Jump to content

Sensor for OIS?


dgktkr

Recommended Posts

If you open the back of the SL, there's a little bit of cotton string with a lead fishing weight that swings around. :)

 

I assume it's the same system that drives the level display.

 

As the leveling system continues to work with the lens cap on, it cannot be using the image sensor. So I assume that it uses a system of tiny accelerometers. Similar to a ball and string, but tiny and electronic...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you open the back of the SL, there's a little bit of cotton string with a lead fishing weight that swings around. :)

 

I assume it's the same system that drives the level display.

 

As the leveling system continues to work with the lens cap on, it cannot be using the image sensor. So I assume that it uses a system of tiny accelerometers. Similar to a ball and string, but tiny and electronic...

 

 

Perhaps.

 

Or the system that does tracking for the "Dynamic (Tracking)" AF mode might be able to do it.

 

dgktkr

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, 55 axis ! That thing could stabilize an earthquake in this universe and parallel ones !

:D :D I'll correct the typo. Anyway, on the number of possible axis, i.e. infinite, 5 or 55 does not make any difference. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding, poor at the best of times when it comes to things technical, is that OIS can (perhaps always does?) have a detrimental effect on image quality even when switched off, so in any system where IQ is a very high priority, OIS is at best going to be shoved out to lenses, and not even all lenses.

 

Don't ask me to explain why though. Something to do with the compromises needed in the sensor design and the way it's mounted in the body, heat dissipation etc...I don't know. I'm just regurgitating what I've read about Leica, Nikon, Canon and Fuji's decisions to avoid it.

 

If it's all tosh, I lose ten points.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding, poor at the best of times when it comes to things technical, is that OIS can (perhaps always does?) have a detrimental effect on image quality even when switched off, so in any system where IQ is a very high priority, OIS is at best going to be shoved out to lenses, and not even all lenses.

 

Don't ask me to explain why though. Something to do with the compromises needed in the sensor design and the way it's mounted in the body, heat dissipation etc...I don't know. I'm just regurgitating what I've read about Leica, Nikon, Canon and Fuji's decisions to avoid it.

 

If it's all tosh, I lose ten points.

Well, not quite tosh, but the degradation on a decent system, be it optical or digital, is so minimal as to bring the discussion down to the level of filter-no filter.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding, poor at the best of times when it comes to things technical, is that OIS can (perhaps always does?) have a detrimental effect on image quality even when switched off, so in any system where IQ is a very high priority, OIS is at best going to be shoved out to lenses, and not even all lenses.

 

Don't ask me to explain why though. Something to do with the compromises needed in the sensor design and the way it's mounted in the body, heat dissipation etc...I don't know. I'm just regurgitating what I've read about Leica, Nikon, Canon and Fuji's decisions to avoid it.

 

If it's all tosh, I lose ten points.

Technically, any image stabilization system willl degrade image quality compared to a good tripod, but the differences are so small as to be irrelevant. You have a small amount of collimating error due to decentering, but in a lens that is designed for it Indoubt you could tell the difference without an interferometer. Oh, and turning it off locks everything down with all optical elements properly centered, so I don't agree that performance is degraded in that case (unless you are discussing the fact that you have an additional lens element that you otherwise wouldn't need which makes no difference whatsoever in final wavefront accuracy unless there is a defect.

 

From a practical standpoint, I would recommend turning off OIS when on a tripod in most cases, and otherwise just letting OIS do it's job. 99 times out of a hundred you will see an improvement when pixel peeping not a degradation.

 

- Jared

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

.......................

 

From a practical standpoint, I would recommend turning off OIS when on a tripod in most cases, and otherwise just letting OIS do it's job. 99 times out of a hundred you will see an improvement when pixel peeping not a degradation.

 

- Jared

 

 

 

Yes, that's my experience too.

 

So I do wonder why the companies I mentioned all told their customers that in-body OIS was a bad idea for image quality.

 

Unless the reports I read were all simply wrong, which is of course possible.

Edited by Peter H
Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing you have to sell is always better than the thing your competitors are selling.

.

 

Quite, but if it's not true, why not just do it differently? I don't believe that Canon and Nikon couldn't put IOS in a body if there was no good technical reason not to. Costs? Patents? I'm not convinced.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So I do wonder why the companies I mentioned all told their customers that in-body OIS was a bad idea for image quality.

 

 

For some time IS in a lens was (and is in a few cases like extreme telephoto lenses) a more effective system and floating sensors really did have alignment issues. But technology has moved on and now there's mostly no real world differences. Olympus' introduction of the first 5 axis IBIS system was a real game changer for image stabilisation and it still leads the IBIS crowd by a bit. In some cases like Sony they now can use IBIS and in lens image stabilisation (ILIS) at the same time for even better results. Of course after a decade of poo pooing IBIS it's hard for Canon or Nikon to suddenly reverse their opinion so they stick to the tired old line.

 

The most significant issue with IBIS is actually that it is far more difficult to clean the sensor. Because the sensor floats any cleaning system that uses pressure on the sensor (swabs and sticky pads) can damage the IBIS mechanism itself. Almost all IBIS camera manufacturers warn users not to clean the sensors themselves. This needs to be weighed up against the advantages which are slightly smaller, less complex lenses and the fact that almost any lens you can fit on the camera will get some benefit when used off tripod. Olympus is even using the IBIS system to create large detail pixel binned raw files while mounted on a tripod now. 80MB raw files with the equivalent of a 50MB TIFF file from a 20MP sensor.

 

Gordon

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

.

 

Quite, but if it's not true, why not just do it differently? I don't believe that Canon and Nikon couldn't put IOS in a body if there was no good technical reason not to. Costs? Patents? I'm not convinced.

 

 

CaNikon also have a big investment in their respective OIS systems.  At the time these systems were developed (pre-digital) it was the only way to stabilize the image.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

For some time IS in a lens was (and is in a few cases like extreme telephoto lenses) a more effective system and floating sensors really did have alignment issues. But technology has moved on and now there's mostly no real world differences. Olympus' introduction of the first 5 axis IBIS system was a real game changer for image stabilisation and it still leads the IBIS crowd by a bit. In some cases like Sony they now can use IBIS and in lens image stabilisation (ILIS) at the same time for even better results. Of course after a decade of poo pooing IBIS it's hard for Canon or Nikon to suddenly reverse their opinion so they stick to the tired old line.

 

The most significant issue with IBIS is actually that it is far more difficult to clean the sensor. Because the sensor floats any cleaning system that uses pressure on the sensor (swabs and sticky pads) can damage the IBIS mechanism itself. Almost all IBIS camera manufacturers warn users not to clean the sensors themselves. This needs to be weighed up against the advantages which are slightly smaller, less complex lenses and the fact that almost any lens you can fit on the camera will get some benefit when used off tripod. Olympus is even using the IBIS system to create large detail pixel binned raw files while mounted on a tripod now. 80MB raw files with the equivalent of a 50MB TIFF file from a 20MP sensor.

 

Gordon

I'm no expert, but the fact that Olympus is leading the market in IBIS suggests to me that sensor size is a consideration. Olympus does not build large-sensored cameras.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...