Canon I want IS on camera body.

<p>Is there any hope for Image Stabilizing on camera body from Canon?<br />I would love to use the 135 f2 L and other superb non-IS primes with low shutter speed without tripod.<br />Is it only me?</p>

<p>If you want in-body IS you need to switch to a company that provides it. My recommendation would be Pentax. </p>

 

<p>Fictional Canon Rep to stamoulis - "Oh ya? I heard. Thanks for the feedback. We will take into consideration."</p>

<p>Same fictional Canon Rep to another rep - "You know what happened today? Another one asked for the IS in body. Where should we file this suggestion?"</p>

<p>Another rep - "I think it should be in the 'Future pile' that we never look into. ha ha, doesnt he know better?"</p>

<p>PS - I have no affiliation to Canon.</p>

<p>Thank you Rob for your answer but I like Canon lenses and I just hope someone from Canon will read this.<br />Anyone else from Canon users that need IS on camera body?<br>

Thank you Sravan, I think Canon may read PN forums.<br />I do not have any connection with Canon. I just use Canon and some products I like others I don't.</p>

<p>Canon appears to be very comfortable with IS lenses. They've added IS to a number of EF-S lenses for the entry-level market and continue to refine IS in their professional offerings. This is what one person might describe as "entrenched." Asking for in-body IS is a bit like asking for them to natively support the Nikon lens mount. </p>

<p>You're buying into a system and, for Canon, the system is the EF/EF-S mount with on-lens IS. If you want in-body IS you need to look elsewhere. </p>

<p>(And, as per usual, I would be happy to be proven wrong here, I just don't think it's all that likely)</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I think Canon may read PN forums.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I doubt it. Even if they did, they wouldn't put much credence in what is posted. Personally I like the IS in the lens because it affects the image in the viewfinder also.</p>

<p>Thank you Rob and John for your replies.<br />I do not ask Canon to change everything, only some of Canon cameras could have IS.<br />I just hope that Canon reads (carefully) these PN forums, we are users of their products and they may learn our needs. Wonderful pieces of glass like 135 f2 L are many times practically useless without tripod for under 1/60 shutter speed. Technology exist, they may use it.</p>

<p>Stamoulis</p>

<p>You have a good point, but remember that a fast aperture lens like the 135/2 is used to stop action as well as have shallow depth of field - and IS does not help with either of these things. If you want a lens that does what you want then Canon would probably suggest you use the 70-200 2.8IS which is not altogether unreasonable.</p>

<p>[[only some of Canon cameras could have IS.]]</p>

<p>So consumers would be saddled with trying to decide between a Canon 2000X with in-body IS or a Canon 2000N without but with a kit lens with IS built in? It certainly would kill the economies of scale with Canon and not at all help the consumer.</p>

<p>[[Wonderful pieces of glass like 135 f2 L are many times practically useless without tripod for under 1/60 shutter speed]]</p>

<p>Canon is more than happy to sell you a 200mm f/2 IS lens. :)<br>

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_200mm_f_2l_is_usm</p>

 

<p>In body stabilization is a quite different philosophy... You don't get a "stablized view" when using the viewfinder, it kicks in for the sensor when the mirror flips up. So especially with long lenses the in-lens stabilization has a slight advantage to nail the framing. Try to hit that bird in flight when your view is wobbling around and the stabilization only starts when releasing the shutter...</p>

<p> Yep ! i'm with Andre ...</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Stamoulis - I just hope someone from Canon will read this.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Unfortunately, things don't work that way. Even in American or European companies, engineers and designers are strongly discouraged from participating in these sorts of forums, in order to prevent lawsuits from people claiming to have had inventions "stolen" by the company. Japanese companies are 10x as strict.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Rob - They've added IS to a number of EF-S lenses for the entry-level market and continue to refine IS in their professional offerings. This is what one person might describe as "entrenched."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, it's not what anyone with a bit of business education or experience would describe that way. You're blinded by the myth of "sunk" resources. Large corporations look at how to make the most money from the position they're in. If they do a little market research that says "spending X millions to add body based stabilization to their system will result in Y millions in sales" and Y is sufficiently larger than X, then they do it. It doesn't matter that the lens based stabilization already cost Z millions, if spending additional money on body stabilization increases sales sufficiently, then it's "good".</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Asking for in-body IS is a bit like asking for them to natively support the Nikon lens mount.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, it's not. The former is a "difference in degree", the latter a "difference in kind". Why do people with bad reasoning always feel obligated to throw in an inappropriate analogy to support it? Do you really believe that the ROI for native Nikon mount support is anywhere near the ROI for body based stabilization?</p>

<p>p.s. you are aware that when Canon launched the EOS system, they had a Canon branded Nikon mount adapter, right? Nikon had a much larger market share than Canon in both sports and photojournalism, and the Nikon mount adapter was a "foot in the door" for a lot of PJs.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Robin - You have a good point, but remember that a fast aperture lens like the 135/2 is used to stop action as well as have shallow depth of field - and IS does not help with either of these things.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The random images at the bottom of the page show a portrait by Stamoulis that isn't "action" or "shallow depth of field".</p>

<p>Actually, one of my primary uses for my 135mm f2.0 DC Nikkor and 85mm f1.4 Nikkor is portraiture. I do a lot of portraiture that is shallow DOF, low light portraiture, either indoor environmental or candlelight. Stabilization is a real boon for that. On a FF camera, I can hand hold a 135mm for critical sharpness at 1/100 or 1/150 sec. Given a tripod, or even a monopod, I can go down 2-3 stops, to 1/15-1/30 sec, the speed limited by the ability of a "civilian" portrait subject to hold still. 2 stops is everything in low light portraiture. I've shot with a Ken Labs gyro before, because it was the only way to stabilize certain lenses in a hand-held situation.</p>

<p>edit: i still can't read. what can I say...</p>

<p> </p>

<p>as an Olympus user, with in-body IS, I don't have any issue with framing, at least not from a stabilisation issue. Practically, is any IS system going to help with a wobble large enough to affect framing? That sound s more like trying to take a picture from a moving vehilce on rough ground.<br>

The advantage I see with in-body satbilisation is a major price difference in each and every lens I buy, and not needing to amkie a choice between stabilised and unstabilised versions. This is what made the choice of Olympus for me over other brands.</p>

<p><em>"Is there any hope for Image Stabilizing on camera body from Canon?"</em></p>

<p>Yes but not in an EOS body. Senior Canon technical officers have stated on several occasions (don't ask for links but they are out there) why they feel that for the EOS market in lens stabilisation is their preferred system. I do think that the Canon EVIL models might well have in body IS and I'd be shocked if EF lenses couldn't be used on them, but when that will be, and what sized sensor they use, we will all just have to wait and see.</p>

<p>I was at a presentation by a Canon marketing manager and there are two reasons why Canon prefer in lens IS<br>

1 it works with film cameras!<br>

2 possible problems with the lens's image circle if you go for in body IS</p>

<p>The bottom line is IS lenses work much better than in body IS! When it comes to the DSLR format don't even try to get me to look at anything else other than Canon or Nikon.</p>

<blockquote><em>I was at a presentation by a Canon marketing manager and there are two reasons why Canon prefer in lens IS<br /> ...<br /> 2 possible problems with the lens's image circle if you go for in body IS<br /></em></blockquote>

<p>You gotta love marketing managers and the B.S. they spew (assuming he really said that). How far does he think the sensor moves during stabilization? I'll offer a guesstimate: imagine a 1000 pixel wide image- a sharp image has a blur of much less than 1 pixel (say 0.5 pixels). Since Canon claims their newest IS can give you 4 stops, consider a 4 stop (16-times) longer exposure time giving you 16-times larger blur, say around 8 pixels or less than 1% of image width - IS simply cannot compensate for more blur. Given a 36mm wide sensor, that motion would translate to maybe 0.3mm or so. Does he really think the image circle is so tight around the sensor?<br>

Other than that I agree that in-body IS would be nice, but it won't happen on foreseeable Canon cameras.</p>

Sony makes an IS body. I've avoided trying Sony, because you have to buy a Sony flash,because the hot shoe is different then your normal hot shoes. The top of the line body has 24 megapixels. You can use Zeiss lenses, which has always intrigued me. If the top of the line Sony had a dual card slot I would have played around with that system. For now I will stay with the 1Ds Mk3 bodies.

<p>Bob,</p>

<p>I have wondered about the practical use of dual card slots for a long time. I did used to shoot RAW and jpeg before LightRoom and multiple RAW file processing and browsing. I do now occasionally use them seperately to store RAW and jpegs now as I have an EyeFi card and can wirelessly send jpegs to a computer or ipad, but both these scenarios I could also do with one card slot. Bearing in mind, back in the days of film, we never saw the need to run two rolls of film through the camera, why is there so much importance placed on two card slots? Touch wood, I have never lost an image due to a card issue.</p>

<p>I remember reading somewhere, perhaps on photo.net, that lens-based IS is more effective than body-based IS. It has something to do with optics (that is, the physics of light), I think.</p>

<p>But the clincher for me is Mortimer's first point, namely, that EF IS lenses work on my EOS film bodies (which I still use quite a bit).</p>

<p>In-camera stabilization requires a moveable sensor, and in my opinion, that's asking for trouble. A camera sensor must be aligned properly at precisely the correct distance from the lens mount, or it will be impossible to achieve focus throughout the frame. I would prefer that Canon avoid placing the sensor on a motorized mount that can wear down and creep out of alignment. This design might not be a problem on hobbyist cameras, but it's the wrong approach for high-resolution cameras.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Bearing in mind, back in the days of film, we never saw the need to run two rolls of film through the camera,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's because we shot 8-12 shots on MF and 24-36 on 35mm, and the loss of a roll would mean the loss of less than 10% of a wedding or annual report shoot. Today, it could mean the loss of a whole shoot.</p>

<p>I never lost a roll of film either. That is a poor reason and one that doesn't seem to stand up to scrutiny, the only card failures I have heard of have been either cheap ones or, very, very, rarely compatibility issues and they should have shown up long before an important job. I know the wedding forum has many posts about the dual card slots, but very few people seem to use them to save RAW images to both.</p>

<p>For big events I use both slots but the second one is set up as an overflow to make sure the camera doesn't stop if I fill up the first card. I wouldn't make a camera decision based on the number of card slots it has.</p>