Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-12-2015, 12:40 AM   #1
Veteran Member
philbaum's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Port Townsend, Washington State, USA
Posts: 3,659
Lens Stabilization VS Camera Stabilization

https://photographylife.com/lens-stabilization-vs-in-camera-stabilization

This article in Photography Life by Nasim Mansurov is the best explanation of how manufacturers got to where they are today with stabilization efforts. For example, stating that lens stabilization was chosen early because film could not be stabilized. Also that lens stabilization led to a stabilized view in OVFs. While in body image stabilization, like Sony and Pentax, require an EVF to show the stabilized view. The OVF mirror gets in the way.

The article really emphasizes the advantages of IBIS systems, except where longer lenses are involved. There are several pages of comments after the article and the last comment really commends Pentax and their SR systems, claims that the K3II now has 4.5 stops of stabilization - still not visible in the OVF though. It also claims that lens based systems are more expensive because of the difficulty of building stabilization features into the lens. While the body systems are installed in one body and are good for all lenses.

Useful discussion in simple language that even i could understand :-)

10-12-2015, 01:29 AM   #2
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Far North Qld
Posts: 3,301
IBIS is always better than OIS but only when it isn't disabled for video (thanks a bunch PENTAX!!)

Last edited by Steve.Ledger; 10-12-2015 at 01:37 AM.
10-12-2015, 04:15 AM   #3
Pentaxian
swanlefitte's Avatar

Join Date: May 2015
Location: New Orleans
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,116
he pointed out lens stabilization is better on long lenses but failed to mention pixel shift on in body stabilization is much better for landscape. This is very new though. I think k3ii users like it.
10-12-2015, 05:31 AM   #4
Pentaxian
audiobomber's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,794
The article is pretty much a rehashing of old arguments. This one comes from a Canon or Nikon article defending their lack of IBIS:

Less accurate metering and AF performance in low light situations because the image coming out of the lens is not stabilized, the camera metering and AF sensors also receive a shaky image (in cameras with a phase-detection AF system). Hence, metering and AF performance can be negatively affected, specifically in low-light situations.

Has anyone ever experienced this, improved metering and AF due to ILIS? That would mean that non-stabilized systems, for example a 300mm f4 on a Nikon, or any IS system when turned off, would have these issues. I've never heard of it, nor experienced it. Sounds like bull-crap to me.

If your camera is shaking so much that it can't focus or meter properly, you are going to have a soft image, regardless of the IS system. I like seeing shake in the OVF, because it reminds me to check my holding technique.

As swanlefitte mentioned, the article totally fails to mention pixel shift. Of course astrotracing and sensor tilt is ignored. More surprisingly, there's no mention that ILIS only moves in one plane. IBIS has an advantage because it can correct for for pitch and yaw.

10-12-2015, 07:07 AM   #5
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Nelson B.C.
Posts: 3,676
QuoteOriginally posted by audiobomber Quote
The article is pretty much a rehashing of old arguments. This one comes from a Canon or Nikon article defending their lack of IBIS:

Less accurate metering and AF performance in low light situations – because the image coming out of the lens is not stabilized, the camera metering and AF sensors also receive a shaky image (in cameras with a phase-detection AF system). Hence, metering and AF performance can be negatively affected, specifically in low-light situations.

Has anyone ever experienced this, improved metering and AF due to ILIS? That would mean that non-stabilized systems, for example a 300mm f4 on a Nikon, or any IS system when turned off, would have these issues. I've never heard of it, nor experienced it. Sounds like bull-crap to me.

If your camera is shaking so much that it can't focus or meter properly, you are going to have a soft image, regardless of the IS system. I like seeing shake in the OVF, because it reminds me to check my holding technique.

As swanlefitte mentioned, the article totally fails to mention pixel shift. Of course astrotracing and sensor tilt is ignored. More surprisingly, there's no mention that ILIS only moves in one plane. IBIS has an advantage because it can correct for for pitch and yaw.
The Sigma 150-500 with in lens stabilizer would focus much better on the k5 than the non stabilized 300 f4. Any movement handheld would confuse the AF logic, but the stabilized image assisted enormously. The advantage disappeared with the k3 improved AF.

A friend who has a slight parkinsonian tremor manages to focus and shoot his Nikon long lenses with stabilization quite effectively.

I have it off most of the time on my k3, I find that it induces softness sometimes in quick shooting situations. It works reasonably well at 300mm.

Last edited by derekkite; 10-12-2015 at 09:26 AM.
10-12-2015, 07:48 AM   #6
Resident Bagpiper
Loyal Site Supporter
bertwert's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Golden, BC
Photos: Albums
Posts: 10,235
There are a couple parts I disagree with:
QuoteQuote:
There are other advantages not included in the above list that I specifically removed, because they are no longer true/applicable:

1. Image stabilization is visible in the viewfinder – this is an advantage only when comparing DSLRs. Image stabilization is also visible on cameras with electronic viewfinders such as mirrorless cameras and Sony SLT (single-lens translucent) cameras.
QuoteQuote:
Advantages of Sensor Stabilization:

3. Camera upgrade vs lens upgrade – if a newer, more efficient way of image stabilization is invented, you only need to upgrade the camera, rather than updating all of your lenses.
QuoteQuote:
Similar to lens stabilization, I removed the below disadvantages, because they are either no longer applicable to modern cameras:

1. Image stabilization is not visible in the viewfinder – this is a disadvantage only when comparing DSLRs. Image stabilization is visible on cameras with electronic viewfinders such as mirrorless cameras and Sony SLT (single-lens translucent) cameras.
Apparently DSLRs aren't modern cameras!
Slightly (not really) interesting article.
10-12-2015, 09:10 AM   #7
Veteran Member
philbaum's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Port Townsend, Washington State, USA
Posts: 3,659
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by audiobomber Quote
The article is pretty much a rehashing of old arguments. This one comes from a Canon or Nikon article defending their lack of IBIS:

Less accurate metering and AF performance in low light situations because the image coming out of the lens is not stabilized, the camera metering and AF sensors also receive a shaky image (in cameras with a phase-detection AF system). Hence, metering and AF performance can be negatively affected, specifically in low-light situations.

Has anyone ever experienced this, improved metering and AF due to ILIS? That would mean that non-stabilized systems, for example a 300mm f4 on a Nikon, or any IS system when turned off, would have these issues. I've never heard of it, nor experienced it. Sounds like bull-crap to me.

If your camera is shaking so much that it can't focus or meter properly, you are going to have a soft image, regardless of the IS system. I like seeing shake in the OVF, because it reminds me to check my holding technique.

As swanlefitte mentioned, the article totally fails to mention pixel shift. Of course astrotracing and sensor tilt is ignored. More surprisingly, there's no mention that ILIS only moves in one plane. IBIS has an advantage because it can correct for for pitch and yaw.
Regards metering - I don't care that much, precise metering is less of a goal with modern sensors. Regards the K5 AF, the focusing was weak in poor light. After reading this, i'm wondering if the lack of a stabilized focus system contributed to that problem. K3 fixed it but perhaps they designed the K3's focusing system to be less sensitive to shaking. Maybe Pentax has resisted giving us a really small focusing point, because they realized the handheld shaking would adversely affect accuracy.

I really like the stabilized EVF on Sony. I can see details better thru the VF because of it. Wish Pentax had taken advantage of this potential IBIS plus by going with EVF.

Sony has nothing like the Pentax automatic horizon correction in its IBIS. Miss that feature a lot - now back to manual correction.
10-12-2015, 10:24 AM   #8
Pentaxian
audiobomber's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,794
See really good detail in an EVF? They are very limited in resolution vs. an OVF. The best of them are only 2mp, a far cry from the true life view of a good OVF.

10-12-2015, 11:21 AM   #9
osv
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: So Cal
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,080
QuoteOriginally posted by audiobomber Quote
See really good detail in an EVF? They are very limited in resolution vs. an OVF. The best of them are only 2mp, a far cry from the true life view of a good OVF.
a common mis-conception, totally wrong.

ovf resolution is limited to how fine the pattern is in the ground glass screen; most of the screen needs a coarser low-resolution pattern, or you wouldn't be able to see the focus effect coming into clarity as you turn the focusing ring on the lens.

af dslrs negate that, they need a finer grind in the screen pattern, because that makes it brighter... however it wrecks the mf capability, because oof looks similar to in-focus areas, so people resort to swapping out the stupid af focusing screen for a low-resolution coarse screen... been there done that with pentax, it sucked.

with evf you also get magnification, which is the ultimate in high-resolution, no ovf can touch that.
10-12-2015, 11:44 AM   #10
Site Supporter
Otis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis Fan
Site Supporter
Rupert's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Texas
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,123
I turned off the OS in my new 50-500 Bigma because I think the Pentax SR is faster and at least as good. In some shorter lenses like my Sigma 17-70 I have found OS to be slightly better.
Neither are a bad choice, they both work well enough for me.

1/125 handheld @ 500mm will still get you a half decent shot with Pentax SR.


I honestly can't imagine buying any camera without IB stabilization?

Regards!
10-12-2015, 02:07 PM   #11
Veteran Member
philbaum's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Port Townsend, Washington State, USA
Posts: 3,659
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by audiobomber Quote
See really good detail in an EVF? They are very limited in resolution vs. an OVF. The best of them are only 2mp, a far cry from the true life view of a good OVF.
Once you walk into a building, or it gets towards evening, that OVF loses its brightness, and its detail. Then you are left chimping off Liveview - the VF is no longer of any use. Pentax was very smart to persist with IBIS - i can't figure out why they don't want to see it show off its stability with EVF. Seeing is Believing.

This whole lens versus camera stability is an "issue" again because Sony has showed how good IBIS can be with an EVF. One of my early supervisors had a poster above his desk that stated: Lead, Follow, or Get out of the Way. OVFs are not the future.
10-12-2015, 02:19 PM - 1 Like   #12
Resident Bagpiper
Loyal Site Supporter
bertwert's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Golden, BC
Photos: Albums
Posts: 10,235
Until you get me an EVF of the resolution of the sensor, zero response time, and uses no battery (along with the sensor not using battery to stay on all the time)...
I'm sticking with OVF
10-12-2015, 03:19 PM   #13
Veteran Member
philbaum's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Port Townsend, Washington State, USA
Posts: 3,659
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by bertwert Quote
Until you get me an EVF of the resolution of the sensor, zero response time, and uses no battery (along with the sensor not using battery to stay on all the time)...
I'm sticking with OVF
We're talking about market trends in this thread. Why you think I need to provide you something is beyond me. I pay for my own cameras.
10-12-2015, 03:42 PM   #14
Resident Bagpiper
Loyal Site Supporter
bertwert's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Golden, BC
Photos: Albums
Posts: 10,235
QuoteOriginally posted by philbaum Quote
We're talking about market trends in this thread. Why you think I need to provide you something is beyond me. I pay for my own cameras.
I mean, until something like that comes around, OVF is the way to go.
10-12-2015, 06:45 PM   #15
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
Canada_Rockies's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Sparwood, BC, Canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 10,842
QuoteOriginally posted by osv Quote
ovf resolution is limited to how fine the pattern is in the ground glass screen; most of the screen needs a coarser low-resolution pattern, or you wouldn't be able to see the focus effect coming into clarity as you turn the focusing ring on the lens.

af dslrs negate that, they need a finer grind in the screen pattern, because that makes it brighter... however it wrecks the mf capability,
Just to add a point here:
I purchased a used K3 recently. I transferred the O-ME53 viewfinder magnifier from the K10, in which I had swapped out the focusing screen for a coarser LL60. Using my M400 + AFA 1.7X, I find I am capable of easily manually focusing the combination. Using the M400 without the AFA 1.7x, I still manually focus easily. Shooting without the O-ME53 it is much harder to see the focus point. Focusing is as easy on the K3 as on the K10 as long as I have the magnifier on it. YMMV
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
article, body, claims, lens, lens stabilization vs, pentax, stabilization, stabilization vs camera, systems, view
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Stabilization with manual lens Hanknj2 Pentax K-5 6 03-24-2015 12:38 PM
Sensor-shift vs lens based stabilization vencab Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 8 06-10-2012 11:18 AM
Image Stabilization: Pentax K-X vs Nikon/Canon geekette Pentax DSLR Discussion 24 04-18-2011 01:20 PM
In-body stabilization + lens stabilization ntx Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 14 02-24-2009 05:24 PM
Camera Stabilization aamir515 Photographic Technique 10 11-20-2008 02:28 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:17 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top