Flaws of Canon's Lens Based IS Strategy

[KenPapai]

<p><em>"...Especially the dead end that is arguing about in-body IS vs in-lens IS."</em></p>

<p>I'll take that as non-responsive then. Anyway, I know your super negative feelings overwhelm you.</p>

[bueh]

<blockquote>

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

</blockquote>

<p>The EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM. This lens has its flaws (and I sold it; I want fast primes), but its IS was amazing. With the EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS kit zoom I get the impression that it does not really matter whether IS is turned on or not.</p>

[photo_dark]

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>"...Especially the dead end that is arguing about in-body IS vs in-lens IS."</em><br>

I'll take that as non-responsive then. Anyway, I know your super negative feelings overwhelm you.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Not super negative at all... I just think this is yet another one of those roundabout conversations... Good grief i've been browsing and posting on these forums for 3 years now and the exact same arguments by the exact same people come up at least twice a week..<br /> <br /> All i'm trying to put forward is: Why don't we all try to talk about something inspiring for a change? Arguing about gear isn't really inspiring... ideas and thoughts on creative ways to use said gear, is.<br /> <br /> That's all.</p>

 

[desmond_kidman]

<blockquote>

<p><em>I do wonder if Canon are going down a damaging path </em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't think we have to worry about Canon being irrevocably hurt by going down this "damaging path". </p>

<p>I have worked for extremely large manufacturers, and as a business owner I am a <em>small</em> manufacturer. It is my universal experience that folks outside rarely have any insights that are not well known, far in advance, by folks inside the company. It is also my experience that if the advice from just a fraction of the outside experts were taken most companies would go out of business fast. A company just cannot be all things to all people. </p>

<p>Sometimes decisions have to be made slowly, letting more data be collected, watching the market, and carefully selecting the hottest projects on which to focus. Often, the things I'm presently told I should do, as if I'm being given revalatory information and ideas, were last year's experiments that led to better solutions that I'm working on this year to be released in next year's products. Canon just might have bought and evaluated models from the competition using in camera stabilization, and just might know the strength and weaknesses. Sorry to be sarcastic with the "mights"....you can bet on them having the products and having done tests, just as I do the same thing, even though I am infinitely smaller. I strongly suspect they know where they want to go and how soon they want to get there. </p>

[bobatkins]

<blockquote>

<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>

</blockquote>

<p>But you have to get either Nikon of Canon to offer it in 1 body first and that's the hard part. Both Nikon and canon have a large investment in lens based IS technology. They continue to say it's better than body based IS. I doubt either one of them wants to put IS in the body and I doubt either one will unless absolutely forced to.</p>

<p>It's offered by Pentax, Sony and Olympus, but I don't think Canon and Nikon are too worried by them at the moment as far as DSLRs go. Nikon and Canon certainly have the high (professional) end of the market wrapped up. It's the consumer end of things where they might start to hurt, but cameras like the Rebel XSi are still very popular and outsell the competition (especially with the low cost Canon IS lenses bundled with the camera).</p>

<p>I'd like to think we'll see body based IS in Nikon/Canon DSLRs within a couple of generations (of cameras, not people...), but I really doubt it will happen. That's why I'm keeping my eye open for a cheap used Pentax!</p>

[desmond_kidman]

<p>There may be arguements over the negatives of in camera IS, just as Nikon and Nikonians argued the merits cropped sensors and the negatives of FF. Yet, of course, as we all knew would happen, Nikon went FF, and just read the forum where the guys extolling cropped sensors in the past wax poetic about the FF sensors. Even if you are going to do something in the future as a manufacturer, you have to deny, deny until you do. It's one of the many basic parts of the survival formula for a manufacturer. </p>

<p>So will Canon and Nikon go to in-camera IS <em><strong>if</strong></em> there really is an advantage, without serious disadvantages, and if the market wants it more and more. You can absolutely bet on it...common business sense dictates it. Canon knows well, as a leader (<em>the</em> leader in sales), that you don't turn yourself inside out giving the market everything it wants all at once. First, you run yourself in circles if you do. Second, you end up "overshooting" the target....when you are leading your segment you really don't want to trump <em>yourself </em>with your new products., </p>

[david__m_dorn]

<p>Practical case for in camera IS stabilization.<br>

My favorite lens for the Pentax K10D is my CV Voigtlander 90mm APO. No stabilization but with the K10D and the ability to set the stabilization focal length I have stabilization for it...not only for it but any other non stabilized KA mount lens I use.<br>

As I recall this lens was also availabe for Nikon...but with Nikon I would have no stabilization option.<br>

david</p>

 

[ralph_jensen]

<blockquote>

<p>I doubt either [Canon or Nikon] wants to put IS in the body and I doubt either one will unless absolutely forced to. It's offered by Pentax, Sony and Olympus, but I don't think Canon and Nikon are too worried by them at the moment as far as DSLRs go.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Agreed, <em>for now.</em> I think <strong>Sony </strong> is the one to watch. If Sony gets serious about marketing a sturdy-feeling $500 Rebel-killer that has in-body IS, they will get Canon and Nikon's attention big-time.</p>

[dogbert]

<p>This thread is hilarious.<br>

All the people that argue that it in body IS is not needed, in lens IS works better and my favorite " 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..." are missing a few simple points.<br>

In body IS works, it is clearly cheap to implement and there is no reason why it can not be made compatible with in-lens IS for the super teles where it is needed. You only have to read the Pentax forum occaisonally to realise how much IS with every lens including primes, wideangles and 30 year old classic lenses is appreciated.<br>

Canon is simply not offering it to make money out of its existing investment. My guess it will introduce a few more IS lenses with an IS premium to make money out of the in-lens fans and then introduce in-body IS. Dropping the FD mount shows what they really think of their customers.</p>

[suhaskulkarni]

<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>

<p>So better move all the functionality of camera to lens - best move the sensor to the lens!</p>

[paul_de_ley]

<p>There are plenty of paradoxes when it comes to IS, and some of them intersect with the different choices manufacturers made earlier when introducing AF. Canon and Nikon are betting on lens stabilization and thereby benefiting film AF shooters but leaving owners of MF lenses in the cold. In the case of Canon that decision was a fairly logical one since they had already switched to a completely different mount for AF lenses anyway. In the case of Nikon it's a bit more puzzling that they didn't at least try out one body with sensor stabilization, as an extra incentive for seducing brand-faithful film stalwarts into digital and/or outflanking Canon with a double-stabilization system that might have added a gain of 2 more f-stop equivalents than lens IS aka VR alone.</p>

<p>On the side of the manufacturers that went for sensor stabilization, strategic thinking hasn't always been very evident either. Pentax now has better firmware than Sony for using MF lenses on their DSLRs, by allowing you to set focal length and thereby adjust the response of the sensor shift system as needed. However, it is harder to find a good variety of lens mount adapters to fit non-Pentax MF lenses on Pentax bodies than Minolta/Sony AF lenses on Sony bodies, and you can get around the limitations in the Sony firmware by using 3rd party stabilization-adjusting chipped adapters.</p>

<p>Sony has been more aggressive in terms of releasing a wider range of bodies, but the later ones (including their flagship A900) have actually cut back even further on the ease of using MF lenses. What is also paradoxical about Pentax and Sony is that most of their non-stabilized high-end AF lenses are pretty much as expensive as the equivalent models from Canon and Nikon that actually have IS or VR.</p>

<p>Olympus has gone off on its own tangent with a complete mount change at the time of transition to digital, stabilized four-thirds sensors and all-out marketing around live view - which paradoxically led to a viewfinder so small in most of their bodies as to be quite useless for accurately focusing MF lenses.</p>

<p>Canon and Nikon are leading the pack in terms of high-ISO image quality, if that trend continues then they will pretty soon be able to claim that their sensors don't actually require any stabilization in-body or in-lens. Which would be paradoxical again, as it would leave proud owners of IS and VR lenses to wonder why they paid the higher prices for those lenses to begin with...</p>

[rogerdaltx]

<p>Having in body stabilization turned out to be a much bigger deal for me than I thought it would be. Specifically in low light social events where a tripod is not allowed. After several of these and a few other issues about two years ago I sold off my xti, 20d and four lenses (about $4500 of gear) Took a $1500 loss and moved to Pentax, primarily due to the 2 to 3 stops I could gain with the in body stabilization and their fast compact primes. Since then I've built out about a $15K Pentax system. Had Canon had in camera stabilization I doubt I would have switched. There were also other factors that made Pentax a better fit for me; system cost, compact size for travel and weather seals. So yes for some this at least this is/was a big deal. If I were doing it today and a heavily invested Nikon / Canon user; I would probably add a minimal second system rather than make a full switch. But for me I'm much happier with my Pentax than I ever was with my two years of Canon DSLRs. Each has it's strong points.<br /><br />I really believe as high ISO performance continues to improve that image stabilization either lens based or in camera will be less and less of an issue for most people.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p>At the telephoto end it is a benefit to have IS in the lens. It stabilizes the viewfinder helping the photographer, and from what I've read the AF system, track the subject. Especially after a long day of shooting, which I can attest to. Canon has the telephoto end very well covered with IS.</p>

<p>At the wide/normal end Pentax/Sony/Olympus have in body IS where Canon/Nikon don't have very many IS lenses. But Pentax/Sony/Olympus are also a good 2 stops behind Canon/Nikon in high ISO performance given comparable models. Given the choice I'll take better high ISO performance because that helps me keep shutter speeds up. And if I'm shooting wide angle hand held in low light, I probably need a shutter speed that can freeze people in motion. They move enough to blur images at the shutter speeds IS gives you even when they're posing.</p>

<p>The high ISO advantage is especially pronounced with full frame bodies. People make the comment that in body IS gives you IS with fast primes. If you have a fast prime when do you need IS? Especially on a 5D, 5D mkII, D3, or D700. What are you shooting that can't be covered by a 28 f/1.8 or 50 f/1.4 at ISO 3200? Even a 50D, which is not full frame, has a usable 3200 and 6400 if you're not printing posters. If you need the cleanest, sharpest image for a large print, you need a tripod any way.</p>

<p>I don't mean to knock in body IS. It's a good idea and helpful in some narrow situations. Personally I think Canon and Nikon should do it. (It could be set to turn off when a lens with IS is attached.) But it's just not the broad advantage it is made out to be by proponents. And that is why Canon and Nikon feel hardly any pressure to do it, and may never do it.</p>

[hawkman]

<p>I use Canon telephotos for birding and I use IS to get a steady view in the finder so I can frame/pan correctly, the day Canon ditches in-lens IS will be my last day of business with Canon.</p>

<p> </p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>Can someone clever explain how a lens which just covers the 24x36mm frame could be used with in-body stabilization without cropping or quality loss in the edges of the frame due to the sensor moving outside of the image projected by the lens?</p>

<p>Anyway, I find stabilization is becoming unnecessary with the recent improvements in image quality at high ISO. I prefer high shutter speeds to stabilization for lenses shorter than about 180mm, and it's sufficient to have it in the long lenses for the very rare event that it is needed. I find a tripod immensely more useful.</p>

[fjp]

<p>Maybe some of the other companies has patents related to in-body IS and Canon / Nikon simply cannot use it until the patents expire...</p>

[JosvanEekelen]

<p>One arguement that seems to be missing in the discussion is the market share. According to a recent thread Canon and Nikon together have a market share of approximately 80% and are making a profit. Sony is losing money with a market share of ? I expect Canon and Nikon to have other priorities than in-body IS untill the market situation changes drastically. Apart from that the best way of showing the effect of IS to a prospective customer is with Canon or Nikon systems, not with in body IS since that does not show in the viewfinder. Personally I'd welcome in body IS with Canon but I don't see it happen in the near future.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>Well, Minolta first brought out the in-body stabilization and Samsung, Pentax, and Olympus all are using it, so it looks like licenses are available.</p>

[dpassmore]

<p>Like Jos said, Canon and Nikon don't feel the need to bring out a camera with in-body stabilization until they start loosing sales. I'm sure they both have the technology sitting on a shelf waiting for the right time. Just like Canon has a 50MP sensor on the shelf ready to go in the 1Ds MarkV ;)</p>

<p>Canon could easily implement an in-body stabilization feature that would automatically turn off when it sensed a stabilized lens was attached. The two systems cannot co-exist simultaneously as one would counter-act the other.</p>

<p>No matter what others say, I would love stabilization on my 50mm prime!</p>

[desmond_kidman]

<p>I would love stabilization on my 50 and 85 too, we'll end up seeing it sometime unless there is some technical reason why it is not possible to do in-camera IS with this full frame package. One thing I know, jumping brands back and forth is not the answer, you just end up noticing what the new brand lacks that the old had! </p>

[phule]

<p>[[i get the impression that it does not really matter whether IS is turned on or not.]]</p>

<p>This is clearly contrary to published tests. IS on the 18-55 is clearly effective. But then again, you're probably not actually arguing about the effectiveness of IS, you're arguing about the image quality from a $100 lens which is a strawman.</p>

<p> </p>

[mattb1]

<p >I think the major flaw is in the marketing of image stabilization, that it is what everyone needs to solve their imaging issues. It sounds like it is absolutely necessary, doesn’t it. That: if you don’t have it your photos will be flawed. However, it only reduces the effect of camera shake, it does not eliminate it. It should be called something like “Shake reduction” so that its more intuitive what is being done and how it can help you. How do you know if IS is actually helping in a photo?</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I have two IS lenses, and I’m not that happy with the results from either so far. I’m still happier with my non-IS lens, even at 200mm. It seems I get better results from using a higher ISO and higher shutter speed. Subject movement is just too much of an issue for me. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >I’m an early adopter, I love new tech and new approaches to things. However, I hold them to pretty high standards. So, not all new things get my approval. So far, I’m finding IS to be a little limited in its usefulness. Maybe if I start doing more long telephoto work I’ll like it more. But, my vote would be for R&D $$s to be spent on something else, like better dynamic range.</p>

[jtk]

<p>For me bulk is the issue. In-camera allows smaller (and inherently mechanically tougher) primes. </p>

[14mm 2.8l]

<p>So how cheap does a used Pentax Shake reduction body need to be to add one or two to your canon bag?</p>

<p>I bought my brand new K20D Pentax current 15mp flagship in November 2008 for $689. I hoped for a better price but it came bundled with 3 year pentax factory warranty so I added it. I've seen them sell as low as $530 in auction out of canada ebay seller: prodigital2000 .Pentax is cool in that they do not see grey market equiptment as bad. Pentax USA will honor your canada bought new K20D warranty in USA to original purchaser. Same with their glass too.</p>

<p>When KEH has used K10D, Pentax last flagship they sell under $300. I saw a four several weeks ago ranging from $225 to $275. Theres a few other shake reduced pentax dslrs and they just break $200 when minty and complete. Pentax dslrs are very affordable used once they're over a year old.</p>

<p>That said having a K20D inhand I find it introduced shake with my 300mm 2.8 Tamron adaptall two. I am steadier hand holding the 300mm 2.8. But it is alot of mass for the K20D to stabilize, though for a 300mm 2.8 its likely the lightest anyone ever made. Inbody Shake reduction works better with lighter glass however I do prefer my Canon IS lenses over it. I really like seeing the image stabilize in the 5D viewfinder which inbody shake reduction can not provide.</p>

<p>That all said last month I added a D700 and two lenses to my system to beat Nikons crazy 18%+price increases. One lens I got is nikon's cheapo plasticky thailand made 70-300 VR II. I have to say that new VR version II seems a bit steadier than my 70-200mm 2.8 IS, but boy does the nikon like to hunt focus. Kinda reminds me of Pentax. Canon AF is clearly #1. And I'm still wondering who hunts less Nikon or Pentax as they are pretty darn close in acquiring focus lock. </p>

[beautox]

<p>Maybe the best solution is to move the image stablization out of the camera/lens completely and put it in the tripod?</p>