In camera or in lens stabilsation.. a strange twist!

[arthurking83]

I like to read up on the goings on in the camera market(when I have time, and nuthin to do) and only today I read about Sony's new NEX series of mirrorless 'SLR' like cameras.

Basically a P&S, or rangefinder, type camera without the bulk and complication of a mirror but woith interchangeable lenses.

now we know that Sony(and Pentax and Olympus) are a big fan of in camera optical stabilisation, and that you'd expect that any new camera designs would all follow the same OS path.. yet with this new camera.. which is a totally fresh start with a new system, not based on any other type. like the 4/3rds or micro 4/3rds systems or even on their existing Alpha mount system.. yet they decided that with this compact mirrorless system that in lens stabilisation was the way forward!?

I suppose one can draw some kind of conclusion as to why that was the case, when they already have expertise with in camera stabilsation in other cameras.

To me, it just doesn't make sense for Sony to take this path now.

I see it as a 'raising of the white flag'(in a manner of speaking).. not that there'd be anything wrong with in body stabilisation(not that I've used it much).

Is this a clue to some hidden analysis by Sony that in lens stabilsation is more efficient?

I'm all for any kind of stabilisation when it works, and more so for in lens stabilisation as the image through the viewfinder is smoother and less jittery.

So here's a quote form their advertising blurb....

... Featuring in-lens SteadyShot image stabilisation for clearer handheld images, the E 18-55mm F/3.5-5.6 zoom....

for clearer handheld images! A little bit ambiguous, in that any stabilisation is going to provide clearer handheld images, but only in lens stabilsation can provide clearer looking handheld viewing experience!
And with the sensor acting as the viewfinder you'd expect that as the sensor is stabilised the resultant image on the screen should also be stabilised too anyhow. So their decision to use in lens stabilisation makes no sense on two levels!

In a SLR, where you'd expect stabilisation to work more efficiently when it;s in lens, they use in camera stabilisation.
In a P&S, which uses the sensor as the viewing output, you would expect to see in camera stabilisation.

I just found this technical aspect a little interesting.

BTW, there is an adapter available that allows the Alpha mount lenses to fit to this camera body, albeit in manual focus mode.

AND!! There is a proper video camera also going to be available that accepts the new lenses (called E-mount). Obviously the video camera is also going to be able to accept the Alpha mount lenses via the adapter as well, and the video camera uses the same APS-C sensor too


.. interesting stuff

[MarkChap]

I am thinking, from only reading your blurb here, that maybe with out the mirror box, there is not enough space in the camera body to allow for the required electronics associated with in body stabilisation, ??

[arthurking83]

And yet there is in a P&S??

if that were the case, surely a few extra millimeters of thickness in the body wouldn't have mattered.. considering the size of the average lens!

See .. DPR's news item on the Sony NEX.

ps. I like the idea behind this type of camera, and if the sensor based viewing experience gets to the point where it's equal to or better than a DSLR, there's no reason not to change to it!

While the mirror system is good, it's not ideal, and I'd love the more compactness of a rangefinder system.. except that they have far more limitations than a mirrored DSLR does.

An SLR without a mirror to impose it's annoyances on you is an ideal type of camera.
Current issues would be:
speed, where an slr is faster for when you need it
viewfinder, where technology hasn't yet progressed to the point where live view is better than an optical viewfinder in all conditions.
not yet full frame.. they're either APS-C or 4/3rds or the micro version.

I can see a future where these cameras willhave suficient speed, in fact shoudl actually end up being faster than a mirrored slr, as there is no mirror to slow down proceedings!
Once they sort out the issue of a better than SLR viewing method, slr's are doomed!
Think about it for a minute! If you could get a camera that has a better viewfinder and can be faster and more compact.. and etc, etc... would you still go with a traditional mirrored SLR design?
(I think anyone would be mad too!).

As long as my lenses fit
And once the technology hurdles are overcome, I think the current DSLR design type(using a mirror) will eventually go the way of the Dodo.

[MarkChap]

Yes you are right, I didn't consider that the P&S have stabilisation, my bad

[arthurking83]

same with the Panasonic and Olympus mirrorless cameras.

[Kym]

In camera SR example http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=19647176

[Wayne]

My wifes new Sony TX7 P&S is bloody quick in burst, it does 10FPS. I reckon Arthur is probably right, once the tech matures sufficiently to produce comparable images to a mirrored SLR, they will soon become the old kid on the block.

[arthurking83]

From what I've seen, the NEX-matched lenses are terrible. I've looked at only a few samples - I'm not a gadget ##### - but from a few previews that I've peeked at, it doesn't look fantastic......

I suspect that the people operating the camera(and obviously the lens too) my not have been as capable as they could have been!

The images up for review on DPR's gallery look perfectly acceptable to me.

Were you expecting CZ quality lenses when they're obviously aimed at the low to middle consumer end of the market?

I mean.. when the lenses currently available are:

16mm f/2.8
18-55 f/3.5-5.6 OS
18-200 f/3.5-5.6 OS



on DPR's gallery the last few images are taken with the 16mm and the lens looks as good as any 16mm prime I've seen of late.

ps. there is one shot captured at ISO12800 which I think rivals the IQ I've seen from the Canon 1DMIV at ISO12800!

out of curiosity, can you post a link to the images you've seen too?

here's the link to the DPR Sony NEX-5 sample gallery

[farmer_rob]

Sorry - can't agree with the death of the DSLR by the EVIL brigade. SLRs have been derided since their introduction for their alleged faults, and are still the great survivors.

Advantages of the DSLR
- you can see what is going on through the lens without using any battery power
- you are not limited by display technology or display failure
- what you see is what you want to get - not what the camera has already interpreted for you

Disadvantages
- mirror slap - solvable
- size - the D40 has the same size sensor as the d2x but is a significantly smaller camera - solevable
- light loss through the pentaprism/pentamirror.

As to speed - I can take a photo at 1/8000 of a second given sufficient light. What's this "faster" bit? The time to raise the mirror? I can't react in a time faster than it takes for the mirror to lift. If I needed it, I'd buy a 9 or 10 fps pro series camera.

I don't want an EVIL camera - regardless of how wonderful they may become, I still want to see want the lens sees without looking at it on a screen.

[etherial]

- what you see is what you want to get - not what the camera has already interpreted for you

I still want to see want the lens sees without looking at it on a screen.

Interesting discussion. But two things stand out to me in this post and that was the quotes above.

Yes you see through the VF what the lens see's, but that is not necessarily what the sensor will deliver. I think I would rather see what the camera sensor is seeing?

And as to not looking at it on a screen, well after the frame is captured that is there it is going to be, so why not earlier?

Granted the EVIL cameras have a long way to go, but given the rate of technology developments, it won't be long before they move into serious contention. I'm open minded about it, personally I think there is a lot of improvement left in digital cameras.

[arthurking83]

Sorry - can't agree with the death of the DSLR by the EVIL brigade. SLRs have been derided since their introduction for their alleged faults, and are still the great survivors

......

I don't want an EVIL camera - regardless of how wonderful they may become, I still want to see want the lens sees without looking at it on a screen.

I think there'll be a day quite soon where the DSLR will become EVIL and do away with the mirror.

Liveview has already shown how good(or better) an SLR camera can be, so once they overcome the technical challenges of creating abetter viewfinder image I think the added complication of flapping mirrors will be the next thing to go in the DSLR.
The engineering and manufacturing costs involved in the SLR design must surely be an expense burden that we don't really need.

The problem with the argument that you've made Rob about SLR's being derided for so long, and yet have survived was basically about the technical challenge of doing the same thing(seeing through the lens) and doing it differently. Until the advent of EVF's there's has not been any other way to do it.. so in this case historical evidence in not enough to ensure the SLR's future.

IF!!! the SLR was redesigned with an EVF, and that EVF was optically better in all conditions, both bright and dark, and allowed the operator more freedom and flexibilty and opportunities to capture images that were somehow difficult to capture witha traditional mirror SLR, wouldn't you upgrade to one? .. especially if it were cheaper?

I know I would! I'm not a traditionalist for the sake of being traditional.
To me if it's better, then I want one.
As it stands they are not better, and in fact a lot worse, so the current gen EVF/mirrorless cameras are not a good standard to make any judgement by. But as with all things technical, just like the improvemtns we've seen in rear review screens, and sensor design and better ISO performance over the last few(2??... 3?) years imageine a EVF thqat can deliver a viewing experience that surpasses your current best performing DSLR(the Sony Alpha 900 apparently!) that can see in total darkness, where you were once limited by your own eyesight, or that can magnify itself with the touch of a button so that you can more easily see the subject you're about to miss focus on

The possibilities with EVF's are much less limited than they are with traditional optical mirrored viewfinders.. simply because there hasn't been any imporovement in at least 50-60 years in the design. It has stagnated. It's probably as good as it's ever going to get, and people by their nature want better and or more.
I know that I do. One thing I want is a perfect viewfinder.. always. I don't care if my mirrorless camera comes ina D300 or D3 sized camera(I don't like small cameras as they cramp my hands trying to hold on to them). But even tho the D300 is good, it's not perfect.
I know that the D700 is great, and from my distant memory the D3 was excellent.. but it's never going to be a perfect representation of the image through the lens becasue the mirror is always going to hamper the image to some degree.
We know that with the use of electronics, the image can be magnified to the nth degree in terms of both size and brightness to the point where they can see way beyond the dark!

One thing is for sure. The major DSLR manufacturers will not replace the optical viewfinder with an EVF unless it produces an increase in performance.
I can see the day coming when a descendent of the D3 will use an EVF.

The electronic garbage we see today in the lower end of the market is just testing the water for bigger and better things to come in the upper end of the market!
As an example of that.. are there any DSLR's now on the market that don't have liveview as a feature?

basically: I just don't want to have to use MLU any more when I mount my 500mm

but.. anyhow, back to the topic at hand.. and why Sony decided to use lens stabilisation.
In DPR's preview of the NEX-5, they say that it's for reasons of compactness, and yet they managed to fit a vibrating filter for anti dust purposes!!??
I don't buy that at all. I doubt very much that the camera couldn't have been designed with another 5mm's of thickness in the body to accomodate the sensor shift OS system. Or that they could have delayed the introduction of the OSS till the next model, whether that'd be an upgrade to a higher end model or update to the existing ones.
It just seemed to be go against the trend of having an apparent marketing advantage of having Optical Stabilisation with all of your lenses in having in camera OS!

..sorry for the rant! it just seems so weird.

[farmer_rob]

Etherial: I see your point, but in another thread, people are arguing about discussing digital files vs prints, with the general thrust being the printed image is better.

AK: you wrote:

IF!!! the SLR was redesigned with an EVF, and that EVF was optically better in all conditions, both bright and dark, and allowed the operator more freedom and flexibilty and opportunities to capture images that were somehow difficult to capture witha traditional mirror SLR, wouldn't you upgrade to one? .. especially if it were cheaper?

Probably not - my problems will still be focus-related, and a better autofocus module coupled with a split-prism focus screen would be more attractive to me. (I just don't think that an electronic viewfinder can *ever* get good enough - but I am starting to get way OT.)

Back on topic - I think the in-lens stabilisation has more flexibility, and new stabilisation technologies become available to all camera owners without necessarily having a body upgrade. I suspect the real profit margin for companies is in lenses, and the market for bodies is going to contract anyway (hence the push for EVIL cameras - a new must-have body to sell.)

The stabilisation system would also be significantly more complex than a vibration system. You'll need two-axis motors with variable speeds as opposed to a vibration mechanism (fixed speed/random), as well as motion-detection systems (which should be at the same point as the sensor). There'll also be extra electronics. So I think the idea of saving space is quite plausible.

I wonder about where the centre of gravity is too. This would have an influence on how the stabilisation system interprets what it measures. It may be that the CoG is significantly further forward (since you've gotten rid of all that nasty DSLR mirror/pentaprism stuff ) and it might be simpler to go in the lens.

Finally, its still a system thing - you buy into the whole body/lens set. WRT alpha, you lose autofocus with your alpha lens, so who really cares if you've also lost IS? (Anyway, that alone will test out the focus skills using the EVF!)

[arthurking83]

I love chaos.. so we can still delve into off topic discussions as well..

If you want a better AF module then I seriously think that an EVF sytem camera will deliver a much more felxible and accurate focusing system.

as an example:
(that I know of) all DSLR's use a sensor to achieve both focus and metering. It's a much smaller sensor of about 1000pixels very tightly packed together in Nikon cameras( I think the Cam2000 uses a similar number of pixles as the CAM 3500 in the D300/700and D3 series according to the tech specs, the difference being the number of fixed focus points and speed of the mdule).
So imagine a larger sensor such as an EVF which is routed from the main sensor, as Mic describes it.. seeing wjhat the sensor is going to see
but instead of only 15 or 51 points to focus with, over a small area of the frame, you get any number of points at your disposal focusing exactly as the sensor will see it.. not as some misaligned mirror want you to see it

Problems with current autofocusing sysytems using liveview is speed! That's it.

The focusing method of using the sensoras the focusing system is far more accurate.. 100% of the time, as opposed to occasionally missed focus shots using a separate sensor, decoupled from the main sensor.

The other focusing bonus would be that of zoom aspect!
At the moment with current focusing modules is that the focus points can be too large, and missed ficus is usually attributed to the sensor or crosshairs being unable to determine what is it that needs to be in focus, because of the feild of view(of the focus sensor in question). With an EVF that doubles as the focusing sensor, as well as the viewfinder display output, the more you zoom in the more accurate the focus sensor becomes. That's why I use liveview a lot of the time.
If I want to pinpoint the focus point to a particular eyelash and not just the eye(whcih also encompasses the eyebrow and bags under the eyes as well as the wrinkles in the cheek and so forth, I zoom in to 100% or if I'm feeling adventurous 200% and can pinpoint an eyelash to focus on. No traditional optical viewfinder in existance can do that.

ie. it's 1930's technology, and it hasn't changed apart form some minor imporovements over the duration of it's uselfullness. EVF's have a much brighter future.

part of the problem with tradtional viewfinders is that you either want magnification or coverage, but you can't have both at the same time!
An EVF can do both.

Don't let anyone tell you differently, if you use liveview correctly, it's auto focus ability is far superior in every way except speed compared to an optical system.
If the manufacturers can get speed of the liveview AF to the same standard as the current ability of the regular AF modules, then it's all over red rover for the traditional manner of focusing if you like the flexibility of focusing anywhere on the scene.
Using my Siggy 10mm, I regularly focus right into the corner of the image to maximise IQ at the corner.
That's just impossible to do with a pure optical system in a consistent manner. Yeah I can sometimes guess correctly, and AF at that point is imposible due to the unavailability of a focus point anywhere near there, but the magnfication of the 10mm through the viewfinder is well.. kind'a miniscule.. too miniscule to be consistently accurate in any way. The liveview AF ability is spot on every time, and even if I tune it manually, I can get it spot on every time because of the magnification ability of liveview.

so simply imagine that on a small scale specifically made for the size of a viewfinder, only more clear, with higher dynamic range(which is currently woeful on the review screen in Lv mode).

Like I said, once the technical difficulties are sorted, optical viewfinders will be old hat. Completely outclassed by the newer technology, when(if) it comes.
of course there will always be the ardent ones, stringently holding on dearly to the belief that the old ways were better and the new fluffy ways are not for them, and they're more than welcome to that POV and can do as they please. But these guys are probably the same folks that held the same belief only a few years back when they firmly believed that digital was not nearly as good as film, and that it'll never surpass the quality and or ability of film.. and yet they all proabably shoot with D3s's and D3x's now!

personally, I never care what another user wants or needs. I only know what i'd like to see(gone!) and that's the stupid mirror that ruins 99% of my shots taken with the 500
Once they get it right, and that means only when they get it better that the optical viewfinders, then I'm upgrading to that camera body.

to be sure: I'm not a fan of these current mirrorless camer designs, mainly due to size(which i've already explained cramps my hands.. as I have to hold them with my fingers clamped up, and not in the palm of my hand in a naturally grippy manner(long live the D300 ).
As FriedChicken said the lenses are way too big relative to the body, given the size of the lens. It's aother matter if the lens is a 300/2.8(which is big!) but with a kit 18-200 sized lens on one of thes designs, all you seem to have in your hands is a lens with an iCamera thing hanging off the back.

The idea is that they're supposed to be more compact.. and when you see them with monster large lenses like that 18-200mm kit lens, you have to wonder what they mean when they say they saved space by not having in camera stability!

[farmer_rob]

OK - but with the exception of the mirror in the optical path potentially causing problems, you can increase the AF sensor density pretty much infinitely. I'd guess it is a data processing problem that a) limits the current Nikon system to 51 sensors and b) makes liveview AF so slow. 12MP is a lot of data to be cycling through a DSP chip repeatedly to get focus - so you'd have to increase the processor speed to cope. The engineering solution to this would be to pick points on the sensor where you take the data from (which could require custom chip design changes) - and hence you are back to a limited number of focus points.

(Note also, faster processing means higher power consumption. You may need a larger camera to accommodate the extra batteries to cope. There are practical limits to processor speed as well, moores law not withstanding.)

(BTW, I think you'll find that IS is another engineering compromise to get past processing bottlenecks. It is simpler to move an element in the lens or the sensor, than to do the processing on data from the sensor. However, the cost is additional mechanical moving parts.)

I also think that you can end up with problems compressing the size of the EVF. We can see focus errors on a 1200 x 800 pixel image at 100%, but the image captured is 4000 x 3000 (roughly) - so you truly need a 4000x3000 EVF (or autozoom, driven by your eyeball). I think you'll find it really hard to compress a 1200x800 display enough to get it into a viewfinder, let alone a 4000x3000 display. Engineering-wise, the optical path is cheaper and easier.

[Steve Axford]

I have read a little on the subject and there are at least 3 different types of IS (or VR or whatever) and each is good in different circumstances. The in-camera stabilisation is great for cost, but it is not as efficient as in-lens. Why? Because the movement required is much greater. Whatever can be designed will always work better if the required movement is less. The third way is by using two plates of glass with a fluid in between. This can be compressed on one side to form a prism, thus deflecting the light. This is often used in video and is particularly good for machine vibration - eg in a car or speed boat.

[swifty]

I believe one of the arguments put forward for the in-lens stabilisation for the NEX system is that it is more effective for videography. With the simultaneously announcement of a camcorder using the same mount, the platform seems to be a cross-over between photography and videography.

Also, I believe the sensor stabilisation technology adds a fair bit more volume and only Olympus have managed to put one into their m43 cameras. The technology was adapted from their normal 4/3 line I believe and are somewhat larger than the units in P&S cameras with far smaller sensors. Sony's NEX system is remarkably thin, even more so than the m43's offering and thin is always a good thing for consumer-orientated products.
Panasonic has chosen to go with in-lens IS and I looks like Panasonic and Sony are poised to go head-to-head in this segment of hybrid photo-videography. (Panasonic was actually first to announce a camcorder using the m4/3 mount). If lenses are developed for both video and photography, I believe you might start to see designs such as silent power zooms and step-less aperture changes in future NEX lenses.
Look for the lens announcement with the Panasonic GH2 at Photokina - it should be very video-centric.

[JM Tran]

After being such a strong proponent of the Pentax system before fully switching over to Canon - I can say that in-lens stabilization is more effective for telephotos, whereas for a shorter focal length I cant really say there is much difference at all.

I really do love in-body stabilization for travel and general stuff as it is a hell of a lot lighter to carry, and cheaper too

and............IT WORKS FOR ALL LENSES! haha

[Steve Axford]

After being such a strong proponent of the Pentax system before fully switching over to Canon - I can say that in-lens stabilization is more effective for telephotos, whereas for a shorter focal length I cant really say there is much difference at all.

I really do love in-body stabilization for travel and general stuff as it is a hell of a lot lighter to carry, and cheaper too

and............IT WORKS FOR ALL LENSES! haha

The thing is - you need stabilisation more for telephoto. I don't have it on wide angle and I don't miss it. I do have it on telephoto, and I couldn't operate without it.

[JM Tran]

The thing is - you need stabilisation more for telephoto. I don't have it on wide angle and I don't miss it. I do have it on telephoto, and I couldn't operate without it.

not to mention I also like my viewfinder to be stabilized so I can compose a shot better, and not having a lot of shake seen through the viewfinder on a Pentax for example.

[Steve Axford]

not to mention I also like my viewfinder to be stabilized so I can compose a shot better, and not having a lot of shake seen through the viewfinder on a Pentax for example.

Just like IS binoculars. It's hard to make out what a shaking image is.