Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: Canon R - Mirrorless  (Read 1947 times)

Martin Kristiansen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 861
    • Martin Kristiansen
Re: Canon R - Mirrorless
« Reply #20 on: September 11, 2018, 09:50:52 am »

Lack of IBIS on the Canon amazes me
Logged

nemophoto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 878
    • Nemo Niemann Photography
Re: Canon R - Mirrorless
« Reply #21 on: September 11, 2018, 11:00:01 am »

Canon feels their ďper lensĒ strategy and targeting specific lens for stabilization is better than ďone size fits allĒ IBIS.

When AF was first evolving, Nikon decided to place the AF in the body. Canon felt individual AF in each lens, with the motor optimized for the torque needed for each lens (e.g. - 300/2.8 versus 50/1.4) was superior. Guess who won that battle? I feel IBIS is something Sony fan boys have pushed because they have it. In reality, from what Iíve read, thereís no real difference. But I DO feel IS needed for 200mm will be inherently different from whatís needed for 35mm. I donít believe (and of course I could be wrong) that you can have IS optimized for both. Itís more like ďsort of goodĒ for both. But, hey, I guess better to have some IS than none at all.

As for the card slot, 100% of the time on jobs, I never use a 2nd card. I use both card slots for my own personal shooting maybe 2% of the time. If anything, I would have preferred a CF or CFast slot. I hate SD cards. I own about 40 CF cards (32GB down to 4GB) which I bring on shoots. I treat a card like a roll of film, so each new shot has its own card. If something goes wrong (since 2001, Iíve only had about 5 or 6 cards go bad) I donít want it taking the rest of my shots. The prospect of bulking up on SD cards bothers me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Logged

Mike D. B.

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 924
Re: Canon R - Mirrorless
« Reply #22 on: September 11, 2018, 11:02:44 am »

Lack of IBIS on the Canon amazes me
I imagine that it's down to cost and targeted sale's price.  Marketing usually created a list of functions as well as target price.  Engineering and Marketing discuss pros & cons of various features as well the cost effect.  In the end, it's usually Marketing who has the final say, what to leave out of a certain model.  Engineering would usually love to incorporate as many features as possible, but the camera also needs to be (financially) attractive to that market segment to which an item is intended.

I've seen this countless times in the automotive industry and it probably hold true in most businesses.
Logged
Kind regards, Mike

Martin Kristiansen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 861
    • Martin Kristiansen
Re: Canon R - Mirrorless
« Reply #23 on: September 11, 2018, 11:18:46 am »

Canon feels their ďper lensĒ strategy and targeting specific lens for stabilization is better than ďone size fits allĒ IBIS.

When AF was first evolving, Nikon decided to place the AF in the body. Canon felt individual AF in each lens, with the motor optimized for the torque needed for each lens (e.g. - 300/2.8 versus 50/1.4) was superior. Guess who won that battle? I feel IBIS is something Sony fan boys have pushed because they have it. In reality, from what Iíve read, thereís no real difference. But I DO feel IS needed for 200mm will be inherently different from whatís needed for 35mm. I donít believe (and of course I could be wrong) that you can have IS optimized for both. Itís more like ďsort of goodĒ for both. But, hey, I guess better to have some IS than none at all.

As for the card slot, 100% of the time on jobs, I never use a 2nd card. I use both card slots for my own personal shooting maybe 2% of the time. If anything, I would have preferred a CF or CFast slot. I hate SD cards. I own about 40 CF cards (32GB down to 4GB) which I bring on shoots. I treat a card like a roll of film, so each new shot has its own card. If something goes wrong (since 2001, Iíve only had about 5 or 6 cards go bad) I donít want it taking the rest of my shots. The prospect of bulking up on SD cards bothers me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have seen this argument about IBIS not working well because what is required for a 200mm lens is different to what is required for a 24mm lens. Are you aware that the IBIS adjusts for the focal length of the lens? Does so automatically. Also when using a legacy lens such as with my 500mm mirror lens I set the focal length manually as the camera isnít able to pick it up but it adjust one I give it the instructions.

You may call it fanboyism if you wish but I have worked with and without IBIS and know how much it helps with unstabilised lenses. Also that when the combination of a stabilized lens is used with IBIS how the lens handling some axis of motion while the sensor handles others is better that lens IS alone.

I traded up the 6300 to a 6500 to get a IBIS on the APSC platform after seeing how good it was on the FF camera.
Logged

chez

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 870
Re: Canon R - Mirrorless
« Reply #24 on: September 11, 2018, 02:02:18 pm »

Canon feels their ďper lensĒ strategy and targeting specific lens for stabilization is better than ďone size fits allĒ IBIS.

When AF was first evolving, Nikon decided to place the AF in the body. Canon felt individual AF in each lens, with the motor optimized for the torque needed for each lens (e.g. - 300/2.8 versus 50/1.4) was superior. Guess who won that battle? I feel IBIS is something Sony fan boys have pushed because they have it. In reality, from what Iíve read, thereís no real difference. But I DO feel IS needed for 200mm will be inherently different from whatís needed for 35mm. I donít believe (and of course I could be wrong) that you can have IS optimized for both. Itís more like ďsort of goodĒ for both. But, hey, I guess better to have some IS than none at all.

As for the card slot, 100% of the time on jobs, I never use a 2nd card. I use both card slots for my own personal shooting maybe 2% of the time. If anything, I would have preferred a CF or CFast slot. I hate SD cards. I own about 40 CF cards (32GB down to 4GB) which I bring on shoots. I treat a card like a roll of film, so each new shot has its own card. If something goes wrong (since 2001, Iíve only had about 5 or 6 cards go bad) I donít want it taking the rest of my shots. The prospect of bulking up on SD cards bothers me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes for telephotos lens based IS is better than IBIS...but the best overall is lens based IS working together with IBIS. As far as Canon is concerned...they only care about their pockets...charging a premium for ever lens with IS. It's interesting to see Nikon include IBIS into their mirrorless cameras and they also make lenses with built in IS...just like Sony.

From a consumer I see zero negatives with IBIS and many positives. From Canon's view...all they see if $$$$.
Logged

chez

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 870
Re: Canon R - Mirrorless
« Reply #25 on: September 11, 2018, 02:03:50 pm »

I imagine that it's down to cost and targeted sale's price.  Marketing usually created a list of functions as well as target price.  Engineering and Marketing discuss pros & cons of various features as well the cost effect.  In the end, it's usually Marketing who has the final say, what to leave out of a certain model.  Engineering would usually love to incorporate as many features as possible, but the camera also needs to be (financially) attractive to that market segment to which an item is intended.

I've seen this countless times in the automotive industry and it probably hold true in most businesses.

Well IBIS is available in many cameras priced much lower than Canon's new mirrorless cameras...so I highly doubt it's a cost issue.
Logged

nemophoto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 878
    • Nemo Niemann Photography
Re: Canon R - Mirrorless
« Reply #26 on: September 11, 2018, 02:55:10 pm »

From what Iíve read, itís not about cost. Itís about design philosophy. Canon feels lens based IS is better than IBIS. (Shall we call it LBIS ?) From what I have also read, you arenít suppose to use both IS AND IBIS at the same time ó they fight each other for control. So it doesnít really matter that Sony and Nikon have both lens and body-based stabilization. If Sony feels so strongly about IBIS, why go to the expense of putting it into a lens as well?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Logged

Martin Kristiansen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 861
    • Martin Kristiansen
Re: Canon R - Mirrorless
« Reply #27 on: September 11, 2018, 03:16:03 pm »

From what Iíve read, itís not about cost. Itís about design philosophy. Canon feels lens based IS is better than IBIS. (Shall we call it LBIS ?) From what I have also read, you arenít suppose to use both IS AND IBIS at the same time ó they fight each other for control. So it doesnít really matter that Sony and Nikon have both lens and body-based stabilization. If Sony feels so strongly about IBIS, why go to the expense of putting it into a lens as well?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Of course they donít fight each other. Itís an electronic camera not an arm wrestling competition. The camera senses the presence of a lens with IS and some functions are handed off to the lens and some are managed by IBIS. Itís all carefully negotiated to give the best results. Itís not a fight at all.
Logged

nemophoto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 878
    • Nemo Niemann Photography
Re: Canon R - Mirrorless
« Reply #28 on: September 11, 2018, 03:23:17 pm »

Of course they donít fight each other. Itís an electronic camera not an arm wrestling competition. The camera senses the presence of a lens with IS and some functions are handed off to the lens and some are managed by IBIS. Itís all carefully negotiated to give the best results. Itís not a fight at all.

Not entirely true. It's the same reason you DON'T want IS when you are attached to a tripod. They don't work in tandem nicely from what I read. Of course, the article could have been full of bull, but it makes sense if the body is saying one thing and the lens is doing something else. You get double correction, not unlike sending an image to the printer, using an ICC profile in LR or PS, but forgetting to turn off the printer's built-in profile. Color looks like crap. If you want to show a sample image that shows otherwise, be my guest. You may be correct. I can't do that myself since I lack bodies with IS.
Logged

Martin Kristiansen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 861
    • Martin Kristiansen
Re: Canon R - Mirrorless
« Reply #29 on: September 11, 2018, 03:31:03 pm »

The lens handles three axis of stabilization and the IBIS handles the other two. Itís well documented. Give Google a go. Iím certainly not going to shoot a bunch of test shots to demo this. Itís nothing at all like double colour management at all.
Logged

Guillermo Luijk

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1781
    • http://www.guillermoluijk.com
Re: Canon R - Mirrorless
« Reply #30 on: September 11, 2018, 03:37:14 pm »

Don't panic, Canon doesn't discard IBIS. We just must go on complaining about it not being included in the R:

https://www.canonrumors.com/interview-talking-with-canon-about-the-eos-r-system-and-its-future/

"Canon didnít put IBIS in the body this round due to concerns about size, heat and cost, but may look to add it to future Canon EOS R bodies."

That 28-70 f/2 deserves IBIS:



Regards
« Last Edit: September 11, 2018, 03:42:37 pm by Guillermo Luijk »
Logged

Rado

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 239
Re: Canon R - Mirrorless
« Reply #31 on: September 11, 2018, 04:28:18 pm »

Yeah I think a future body from Canon will have IBIS when they figure out the price/engineering costs for it. It's the same with the 4K video crop. I believe they simply don't have the tech to offer uncropped full frame 4K video at this point of time, instead of withholding it from customers out of spite. That's the price they pay for developing own sensors.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up