Mirror Lock-Up & IS Lenses on Canon EOS-3

<p>Hi,</p>

<p>I have a 70-200mm f/4L series lens mounted on a Canon EOS-3 film body.</p>

<p>When I turn mirror lock-up (MLU) on (by setting Custom Function 12 to '1'), Image Stabilization no longer engages on the lens (mode 1 nor 2). This is the case for any 'Drive' setting (single, multi, 10 sec, 2 sec).</p>

<p>Interestingly, the EOS-3 manual says that when MLU is on, 'a tripod is required'. If the lens assumes a tripod is being used, perhaps it's turning its image stabilization off?</p>

<p>Please tell me I'm doing something wrong. As I'd very much like to use MLU with the 200mm lens for shutter speeds between 1/4 - 1/125 sec when I happen to not have my tripod with me.</p>

<p>Many comparisons have shown MLU to be useful at such shutter speeds handheld, so I can't fathom why image stabilization would just be turned off assuming that if you're using MLU, you're not handheld...</p>

<p>Thanks in advance,<br>

Rishi</p>

<p>Well if you lock up the mirror without using a tripod, you won't know what you're pointing the lens at or whether it's in focus. I suppose you might substitute a pile of rocks for a tripod but then you wouldn't need IS anyway...</p>

<p>Karl, sure you do. You focus & compose before-hand. Focus doesn't change during the 2 seconds that the mirror would be locked up, and composition might change *slightly* due to your hand movement but I have still enough hands that this wouldn't be an issue.</p>

<p>I just want IS & MLU to work together. Is that too much to ask for? I really must be missing something here; otherwise, this'd be a huge design flaw.</p>

<p>Rishi</p>

<p>you hit it on the head in your post - the camera thinks you are using a tripod. Canon has long said to not use IS when you are on a tripod so it is automatically turning off the IS. It is an older camera and is living by the rules that were set when it was new and IS was also relatively new...<br>

Stark-Arts</p>

<p>Thanks Joseph.</p>

<p>So the Canon 5D Mark II, for example, wouldn't behave like this? Well, I guess I'll go test it out at a store.</p>

<p>Any film bodies that WON'T do this?</p>

<p>Firmware updates? Should I contact Canon and ask for this as a feature? Not that they'd care on an old film body anyhow... :(</p>

<p>This is extremely disappointing.</p>

<p>I own a Canon EOS 3 and a 70-200 mm f4 L (non IS) lens and this is a very fine combo. Honestly I don't understand why you give so much importance to the possibility of using MLU handholding the camera... You loose the control of the viewfinder and I don't think this technique would improve the quality of your shots... In this case a good tripod + MLU would give you more freedom and outstanding results.<br>

Regards, Alberto.</p>

although I'm not familiar with the eos-3, have you tried assigning AF to a button other then the shutter? Like an AF-on button. I believe that IS is activated along with AF, maybe that can trick the camera although AF won't work since the mirror is up... Worth a try I guess, that is a design flaw, IS should never be off unless you asked it to be.

<p>Sam, have not tried that.</p>

<p>But just to be clear: AF is working just fine with the shutter button, even with mirror lock up engaged. Perhaps people are misunderstanding: with MLU engaged, the mirror locks up AFTER you've already focused (by pressing the shutter butter down half-way) and THEN pressed the shutter button down COMPLETELY. Then you press the shutter again to take the image.</p>

<p>But generally I find that method inane. So I activate the 2 second timer function. In this case, you press the shutter button down halfway to focus (at this point IS <strong>should engage</strong>!), then when you've composed and are ready to take the shot, you depress the button fully.</p>

<p>The mirror locks up. 2 seconds later, the shutter is opened for exposure.</p>

<p>Best way to do it... the 2 seconds allows the vibrations to drown out, and the lack of the need to press the damn shutter button again keeps out finger induced camera shake. You'd be surprised how steady your hands can maintain the camera with IS. I've shot 1/4 of a second at less zoom and had tack sharp images verified by loupe, light microscope, and 8000ppi scans.</p>

<p>However, when zoomed in further, MLU becomes more critical. Perhaps it could be argued that IS performance starts degrading enough at those zooms that MLU doesn't matter. That may be valid, but I'd still like MLU with IS.</p>

<p>I take it the newer digital cameras allow you to use MLU with IS? How about any of the other film bodies? The 1-series?</p>

<p>Am I the only one that cares? Such is often the case, sadly... :)</p>

<p>Rishi</p>

<p>Late model film cameras like the EOS 3, 1V, Elan 7 series automatically disable IS during self-timer operation since a tripod is normally used. I've always disabled IS during MLU since I was using a tripod. However, nobody uses MLU without a tripod or other solid support so disabling IS makes sense.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>However, nobody uses MLU without a tripod or other solid support</p>

</blockquote>

<p><strong>I beg to differ.</strong></p>

<p>Evidence?</p>

<p><a href="http://www.stockholmviews.com/mup/mirror-up.html">http://www.stockholmviews.com/mup/mirror-up.html</a></p>

<p>Cheers,<br>

Rishi</p>

<p>you don't have an understanding of how Image Stabilization works. it requires user-interaction, pointing, to maintain a point in space and works against accelerations about that point.</p>

<p>daniel taylor</p>

<blockquote>

<p>you don't have an understanding of how Image Stabilization works. it requires user-interaction, pointing, to maintain a point in space and works against accelerations about that point.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So? What on earth does that have to do with a mirror locking up for 2 seconds before the shutter is actually opened for the exposure?</p>

<p>I certainly have a rudimentary understanding of what is required for image stabilization, but beyond that, unless you <strong>are</strong> or <strong>are chummy with</strong> a Canon engineer, it's all <a href="00JZ2p">guesswork as to the specifics</a> .</p>

<p>With all due respect, Daniel, your point is irrelevant regardless of the depth of my knowledge surrounding the technicalities of gyroscope-based or accelerometer-based image stabilization.</p>

<p>I've repeatedly stated that I set my composition, point to a subject, depress the shutter button down halfway to focus on the subject, then fully depress to take the shot. At that time, I want the mirror to lock up for 2 seconds, then open the shutter, <em>and do all this while image stabilization is engaged</em> .</p>

<p>Am I not speaking English here or something? This isn't very difficult to understand.</p>

<p>Also, Daniel, it's not like the IS mechanism in the lens is doing image analysis to perform stabilization. Hence it doesn't care about what/where your focus point is or what you're pointing at. Heck you can have the thing entirely out of focus and it'll still stabilize just fine.</p>

<p>Angular accelerations are detected and countered. Maybe translational motion also, to a certain degree anyway.</p>

<p>This has <em>nothing</em> to do with mirror lock-up.<br>

Rishi</p>

<p>as an engineer, I used to work on similar systems. you are missing the most salient point Rishi. Image Stabilization, regardless of the underlying precepts, requires that the point be established and 'continuously' updated via camera translation. the only thing IS does, is effectively damp the displacements around the aiming-point.</p>

<p>with MLU active, <strong>without the viewfinder</strong> , you cannot visualize and aim at the target. having said that, I was under the impression that later cameras enabled IS in virtually all scenarios .. with the onus on the photographer to deal with it.</p>

<p>daniel taylor</p>

<p>Image Stabilization is not the same a gyro-stabilization.<br>

I've discussed this at great length here on this forum. I would be more than happy to answer any questions or delve into the technical aspects deeper.</p>

<p>dt</p>

<blockquote>

<p>with MLU active, <strong>without the viewfinder</strong> , you cannot visualize and aim at the target.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As I said before, the IS mechanism in the lens doesn't care what <strong>I</strong> see through the viewfinder... if <strong>I</strong> can't visualize & aim the target or hold the darn thing still for an additional 2 seconds, that's <strong>my</strong> problem (thankfully, actually, it's not a problem for me).</p>

<p>If you look at the handheld shots below, I believe the softness in the top shot (EV 0) was caused by vibrations originating from the mirror:</p>

<p><img src="http://staff.washington.edu/rjsanyal/Photography/MirrorLockUpIssue.jpg" alt="" width="800" /><br>

<a href="http://staff.washington.edu/rjsanyal/Photography/MirrorLockUpIssue.jpg">Link to Full-Size Image</a></p>

<p>Yes, this could also just be that 1/125 sec is too slow for handheld at 200mm zoom, but from my personal experience with this 70-200mm f/4L lens, I doubt that because I just think it's<em> that good</em> . Realize that's the best I can do, b/c there's no objective way to decouple softness due to mirror shake or due to inability of the IS mechanism to compensate for handheld shake (if you can design an experiment to decouple these two, please do tell).</p>

<p>So, you could argue that MLU is unnecessary since, handheld, IS wouldn't be effective enough to get rid of the handheld shake at such a zoom to begin with. But:</p>

<ol>

<li>I doubt that, as I think IS is quite capable </li>

<li>If the shake of the interior housing due to the mirror flipping up <em>does not propagate to the lens</em> , but does propagate to the film, IS will be ineffective in dampening it. Which is precisely why I want MLU with IS to begin with!</li>

</ol>

<p>Cheers,<br /> Rishi</p>

<p>IS does nothing (good) if you indeed, hold the camera still. it requires a displacement and a correction. however, later versions of IS were sensitive enough to damp out mirror and shutter related vibrations, if on a tripod. remember, the tripod is now doing the aiming and applies the correction back on point. however, MLU is a different matter. the mirror is locked-up and any contributions have settled out. enabling IS on newer long-telephoto lenses could reduce pointing-errors due to environmental factors. and that is open for discussion as well.</p>

<p>peace and photographic bliss,</p>

<p>daniel taylor</p>

<blockquote>

<p>however, later versions of IS were sensitive enough to damp out mirror and shutter related vibrations, if on a tripod.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My 'latest version' of IS (this is 2007 lens), with this body, <strong>doesn't function on a tripod</strong> . Many versions of Canon IS lenses state 'tripod detection' (& concomitant IS shut-off) as a <em>new feature</em> . So why are you talking about 'later versions of IS... on a tripod' if all the newer lenses shut IS off when the camera's on a tripod?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>enabling IS on newer long-telephoto lenses could reduce pointing-errors due to environmental factors</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I really have no idea why we're still talking about 'pointing'. Image stabilization in lenses counters angular & translational acceleration.</p>

<p>My original fear/point still remains: <em>serious design flaw</em> , Canon.<br>

Rishi</p>

 

<p>"I really have no idea why we're still talking about 'pointing'. Image stabilization in lenses counters angular & translational acceleration."</p>

<p>well, if you don't 'point' or re-aim the camera there are no accelerations to correct.</p>

<p>my comments are related to your initial query with the <strong>Canon EOS-3</strong> . I haven't made a study of the newer firmware, or how Canon supports IS in newer cameras. I have two EOS-3's sitting here, a EOS-1v, and a 40D. I suppose I could do some experiments and better define the operation with IS, MLU, 2-second shutter timer, but I have other (and better) things to do today. perhaps others will have a better memory than I do regarding these matters.</p>

<p>daniel taylor</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I just want IS & MLU to work together. Is that too much to ask for? I really must be missing something here; otherwise, this'd be a huge design flaw.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you are hand holding, what's the point of mirror lock up anyways? I don't see how that small vibration from mirror slap is going to have much effect on a hand held shot, even with IS.</p>

<p>For what it's worth, Pentax also turns off SR (shake reduction) when using the mirror lock-up (2-second self-timer), apparently with the same idea that you're usually using a tripod with this setting, so Canon's engineers aren't the only ones who think this is a good idea. It would be nice if they would include a custom setting for this behavior for those who'd rather remember to turn off SR for tripod use. Perhaps the thought is that if you're hand-holding, even with SR/IS, mirror slap/vibration is the lesser worry. My understanding however is that mirror slap has a significant effect mostly at speeds generally slower than what you're describing.</p>

<cite>My 'latest version' of IS (this is 2007 lens), with this body, doesn't function on a tripod .</cite>

 

<p>It's not how long ago your lens was manufactured, or even how long ago it was designed. The feature sets of the IS implementations on various IS lenses do not follow a chronological progression any longer.</p>

 

<p>The IS superteles (300/2.8, 400/2.8, 500/4, 600/4) introduced a special tripod detection feature which aimed to correct for mirror slap if the lens detected it was on a tripod. I don't know if any of the newer IS primes do this or not.</p>

 

<p>AFAIK, <em>no IS zoom has this mode</em>. Many recent IS zooms detect if they're used on a tripod, but only so that they can turn off the IS actuators and lock down the IS lens elements, in essence turning IS off (but the manuals suggest you do it manually because the IS motion sensors remain active and consume power, reducing battery life). My three current IS zooms (17-55/2.8, 24-105/4, 70-200/2.8) all behave this way.</p>

 

<p>As for the EOS 3, at the time it was released, there was no such thing as either of these tripod detection systems in any IS lens, and Canon's recommendation was that IS was to be turned off when used on a tripod. It may be going too far to say that <em>nobody</em> uses MLU without a tripod, but certainly it's not far off; almost nobody does. And therefore, as of the time the EOS 3 was designed, the use of MLU pretty much necessitated that IS be off. So many bodies from around that time automatically disable IS when you engage MLU. Ditto for the self-timer.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If you are hand holding, what's the point of mirror lock up anyways? I don't see how that small vibration from mirror slap is going to have much effect on a hand held shot, even with IS.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Keith, as I've already posted above, here's proof that MLU helps with hand-held shots:<br>

<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.stockholmviews.com/mup/mirror-up.html" target="_blank">http://www.stockholmviews.com/mup/mirror-up.html</a></p>

<blockquote>

<p>well, if you don't 'point' or re-aim the camera there are no accelerations to correct.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Really? My, then whatever is the point of image stabilization?</p>

<p><em>Of course</em> there are accelerations to correct -- the accelerations induced by an unsteady (<em>non-robotic?</em> ) arm, magnified by the magnification factor of a zoom lens!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>My understanding however is that mirror slap has a significant effect mostly at speeds generally slower than what you're describing.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Andrew, yes, generally that's true -- shutter speeds probably slower than 1/60... but with lots of light coming through the lens, at high zooms, even faster shutter speeds can be affected.</p>

<p>Remember there's a sweet spot for the benefit of MLU... above a certain shutter speed (meaning, quicker exposure), the exposure is fast enough that mirror-induced vibration will not register, just like hand-induced vibrations won't register. However, below a certain shutter speed (say, slower than 1 second), mirror-induced vibration also will not register, since not much exposure occurs, relatively, during the time over which the mirror-induced vibration dies out (i.e. the duration of mirror-induced vibrations is considerably smaller than the duration of the entire exposure).</p>

<p>Hence it can occur over a variety of shutter speeds. Which is why I'd like to rule it out as a source of image softness.</p>

<p>Rishi</p>