentax), especially when using long lenses. The Pentax choice of IBIS for DSLR was and still is technically awkward, when using long lenses.

That isn't accurate. Canon/Nikon didn't choose lens stabilization for DSLRs; they already had lens stabilization for their SLRs, and they simply continued with that.
Pentax OTOH didn't had lens stabilization for their SLRs, and with no SR lenses the reasonable option was in-body SR (which made all their lenses stabilized).

[biz-engineer]

That isn't accurate. Canon/Nikon didn't choose lens stabilization for DSLRs; they already had lens stabilization for their SLRs, and they simply continued with that.

Yes, exactly. And they decided not to use IBIS for DSLR because it made no sense technically.

[Kunzite]

Yes, exactly. And they decided not to use IBIS for DSLR because it made no sense technically.

I actually completely disagree with you. And since everyone now is using IBIS (in many cases, together with in-lens IS), I'm right.

As I said, both Canon and Nikon already had a working IS solution (which, naturally, was in-lens, as you can't really do IBIS with film). It's true they didn't switched to IBIS at that time, but that simply means IBIS wasn't a superior solution for their case.
Minolta and Pentax chose IBIS, because that way they didn't have to launch lots of IS lenses.
Olympus launched lenses anyway, but they still chose IBIS. Of course, that doesn't make IBIS superior.

Then, we sort of know the relative performance of various IBIS and in-lens IS systems. IBIS isn't always losing, you know? particularly against the earlier in-lens IS versions.
And today, as I said, it appears you get the best performance by combining the two.

[biz-engineer]

As I said, both Canon and Nikon already had a working IS solution (which, naturally.........

You back up all Pentax choices systematically, including future choices not yet made that you don't know about.

[Kunzite]

You back up all Pentax choices systematically, including future choices not yet made that you don't know about.

You're "defending" your incorrect claim - that IBIS "made no sense technically" with an ad hominem.
Now you're doubly wrong.

[Serkevan]

I actually completely disagree with you. And since everyone now is using IBIS (in many cases, together with in-lens IS), I'm right.

As I said, both Canon and Nikon already had a working IS solution (which, naturally, was in-lens, as you can't really do IBIS with film). It's true they didn't switched to IBIS at that time, but that simply means IBIS wasn't a superior solution for their case.
Minolta and Pentax chose IBIS, because that way they didn't have to launch lots of IS lenses.
Olympus launched lenses anyway, but they still chose IBIS. Of course, that doesn't make IBIS superior.

Then, we sort of know the relative performance of various IBIS and in-lens IS systems. IBIS isn't always losing, you know? particularly against the earlier in-lens IS versions.
And today, as I said, it appears you get the best performance by combining the two.

Canikon implemented IBIS when they moved to MILCs, because one of the points of ILIS was viewfinder stabilization... which IBIS only achieves in MILCs. In DSLRs ILIS is slightly technically better for that (particularly for teles), with the obvious counterpoint being that you have more lenses than bodies so it's a bigger expense (not that it concerned Canikon when they were undisputedly up there in sales ).

It was also, I guess, partly motivated by the Z/RF mounts being a new system, so making the camera body more attractive with new features was a good sales pitch.

Naturally, a combination of both is the best option, but it is not an easy solution to implement - Pentamrons remove the stabilizer and the OS Sigmas go against the IBIS. Not even all lenses from other brands can take advantage of dual IS.

[Kunzite]

Canikon implemented IBIS when they moved to MILCs, because one of the points of ILIS was viewfinder stabilization... which IBIS only achieves in MILCs.

Maybe. We shouldn't fall into the single cause fallacy trap.
It's more likely a decision made on a set of factors, including not needing to put IS into your every single lens, yet having all your lens stabilized. Or figuring out that combining IBIS with in-lens IS is required to get the best stabilization. Or they wanted to copy Pentax' horizon correction.
Whatever the reason, this proves that IBIS does make sense technically This, or the camera makers are all wrong and some random dude on the Internet knows better

P.S. We're still waiting for Pentax' first in-body + in-lens SR solution.

[surfar]

Canikon implemented IBIS when they moved to MILCs

Neither did, M and One series dont have IBIS.

When Nikon entered FF mirrorless they went with IBIS in 2018 but Canon came in with their first 2 bodies(R and RP) without IBIS.Canons first IBIS was R5/6 in 2020.