How would lens corrections work with the sensor moving around to support IBIS? Just thinking about WA lenses and corner corrections for light loss, casts, sharpness etc..
A7 II SteadyShot in action - YouTube
A7 II SteadyShot in action - YouTube
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Now imagine this technology put to use for shift/tilt functions at will (Pentax have allowed the shake sensor to be used for shift)!
Why (bigger than the A7II)?I think that'd call for a bigger body but I wouldn't mind a bit.
Eduardo
If you want to shift as much as with a TSE lens, you need about 12mm room in each direction (up, down, left, right) plus room for the shifting mechanism.Why (bigger than the A7II)?
I am glad you posted this as this the most common of all misconceptions.If you want to shift as much as with a TSE lens, you need about 12mm room in each direction (up, down, left, right) plus room for the shifting mechanism.
So (24mm + (2x12mm)) x (36mm + (2x12mm)) : the space needed reaches medium format territory : 48mm x 60mm.
I can't imagine a body of the A7 series size able to handle that : the A7II has a bigger grip and is slightly higher and deeper, but not up to that either.
The question is about how much shift you need ! It is much more than what you need for IBIS. It is not a question of microns.I am glad you posted this as this the most common of all misconceptions.
The shifting (and tilt!) mechanism is already built in and all we need is the right software (check how Pentax do it. There is a link here: http://www.getdpi.com/forum/pentax/45385-how-turn-any-lens-into-shift-lens.html).
1 pixel shift does not need any mm extra. It is in micron territory. What is also important to note is that you do not need a lens with a larger image coverage!
The numbers you have put out are for a lens and not for the sensor.
Nope. Some day it will become clear. There is a long way to go before Sony issues such a firmware (fat chance!) and also obliterate medium format digital backs, lenses and all those expensive grips, iphone holders and such in that process.The question is about how much shift you need ! It is much more than what you need for IBIS.
I looked at the video, but it isn't showing any powerful shift : look at the brown building at the foot of the tower : there is still a strong convergence of the verticals, because there is not enough shift. If he had chosen a usual square building for his demonstration, you would see it more clearly. You get some correction, but not enough for architecture shooting.I am glad you posted this as this the most common of all misconceptions.
The shifting (and tilt!) mechanism is already built in and all we need is the right software (check how Pentax do it. There is a link here: http://www.getdpi.com/forum/pentax/45385-how-turn-any-lens-into-shift-lens.html).
1 pixel shift does not need any mm extra. It is in micron territory. What is also important to note is that you do not need a lens with a larger image coverage!
The numbers you have put out are for a lens and not for the sensor.
Olympus mFT cameras have had IBIS and embedded lens corrections working together since 2009. They work well; the stabilization system has not presented any issues. I can't imagine that the A7II would be any different.How would lens corrections work with the sensor moving around to support IBIS? Just thinking about WA lenses and corner corrections for light loss, casts, sharpness etc..
A7 II SteadyShot in action - YouTube
Because it is FF, so edges are already an issue and for RAW converter corrections, the correcting algorithm would need to know the position of the lens relative to the sensor. Olympus at mFT, is using a much smaller sensor and corners are not as much of an issue.Olympus mFT cameras have had IBIS and embedded lens corrections working together since 2009. They work well; the stabilization system has not presented any issues. I can't imagine that the A7II would be any different.
Why do you think the IBIS presents any more difficulties than an OIS system?
G
I disagree. FT lenses are designed to just cover their sensors, particularly at the wide end, so the technical issues are really very little different. Only Sony lenses will have lens corrections; they're designed for the sensor and the mount too, so Sony can take the sensor movement and the coverage into account.Because it is FF, so edges are already an issue and for RAW converter corrections, the correcting algorithm would need to know the position of the lens relative to the sensor. Olympus at mFT, is using a much smaller sensor and corners are not as much of an issue.
Combine with the shortest flange distance of most cameras out there, the Sony projects some pretty shallow angles from the the corner of a WA lens onto the sensor. This again has colour cast issues. Things like LCC's in post-processing can be used to overcome this, but you still need a reference point between sensor and lens.
I disagree. FT lenses are designed to just cover their sensors, particularly at the wide end, so the technical issues are really very little different. Only Sony lenses will have lens corrections; they're designed for the sensor and the mount too, so Sony can take the sensor movement and the coverage into account.
Sensor movements for stabilization, particularly at the wide focal lengths, are very very small. Larger movements are needed for longer lenses. And the same issues you cite for IBIS are there for OIS as well.
G
Yes. Nothing to worry about IMO..Even most dedicated lenses have a few extra mils of leeway. Wides have the least but then again they would need much less shift to compensate for camera shake.
Eduardo