The body must have some sensor over the image plane that can detect image movement; and distinguish it from brightness variation, which asks for a set of detectors.
This set of detectors must be coupled to the electronic control of the stabilizing element inside the lens.
I suspect that is the method of stabilization for Nikon's VR system, as they require a minimum number of AF points for operation (I believe it is 5), but I know on Canon's IS system, there are two accelerometers (X & Y) in the lens, and a matching set of electromagnetic coils that detect and counteract motion. All the camera body does is just tell when to turn the IS on and off. As for compatibility within the Canon system, IS works on all models, but it may shake after the shutter release on the early bodies.
Last edited by Dirb9; 04-18-2008 at 04:59 AM. Click to view previous post history.
Hi mabman,I am a pentaxuser myself as you may have gathered from my non de plume. I have never seen any pentax lenses that incorporate any form of image stabiliser or vibration reduction either. At that point at which Canon and Nikon continued to develop their 35mm cameras Pentax seemed to rest on its laurels and lost its way and more than a little ground which in terms of film cameras it never made up. Pity.
So with a ME super I think you are stuck with non image stabilising lenses. Probably not too much of a problem even for handholding except in low light or high speed action photography or if the zoom is very big. Monopods and tripods can be a bit of a pain to carry around but even the very best are probably cheaper than a VR or IS lens and VR or IS in most situations is unlikely to match the rock steadiness of a tripod.
I have to move around fast usually in a melee of people while shooting rock concerts, lens at almost full aperture and on the limits of hand holdabilty usually with shutter speeds of a 60th or less. So an IS lens would be an enormous help, I have used the Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS lens and it does make a huge difference.
I wouldn't sweat the primes vs. zooms issue - Canon's L zoom lenses with IS are all top-notch, wickedly sharp lenses. You might squeeze a couple more LPM out of a prime, but the L zooms are pretty damned good.
Regarding the Kenyon gyro systems... has anyone purchased one and used it for their photography?
I have a Kenyon KS-6 kit and used it with a Pentax 67 for an aerial photography business I had in the late 90’s. Image stabilization lenses were just being introduced, and only a very few models, all 35mm. I needed a larger negative, so I used the P67.
For air to ground shots, I used a 55-105mm zoom and could set the shutter speed fast, up to 1/1000. At that shutter speed the gyro wasn’t absolutely necessary, but it did make holding the camera and framing the scene much smoother. And maybe it did contribute somewhat to the very sharp results.
For air to air shots, the gyro was indispensable. I primarily used a 200mm lens, but sometimes a 300mm lens, and the shutter speeds had to be 1/60 or maybe 1/125 to get the optimum propeller blur. The results were almost always tack sharp.