telyt Posted October 25, 2007 Share #101 Â Posted October 25, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) The problem I see with lens-based optical IS is that the lens still has a very large number of air/glass surfaces and consequent effect on color quality even when the system is turned off. A body-based IS system doesn't mess wth the optical formulas and when its system is off the sensor is locked in place giving results exacly like having no IS system in the camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 25, 2007 Posted October 25, 2007 Hi telyt, Take a look here Second member of LHSA the R10 is confirmed. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
lct Posted October 25, 2007 Share #102 Â Posted October 25, 2007 ...if any new or revised 'R' lenses are developed to give the 'R10' AF and/or IS capability no-one has to buy them. Assuming of course that existing lenses remain fully compatible with the new camera, and that is probably the most important point for many existin 'R' owners. I second this 100%. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevelap Posted October 25, 2007 Share #103 Â Posted October 25, 2007 You may be right Doug, and I certaibly have no great technical knowledge of either system. I wonder if it's a coincidence though that the two pro digital slr system makers, Nikon and Canon, have both gone with lens based IS. Not that Leica have to follow their lead of course, or even need IS at all. Whatever they do I think that they must retain optical excellence, and compatibility, as a key driver for their lens design. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riley Posted October 25, 2007 Share #104 Â Posted October 25, 2007 You may be right Doug, and I certaibly have no great technical knowledge of either system. I wonder if it's a coincidence though that the two pro digital slr system makers, Nikon and Canon, have both gone with lens based IS. Â thats a serious miscalculation C&N went with OIS in the film era, and if you dont really know what that means, it means you cant move film, it has to be lens based. Their systems are hybrids of the old film systems, lenses included. Â As they offer a strata of cameras of different sensor sizes geared from smaller sensor lower spec to larger sensor high spec, and as IS for FF35mm is inherently more difficult, Canon in particular are somewhat locked into this strategy. Â all the latecomers offer as IS, where it will work on any of the native glass, and not inhibit the max aperture due to the volume/mass of the moving glass component. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted October 25, 2007 Share #105 Â Posted October 25, 2007 Do you suggest that the Nikon D3's IS could not work properly with long lenses then? Â D3 doesn't use in camera IS, LCT. Nikon's IS is in the lens, they call it VR. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted October 25, 2007 Share #106 Â Posted October 25, 2007 Even if its peanuts in 35 world, these ae impressive optics and they allow outstanding results - at least as godd as from ANY C or N combination! Â Show me some proof, Peter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevelap Posted October 25, 2007 Share #107 Â Posted October 25, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Originall posted by Riley: Â "...thats a serious miscalculation C&N went with OIS in the film era, and if you dont really know what that means, it means you cant move film, it has to be lens based. Their systems are hybrids of the old film systems, lenses included." Â It's not any sort of calculation, I simply asked if it was a coincidence! Â With any of the existing IS systems something has to move, either in the lens or on the sensor. I'm just not sure (in the interests of ultimate IQ and reliability) that it's necessarily a good idea to be moving the sensor, particularly if there is already a dust removal system that vibrates in close proximity to it. In enginnering (mechanical, electrical and electronic) eliminating unnecessary movement and vibration is often seen as a virtue. I may be wrong of course, and it is only my personal opinion. Â By the way, Nikon's VR system was introduced in their digital era, in 2000, after the 1999 introduction of their first digital SLR the D1. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted October 25, 2007 Share #108 Â Posted October 25, 2007 The problem I see with lens-based optical IS is that the lens still has a very large number of air/glass surfaces and consequent effect on color quality even when the system is turned off. A body-based IS system doesn't mess wth the optical formulas and when its system is off the sensor is locked in place giving results exacly like having no IS system in the camera. Â I'm sure Canon and Nikon are all aware of the potential issues you've mentioned and that's exactly why they're using so many UD and super UD elements in the lens. Â Sure, you could turn off the in camera sensor shaking mechanism but hey, if it doesn't work, or, doesn't work to your expectations, why would you waste money on it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riley Posted October 25, 2007 Share #109  Posted October 25, 2007  because I know the sensor based IS doesn't work with long lens.  i saw this before and decided to just let it go, then i thought,.....screw it ')  here's a pretty accurate assessment by Wrotniak  wrotniak.net: Olympus E-510, a Technical Review  It took me some time and effort to design and execute a more thorough experiment, described in detail in another article. My results clearly indicate that the gain depends on the focal length used: I ended up with 1 EV for 14 mm, 1.6 EV for 42 mm, and 2.2 EV for 150 mm (this corresponds to exposures longer by 2, 3, and 5 times, respectively).  which if you havnt noticed Simon, is the inverse of your reiteration of this long running myth  wrotniak.net: E-510 Image Stabilization Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted October 25, 2007 Share #110 Â Posted October 25, 2007 thats a serious miscalculationC&N went with OIS in the film era, and if you dont really know what that means, it means you cant move film, it has to be lens based. Their systems are hybrids of the old film systems, lenses included. Â As they offer a strata of cameras of different sensor sizes geared from smaller sensor lower spec to larger sensor high spec, and as IS for FF35mm is inherently more difficult, Canon in particular are somewhat locked into this strategy. Â all the latecomers offer as IS, where it will work on any of the native glass, and not inhibit the max aperture due to the volume/mass of the moving glass component. Â Your statement is serious flawed and self contraditing, Rob. Â Ok, you say OIS is from the old ages of film, and Canon, Nikon are locked into it? Â Then WHY, Panasonic still adopts it, this late, when they go for their DSLR and lens system in 2005 (or 06)? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted October 25, 2007 Share #111  Posted October 25, 2007 i saw this before and decided to just let it go,then i thought,.....screw it ')  here's a pretty accurate assessment by Wrotniak  wrotniak.net: Olympus E-510, a Technical Review    which if you havnt noticed Simon, is the inverse of your reiteration of this long running myth  wrotniak.net: E-510 Image Stabilization  I'm not sure if I would call that a test, best of all, it shows that he has played with it ... what has he tested so far, a 150mm focal length? you call it long lens? now that's what I call a big JOKE!  Go get something starting from 400mm in 35mm terms and come back ... then we can talk.  Reading this shit is pure wasting your time and energy. ROFL Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riley Posted October 25, 2007 Share #112  Posted October 25, 2007 Your statement is serious flawed and self contraditing, Rob. Ok, you say OIS is from the old ages of film, and Canon, Nikon are locked into it?  Then WHY, Panasonic still adopt it, this late, when they go for their DSLR and lens system in 2005 (or 06)?  FYI, Panasonic had the first product brought to the imaging market with OIS back in the 80's it was a video camera. So the point for Panasonic is, they had it all the time Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riley Posted October 25, 2007 Share #113  Posted October 25, 2007 This test is full of misinformation and full of flaw ... what has he tested so far, a 150mm focal length? you call it long lens? now that's what I call a big JOKE! Go get something starting from 400mm in 35mm terms and come back ... then we can talk.  Reading this shit is pure wasting your time and energy.  150mm 4/3rds is 300mm EFL, that's apparently a long lens in anyone's language except yours  as to wasting my time, I happy to correct your erratum Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted October 25, 2007 Share #114  Posted October 25, 2007 FYI, Panasonic had the first product brought to the imaging market with OIS back in the 80'sit was a video camera. So the point for Panasonic is, they had it all the time  It doesn't matter, they could adopt sensor IS when they went for DSLR in 2005 ... why not? because they know IT'S NOT GOOD, IT IS A JOKE. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted October 25, 2007 Share #115 Â Posted October 25, 2007 One very critically important thing, and the biggest advantage of in lens optical IS is ... every single lens is optimized to achieve the best results, each implementation is different. Â Sensor based IS is like some sort of fix-it-all type of thing, will it work? may be, will it work best for everything? I'm sure not. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
miami91 Posted October 25, 2007 Share #116 Â Posted October 25, 2007 I find the lens v. body IS discussion interesting, but don't know enough about the technical aspects to know who's right and who's wrong. One thing I do know as a potential R system buyer: as long as they achieve good results with high ISOs (excellent ISO 1600 results, good 3200 results), I'll care a lot less about IS in any form. With a FF sensor (which it appears we'll get), I'd hope Leica can achieve low light performance nearly on par with C and N. Â Jeff. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riley Posted October 25, 2007 Share #117  Posted October 25, 2007 heres a comparison of the Leica Vario Elmarit 14-50mm f/2.8-3.5, when fitted to an E-510,  Olympus E-510 Image Stabilisation examined (Four Thirds User)  which also has IS. So you can turn IS off and OIS on, and inversely IS on and OIS off to compare them both.  in a nutshell, this was the result   So does the Leica lens OIS work better than the E-510's in-camera moving sensor IS? The chart above suggests that the E-510 has the edge, though statistically there is little real difference. What's more important is that the results prove that both systems are definitely beneficial. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Likaleica Posted October 25, 2007 Share #118 Â Posted October 25, 2007 heres a comparison of the Leica Vario Elmarit 14-50mm f/2.8-3.5, when fitted to an E-510... Â So, seems like the moral to the story is forget IS or VR and use old technology - a tripod! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted October 25, 2007 Share #119  Posted October 25, 2007 in a nutshell, this was the result  Again, this is a seriously flawed attempt ... keep in mind the Panasonic 14-50 OIS is not designed to work on a E-510 natively.  One side note, I've seen test reports published in several German and Japanese magazines, the image quality of E-510 doesn't really stack up to that in the E-410, I suspect these funky features have some eerie play inside. LOL Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted October 25, 2007 Share #120 Â Posted October 25, 2007 So, seems like the moral to the story is forget IS or VR and use old technology - a tripod! Â Exactly ... tripod shows the best result! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.