Flaws of Canon's Lens Based IS Strategy

[bueh]

<blockquote>

<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>

</blockquote>

<p>Why does no one respect my opion?! I very familiar with the EF-S 18-55mm lens and if you search this site you will find many postings by me recommending it as a versatile and powerful lens. But I don't care about "published tests" and I am definitively underwhelmed by the "applied" IS performance of this new kit zoom. And this is not just with one 18-55mm lens but with several. So that aspect of this lens has been a disappointment, especially after I experienced the excellent IS of the EF-S 17-85mm zoom.</p>

 

[ralph_jensen]

<blockquote>

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

</blockquote>

<p>I assume this was a tongue-in-cheek comment, but it's still worth pointing out that the whole <em>point</em> of IS is situations in which tripods aren't an option. I use my IS in street shooting, in museums and churches, and at sporting events--all places where I can't use a tripod but do want low ISOs, slow shutter speeds, and/or small apertures. Tripods, fast lenses, and high ISOs can't cover it all!</p>

<p> </p>

[dogbert]

<p>Right on Ralph. Many posts here assume that because the poster shoots one way or has a certain set of needs, then everyone else must have the same set of needs. eg IS is apparently not needed in fast primes. A lot of my shooting is travel photography and I want to shoot at low ISO and maximum DoF without a tripod. IS gets me that.<br>

It is frustrating as a Canon user to know that other companies have a cheap and workable solutions that Canon won't offer.</p>

[phule]

<p>[[Why does no one respect my opion?!]]</p>

<p>I have respect for your opinion. I don't think your one opinion, as it stands in contradiction to published tests, should have any more value than any other anecdote. I don't know why you consider this a lack of "respect." I call it critical thinking.</p>

[bobatkins]

<blockquote>

<p>So how cheap does a used Pentax Shake reduction body need to be to add one or two to your canon bag...When KEH has used K10D, Pentax last flagship they sell under $300.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I'd bite at $250 or so for a K10D. I did take a look at KEH, but they only seem to have the K100D, and they're in the $250-$275 range, so I'd have though the K10D would be over $300. Guess I'll have to keep an eye open for one.</p>

<p>Of course the reason why Canon went with IS in the lens is that they were first, and early enough that they had to make it work with film (remember film?..). That was an advantage for them then, but now they're locked into it and I suppose there's an NIH ("not invented here") syndrome too. When you'tre trying to be the technology leader, following Pentax, Sony and Olympus may be a little hard to swallow.</p>

<p>The problem with lens based IS isn't that it doesn't work (it does) or that it isn't better than body based IS for long lenses (it probably is) or that stbilization of the viewfinder image isn't nice (it is) or that it's better for full frame application because it keeps the image circle centered on the sensor (it does). The problem is that there are no stabilized primes below 200mm. There are also a bunch of non-stabilized zooms and a waiting line for an IS version of the 400/5.6L. Given the inevitable price increase it could well turn out that even if Canon did make a 400/5.6IS, it woul dbe cheaper to get a non-IS lens and buy a stabilized body! I spoke with a Canon technical person about the wide/normal prime some time ago and the impression I got was that adding IS to fast normal and wide primes would be a problem because of the additional optics involved and the optical construction of such lenses (not to mention the inevitable cost increase). You can't just stick a set of moving elements on the back of a 24/1.4 like you can on a 600/4</p>

<p>I'm not sure why IS isn't needed on fast primes. That's like saying high ISO isn't needed with fast primes either. For normal work, maybe not, but for low light work or when you want to stop down to get some DOF, you may need IS, just as you may need high ISO. Besides, when has not needing something ever stopped people from wanting it and stopped camera makers from providing it?</p>

[RickDB]

<p>Why not just add in-body stabilization to your camera? Kenyon make a range of gyroscopic stabilizers that fit to the tripod mount and will allow stable exposures of up to 1 second. Such stabilizers are not cheap, but may be an option for those contempating an even larger investment by changing systems.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>A slightly tangential point but I find that IS is really only of value on long lenses for my type of shooting (and i shoot a lot of sports). I used to have the 24-105 F4 IS but sold it to get the 24-70 F2.8 which I far prefer. I do not miss the IS as the only area where it would have saved effort was for long exposure water shots - but once the exposure goes over about 2 seconds the IS does not appear to work very well so you still have to carry a tripod. I bougth the non IS 70-200 F2.8 for it's ;lower price, slightly better image quality than the IS version and because I never need IS with this lens - for ice hockey you have to shoot at 1/200 or faster (unless you pan) and for ski racing 1/800 is a good speed. The only lens I have where IS is a real benefit is my 300 F2.8 - here it helps handholding but as many have pointed out it cannot be sensor based. If Canon adds it to the sensor - fine bbut for shorter focal lengths I never feel I need it. I spent 25 years shooting film (most of it with MF lenses) limited to ISO 800 and never needed IS for all but a few shots (Cathederal interiors etc...) and even then you can often control breathing and lean on something solid.<br>

I would be interested to hear where and how often people need IS</p>

[hjoseph7]

<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."<br>

Great point, I never thought of it like that.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p><em>I'm not sure why IS isn't needed on fast primes. That's like saying high ISO isn't needed with fast primes either. </em></p>

<p>Right now the competition offers in body IS but inferior high ISO capability. Canon/Nikon offer camera bodies with no in body IS but superior high ISO. That's your practical choice at the moment. If low light prime lens shooting is your style, you are much better off with the latter than the former.</p>

<p>Now consider the hypothetical Canon/Nikon with in body IS. In body IS would be a benefit on Canon/Nikon bodies, but you're at a point of diminishing returns, especially on the full frame models. The better the high ISO, the fewer the situations where having IS with a fast prime would make any conceivable difference in ability or IQ. I'm not saying it won't ever make a difference, but it's just not the benefit that it is on slow zooms or long telephotos.</p>

<p>Regardless, while Canon/Nikon have a 2 stop (or more) ISO advantage, they're not going to feel much presssure to implement in body IS.</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>But I don't think Canon/Nikon have a 2 stop advantage. If you look at the noise level of the 40D, 50D and Pentax K20D at a site like dxomark.com, the noise levels are pretty even. If you consider that you'd have to up the ISO on the Canon by 2 stops (ISO 6400) to get the same shutter speed as you could use on the Pentax (assuming you only get 2 stops of stabilization in the "worst case"), then the K20D at ISO 1600 with stabilization clearly beats a 50D at ISO 6400 without stabilization (as would be the case when using a 50/1.4 for example). If there was a stabilized 50/1.4 from Canon, and ignoring any price difference (which would probably be in favor of Pentax), then the two systems would be pretty similar.</p>

<p>You can certainly argue that lens based IS is better than body based IS when an IS lens is available and ignoring the increased cost, but I don't think anyone can make a valid argument that a Canon with <em>BOTH</em> body and lens based IS available would be better then a Canon with only lens based IS, and if you're shooting a 135/2 or a 400/5.6L or a 70-200/2.8L (non-IS), or an 85/1.8 or a 50/1.4 it would be <strong>MUCH</strong> better.</p>

[JDMvW]

<blockquote>

<p>Dropping the FD mount shows what they really think of their customers.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>They did this in <strong>1986-7</strong> , FCS. Is it any better to have creeping incompatibility (rather than a clean break, which arguably was a major catalyst in the ascendancy of Canon over other marques)?<br>

Don't you think it's time to get over it?</p>

<p>I love IS on the lenses I have with it, ranging from the first one (the 75-300mm IS) up to the most recent generation. I don't see that their prices are much more than equivalent lenses from other manufacturers <em>without</em> the feature.<br>

I do remember when many people thought that having the focusing motor <em>in the camera</em> was so much better than having to put a motor in every lens.... Need I say more? <br>

As the little 18-55 IS shows, even given Bueh's misgivings about it, IS in the lens can be made very inexpensively especially given the development of the technology through time.</p>

 

[jamie_robertson2]

<p>Ha ha, dropping the FD mount? Oh, come on!</p>

<p>Many EOS users weren't even born when that happened! Look at the hassle Nikon went to to keep its original mount. In-body AF motors.... good grief! Nikon learnt the hard way and ended up having to follow Canon with their in-lens motors. They even learnt the hard way with full frame sensors... they simply HAD to do it in the end.</p>

<p>Look at the Canon EF mount compared to the Nikon mount. Canon's has a much wider diameter and would be ideal if they chose to offer in-body IS. I think Nikon would struggle. Their mount diameter is so small it offers virtually no spare capacity for moving the sensor which is required for in-body IS. The sensor would simply move outside the mount area and therefore out of the light path of the lens.</p>

<p>In my opinion, Canon have it right again with their in-lens IS. I do think they wil eventually offer some form of in-body IS but I think Nikon will struggle to follow.</p>

[jamie_robertson2]

<p>Just to add... here's a couple of samples...<br>

Nikon will be fine with it's crop DSLRs but imagine having to move that sensor round inside a full frame Nikon. Where will it go? There simply isn't the room. Compare it to the 5D MkII and see how much play Canon has around the sensor.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[jamie_robertson2]

<p>And here's the Canon...</p><div></div>

[rogerdaltx]

<p>First let me say I really appreciate the curtsey and maturity of the members here on Photos.net. I got into a sensor vs lens based stabilization discussion on a Canon specific board about 18 months ago when I was switching from EOS to Pentax and the dogma was near rabid; I was almost crucified for suggesting another system could have advantages.<br /> <br /> If sports or wildlife are your primary subjects where long lenses and the fastest possible autofocus speed is critical: Then I agree in lens IS and in body focus motors on very short focus throws AF lenses with are the way to go. But otherwise I have to disagree especially on APSC DSLR. <br /> <br /> If active travel photography where weight is strong consideration a or street shooting where a low profile is important are more your speed and especially if you're into primes: there are other choices that may be a better fit. That's really why I why I left Canon. For an APSC DSLR using full frame lenses means you're carrying a lot of glass around that does nothing for your image. With few exceptions EOS better glass and all L's are full frame. Having the focus motor in the lens adds additional bulk and weight to each lens; the same is true but even more so for in lens IS. <br /> <br /> All of this is contingent on individual shooting styles. I believe with quality glass and favorable shooting conditions pretty much any system is going to deliver about the same final image. I do have to wonder if there really is a two stop ISO advantage. Does ISO 6400 on a Canon really look like ISO 1600 on a Pentax? Especially if cost is factored in from full frame to APSC bodies as I can't see the advantage being there without moving to a 5D or better. <br>

So for me who prefers primes, likes to backpack and does low light social photography. Pentax with the 2 to 3 stop in camera shake reduction and very compact high quality limited primes which are about 1/3 the size of their EOS counterparts and are beautifully machined, etched and engraved from aircraft grade aluminum was a better fit.<br /> <br /> So no. in lens focus motors and in lens IS is not always the better option.</p>

[JDMvW]

<blockquote>

<p>focus motor in the lens adds additional bulk and weight to each lens</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Have you ever lifted an EF 50mm f/1.8 (in-lens focus) or the 18-55mm IS kit lens? Not exactly bulky or heavy are they? Lots of my old Nikkors are far heavier than anything in my Canon EOS inventory and they had no AF at all.</p>

<p><em>chacun</em> à <em>son goût</em><br>

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

[jamie_robertson2]

<p>I agree with JDM, the addition of AF does not really make a significant difference to the size and weight of a lens. IS adds a little bulk but nothing to complain about.</p>

[rogerdaltx]

<p>JDM I will agree with you the 50 f/1.8 is quite small I owned it for about 48 hours; it undoubtledly had the worst build quality of any lens I've ever held in 25 years. And I have played with the new kit lens in a store: It's certainly a step up from it predecisor, but still from a build stand point a very low end plastic comsumer lens. Slow f/5.6 lenses such as this kit lens can be made quite small. But even if the in lens IS can gain four stops I don't see as particualrly useful when you're starting at f/5.6 and probably more like f/8 to get to better sharpness. You're quite right to each their own tastes. Hard plastic, low build quality consumer lenses, no matter how good the optic at least for me are not satisifying to use.</p>

[beautox]

<p>I find it interesting that in their p&s cams, Canon still choose to use lens based IS rather than sensor based IS, where in that case they could use either.<br>

Roger: yes a low end kit lens is indeed, a low end kit lens. What were you expecting? Four stops is four stops regardless of where you are starting. And I would have thought that it's actually more useful on a small aperture lens where you don't have the option to open up the lens. I think Canon have made the right choice with this lens (18-55IS), ie save on the build quality. Would you rather have a superbly built lens with crap glass and no IS? (Yes I know you'd rather have a more expensive lens, but pretend that's not an option)</p>