An important disadvantage of the matrix stabilizer

A short article about the problem that I encountered, I use a camera with a built-in image stabilizer and lenses without a built-in stabilizer.

Taken with SR on

Taken with SR on

I recently shot for review on camera Pentax K-70 and two macro lenses: modern SMC PENTAX-DFA MACRO 1: 2.8 100mm WR and old SMC PENTAX-M MACRO 1: 4 100mm. These lenses, in fact, are short telephoto lenses, which on cameras with a Pentax APS-C sensor give EGF equal to 150 mm. Additionally, they have a strong 'Focus Breathing' effect. During focusing towards the MDF, the angle of view with these lenses decreases significantly. In fact, when focusing on MDF (minimum focusing distance), lenses with an effective focal length of about 200 mm are obtained and, as a result, EGF they will already be 300mm with an APS-C sensor.

During macro shooting with my hands, I came across the fact that the image in the optical viewfinder twitches and shakes violently. This shaking is very annoying during focusing. Immediately I remembered how I was shooting on similar macro lenses with a built-in stabilizer and how much easier and more pleasant it was to work with them due to the lack of such jerking.

As a result, I made the following conclusions for myself:

  1. for SLR cameras, when working through an optical viewfinder, it is best to use telephoto lenses and macro lenses with a stabilizer in the lens itself, rather than in the camera. This allows you to get a stable picture, not only in the final photos and in Live View, but also in optical viewfinder, which greatly simplifies focusing, and the process of focusing and composition becomes much more pleasant
  2. Now I understand a little more the reasons why Nikon and Canon (maybe others) were in no hurry to introduce a stabilizer on the sensor in their SLR cameras
  3. built-in image stabilizer great fit for mirrorless cameras, as well as hybrid cameras with an electronic viewfinder (like Sony SLT). When used, a stabilized image is obtained both in the viewfinder and in the picture. In his article 'EVI or JVI'I added this weighty item
  4. who used to shoot in Live View will not feel such problems

Of course, the holy war between the stabilizer in the camera and the stabilizer in the lens is not limited to just this observation of mine, I only shared my specific experience of use in one of the situations. As usual, leave your thoughts in the comments.

Material prepared Arkady Shapoval... Look for me on Youtube | Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | Telegram.

Add a comment:

 

 

Comments: 77, on the topic: An important disadvantage of the matrix stabilizer

  • Denis

    for me, it’s a mystery how a stabilizer in a matrix can be more effective than a stabilizer in a lens. because the second for engineers should be an easier task

    • Alexey

      The stabilizer in the camera, implemented by moving the sensor slightly (it is technically too difficult to move the sensor to a large distance) cannot be as effective as the stabilizer in the lens, where stabilization is performed by moving the lenses or a group of lenses significantly (compared to moving the sensor) distance. In any case, shooting from a moving car or a floating boat, or simply with strong shaking hands will be more successful if the stabilizer is in the lens, not in the camera - I checked it myself several times.

      • Michael

        It is not necessary to move much in the lens, you can simply put the stabilizing group in the region of the optical center and the movements will be minimal for any focal lengths. With a matrix, such a trick will not work.

  • Koba

    There are already systems of dual stabilization, for example, Sony, Olympus, Panasonic, and they are very effective, I suspect that in the new mirrorless cameras from Nikon, which uses matrix stabilization, in the future the company will add lenses with a built-in stabilizer, or abandon such plans for the sake of cheapening and reducing the weight and dimensions of lenses ...

  • Igor

    THESE FIRMS OF TYPE PENTAX AND SONI DECIDED TO SAVE ON THE STABILIZATION SYSTEM BY INSERTING IT INTO A CAMERA, BUT NOT SO SO SIMPLE, SAVED IN ONE, LOST IN OTHER

  • Michael

    There is most likely no war. Manufacturers follow proven technology. Stabilization in the lens requires the addition of additional elements - optics and servicing electronic harness, which undoubtedly leads to both heavier and more expensive. And such a stabilization system copes much better than matrix stabilization. On the other hand, matrix stabilization is more difficult to implement, and its efficiency is due to the need to increase the size of the matrix itself, or to put up with the fact that its effective size will be somewhat smaller. Probably, matrix stabilization is more expensive to implement than objective one.

    • Alexey

      Matrix stabilization is done not electronically, but electromechanically - the matrix itself is suspended in the magnetic field of several (at least 4x) flat coils. Look how the lens drive works in CD / DVD - the same principle. (and a purely electronic stub, with an image shift programmatically - this is pampering)

      • Alexander

        VISIBLY NIKON BALLS FREQUENTLY ...

    • Vladimir

      And Sonya’s lenses are the cheapest, probably :))))

      • Michael

        The most expensive, like the whole system

  • aries2200

    and I generally have no stub all my life and without af optics and everything is fine ... monopod and everything is all stub

    • anonym

      I say, you can remember about the film. I sat on a sigma macro with a stub and I’m not overjoyed. And with Pentax, everything is exactly the same, there is a stub but it is not visible

    • Alexander

      And night shots of the city .. And beautiful sunsets in the evening .. The staff loves a smart photographer .. Well, if you only have D5, then you can get impudent.

      • Onotole

        Night shots and sunsets - that is, there is a tripod, exposures of 1-4 seconds still cannot be mastered by the stub.
        Stub is good for indoor filming - like friends drinking, for example.

        • Michael

          At sunset, 4 seconds is not necessary, the stub, as a rule, pulls

          • Oleg

            The question arose, does matrix stabilization on Olympus, Panasonic cameras affect the quality of the image itself, or is it better to use it only when it is needed?

            • Michael

              In theory, it does, like optical stabilization. The matrix is ​​“suspended” and moves to stabilize the image. When the stub is not needed, it is advised to turn it off. True, now cameras (and lenses) have become very smart and themselves, according to the shooting conditions, can turn off stabilization. For example, when working with a tripod.

  • Koba

    Another important point - when stabilization is built in at the matrix level, then all unstabilized lenses become essentially stabilized, on old lenses you can stimulate plots to low ISO from your hands, if necessary, in less light, the second important point - Pentax builds in some Astroguide cameras, or supplies it separately for $ 150, and with matrix stabilization, the stars are not blurred in night photographs of the sky, you can also reduce the ISO when shooting at night and give a longer exposure, and this is just a super function for some. By matrix shift, Pectax provides the PixelShift function, and the picture becomes completely film, all pixels are real, with real color, and the detail rises almost to the level of medium format digital cameras, noise is also reduced, yes, it works with static scenes, but all- Still, it is, and especially in the studio, you can achieve amazing results from cheap cameras, especially if the photo is designed for large format printing.

    • anonym

      That's just the pentax no one needs, like these chips in 99% of cases. Shoot at 500mm without a stub in the lens, and then tell tales about the capabilities of the pentax

      • Poison

        I shot the moon on 210 + x2 converter and did not die.

        • Taras

          When shooting the moon, shutter speeds less than 1/125 give blur, which can be seen at high magnification. And not because of the presence or absence of a stub (although this is an important aspect of shooting), but because of the movement of the subject.

    • Michael

      Only in essence and only standard focal points (although this is also nice). Shirkov has problems with coverage, for televisions the matrix stub is about nothing. Good when both

    • Arkady Shapoval

      Yes, the stub on the matrix has its undeniable advantages

    • Poison

      It is for these reasons that I bought the K-30 (except for the pixel shift, it just isn't there)

  • Crack_

    Macrozyomku can be robotized in a classic style, with a camera from a tripod. In this way, all the bells and whistles, the insight of the gyroscope-stabilizer in the about, active, camera on the photographer's nose - they are not needed)))

    • anonym

      You can then shoot on film, for 200/4 kapets shakes

  • Alexander

    “” ”2. now I understand a little more the reasons why Nikon and Canon (and possibly others) were in no hurry to implement a stabilizer on the sensor in their DSLR cameras ”” ”
    I think the reason is completely different ... Nikon and Canon have been making a stabilizer in the lens for film all their lives ... And since the developments in this direction were long and not bad, they did not bother with matrix ones, so as not to create unnecessary problems in the study of matrix stabilization ... And everyone else did not do it and what to do now, when there was already a need for stabilization, went the other way and again why ...? And because, in order not to do as Nikon - Canon, but to focus the attention of buyers on a completely new method of stabilization, well, that is, to use it as a chip to increase sales ... And no matter what who says there, but all technical progress comes precisely from selfish interest ... Private shops have no other interests and cannot exist ... No need to live with illusions ... Everything that exists now, all this is due to the selfish interest of capitalists, hucksters and speculators ...

  • Vladimir.

    I rarely try to comment on stupid things, but here, I could not resist. Judging by the listed problems that you have, for complete happiness you still need to screw Sigma 50-500 and take a picture with your hands. Judging by the article, it was written by a man, and since a man means he should be familiar with small arms, there, in the training course, it is clearly stated that the longer the barrel, the more difficult it is to quickly aim at the target. I’m a photographer with both experience and appropriate education, a lot of devices were in my hands, three years ago, without pity and howling I sold the sprinkled Kenon 7D and bought a Pentax K1. I bought it only because there is a five-axis matrix stabilization in this camera and you don’t have to pay big money for stubs in the lenses. Satisfied with the purchase like an elephant. I photograph everything except weddings, if the author has questions, I’ll leave a photo where the object was taken off hand at a distance of 5 kilometers, and a macro photo, including sapiga.va@ukr.net

    • Arkady Shapoval

      If you saw nonsense in this post, please indicate them. Once again - the problem is not with what I am or not having problems, I described the problem related to the matrix stabilizer method itself. I am sure that at one time you were pleased with the purchase of the same 7d, but time goes by, technologies go along with it.

      • anonym

        For me, for example, a very interesting article and the comments under it were very interesting, many people who did not know much, for example, knew about such a problem

    • Ofra haza

      I must support Vladimir - without "secret" goals to raise the matrix stub and its systems using it. Last year I photographed on Pentax K-1II - including, by the way, Arkady, and on “Your” weaving macro: I didn’t see any “movement” in the viewfinder (maybe it’s not there bachiv? (Hush)). Received sharp photos somewhere in 1/15 s. without any stands. I am also familiar with Cannon's objective stub. Honestly, which is better, I will not say it is in terms of efficiency, but for all the rest of the accompanying, navene, all the same, the matrix stub is more comfortable. I would choose it.

      • Arkady Shapoval

        Yeah, but I already saw your level of material in the review 11-18 :)

        • Ofra haza

          Dear Arkady, I also liked your level (of thinking) and your undoubted extensive technical erudition and the fact that, in your opinion (in the review 11-18), Pentax “did not jump into full frame”. But one thing simply fascinated me: this is that the photographer (ie you) says anything (even about the added value from sales), but not about the direct purpose of the equipment: to do - comrade, wake up! - pictures. If you do not believe my level, then read the Scriptures, where exactly the Savior told you: “Not by words, but by pictures you will recognize them…”.

    • Denis

      How many words have you written, Vladimir. You are a man. A man should not be verbose. This is silly.

      • Andrei

        Is it smart to reply to a comment that is over three years old?

  • Dmitriy

    The dumbest article I've read.

    • anonym

      Why are you reading?

  • German10

    Arkady, correct remark! Actually, I'm for both stabilizers at once - everything will be better than without it at all! Well, and electronic - the most bastard of all, cuts the frame! Everyone - sharpness without fanaticism!

  • Vladimir Buritsky

    And really, I didn’t think that the matrix stub in the JVI doesn’t work :)

  • Paul

    In my opinion in macro photography this "problem" is easier to solve with the help of a tripod.

    • Vladimir Buritsky

      The astonishment of the commenters amazes me.
      - Doctor, I have a headache
      - let's do an enema!

  • Ololoev

    Here, probably, manufacturers are trying to preserve the “predictability” of photographic equipment, or something ... See for yourself - the same Nikon has a matrix stabilizer only in the z6 and z7, which are quite expensive. Let me be a photographer who makes money by photography. Upgrading to a mirrorless camera will be painful because it's expensive. Old equipment usually acts as a spare, just in case. So it turns out that if a new carcass breaks down, I will go to the old equipment, and the stabilizer in the lens will allow me to continue to get the required photo quality.

    By the way, Arkady, this is the further development that you are discussing in the article “What's Next”. And then - "universal" installation of matrix stubs due to the reduction in the cost of technology, miniaturization, reduction in the size of equipment and lenses. That's how we live…

  • Koba

    I'll have to write again - think why Nikon made the new mount just huge? One of the reasons lies in the matrix stub, the capabilities of which directly depend on the place for the movement of the matrix itself, a large unit, logically, should sooner or later acquire an effective stabilizer, and if Nikon builds a stabilizer into new lenses in the future, and even really effectively both will be work, we get a highly effective stabilization system, even put on and off the 1000mm lenses later. Technologies are developing and sooner or later they will reach this point. I shot with the Pentax KP with a long-focus lens, nothing, I didn't notice any special twitching, but with the K70 I noticed that it was inconvenient to work, apparently the stabilizer of the KP is much more effective. By the way, all Saoi have tasks, most of the photographers, as far as I can see around me, are limited to focal lengths of up to 300mm, who shoots hairstyles or something else with very pancake lenses, they all have Kenons and Nikons, and top-end cameras with top-end lenses, it should be so. One does not exclude or contradict the other.

  • anonym

    pancake lens is 5!

  • Dima

    Very interesting and informative article. I think it’s not without reason that some manufacturers of photographic equipment combine a stabilizer in the camera and lens. In the presence of a stabilizer in the lens, you can draw an analogy with the presence of a flash, when without it in any way.

    • Alexander

      Of course not casual ... To increase the cost of the camera ... When everyone already understands that all this so-called "progress" is based only on one interest ... And this interest is Selfish ... There is no other interest under capitalism ... He (the capitalist) does not care about people, users , the basics of photography and so on ... He only needs profit ... Figuratively speaking, if tomorrow their profits disappear and their whole pyramid, which tells us that people who are keen on photographic equipment work in their company, will collapse in one day and in two days you you will not find a single enthusiast ... That is, you can find them later in another place, where it may again be possible for them to mow their grandmas ...

      • anonym

        You basically do not understand what capitalism and the market are. From the word at all.
        Any normal company always works for profit. Max profit is when people need a product and they willingly buy it. Not needed - the goods are lying on the shelves, losses, etc.
        Nikon released the useless Nikon 1 system. It was not needed, it created losses, it was shut down.
        Nikon released the useless DF camera. Losses.
        Nikon riveted baubles - sales fell.
        Nikon released an excellent d850 - demand could not saturate 1.5 years.
        Kenon released R with lousy color and castration - poorly selling.
        The conclusion is simple - don't buy junk in spite of fanboys and paid ambassadors.

        • Pokemon

          Df useless talk?
          Very useful - there was a rejection of D4 matrices and, judging by the price of new and used DFs, it is not so useless. This is a beautiful image camera that the Pentaxes and Canon did not make. Fuji only. And then Nikon.
          2) Is the EOS R's color bad? See photos of normal photographers.

          • anonym

            Df brought the company losses and image losses, to combine the matrix sharpened by high ISO and AF from the d600 which smears when there is a lack of light and generally lousy was not a good idea. Problem ergonomics, soft castration of video and space price exacerbated the epic failure. Therefore, there is no df mk2. Kenon in an interview then said THAT we definitely will not release. The market and sales were put in place, the project was closed.
            Kenon R has problems with banding, color spots and brilliant green. It is confirmed by both real skintones and tests.
            And again, the market put it in its place, the camera after a good start fell in sales.

            • Pokemon

              The loss of image to Nikon will not be brought by DF, but by D800 (the camera had enough problems), d600-610, d750. At the start, all 4 turned out to be raw cameras. Second-hand D600-D610 are at the d700 level. D800 also fell in price and used is not much more expensive than d700. Oddly enough, but this camera is also famous for oil on the matrix. And on the run to 100 thousand. And the symptoms and the frequency of cleaning unsuccessful copies like the d600. DF is not related to image losses. D750 shutters die during intensive use of cameras by wedding planners. In that year, even the action in the Nikon s / c was for the owners of the d750.
              I do not read pixel-drocher texts of the first revisions of cameras, but I look at photos of ordinary people.

              • Pokemon

                If there are problems with image quality, they are usually quietly corrected by issuing new revisions of cameras and changing problem nodes under warranty.

  • Reader

    One point is incomprehensible to me: is it really that the JVI comes from the matrix itself! If not, the picture should twitch.

    • Alexey

      Do not confuse OVF and EVF

      • Reader

        Arkady writes “optical” in black and white.

    • Arkady Shapoval

      Many, as I see it, did not understand what the record was about. I’ll try to describe in other words: when I shoot with a stabilizer, I want to feel this very work of the stabilizer right during shooting. If the stub is built into the lens, then the result is immediately visible in the optical viewfinder, as well as the result is visible in the photographs themselves. When the stub is built-in only in the matrix, then in the optical viewfinder this very result of the stub’s work is not felt, it appears only after the shutter has been released in the finished photographs, or in the Live View mode. Of course, such a lack of stub on the sensor is associated with the very principle of the structure of a SLR camera with an optical viewfinder.

      • Astrologer

        In the JVI, the picture does not come from the matrix, so the picture cannot but tremble. Here the file itself will already show if there is any sense.

        • Astrologer

          Or in other words: to shoot close-up where the grip is very small and from the hands - it is necessary either steel muscles (still hold your breath so as not to swing) or a tripod.

        • Arkady Shapoval

          By itself

      • Alexey

        Of course. When I shoot at 70-200 2.8 IS at 200mm on a crop, my shaking hands cannot hold the camera in any way, but as soon as I half-press the button and that's it - a holiday comes, the picture in OVF is like a young one, and even with sharp movements of the camera it is very reluctant and swings smoothly.

      • anonym

        Arkady, it turns out the stabilizer starts working only when you press the button.
        Apparently save energy. Maybe there is a stabilizer on-time control in the menu?
        Something like: - off, - turns on only when pressed, - always on (in this mode, the picture would not twitch, but again, apparently this stabilizer has a lot of power consumption).

        • Arkady Shapoval

          Well, one more misunderstanding. Opening hours, activation, etc. generally have nothing to do with this note. Stability on the matrix and in the lens can actually be activated after pressing the focus button and / or any other. But this does not affect the principle of the stabilizer. In the SLR camera’s AIS, under no circumstances will it ever be possible to see a stabilized image from a matrix. The reason is simple and lies in the design and function of the camera. The stabilizer on the matrix will be noticeable only after raising the mirror. The stabilizer in the lens is always visible (by itself, when it is active).

          • anonym

            I read it a couple of times, sort of figured it out. Faced only with stabilizers in the lens. Thanks for the site in general and for the specificity in this case!

  • Reader

    For macro glass, the scale is 1: 1, while for an ordinary lens, let's say this is N-times smaller, that is, the matrix needs to be moved N-times smaller. A matrix flock is lighter and consumes less electricity than a lens unit, and take a macro off a tripod.

    • Alexey

      The matrix stabilizer is not that lighter and more economical - you need to move the entire matrix pretty quickly.

      • anonym

        This technology has long been proven.
        The only reason for using a stub in lenses instead of a matrix lens is the manufacturer's desire to cut an extra bubble on each lens.

      • Reader

        I do not argue, but all optics become stub. What say this.

  • Reader

    In any case, between the struggle for the buyer in a compartment with the image, etc., savings are first and foremost. The difference in production of $ 10 with a circulation of 100 thousand will be one million. Therefore, manufacturers know better.

    • anonym

      And what about the image? The camera stub is already a must have.
      There is no chamber stub - sales will not be very good or the price must be dropped.
      Kenon missed the moment, and now she can’t catch up, there is no camera stub technology.

  • zengarden

    And here I am - for the camera matrix stabilizer :) but this is my personal, just hobby - to shoot with manual optics. And here, even at 100-135 mm focal length, the slightest stir can nullify the result (when shooting handheld). So let it be better than not.
    By the way, on Panasonic's matrix stub is very good, it is checked; but there is also a small matrix. And, yes, it's mirrorless.

    • Astrologer

      You have hit the mark! Shake and grease (the object has moved half a meter from its place) is just a completely different phenomenon and at least some stub will not cope with such a grease. I did not use lenses with a stub but I do not think that they can be removed on the go. Well, they should be approximately equal with a stir, yes, even a matrix 5 axial is even better.

      • Alexey

        Optics with a stub quite allows itself to be removed from a car or boat, but I have not tried it from a tank yet :)

        • Arkady Shapoval

          And also optics with a stub simplifies the work of the focusing module on the central locking cylinder. Roughly speaking, focusing is easier. Without a stub, the focusing module also gets a jerky image, especially with televisions, which are harder to work with (it’s harder to hover over a jerky image).
          Of course, this applies only to the CZK and only focusing through the JVI.

          • VladV

            This information should be added to the text of the article !!! This is the main disadvantage of the matrix stabilizer. There are, however, exceptions. Out of 20 shots with the K5ii and SMC 300, one was out of focus due to hand shake. When shooting on Canon 60d with L 24-105 mm is, out of 20 frames, the waste is 11 frames. (Football under spotlights at the same time).

  • Mobile phone number

    Tell me, is the Pentax KP camera worth the money? Or is there something better?

    • Michael

      Do you need a camera with a whale? Or a system? So generally expensive compared to competitors

      • Mobile phone number

        A camera with a whale, I look at competitors canon 77d (cheaper even with a whale 18-135), nikon d7500 (only a carcass is more expensive).

  • Eugene

    I bought a Canon R5 and a Canon RF24-105 F4 lens. At first, I was also dissatisfied with the work of the stabilizer in the lens and the matrix together. The screen displays “hand and +” (they work together). The image floats from side to side (even unpleasant to look at). But for reporting, this is not visible. EF lenses with a stub only work with an optical stabilizer, and which is also interesting, before the stub turned on when the shutter button was pressed, now the stub works all the time. Yes, in the instructions for 2021, it wasn’t there before, it’s directly written, the stub works all the time. There is no RF lens without a stub yet and I can’t describe the operation of one matrix stabilizer. RF lenses should be published somewhere, where both stubs work together, but I can’t find it.

Add a comment

Copyright © Radojuva.com. Blog author - Photographer in Kiev Arkady Shapoval. 2009-2022

English-version of this article https://radojuva.com/en/2019/04/ibis-sr-and-vr-os-is-ois-vc-itd/

Versión en español de este artículo https://radojuva.com/es/2019/04/ibis-sr-and-vr-os-is-ois-vc-itd/