Panasonic files a patent for in-camera image stabilization

Panasonic has a pending patent in Japan for in-camera image stabilization system. This solution will also prove image stabilization for third party lenses.

This entry was posted in Panasonic and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • pavel

    Oh, finally they coming to their senses! Now if only Nikon would do the same.
    Before someone start arguing that in-lens IS is better, ask your yourself:
    1. if you actually shot with both systems for some time (I did)
    2. how well is the in-lens working in Nikon 24-70/2.8 or 50/1.4 or 85/1.4 or 300/4 lenses? Just to name few.

  • Bjorn

    Now we only have to hope that Nikon and/or Canon are smart enough to follow.

    • Handsome Gentleman

      Actually they are smart enough NOT to follow. They are charging premium for the INIS you know..

      • http://oneyearonafilm.tumblr.com elkarrde

        Indeed they are smart – but for themselves, not for users.
        Historically, both Canon and Nikon had good reasons to put stabilization in lenses – with film, there is no way to stabilize image other than with in-lens system. But that era is well gone, at least for the most photographers.

        • Harold Ellis

          do you really believe that you can make image shaking mechanism stable and good enough which will stabilize 50 as well as 600mm lenses and not compromise reliability of body etc?
          We have now 20µn focus adjust and you want the same image shaking mechanism moving with sensor +/- 5000 µm in 3 dimensions?

          do you really believe that canon and nikon do it just for moneys?

          • http://oneyearonafilm.tumblr.com elkarrde

            With enough money spent on the system and QC, that is not a problem – QC is the most significant problem here, not the technology.
            The same problem of near-perfect accuracy in positioning a sensor applies just the same to floating lens elements, both systems have their own fair share of problems.

            Btw, I’ve never said they’re doing it just for profit, just that both companies are smart. ;)

          • Harold Ellis

            elkarrde: yes, but that is exactly the problem. They dont want to spend moneys on invisible things, like QC.

            1) It is much easier, cheaper and effective to develop perfectly matched VR for given lens then develop something universal.

            2) you can make “better” VR for more expensive lens and “ok” VR for cheaper lens

            3) you dont want to compromise body reliability and price by adding something which not everybody wants. Look how they fight few dollar WiFi module.

            4) in body VR is more complex then in lens VR and rarely anybody wants it (only telephoto Zoo-wildlife fanatics lazy to carry monopod). Those who want it professionally (cannot imagine who as all pros use tripod anyway) usually expect it to work really well. No in-body stabilization works really well and bigger sensor you have, harder it is.

  • Tony Bologna

    Just buy Olympus already!

    • chase

      Yes, and one month after the warranty expires it bricks and turns into a expensive paper weight!

      • MK

        no evidence for your claim = argument is invalid, question whether you are employee of olympus competitor

        • chase

          No just someone who purchased one and had it brick, along with a handful of family members and friends who encountered the same problem.

          • MK

            just stop please, you’re only making yourself look bad by getting defensive – thereby proving my point. family members? haha okay now i really believe you

  • Bob

    Harold Ellis,

    When do you see tripods at sporting events (i.e.basketball) or motorsports where everyone pans for motion blur? Maybe airshows? No once again.

    Are you an engineer since you know what’s easier and cheaper to make?

    • Harold Ellis

      at pro level yes, but i admit that i don’t look that much. but if you are right and rarely anybody use it, it is probably because the in lens stabilization is so good. in body? unlikely.
      no, i am not an engineer, but i know that easier task can be accomplished easier or better or for less moneys. you can be sure that nikon and canon know what they are doing and why no pro camera have sensor stabilization. I also played with many cameras which have in body stabilization, and it never worked really well, while even crappy cheap sigma lens’ stabilisation, works surprisingly good.

      • Beer_Stalker

        I have a FF camera with IBIS and it works very well.

        Having IBIS doesn’t stop you using stabilised lenses, it just makes non-stabilised lenses more useful.

  • Back to top




// B&H PopView code