Canon Hybrid IS

[Chuck Lee]

I've read the press release 3 times. (!) And I still don't know what they are adding. All I know is that they say that they are improving the IS system. Does anyone understand exactly what they are doing? Thanks!

They're adding the ability to pan vertically. Wow!! Now those falling rock shots will be steady and sharp!!


They're also addressing thefaux paby Adorama's cust service rep saying that the 70-200 L IS was discontinued. I have a hard time believing the timing of this announcementis mearly a coincidence.


They're also creating hipe. Maybe someone will say Nikon one less time today. []

[peety3]

I've read the press release 3 times. (!) And I still don't know what they are adding. All I know is that they say that they are improving the IS system. Does anyone understand exactly what they are doing? Thanks!

Imagine your camera and a lens with a tripod foot, and that you've mounted the tripod foot on a tripod.


If you pan the camera left/right, that's an axis that classic IS corrects. If you tip the lens forward/down or back/up, that's an axis that classic IS corrects.


If you loosen the tripod foot and rotate the camera/lens in the tripod foot, that's the axis that Hybrid IS adds.

[Jon Ruyle]

Thanks, Daniel. I was writing a response but saw your far better one and discarded it []


You're right, or course: I was thinking of photon noise. Read noise may improve dramatically, but as read noise improves, photon noise becomes more more important in the majority of cases. Forget thermal noise unless you're doing long exposures (for astrophotography it is a major problem of course). Thus I'm not expecting near as dramatic an improvement over the next ten years as over the past.


Yes, one could get rid of filters. I'm mildly surprised there is no black and white camera available (could be better high iso performance). I guess one could use 3 separate ccds for a color camera but I don't think such a dslr is on the radar.

I still think IS in <100mm lenses is important enough to my photography that I would like Canon to add it if possible, no matter the improvement in underexposure (high ISO) noise

I agree. I use IS with my 24-105 all the time, even at wide angle. With that lens, one can take a hand held picture in very low light.


I would think IS would be especially useful for macro (even in shorter focal lengths) because 1) one needs lots of light 2) often the subject is not moving, and 3) one might be crawling around in a bush and it might not be convenient to use a tripod. In fact, I've used my 70-200 + extension tubes instead of a macro for just this reason.


I think I'll always find IS useful, no matter how good high ISO performance gets.

[Daniel Browning]

Good post, Jon.

Yes, one could get rid of filters. I'm mildly surprised there is no black and white camera available (could be better high iso performance).

Yes, and it would have higher resolution as well. Joseph W. built one by melting the CFA off a D200 with acid, and he enjoyed the improved noise and resolution. Newer cameras are proving more even difficult to mod. I think the reason manufacturers haven't gone after the market for B&W cameras is that it's just too small. (Personally, I wouldn't buy one even if it was the same price as a comparable color DSLR -- but it will undoubtedly be much more expensive because of the smaller market.)

I guess one could use 3 separate ccds for a color camera but I don't think such a dslr is on the radar.

Yes. Probably because of its many drawbacks. The first and only 3-chip still camera was a big flop many years ago (I forget the model, but it looked like a bulky polaroid). The prism takes up so much backfocus distance that design, cost, and performance of the lens is severely compromised. And you can forget about doing anything wider than f/1.6. Very few, if any, of the existing 35mm lenses would work on a 3-chip camera (if a 35mm 3-chip could even be built). Then there's the artifacts added by the prism itself, and perhaps some additional artifacts due to misalignment. Worst of all is the color accuracy. A prism does not closely approximate the human vision response. It does better than Silicon, though, which is why 3-chip still has higher accuracy than Foveon. And prism cameras get used in Hollywood all the time, so it's obviously not *that* bad, but they're going for "artistic", not "accurate", anyway.


The big advantage of 3-chip is higher sensitivity in a smaller chip. Smaller chip means lower temperature and faster frame rates. The last one is the reason why 3-chip is used for video cameras. You also get deeper DOF than 1-chip. That is, you get the DOF of a 2/3" digicam, but the light gathering power of a 1.6X DSLR.

[Jarhead5811]

I do not agree that we need it on anything less than 100mm. It's a waste of resources that could be spent developing more useful and more beneficial photographic equipment

If, I had the money I'd want IS on every lens, evena 24mm f/1.0 prime. I do agree that I don't currently want to spend my meager resources onIS but I'm glad Canon is pursuing it.