In-Camera IS

[yog_sothoth]

What is it going to take for Canon to finally start making cameras with built in

IS? That is one feature that could make me think about upgrading, but they keep

making non-IS models. I know that they want to sell expensive IS lenses and

they will put off the IS bodies as long as they can, but at some point they will

have to give in and catch up to Pentax, Olympus, and Sony.

 

BTW, I have no belief that the alleged superiority of lens-based IS has anything

to do with Canon's reluctance to put it in their bodies. Anyone who releases

the 18-55 mm lens that came with my 20D loses any ability to claim IQ snobbery.

Canon makes some good cameras and good glass, but they also make a lot of

garbage.

[remco-jan.woldhuis]

There's one big advantage that you can only realize with in-lens IS: a stabilized

viewfinder image.

[photo_dark]

I don't want in-body IS. Optical is better, by a wide margin, and it isn't necessary for every lens.

 

That being said, this is kind of a moot point, and has been discussed to no end in previous posts.

[stillbound]

there is no catch up - Lesns based is better. Feel free to trade UP to an olympus or pentax...

JC

[PuppyDigs]

I'm not missing in-body IS one iota. If it pains you, you can always swing another way.

[images_in_light_north_west]

Dont want it, most of my Lens' have better IS than in body

[hawkman]

In camera IS is helpless with 400+ mm telephotos and you also lose VF stabilization. It is possible that Canon introduces this feature in their low end bodies, but not the pro bodies.

[thomas_hardy1]

Maybe Canon will produce a camera with IS, remember Nikon's stand on FF bodies a

couple of years ago.

[bobatkins]

"What is it going to take for Canon to finally start making cameras with built in IS? "

 

My guess is flying pigs and/or ice-skating in Hell.

 

"I don't want in-body IS. Optical is better, by a wide margin"

 

Spoken like somebody who has never actually done side by side test of body and lens stabilization. If optical is better, the margin is, in fact, quite narrow, at least on all the lenses and bodies I've tested, and that includes lenses up to 300mm. Pentax, Sony and Olympus don't have any 600mm lenses, so it's hard to say what the relative situation would be at 600mm. Then Again I'd guess that under 1% of camera owners own a 600mm lens anyway. Maybe under 0.1%. Maybe under 0.01%.

 

 

The reason Canon arenn't offering in-body stabilization is that they have painted themselves into a corner. They have so many IS lenses and so much invested in th etechnology, that they can't now introduce an IS body without making themselves look silly and shooting themselves in the foot So it's now mostly an issue of pride and marketing, not technology. They could do it of they wanted to, but it seems they simply have no interest in doing it and it's pretty obvious why.

 

See http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/image_stabilization.html for a slightly more technical discussion of the issue.

 

So if you own a Canon 400/5.6L USM, a lens that's crying out for IS, you're screwed. Even if Canon bring out an IS version, it's likely to cost you $1500. Ditto for 200/2.8L owners, though they can probably look forward to only spending $1000. If you want a stabilized portrait lens, like an 85/1.8 or 85/1.2 or 100/2 or 135/2, good luck to you too if you stick with Canon.

 

Even IF (and I say IF) optical stabilization is a little better, that's very little consolation to you if you have a bag of nice fast Canon primes, which aren't going to be available in IS versions and would cost you a small fortune to replace even if they were.

[derek_stanton2]

Well, i want in-body stabilization.

 

I don't care about having it work through the viewfinder. I do care about having IS to

work with the lenses i currently own - all primes (35L, 50/1.4, and 85L). If hopes to

'improve my situation' by releasing larger, more expensive, IS primes in those focal

lengths, i'm not going to bend over and say thank you.

 

Even if in-lens IS is a slightly better method... it's moot for everyone except sports and

bird guys, and all the amateur, zoom aficionados.

 

Canon has a few months to show itself. I won't be surprised by a significant number of

defections.

[bobatkins]

Not a chance in Hell I'm afraid. They're going to have to be dragged kicking and screaming into making a stabilized body. That's not going to happen overnight. It will take at least a few more years and perhaps longer than that.

 

I'm not sure they can get away without body stabilization forever, but they might try.

 

If Nikon got into the game it would be a big push. Although they too have an investment in VR lenses, it's not quite so big an investment as Canon.

 

The full frame Sony with in body stabilization that they say should be out by the end of the year could shake Canon a bit, but not as much as a stabilized body from Nikon.

 

We'll have to wait for sales of the Digital Rebel series to drop and sales of Sony and Pentax to pick up to get Canon's attention.

[dogbert]

Canon are playing a waiting game to see how much market share they stand to lose to Pentax/Sony/Olympus. The low cost IS lenses are a stop gap to stem the haemoraging to the in-body IS crowd.

 

I want stabilisation on my 35 f2, 50 f2.5 CM, 100 f2.8 macro and every other damned unstabilised lens I own. It is clear it works and is cheap to do.

 

I don't want to have to upgrade every lens if and when Canon introduce IS in their primes, which they don't actually seem to be doing anyway. I don't want in-lens stabilisation and have to pay hundreds for it every time just because Canon says its superior for a 600 f4.

[yakim_peled1]

>> What is it going to take for Canon to finally start making cameras with built in IS?

 

I wish I knew..... :-(

 

Although implementation can be technically very simple (a switch/code will not enable IS and AS to work together) that would be an admission in mistake. If anything, I'd except Nikon to implement it. They seem to be having a new wind in their sails lately.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[dogbert]

The real question for the lens-based IS crowd is which one of you would buy the Canon 70-200 f4L IS for $1100 as compared with the non IS 70-200 f4L for $560 if Canon had in-body IS for an extra $100 that was 90 per cent as good?

[bobatkins]

I think that's the question that Canon have asked themselves. The lack of an IS body is their answer.

[yakim_peled1]

The 70-200 family are a perfect example to Canon's reluctance to give us AS. However, it is the only example of lenses current lenses having both versions. What wouldn't I give to have AS with my 35/1.4 and 100/2.8.... :-(

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[yog_sothoth]

"We'll have to wait for sales of the Digital Rebel series to drop and sales of Sony and Pentax to pick up to get Canon's attention."

 

Canon seems to be scrambling with this new XS release. Are rebel sales falling?

[bjscharp]

...I'm just going to buy a good tripod... :-)

[yakim_peled1]

And will you be carrying it with you at all times? And do you really think you will be allowed to use it at all places?

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[dogbert]

I have a good tripod and I can tell you it is no substitute for IS.

[yakim_peled1]

Same here.

 

Happy shooting, Yakim.

[ajb2222]

Boo Hoo -

 

Canon didn't care about all the peaple with FD lenses having to buy all new glass when they got an EOS body. What makes you think they care about you having to pay extra for IS? If they where smart they would make a body with IS, then change the lens mount so you had to buy all new glass anyway.

 

Canon has also has proven that you can make a decent, inexpensive IS Lens. It is expensive to develop a new lens though and nich lenses like primes are not going to get the attention that a well selling zoom is going to get.

[JDMvW]

Yeah, that change from FD mount to EF mount was such a disaster for Canon that they ended up practically owning the lens world from 1986 until now.

 

Second, the great world of compatibility bragged about for Nikons is less than perfect, as anyone who owns a large assortment of non-AIS lenses can testify. They fit my Canon more easily than they do current Nikons.

 

Third, it is beginning to look like in-lens IS is becoming very inexpensive to make, as witness the newest kit lenses from Canon. If the IS is only a tiny percentage of the cost of the lens, what difference does it make where it is located?

[KenPapai]

In-camera-body IS..... yawn. Fast lenses, technique & lower noise/higher ISO more than make for it. And when or if worse comes to worst, there's always a tripod.

 

IQ is a combination of technique, stable platform, lens speed, post processing, lens IQ, and sensor noise.

 

In-body IS is a feature for tyros.

[p_l_jensen]

There might be technical/costs reasons why Canon haven't included IS is very fast prime lenses. Optical image stabilization complicate optical designs by having added moving elements and abberation correcting elements. The new Pentax 300/4 has 8 elements in 6 groups. The stabilized Canon 300/4 has 15 elements in 11 groups; nearly the doubling of glass. This is due to the implementation of the optical IS (it can be found in patents).

 

As for in-body stabilization of 600mm lenses: it works! (yes, Pentax 600/4 exists). Sample photos here (on film! - obviously not stabilized):

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/4760513 and http://www.photo.net/photo/4760492

 

I haven't done any side by side comparison but in-body IS work very well for very long lenses with several stop gain.

 

However, the big issue for in-body stabilization is that it makes all lenses on the planet that fit your body stabilized for the cost of about $50.

In my case, nether being a professional or of unlimited means, I bought a Pentax 600/4 ten years ago at one third of the shop price of a Canon 600/4 IS lens (I was able to negotiate a deal directly through Pentax). The spendid thing is, completely unknown to me at the time I bought the lens, is that my 600/4 lens has now turned into a image stabilized lens without having to spend $10 000! Theres real value to be had here...