Flaws of Canon's Lens Based IS Strategy

<p>I appreciate there is some debate about the merits of lens based versus cameras based IS. However, I do wonder if Canon are going down a damaging path in refusing to countenance camera based IS. Quite simply, lens based IS costs more and that is bound to have more of an effect as the recession bites. In particular I think Canon are being complacent about the extent of the extra costs. In the UK the equipment costs more in actual terms than the US and a lot more in terms of disposable income. For instance the difference between the normal and IS versions of the F4 70-200mm lens is $700 in the UK. Not so wealthy enthusiasts can get a Sony A700 for a bit less than a 50D and have IS on all lenses, including primes and mid-range 3rd party lenses. This is at least better than not having IS at all with Canon as it is not really affordable on anything but basic lenses, whatever purists may say.</p>

<p>Andrew, as I understand it, the reason Canon and Nikon do not use sensor shift stabilisation but stick with lens stabilisation is that the sensor shift system reaches a limit with long lenses. So you would be restriceted as to which lenses you could use with it.</p>

<p>Canon say<br>

<br /><a href="http://www.robgalbraith.com/public_files/Canon_Rebel_XTi_White_Paper.pdf">http://www.robgalbraith.com/public_files/Canon_Rebel_XTi_White_Paper.pdf</a><br>

(asnd search for 'stabilization')<br>

<br />that with a 300mm lens on a APS-C size sensor the shift would need to be 5.5mm which is not currently feasible However as technology advances I expect sensor shift will eventually become the norm one day. The full frame Sony A900 uses sensor shift so maybe this is a glimpse of the future at least for consumer level cameras. Pro cameras will always go for top quality and try to eliminate any compromise so I can't see sensor shift appearing in those top line models. So although sensor shift would make sense from the economic point of view for cameras amed squarely at the amateur market,with Canon and Nikon I am not holding my breath.</p>

<p>All of us do not shoot digital so if you still shoot film Canon and Nikon with their lens based IS systems are the only options available.Canon got there first back in 1995.It was one the most useful breakthroughs of the past 30 years.</p>

<p>It is my understanding that with lens stabilization, the image stops jiggling around, with sensor stabilization, the image keeps jigglig. I have some Canon zooms with IS. I like to see the image "zero in" and hold still.</p>

<p>I don't have a sensor stabilized camera, so correct me if I'm wrong.</p>

<p>Frank makes a very good point indeed and one that I hadn't thought of before. That makes lens based IS a much nicer system to use in my opinion.</p>

<p>Also, I appreciate that Canon's IS lenses are more expensive than their own non-IS brothers (70-200 non-IS versus same lens with IS). But, have you priced Sony lenses? The Sony 300mm f2.8 (which has no IS of course) is £4000 in the UK. Canon's excellent 300mm f2.8L IS (which naturally has IS) is £3600. Which would you rather have?</p>

<p>Also, Canon is now shipping it's budget DSLRs with IS lenses as standard (e.g. 18-55mm). The cost is negligible.</p>

<p>Douglas also has a good point, there's still a lot of film users out there (which I hope never changes).</p>

<p>I think that unless you are shooting with long telephotos, in-body stabilization is much more sensible. In my experience with Pentax dSLRs it works excellently. Maybe its drawbacks become noticeable with lenses 200mm+, but into this realm only professionals and VERY enthusiastic amateurs go. For most "normal" photography in-camera IS is better, since it allows you to use fast primes for the combined benefits if large aperture and stabilization. And non-stabilized lenses are cheaper and less weighty, of course.</p>

<p>And I found Canon's cheap consumer kit lens IS not very good. So unless Canon only wants to carter to professional sports photographers they should change their policy and offer camera bodies with built-in IS for us prime lens shooters -- they have such a nice prime lens line-up and an affordable, full-frame Canon camera ("5D-IS") would probably be a very successful product.</p>

<p>I know of no reason why the two systems should not co-exist, although it would probably not be possible to have them both operating simultaneously. Each has distinctive advantages. It has already been mentioned that lens-based IS stabilises the finder image as well as the sensor image. It also stabilises the image falling on the phase-detect AF system, which may perhaps help AF performance.</p>

<p>[[And I found Canon's cheap consumer kit lens IS not very good.]]</p>

<p>Compared to what?</p>

<p>[[Maybe its drawbacks become noticeable with lenses 200mm+, but into this realm only professionals and VERY enthusiastic amateurs go. For most "normal" photography]]</p>

<p>The problem with these qoted statements is that only "VERY enthusiastic amateurs" would consider the kit IS lens from Canon "not very good."<br>

For "normal" photography, consumers will be able to achieve very good results with /any/ camera system featuring /any/ level of IS.</p>

<p>Don't forget that what is "normal" to you is very, very advanced to 90% of the consumer camera market.</p>

<p><em>"Maybe its drawbacks become noticeable with lenses 200mm+"</em><br>

<em></em><br>

That is precisely when stabilization is most useful (200mm+). As for having IS available for fast prime lenses, especially under 100mm, I think it would be mostly unnecessary. A fast prime is just that... fast... i.e. able to work in low light. Only in extreme low light would IS be of any use with a fast prime especially with todays DSLRs which work so well at high ISO.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Compared to what?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Compared to their (more expensive) prosumer and pro gear. It seems to me that not all IS's are created equal...</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>As for having IS available for fast prime lenses, especially under 100mm, I think it would be mostly unnecessary.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, we have to agree to disagree. Fast lenses have their speed limits and even with high ISO and f/1.4 you will not get comfortably handholdable shutter speeds in many available light situations, especially with normal to medium telephoto focal lengths. Believe, I know and I wish it is different. Besides, the technology is there, why should I be forced to raise ISO to for me unacceptable heights (killing dynamic range and adding tons of color noise)? I guess you have never shot with a fast prime and in-body stabilization, so you just don't know what you're missing. Give it a try.<br>

And if all fails, high-ISO plus super-fast prime plus image stabilization will still be better than just high-ISO plus super-fast prime.</p>

<p>I find that lens-based IS helps with focusing. With a steady image in the viewfinder, AF snaps on better and judging focus accuracy is easier.</p>

<p>As for lens-based vs body-based IS, I see no reason why they should be mutually exclusive.</p>

<p>People with fast primes don't always see the world at f 1.4, some times we actually use f 11.</p>

<p>The way I see it, as do many others, Camera-based I.S. is a gimmick and Lens-based I.S. is the real deal--ESPECIALLY in longer focal lengths, no doubt about it.</p>

<p>Dunno... I've bought 3 non-IS DSLR bodies and 4 IS lenses. I don't know that I would have saved much money by buying 3 IS bodies and 4 non-IS lenses, and I'm sure any cost savings would disappear once I purchased a couple more generations of IS bodies. I would of course benefit from more IS coverage with my non-IS lenses, but do I really NEED IS on these lenses? I handhold my non-is 17-40L, Zenitar 16 fisheye, and Sigma 12-24, which is really no big deal. My longer non-IS manual focus prime lenses are mostly for tripod use -- a 50, 90, 105, and 135. As far as I'm concerned, I haven't spent too much money, and I'm not left wanting for more IS.</p>

<p>Besides all of this, I can use my IS lenses on film cameras, in which there is no in-body solution.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>with a 300mm lens on a APS-C size sensor the shift would need to be 5.5mm which is not currently feasible</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I think it would require redesigned lenses anyways, at least in FF. The lenses are not designed to have identical image quality 5-6mm outside...</p>

<p>When my in - lens IS dies I swap out the lens and keep shooting while the lens gets repaired. When my in - camera IS dies I send the body off for repair and twiddle my thumbs...</p>

<blockquote><br /></blockquote>

 

<blockquote><br /></blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"Not so wealthy enthusiasts can get a Sony A700 for a bit less than a 50D and have IS on all lenses, including primes and mid-range 3rd party lenses. This is at least better than not having IS at all with Canon as it is not really affordable on anything but basic lenses, whatever purists may say."</em><br>

<em><br /> </em><br>

And that is where the free market comes into play. The consumer has a choice, and if enough people decide to buy Sony vs Canon, Canon may offer a competing camera body for that market. Each company has their ideas of what products will sell best. The market will decide which will be the most profitable. It sounds like the real complaint is the cost. We would all like to see prices come down on those items we want but are out of our economic comfort zone.</p>

<p>I am assuming photography is still a hobby for you as I doubt a professional is going to allow $700 for pro equipment be a deal breaker. This is a reality for many of us. One way for the serious amateur to comfortably obtain those big ticket items is to make your camera work to buy your next lens or camera body.</p>

<p>Start by photographing pets, couples or kids sporting events and offering photos at a very reasonable price. Have enough mark up to make a little extra money. I know several people who do this on weekends, they have a photo printer, laptop computer and an inverter in their car. One fellow charges a couple of dollars for a photo, more for a large photo print. He had one parent buy about 80 shots of their child at a soccer game and then the parent wanted enlargements. I believe he brought in about $500 on this one parent. There is money to be made by the entrepreneurial photographer.</p>

<p>Another way to save is buy good used equipment. There are many photographers out their always buying the latest and greatest equipment, and selling off last years latest and greatest so they can afford the newest thing. You can also buy Canon Refurbished equipment, this gear is like new, has a warranty but is typically a few hundred less than brand new.</p>

<p>Combine these strategies, and you will find your camera bag full of some pretty cool gear and you will still have some money in your wallet. Best of luck. Regards - Mark</p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p><em><br /> </em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>[[Compared to their (more expensive) prosumer and pro gear. It seems to me that not all IS's are created equal...]]</p>

<p>What other IS lenses have you used with similar focal length on the Canon system?</p>

 

<p>I wonder if both systems could work together. Lens based IS could iron out the bulk of the movement and the in-body IS could soak up the remaining wobbles.<br>

 <br>

Just a thought.<br>

 <br>

Bueh & Ross, yes I agree entirely that fast primes with IS would be better than having no IS at all. I just think that fast primes with short focal lengths are far less likely to need it than the long telephoto lenses. Of course, you're right... at f1.4 there will of course be a limit in low light when IS would be useful. Put it this way, if the IS version of a short prime cost a lot more than the non-IS version I would not pay for it. But... that is my personal opinion.<br>

 <br>

I have the 24-105 f4L IS and I must say that I don't often require the IS... but maybe it's my style of shooting.</p>

<p>As an EOS user since they first came out, I say that Canon need to get with the program and offer in-body stabilization. There's absolutely no reason at all why they can't have both in-body and in-lens stabilization. You can't use both at the same time, but that doesn't matter since the camera could be configured to only allow one or the other.</p>

<p>Actually there is a reason. Profit on IS lenses. I suspect that sales of IS lenses would drop where there is a choice (e.g. the 70-200L zooms). However on most lenses you don't get a choice, so it's not as bad for Canon as you might think, and it would certainly be good for users, who would then have stabilized short and normal primes.</p>

<p>Until people (like me) stop buying EOS bodies without IS, it's probably in Canon's best interest not to offer it. It would, for example, mean that they couldn't make any money out of a new 24-70/2.8L IS lens, since if the body had IS, people would just keep the old non-IS version.</p>

<p>I think when I see a good price on a used Pentax DLSR body with IS built in, I may well pick one up. Who knows, maybe it will tempt me away from Canon eventually...</p>

<p>Robin has made a good point. There's 'off' switches on IS lenses, so technically there is absolutely no reason not to make IS bodies if you also sell IS lenses. Lens IS works better for long lenses, but body IS allows for cheaper lenses. Having both systems work simultaneously is theoretically possible but probably too involved in practice.<br>

Like many other things, having in-body IS is a marketing decision. Canon and Nikon still sell a lot more SLRs than Sony, Pentax and Olympus. If I were Canon, I'd work on in-body IS but keep it as a trump card to play when market shares start to go down.</p>

<p>Some people just need to talk about IS... I get it, but in the end, really does it really affect your photography that much? I've always believed that photography is more about resourcefulness and creativity than sitting around complaining about the shortcomings of equipment and how 'limiting' those shortcomings are.... Especially the dead end that is arguing about in-body IS vs in-lens IS.</p>

<p>I think that within two generations every Canon body will have in-body IS, starting perhaps as soon as the next Rebel.</p>

<p><strong>It's like video: </strong> once Canon or Nikon offers it in just one body, it becomes immediately clear that within 2-4 years both companies will offer it in <em>every </em> body.</p>

<p>(It's also like video in that a lot of photographers will say "I don't want to pay for it when I buy an SLR," but eventually they'll have no choice unless they want to buy an older, used body.)</p>

<p>I've got seven IS lenses, btw, and I just assume that Canon and Nikon SLRs will easily be able to turn off whichever IS system is less appropriate when an IS lens is mounted on an IS body. This talk of "conflicts" between lens IS and body IS is a non-issue from a technical point of view.</p>