Canon I want IS on camera body.

[PuppyDigs]

<p>I'd rather have ECF than CMOS shaker IS. </p>

[marcsharp]

<p>And I want a full head of hair.</p>

[zml]

<p><em>> I think Canon may read PN forums.</em><br>

Have you considered contacting Canon directly about your suggestion..?</p>

[zml]

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

<em> </em><br>

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."</p>

<p><em>>why is there so much importance placed on two card slots? Touch wood, I have never lost an image due to a card issue.</em></p>

<p>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...</p>

[markonestudios]

<p>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...</p>

[haniabsi]

<p>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.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>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.</p>

[brians.]

<p>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. </p>

[stamos]

<p>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.</p>

[stamos]

<p>Thank you Andre, Paul, Joseph, Mike, Scott, Hani, Brian and all of you for your answers.<br>

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.</p>

 

[scott_ferris]

<p>Michael,</p>

<p>"<em>Huh? Who is "we"</em>". 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

[asharpe1]

<p>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.</p>

[MattB.Net]

<p>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.<br>

If the consumers continue to buy and make money for the manufacturer, why change?<br>

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.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Alexander,</p>

<p>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.</p>

[zml]

<p><em>>as far as I know, no medium format digital camera shoots to two cards.</em><br>

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...<br>

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?</p>

<p>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.</p>

[steven_crist]

<p>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.</p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<blockquote>

<p>Scott - Again, as far as I know, no medium format digital camera shoots to two cards.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Joseph,</p>

<p>Not in the USA it isn't! When they ramp up production to meet world demand then it will. But yet again, why?</p>

<p>Michael,</p>

<p>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.</p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's a common misconception. It's not hard to work the math on that one.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>I own 5 lenses that, by Nikon or Canon standards, are stabilizable.</p>

<ul>

<li>70-200mm f2.8 (mine is stabilized)</li>

<li>300mm f2.8 (mine isn't stabilized, but both Nikon and Canon offer stabilized 300mm f2.8)</li>

<li>500mm f4 (again, mine isn't stabilized, but stabilized versions are available)</li>

<li>200mm f4 macro (neither Nikon nor Canon stabilize their 180-200mm macros, but I expect that to change any day now).</li>

<li>24-70mm f2.8 (neither Nikon nor Canon stabilize that, but again, I expect to see it).</li>

</ul>

<p>That's twice as many stabilized cameras as stabilized lenses.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

[keith__richard_terry]

<p>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.<br>

I am surprised that Pentax and Sony don't 'push' this facility more in their advertising.</p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>I would love to use the 135 f2 L and other superb non-IS primes with low shutter speed without tripod.<br />Is it only me?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Tripods can make one stand out and get in the way. <br>

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.</p>

<p>There are not too many areas darker than a moonless night and one far off street lamp: <a href="../photo/10442931&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/10442931&size=lg</a></p>

<p>WW</p>

 

[JDMvW]

<p>I know, why doesn't someone make a <em>photographer</em> stabilization platform? It could be built into your shoes and stabilize your whole body so not only all lenses would be stabilized, but also <em>all</em> camera bodies!</p>

<p>Imagine, A stabilized Brownie Hawkeye! That way you could shoot as low as 1/30 of a second!</p>

<p>;)</p>

[stamos]

<p>General stabilization!</p>