Image Stabilisation Comparison

[Jenno]

The December edition of photography monthly published a comparison of the Nikon, Canon and Sigma image stablisation systems.

I recall other posters have referred to this comparison in previous posts but some may not have seen it.

I found it interesting

Here it is....

Image Stabilization

For many years, image-stabilised lenses were unique to the Canon EF range of lenses, designed for its EOS system of SLRs. Nikon, and more recently Sigma, has also released lenses boasting a similar facility. How does image stabilisation work? In simple terms, a floating element within the lens moves to compensate for small amounts of camera shake. It allows shutter speeds of between two and three stops slower than normal to be used without shake being evident.
PM (Photography Monthly) decided to test three similar lenses - the Canon 100-400mm IS, Nikon 80-400mm VR and Sigma 80-400mm OS - to see how well they handled shake. Our test showed that the stabilisation systems do really work. Of the three systems, the Nikon proved slightly better than the Canon and Sigma, giving sharp results at light levels two and a half stops lower than when the stabilisation system isn't activated. In the case of the Canon and Sigma, the stabilisers were effective for two stops slower. These systems are definitely not gimmicks and could prove the difference between success and failure in low light situations where flash or tripods are not suitable.

CONCLUSION
All the methods in our test are valid ways of reducing or eliminating camera shake. Using a faster ISO rating is the easiest and cheapest method, as specialist equipment isn't required, although there is the downside of increased grain/noise. Fast aperture lenses are specialist optics and so relatively expensive, but they do have the potential to get a usable shot where slower lenses falter. Image-stabilised lenses are also expensive, but as they are often zooms, their versatility cannot be denied. For this reason, they do make more sense than fast lenses.

Ray

[mudder]

I'd be lost without VR now... I find it to be extremely effective in removing ol' shaky hand blur... Wouldn't leave home without it on a long zoom...

Cheers,
Mudder

[Onyx]

/canon bash mode:on

If the article was entitled Image Stabilisation it's already suggestive of the author's bias - adopting one brand's nomenclature for the technology. It's little wonder there was no mention of the company that invented the technology (should we all just assume it's Canon because of their effective marketting machine?).

Konica-Minolta's on body anti-shake is a more revolutionary approach on the matter IMO. We may see it adopted more widely in the next generation's DSLRs. Minolta ever the innovator - first to introduce auto focus, first to introduce TTL exposure metering, and now first to introduce on body anti shake. Now... what patents do Canon have in the field of photography or consumer electronics?!

[mudder]

...Konica-Minolta's on body anti-shake is a more revolutionary approach on the matter IMO...

I think you're spot-on there... That way you pay for the technology once and it's available for *all* your lenses... Beats paying for the technology every time you buy a lens...

Cheers,
Mudder

[PlatinumWeaver]

/canon bash mode:on
It's little wonder there was no mention of the company that invented the technology (should we all just assume it's Canon because of their effective marketting machine?).

/devils_advocate="YES"

If Nikon produced the technology but canon was the first to bring it to market then good on them and yeah, Canon deserves the praise. I agree that using Canon's name for shake-removal (nice generic term) is showing a bit of a bias, but was anything the reviewer said actually inaccurate? Seems like they said Canon was first to bring the technology to market, Nikon has the better technology and both work.. no?

[birddog114]

...Konica-Minolta's on body anti-shake is a more revolutionary approach on the matter IMO...

I think you're spot-on there... That way you pay for the technology once and it's available for *all* your lenses... Beats paying for the technology every time you buy a lens...

Cheers,
Mudder

IMHO, Nikon won't head that direction same as Canon
Perhaps Konica-Minolta want to lure more newbies in their toys but their market share after released the anti shake gone down to the ground.
I'm not saying the pro, but how many intermediate and advance photogs following their direction?

[Onyx]

IMHO, Nikon won't head that direction same as Canon
Perhaps Konica-Minolta want to lure more newbies in their toys but their market share after released the anti shake gone down to the ground.
I'm not saying the pro, but how many intermediate and advance photogs following their direction?

Marketting issues aside, it's technical innovation that Minolta is to be praised. It started life in the higher nend PHD cameras before moving onto SLRs, which is reversed from most technologies in photography. Heck, they managed to run the company to the ground by themselves and had to buddy up with Konica to continue! Engineering and design innovation sadly doesn't necessarily pay off in this marketing dicated world we live in.

[Matt. K]

Reminds me of a brilliant feature available on some Contax cameras where the autofocus is built into the camera...not the lens. They built the film plane on a set of ceramic rails and the film actually moves back and forth to achieve focus. It has only has to move very short distances hence t was extremely fast. best of all the lenses did not have to have motors or moving optics, so their design was not compromised. This would be a very desirable feature on Nikon lenses. Also, the system uses less power.

[petal666]

Now... what patents do Canon have in the field of photography or consumer electronics?!

Dunno what they are but 1850 where filed in the US last year.

Show me your CMOS!!!