Canon I want IS on camera body.

Discussion in 'Canon EOS' started by stamos, Jan 25, 2011.

  1. Is there any hope for Image Stabilizing on camera body from Canon?
    I would love to use the 135 f2 L and other superb non-IS primes with low shutter speed without tripod.
    Is it only me?
     
  2. If you want in-body IS you need to switch to a company that provides it. My recommendation would be Pentax.
     
  3. Fictional Canon Rep to stamoulis - "Oh ya? I heard. Thanks for the feedback. We will take into consideration."
    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?"
    Another rep - "I think it should be in the 'Future pile' that we never look into. ha ha, doesnt he know better?"
    PS - I have no affiliation to Canon.
     
  4. Thank you Rob for your answer but I like Canon lenses and I just hope someone from Canon will read this.
    Anyone else from Canon users that need IS on camera body?
    Thank you Sravan, I think Canon may read PN forums.
    I do not have any connection with Canon. I just use Canon and some products I like others I don't.
     
  5. 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.
    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.
    (And, as per usual, I would be happy to be proven wrong here, I just don't think it's all that likely)
     
  6. I think Canon may read PN forums.​
    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.
     
  7. Thank you Rob and John for your replies.
    I do not ask Canon to change everything, only some of Canon cameras could have IS.
    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.
     
  8. Stamoulis
    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.
     
  9. [[only some of Canon cameras could have IS.]]
    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.
    [[Wonderful pieces of glass like 135 f2 L are many times practically useless without tripod for under 1/60 shutter speed]]
    Canon is more than happy to sell you a 200mm f/2 IS lens. :)
    http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_200mm_f_2l_is_usm
     
  10. 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...
     
  11. Yep ! i'm with Andre ...
     
  12. Stamoulis - I just hope someone from Canon will read this.​
    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.
    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."​
    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".
    Asking for in-body IS is a bit like asking for them to natively support the Nikon lens mount.​
    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.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.
     
  13. 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.​
    The random images at the bottom of the page show a portrait by Stamoulis that isn't "action" or "shallow depth of field".
    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.
     
  14. edit: i still can't read. what can I say...
     
  15. 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.
    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.
     
  16. "Is there any hope for Image Stabilizing on camera body from Canon?"
    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.
     
  17. I was at a presentation by a Canon marketing manager and there are two reasons why Canon prefer in lens IS
    1 it works with film cameras!
    2 possible problems with the lens's image circle if you go for in body IS
     
  18. 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.
     
  19. I was at a presentation by a Canon marketing manager and there are two reasons why Canon prefer in lens IS
    ...
    2 possible problems with the lens's image circle if you go for in body IS
    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?
    Other than that I agree that in-body IS would be nice, but it won't happen on foreseeable Canon cameras.
     
  20. 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.
     
  21. Bob,
    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.
     
  22. 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.
    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).
     
  23. 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.
     
  24. Bearing in mind, back in the days of film, we never saw the need to run two rolls of film through the camera,​
    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.
     
  25. 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.
    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.
     
  26. I'd rather have ECF than CMOS shaker IS.
     
  27. And I want a full head of hair.
     
  28. zml

    zml

    > I think Canon may read PN forums.
    Have you considered contacting Canon directly about your suggestion..?
     
  29. zml

    zml

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

    Huh? Who is "we"..? I - and zillion of photogs, just tally the number of rolls shot by NG photogs per scene on assignment - used to shoot in duplicate and triplicate with film. I'd routinely carry 3-4 bodies, shoot a scene with at least two bodies and then separate film for processing in different batches. I seldom lost a roll in processing but sometimes there were issues with emulsion and/or camera problems that warranted dual and triple roll per scene "insurance"... Actually, I shoot much less frames with digital per scene because I know that with dual card storage the chances of losing an image are really small and I can judge the image in-camera (exposure, focus, composition,...) much better with digital. With film it was "shoot and wait."
    >why is there so much importance placed on two card slots? Touch wood, I have never lost an image due to a card issue.
    See above. And perhaps storage is more reliable now than 8 years ago but I still prefer duplicates, just in case... And Canon knows better than to muck around with dual card storage on 1D/1Ds bodies...
     
  30. My guess is that it is probably not in Canon's business model to have IS in-body, at least for their dSLRs. Numerous explanations have already been given above so I won't regurgitate them. I reckon it's simply not a viable or indeed desirable business proposition for them...
     
  31. That is simply not going to happen. If you go to Canon web site, you will see that they believe that the IS belong on the lens and not the camera body. I think they are trying to protect the sensor, the most important part of the camera body, by not have in it move but by having the lens element move instead. It sounds like the old days when Canon believed in the CMOS sensor while other believed in the CCD sensor. We all know who won that battle.
     
  32. If you look at the Sony system - excellent though it is, there very few savings made from not incorporating IS into their lenses. In fact they charge about the same or more than Canon for their equivalents - you save no money getting in body IS there.
     
  33. I was very disappointed with Olympus' in-camera stabilization -- it felt non-existent, I got about the same results with it turned off. When I went to Nikon with VRII lenses the world changed -- suddenly I had the control I needed. I assume Canon's IS is just as good. I suggest trying in-camera stabilization -- it may not be all you think it is.
     
  34. Thank you Robin but the Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS is white, big, heavy and attracts too much attention in street, conserts and other places.
     
  35. Thank you Andre, Paul, Joseph, Mike, Scott, Hani, Brian and all of you for your answers.
    I get the point for in-lens IS (viewfinder, protection of sensor, film use, commercial factors and others) but I think some lenses cannot have it technically because there is too much glass and no space where to put mooving optical elements. I am not sure but I think 85 f1.2L is not possible ever to have IS and the same for 35 f1.4L. About the 200 f2L IS this is very, very expensive monster.
     
  36. Michael,
    "Huh? Who is "we"". We is every photographer that ever used a film camera! As far as I know there was never a popular film camera that recorded the same image to two separate rolls of film at the same time, and even if their was, it wasn't considered a serious, or needed, "feature". The other measures you talk about, separating film and getting them processed in different runs etc, were all just part of the post process system to give different levels of peace of mind, just like copying to two different HD's before deleting from the card. Scratched emulsions were always the biggest concerns for me, either in processing or dust in the body. The fact that some, commissioned, NG photographers could use film like confetti was never the norm.
    I am sure that the "feature" won't be dropped from the manufacturers flagship cameras, but is a Canon or Nikon image really more important or less stable than a Hasselblad one? Again, as far as I know, no medium format digital camera shoots to two cards.
     
  37. Digital medium format cameras are usually used tethered to a computer; the files are saved directly to the computer's hard drive, doing away with the need for dual cards. Though I could see how they might be useful in the field.
     
  38. I think in-lens IS is more profitable for the manufacturer than in-body because they can sell you multiple IS mechanisms as you buy lenses. Then there are also the upgraders who get the IS version of a lens they may already have in a non-IS version.
    If the consumers continue to buy and make money for the manufacturer, why change?
    I like shooting with old lenses sometimes and in-body stabilization is great for classic glass - it's like an upgrade for an old lens. This is a big reason I went with the Pentax system, both for all those old lenses available AND for the in-body stabilization. This can be a trade off on other features, but for me it was a worthy one.
     
  39. Alexander,
    That used to be true, 3 or 5 years ago, when medium format digital virtually had to be tethered, now with systems like the Hasselblad H and even more so with cameras like the Pentax 645D that is just not true, they are used everywhere, I have seen loads of them on location without laptop support.
     
  40. zml

    zml

    >as far as I know, no medium format digital camera shoots to two cards.
    This is getting seriously off topic but as a MF digital shooter I must say that I most of the time shoot tethered so this is a non-issue...
    And indeed, although there were no mainstream cameras capable of shooting two rolls of film at the same time AFAIK, shooting with two bodies was a norm for security reasons ("norm" that is if one had to bring the pictures, i.e. in a pro setting.) The more things change the more they remain the same, eh?
    And to the OP, to chime in on the topic, get a tripod: right after looking at as many art and photography pieces as possible, nothing will improve your photography more than a good tripd, regardless of what's your style and subject. In-lens or in-body IS? Yeah, nice to have but purely optional.
     
  41. I believe with the in-camera IS such as Olympus and Pentax the best improvement you get is 2 stops. With Canon their latest lenses give 4 stops of IS improvement. Even Canon's oldest IS lenses gave at least 2 stops.
     
  42. Scott - Again, as far as I know, no medium format digital camera shoots to two cards.​
    Actually, most of them do. Well, depending on how you define "most". The Pentax 645D does, and it's currently outselling all Blad, P1, and Leaf models, combined.
     
  43. Joseph,
    Not in the USA it isn't! When they ramp up production to meet world demand then it will. But yet again, why?
    Michael,
    The reason, I, and most of the film shooters I knew at the time used two bodies as standard, was to shoot colour and B&W emulsions, normally with different asa's to cover dramatically different light levels. The only shooters I knew with multiple cameras loaded with the same films were underwater photographers with assistants who would swap out the camera/housing after 36 exposures.
     
  44. Matt - I think in-lens IS is more profitable for the manufacturer than in-body because they can sell you multiple IS mechanisms as you buy lenses.​
    That's a common misconception. It's not hard to work the math on that one.
    Since 2001, I have gone through 5 bodies. (A D100 to take with me back as an experiment, when I still shot film, a second D100 when digital overtook my film, a D2X, a D3, and a D90). I'll probably go through an additional 2-3 bodies per decade for the next 2 decades, so call it 5 more. So, with body based stabilization, that's 10 systems in 30 years.
    I don't expect lenses to wear out or become obsolete.I've replaced exactly one lens because a new version offered significant improvement, the 80-200mm f2.8 ED-IF with the 70-200mm f2.8 AF-S VR. Some of my lenses are decades old.
    I own 5 lenses that, by Nikon or Canon standards, are stabilizable.
    • 70-200mm f2.8 (mine is stabilized)
    • 300mm f2.8 (mine isn't stabilized, but both Nikon and Canon offer stabilized 300mm f2.8)
    • 500mm f4 (again, mine isn't stabilized, but stabilized versions are available)
    • 200mm f4 macro (neither Nikon nor Canon stabilize their 180-200mm macros, but I expect that to change any day now).
    • 24-70mm f2.8 (neither Nikon nor Canon stabilize that, but again, I expect to see it).
    That's twice as many stabilized cameras as stabilized lenses.
    However, even though the math works out against stabilized bodies, and they're outperformed by stabilized lenses, and they don't stabilize the viewfinder or the AF system, and they're more fragile than non-stabilized bodies, I'd still like a stabilized body.
    A lot of lenses that I love aren't getting stabilized. 135mm f2.0, 85mm f1.4, 50mm f1.4, 30mm f1.4, 14-24mm f2.8, a pile of wides from 8-28mm.
     
  45. Pentax and Sony both have stabilizing in the camera body. Not much help if you are 'stuck' with a Canon I know, but it does work very well with any old lens I choose to put on my Alpha 700.
    I am surprised that Pentax and Sony don't 'push' this facility more in their advertising.
     
  46. William Michael

    William Michael Moderator Staff Member

    I would love to use the 135 f2 L and other superb non-IS primes with low shutter speed without tripod.
    Is it only me?​
    Tripods can make one stand out and get in the way.
    With ISO3200 and ISO1600 and good Shutter Release and the fact that the 135/2 is totally useable at F/2, the 135/2 is a very nicely balanced pieces of glass and at 1/25s can pull Hand Held shots.
    There are not too many areas darker than a moonless night and one far off street lamp: http://www.photo.net/photo/10442931&size=lg
    WW
     
  47. I know, why doesn't someone make a photographer stabilization platform? It could be built into your shoes and stabilize your whole body so not only all lenses would be stabilized, but also all camera bodies!
    Imagine, A stabilized Brownie Hawkeye! That way you could shoot as low as 1/30 of a second!
    ;)
     
  48. General stabilization!
     

Share This Page