Canon develops Hybrid image stabilization system

[yakim_peled1]

<p><a href="http://www.dpreview.com/news/0907/09072207canonhybridIS.asp">http://www.dpreview.com/news/0907/09072207canonhybridIS.asp</a></p>

<p><a href="http://www.canon.com/news/2009/jul22e.html">http://www.canon.com/news/2009/jul22e.html</a></p>

<p>At last, <a href="../canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00GvWX" target="_blank">24-70/2.8 IS</a>...... :-)<br /><br /><br />Happy shooting,<br />Yakim.</p>

[anov]

<p>24-70mm IS, really?<br>

The article mentions macro more than once so I suspect it's going to be 100mm macro IS or 180mm IS.<br>

Thanks for the link Yakim.</p>

[yakim_peled1]

<p>

<p dir="ltr">Actually, Canon's site <strong>did</strong> have a 180/3.5 IS for a few hours a year ago....</p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr">Happy shooting,</p>

<p dir="ltr">Yakim.</p>

 

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

</p>

<div></div>

[fotograf]

<blockquote>

<p>At last, <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00GvWX" target="_blank">24-70/2.8 IS</a>...... :-)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yakim, what's the point of your "at last" comment? It's a thread started by you, based on speculation, not fact.</p>

[arie_vandervelden1]

<p>So now the system corrects for pitch, yaw, and roll, not just the first two. Very nice.</p>

<p>As for 24-70/2.8 IS, I think it's pretty hard to tell whether this is actually coming, or whether this is just on someone's wish list.</p>

<p>Canon used to be the leader with IS, USM etc. but now it seems that they play catch-up to Nikon. Nikon makes a 18-200 VR, then Canon follows a year later. Nikon adds video, Canon follows. Nikon makes a 105/2.8 VR macro, now Canon may answer.</p>

<p>If Canon pulls off a 24-70/2.8 IS they'll be leading again....</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Arie, you say,</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Canon used to be the leader with IS, USM etc. but now it seems that they play catch-up to Nikon</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Are you sure? really sure? If you compare the list--numbers and prices--of IS type lenses from Nikon and Canon lately, it's not so clear.<br>

I wonder <strong>who</strong> 's playing catch-up? The fact that Nikon has had a VR lens or two not yet done by Canon (perhaps chosen precisely to cover ranges not covered by Canon, I would guess) doesn't make them the "leader" quite yet, IMHO.</p>

<p>I'm sure the new announcements are spreading FUD, in part, so either way, you don't get your dog back in the next week or so.</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>Useful for macro, but I doubt it will make much difference in normal use. I also suspect either a 100/2.8 IS or 180/3.5 IS will be on the way. It makes more sense on the 180, but the 100 is probably a bigger seller and Nikon have VR in their 105 macro, so Canon might put it there.</p>

<p>IS already corrects for pitch and yaw. Not sure about roll (but that's not a likely camera movement)! This corrects for lateral acceleration (but it appears not for constant lateral movement since Canon talk about using accelerometers).</p>

<p>It's not going to first appear in a 24-70/2.8. That I'm pretty sure about!</p>

[arie_vandervelden1]

<p>No I'm not sure. Just an opinion. A humble one, I should add. Hence my wording "it seems that".</p>

<p>I'd love IS on my macro lens. It'll be very useful for shooting medium-sized subjects (butterflies, flowers etc.)</p>

[zml]

<p>If the <em>new & improved IS</em> can beat the IS on the current EF 200/2 it'll be truly miraculous: I am normally very skeptical about the "I can handhold down to one second" claims but, provided I'm reasonably sober and rested, I can go as slow as 1/20s with that (heavy!) lens and get decent sharpness on stationary objects. Canon claims up to 5 f/stops IS on that lens, BTW.</p>

[bernard_odonovan]

<p>Having read Canon's press release it does seem that the new acceleration sensor that determines the amount of shift-based camera shake is based on the two axis of the film plane as opossed to using a three axis acceleration sensor that also determines the amount of shift-based camera shake along the focal axis. IE backward and foward motion. Obviously being lens based sensors Roll about the focal axis is not being compensated but Roll is not absent and would require a gyro stabalised inbody CMOS (or CCD) sensor to resolve it mechanically. Some backward and forward moverment could be handled by predictive auto focus but that is not the favoured mode for macro. Macro is sensitive to these movements for focus accuracy, obviously the system is aimed at resolving linear blurr caused by the shifts in the film plane on exposure. Still a great development that will make picture taking that bit easier. So well done Canon.<br>

As for the likely lens. I am hoping for a EF 50mm Macro IS :-)</p>

<p> </p>

[daniel flather]

<p>100/2.8 marco IS for sure, because I just bought the 1002/2.8 macro NON-IS.</p>

[daniel flather]

<p>ef 30/1.8L IS USM</p>

[edrodgers]

<p>A few days ago on the Canon rumors site, Adorama listed and confirmed that the 70-200 f/2.8L IS was discontinued.</p>

<p>Most people agreed that it seemed bogus, but now...</p>

[arie_vandervelden1]

<p>Bernard - I think you're right about AF comensating for along-axis shake. This would explain the "hybrid" tag.</p>

<p>I wonder how on Earth can they make an image rotate in-lens? I can see how you could rotate a sensor, but inside the lens? If so, maybe they can have an auto horizon-detect so next time I'm shooting a seascape my horizon will be straight.</p>

<p>Like my carpenter friend says: I'm a good judge of 89 degrees....</p>

[tom_mann1]

<p>Anyone know for sure why are there no wide-to-mid FL fast pro zooms with IS/VR, nor any fast primes with in-lens IS/VR? I presume that the design must be an optical challenge, but the market for such products must be huge. I would certainly purchase these in a heartbeat if available.</p>

<p>Tom M.</p>

[bernard_odonovan]

<p>Dear Arie<br>

The reason Canon describe it as hybrib is that they have a twin axis rotation sensor (as with conventional IS) and the new twin plane acceleration sensor. Getting the two pairs of sensor information to drive the lens elements is the tricky bit, as they need to work together.<br>

Pitch plus Yaw rotation and Vertical plus Horizonal shift all resolved. Very clever.<br>

I have seen the horizon aid on some digital camera's rear LCD, if they ever did a mechanical gyro stabalised in body sensor to deal with rotaion on the Roll axis then it could be used as you describe. I guess they would limit it to plus or minus 5 degrees which would be more than enough. Costs may mean we never see such technology ;-)</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>Roll isn't very important. Mostly when your hands shake its going to be pitch (rotating up/down) and yaw (rotating left/right), especially for telephoto lenses. Vertical and horizontal translation is a minor component unless you are doing closeup work. Roll (rotation about the optical axis) is even less important (which is just as well since it would be tricky to correct optically in the lens).</p>

<p>The new IS system makes no claims to compensate for pitch and yaw any better then the current system, and there's really no reason to expect any significant improvement for normal use.</p>

<p>I once spoke with Canon about why no wide/normal IS primes. Basiaclly two reasons. First it would add to the size and cost of the lens and people like small primes. Second it would add optics to a lens that may be a fairly simple design and so could affect optical performance. I think this would be espeially be true for fast wide primes.</p>

<p>I suspect another reason is that it's not so effective at long exposures. If you can shoot at , say, 1/16s with a 20mm lens without stabilization, I'm not so sure that they'd be able to keep the image stable for a full second (4 stops stabilization). I doubt the bandwidth for stabilization is that wide. It probably works best at somewhat faster speed. We all know (or should know) that IS results in drift if you use it with a lens on a tripod at slow shutter speeds.</p>

 

[bernard_odonovan]

<p>Ironically the very thing the new lens will show up is the component of roll blur in pictures where the system cancels all movement but for the roll imparted during shutter press etc. In pictures where the shift technology works dramatically it will be more obvious, watch this space as they say ;-)</p>

[bernard_odonovan]

<p>A photography croaches down to take a macro picture of a flower, his body will sway about the axis of his ankles. The forward and backward motion will cause some lens pitch the normal IS will compensate. The height shift will be small and corrected. He will also sway left to right. The rotation will be very small but the horizontal shift most significant, hopefully the system will correct that shift.<br>

Where a photographer uses the system more freely to catch things or is allowing the carmera to move more in their hands, rotation becomes more significant especially in a system cancelling the the signification pitch and yaw and the remaining plane shifts.</p>

[tim_price2]

<p>Yes, it is obvious that a macro-capable lens is the obvious choice for the debut, but I am not so sure it will be a 1:1 prime. Consider that it could be a "macro" labelled zoom that achieves a 1:2 or 1:3 ratio. I for one would love to see the 24-70 get IS, as that would completely allay my thoughts of turning to the dark side. Such a lens would take the "f/4 vs f/2.8 and IS vs. non-IS" philosophy which has been successful on the mid-tele (aka 70-200) category, and extend it into the wide-normal category. For ~$2k you get 2.8IS, or for ~$1k you get EITHER f/2.8 OR IS.<br>

The 70-200/2.8IS is also a possible candidate, as the f/4 IS has received such praise and begun to take a little lustre off of the top-notch glass.</p>

<p>Make sense?</p>

[bernard_odonovan]

<p>Lets examine if there is any logic in putting the new IS on an EF50 Macro. Surely the same rules apply it will only be for longer focal lenghts. Actually no. Here is why:<br>

In a macro shot taken with a 50 mm lens you will be much closer to your subject the shift on the focal plan for a 1mm movement of the camera along that plane is identical to a shot taken at a longer distance with the same subject frame on a longer focal lenght. The old IS rule that it benifits longer focal lenghts only fails. This IS system is as valid on a 50 as it is on a 180 when shooting Macro as far as the new shift based corrections are concerned ;-)<br>

The benifits to the tradition IS of Pitch and Yaw are also virtually equal when the subject distance difference is considered as above to get the same framing, in the very same way, the IS benifits a picture taken on an EF 50 in equal amount to a 180 for Macro photography.</p>

 

[bobatkins]

<p>You might want to be careful what you wish for in new IS lenses as I suspect itwould mean the non-IS versions would be dropped and the new lens increased in price by $500 or more. A new model is always a great excuse to jack up the price. (especially if put on an "L" lens)</p>

<p>I'd bet the 100/2.8 macro will be anong the first lenses to see it, if for no other reason than Nikon have a stabilized 105mm macro and Canon probably want to negate that as an argument to buy Nikon. The 180/3.5 IS should be close behind. The Nikon 105/2.8 VR runs around $900 right now, the Canon 100/2.8 macro runs around $575. I would expect an IS version to be in the $900 range.</p>

[ds_meador]

<p>I'd take it on the EF-S 60 2.8 macro. Most of the examples above do not even seem to acknowledge the EF-S lenses as possibilities for this new technology. However, the 60 macro with this technology would be incredible for both macro and portraiture, as it is already used heavily for these two applications.<br>

Could this also be part of the reworking of the EF-S 17-85 IS that some people have been talking about. Could an EF-S 17-85 with a constant f/4 and with the new IS be in our near future?<br>

While we're at it, since so many of Canon's lenses have been very difficult to get, do you think they're going to roll it out on the whole line at once? :-)<br>

DS Meador</p>

[bernard_odonovan]

<p>As far as Canon's EF180 F3.5 Macro is concerned. I suspect Canon will leave that work of art as it is. The serious user that buys it will probably make use of traditional techniques anyway with that tripod mount. Unless of course some lead electronics rules or end of production run deam different ;-)<br>

The EF 100 Macro USM. Agree there, Canon will see some benifits in it being a useful general purpose lens and the argument for IS is stronger. Not to mention the Nikon angle :-)<br>

The EF 50 Macro is so long in the tooth. Canon have a history of 50 mm shocks so I would not count it out...<br>

EF-S, I hope Canon keep those on the back burner, tee hee.</p>

[martin-s]

<p>Why not just wait for that new <em>"miracle lens"</em> to be released instead of speculating?<br /> One could use the time to take some stunning pictures, I'm sure :-)</p>