Why Do Canon and Nikon Resist in Body Image Stabilization?
Canon and Nikon, two giants in the photography industry, often stand out due to their strategic decisions regarding the inclusion of image stabilization technologies. While some argue that they are behind the curve, the reality is more nuanced. This article delves into the myths and facts surrounding sensor and lens stabilization, clarifying why both brands have chosen a certain path.
Addressing Common Myths About Sensor Stabilization
Myth ①: Sensor Stabilization Is Less Effective and Uses More Power
Sensor stabilization is sometimes criticized for being less effective and more power-intensive compared to lens stabilization. This idea, however, is fundamentally flawed. Sensor stabilization, which involves moving a lighter object with less inertia, not only consumes less energy but can also achieve stabilization performance that matches or exceeds that of lens stabilization. For example, sensor stabilization can provide 4.5–5 stops of stabilization, equating or outperforming lens stabilization systems. Moreover, sensor stabilization can correct for movements on five out of six axes: pitch, yaw, roll, lift, and tilt. In contrast, lens stabilization only corrects for two axes, pitch, and yaw.
Myth ②: Sensor Stabilization Does Not Work on 35mm Sensors
Another common belief is that sensor stabilization does not function on 35mm sensors. This misconception can be debunked by examining the experiences of some manufacturers like Pentax and Sony. Pentax's K-1 and Sony's α9 models have successfully implemented sensor stabilization on 35mm sensors, demonstrating its viability and effectiveness across different sensor sizes.
Myth ③: Sensor and Lens Stabilization Are Incompatible
The compatibility between sensor and lens stabilization is often a point of contention. However, the Olympus OM-1 and EM-1 Mk II serve as excellent examples, showcasing the successful integration of both technologies. When combined, these systems can achieve up to 5 stops of stabilization, providing photographers with a robust and versatile toolset.
Myth ④: Sensor Stabilization Does Not Stabilize Viewfinder Images
One of the common misconceptions is that sensor stabilization does not stabilize viewfinder images. With the advent of electronic viewfinders (EVFs) and live view modes, this claim no longer holds true. Sensor stabilization can indeed stabilize the viewfinder image, ensuring a clearer composition and improved shooting experience.
Myth ⑤: Sensor Stabilization Does Not Benefit Autofocus (AF)
Another myth suggests that sensor stabilization does not improve autofocus performance. However, with advanced features like on-sensor phase-detect AF (PDAF) and contrast detection AF (CDAF), the AF sensors move in tandem with the sensor itself. This synchronization ensures that the AF system is always stable and accurate, leading to better overall performance.
Myth ⑥: Sensor Stabilization Requires Lens-Specific Knowledge, Making It Less Efficient
It is often assumed that sensor stabilization must be lens-specific, which makes it less efficient. However, modern cameras can pass necessary lens information to the sensor or prompt users to input this data. Therefore, sensor stabilization can be adapted to work with any lens, whereas lens stabilization requires intricate knowledge of the lens formula, making it far more lens-specific.
Myth ⑦: Lens Stabilization Is Backward and Forward Compatible With All Bodies
While lens stabilization, like that used by Canon and Nikon, may be considered more backward-compatible because it requires less camera-specific information, the reality is more complex. Using newer camera models and power demands, many older bodies are unable to support the necessary power demands, making lens stabilization less practical for these devices.
Advantages and Disadvantages of Lens Stabilization
Lens stabilization has several advantages, including the stabilization of the optical viewfinder (OVF) image and the improvement of autofocus (AF) performance through off-sensor AF. However, it also comes with some significant disadvantages. These include the bulkiness, weight, and increased cost of lenses, as well as the need for compatibility with each new lens and the requirement to disable it when using a tripod. Additionally, lens stabilization does not maintain the eye-hand coordination that is crucial for using an OVF.
Advantages of Sensor Stabilization
On the other hand, sensor stabilization offers several advantages. It does not add significant bulk or weight to the camera body and is backward and forward compatible with all lenses. It also provides stabilization across five axes, offering a more comprehensive correction compared to lens stabilization. Sensor stabilization is a one-time investment with the camera body and does not need to be turned off when using a tripod. Additionally, it can be utilized for various features such as dust removal, astronomy tracking, and even auto horizon leveling, among others.
Why Not Sensor Stabilization
The short answer to why Canon and Nikon may not have fully embraced sensor stabilization lies in the substantial investment in their current lens stabilization technologies and the broader profit margins derived from lenses. The transition to sensor stabilization would require a significant shift in their business model and could potentially impact their existing lens sales. This subjective, but often cited, reason underscores the challenges these companies face in adopting a new stabilization standard.
Conclusion
The differences between sensor and lens stabilization are not just technical; they also reflect broader strategic decisions made by manufacturers. As technology continues to evolve, it is likely that we will see more holistic approaches to image stabilization, potentially merging the benefits of both sensor and lens stabilization in a single, cost-effective solution. In the meantime, understanding the nuances of each technology can help photographers make informed decisions based on their specific needs and preferences.