Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Sensor stabilization: easier the larger or the smaller sensor format?  (Read 2867 times)
Guillermo Luijk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1275



WWW
« on: October 11, 2013, 01:25:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Leaving aside the discussion about sensor vs optical stabilization, and focusing on sensor stabilization, in other forum there were some of us coming up with ideas about the advantages and disadvantages of sensor size in sensor stabilization for a given equivalent focal length (same FOV):

  • Smaller sensors should be easier to stabilize because they weight less (less inertial effort), and because stabilization micro movements would be physically shorter in absolute microns but...
  • Larger sensors should more easily achieve precise stabilization because longer movements requiere to be less accurate in absolute terms.

Should both effects compensate each other ending in the same ease of stabilization no matter the sensor size, or one of them could prevail?
Currently there are stabilized sensors in all formats (M4/3, APS and FF).

Any thoughts?

Regards
« Last Edit: October 11, 2013, 02:04:00 PM by Guillermo Luijk » Logged

Peter McLennan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1674


« Reply #1 on: October 11, 2013, 05:11:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Any thoughts?

Regards


The only thought I have is "How the heck can they even do that?"
Logged
uaiomex
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 988


WWW
« Reply #2 on: October 11, 2013, 06:02:03 PM »
ReplyReply

And now, vibrations to get rid of moire! Huh
Eduardo


The only thought I have is "How the heck can they even do that?"
Logged
Fine_Art
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1086


« Reply #3 on: October 12, 2013, 12:50:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Leaving aside the discussion about sensor vs optical stabilization, and focusing on sensor stabilization, in other forum there were some of us coming up with ideas about the advantages and disadvantages of sensor size in sensor stabilization for a given equivalent focal length (same FOV):

  • Smaller sensors should be easier to stabilize because they weight less (less inertial effort), and because stabilization micro movements would be physically shorter in absolute microns but...
  • Larger sensors should more easily achieve precise stabilization because longer movements requiere to be less accurate in absolute terms.

Should both effects compensate each other ending in the same ease of stabilization no matter the sensor size, or one of them could prevail?
Currently there are stabilized sensors in all formats (M4/3, APS and FF).

Any thoughts?

Regards


I would think smaller sensors have the advantage. The weak link should be the strength of the equipment moving the sensors. Therefore there would be less elastic distortion of the parts, less lag, less battery drain for a smaller mass sensor.

I would go for sensor stabilization on APS-C, 4/3ds and optical stabilization on FF.
Logged
tsjanik
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 533


« Reply #4 on: October 12, 2013, 01:58:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Interesting question and the answer may be indicated by Pentax products: sensor stabilization in APS-C and optical in the 90mm for the 645D.  I suspect Pentax spent some time and effort in that decision and I seem to recall an explicit statement from Pentax that the 645 sensor was too large for stabilization.

Tom
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5124


« Reply #5 on: October 13, 2013, 11:53:41 AM »
ReplyReply

I would think smaller sensors have the advantage. The weak link should be the strength of the equipment moving the sensors. Therefore there would be less elastic distortion of the parts, less lag, less battery drain for a smaller mass sensor.
I would think so too, due the physical scaling laws that allow a hummingbird to flap its wings 60 times per second, and change its direction of motion far faster than a large bird can: the forces required to keep a larger sensor in place go up with the cube or fourth power of linear size, but the ability to deliver force often goes up only with cross-sectional area, so the square of linear size. But similar scaling issues rise with lens-based stabilization too, where the lens elements to be moved can be smaller and lighter in a smaller format, and require smaller movements on the same time scale. So it not clear that the advantage shifts between lens IS and sensor IS as format size changes.

I would choose my gear on the basis of actual testing and reviews, not this vague theory; rather than "prejudging" like this:
I would go for sensor stabilization on APS-C, 4/3ds and optical stabilization on FF.
I would ask what actual testing shows, for example in comparisons between the different sensor sizes where Sony uses sensor-based stabilization, in its SLRs with APS-C and 35mm format sensors.
Logged
Fine_Art
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1086


« Reply #6 on: October 13, 2013, 12:54:16 PM »
ReplyReply

If you go back to the original post he was asking what people think.

Tilting an optical element takes much less force than moving a chip even if its lighter. Try tilting a full bookcase vs lifting or moving one.
Logged
mcbroomf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 388


WWW
« Reply #7 on: October 14, 2013, 12:32:47 PM »
ReplyReply

As an engineer I think you design to the requirement specs.  So taking your points Guillermo you would have to design one with more precision for the APSC sensor, but bigger motors for the FF sensor.  The outcome would be differences in cost and size but both feasible.  Perhaps because FF sensors go in larger bodies (the future Sony A7 not withstanding) size is not so important if that mechanism is larger.
Logged

Mike Broomfield
Website
Glenn NK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 273


« Reply #8 on: October 14, 2013, 07:24:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Does an optical element in a lens translate or does it tilt - or both  - in an IS/OS lens?

It would seem that a sensor would only have to tilt and not translate, but perhaps this is incorrect?

If these assumptions are correct, they will have a bearing on which method to use ; sensor mass varies approximately with the square of the linear dimensions of the sensor.

Glenn
Logged

Economics:  the study of achieving infinite growth with finite resources
Fine_Art
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1086


« Reply #9 on: October 15, 2013, 12:56:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Does an optical element in a lens translate or does it tilt - or both  - in an IS/OS lens?

It would seem that a sensor would only have to tilt and not translate, but perhaps this is incorrect?

If these assumptions are correct, they will have a bearing on which method to use ; sensor mass varies approximately with the square of the linear dimensions of the sensor.

Glenn

I thought the lenses tilted in OS while the sensors shifted. Is that wrong?
Logged
mcbroomf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 388


WWW
« Reply #10 on: October 15, 2013, 02:20:01 AM »
ReplyReply

Olympus probably have the most advanced IBIS

"The new IS unit compensates for camera shake in 5 axis directions: (1) up-down (pitch), (2) left-right (yaw), (3) left-right horizontal shift, (4) up-down vertical shift, and (5) rolling camera shake. Compensation is provided for camera shake which could not be compensated with conventional 2-axis IS systems, including horizontal and vertical shift and rolling camera shake which is particularly noticeable in movies."

http://asia.olympus-imaging.com/products/dslr/em5/feature/04/
Logged

Mike Broomfield
Website
hjulenissen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1675


« Reply #11 on: October 15, 2013, 02:29:27 AM »
ReplyReply

Seems to me to be a question that cannot really be answered without more info from the labs of the camera makers?

The abscence of things like IS on larger-sensor cameras might be because it is technically harder, but it might as well be because of economy of scale.

-h
Logged
mcbroomf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 388


WWW
« Reply #12 on: October 15, 2013, 02:40:51 AM »
ReplyReply

Sony have IBIS on their SLT bodies.  The FF A99 has shift stabilization.
Logged

Mike Broomfield
Website
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad