In-Camera IS or VR is coming soon. Canon and Nikon already have this technology but just not willing to put it in DSLR. However, Olympus did it and my take is Sony will be next.
This year we have seen Video on DSLR, who would have thought, I'll bet is next year IS or VR or some sort of hand shake stabilizer will be included in Canon, Nikon and Sony DSLR.
I know that lens IS/VR is better when viewing through the viewfinder but when using the screen in the back during video filming, it's all in-camera.
This is the trend, it will happen sooner or later; and I bet it will be sooner.
Honestly?
It wouldn't suprise me, but I don't think we're going to see it just yet... Likely it's being developed, and will make its way to cropped sensors first, then move to full frame. EDIT: Also, Sony already did it too, just not in the full frame yet - EDIT2: I take that back, got confused with Sony Live View and IS... Sony does indeed have IS.
As far as canon is concerned.. Realistically, we won't see it in the next 1Ds (maybe in the next 1D though) and maybe the 60D equivalent, or 70D almost certainly, but only after it's in the Kiss series.
That said, I was one of those who said Canon wouldn't put a 21mp, or video recording in the 5D2... That was wrong. ^_^'
Nikon and Canon are the only one's doing it right. They're putting it into the lenses at the point it's needed most, not the bodies. It makes sense to continue doing it this way, control the shake at the closest point to the subject.
As above Canon and Nikon are doing it right. It must be easier and give better results their way. But they got to doing this way in lens because they were doing it when we had film, and its not very easy to move the film about.
If they wer to come at it now then they would probably do it on sensor as well.
I doubt very much that they will throw all the good work away to go to worse system as I doubt any sensor system is truely going to be able to compenste 4-5 stops like the new canon systems in the real worlorl when shake does not move straight up/down or side to side but tilts as well.
Actually Sony does have IS in the body of their A900 (directly from the A900 site on SonyStyle)
SteadyShot INSIDE™ in-camera image stabilization:
Building on years of expertise, Sony has developed the world’s first body-integrated image stabilization solution for a full frame DSLR1. The SteadyShot INSIDE™ in-camera image stabilizer actually shifts the image sensor to compensate for camera shake without sacrificing image quality. The compensation effect is equal to as many as four shutter speed steps, giving you more creative freedom when shooting in low light. And, because it is integrated into the camera body, SteadyShot INSIDE technology works with all compatible α (alpha)system lenses.
I really, really, really don't see the issue and why it's causing such argument, surely you just add in-body IS which disables when it senses an in-lens IS system attached to the mount, in relative terms it can't be THAT complicated..........right ?
Anyway you slice it, all IS is good as long as it is well thought out, and defeatable. While I appreciate that Canon and Nikon are proponents for the (arguably) better lens IS, I would love for all lenses to have IS via the body. I would go so far to say that lens IS should be touted as a premium feature, and should disable body IS.
Canon and Nikon have made great strides over the last 2 years in bringing IS/VR even to their low-cost kit lenses, to the point where there is no practical reason to choose competitor models just for this feature. Indeed, the effects of stabalization in the lens are visible in the viewfinder, which gives them a competetive edge in the lower-end segments.
Although it is laudable that Canon and Nikon have brought IS to kit lenses like the 18-55 that still doesn't bring IS to many other lenses. (I'm looking at you 400 f/5.6) Perhaps most conspicuous would be the addition of IS to non-OEM lenses. How great would it be to have IS for all Sigmas, Tokinas, and Tamrons?
Although it is laudable that Canon and Nikon have brought IS to kit lenses like the 18-55 that still doesn't bring IS to many other lenses. (I'm looking at you 400 f/5.6) Perhaps most conspicuous would be the addition of IS to non-OEM lenses. How great would it be to have IS for all Sigmas, Tokinas, and Tamrons?
OK so canon/nikon put IS in body so you can go and put a 3rd party lens on it. No profit in that.
I have used SLRs of friends with in-body IS/VR/OS/whatever you want to call it. One of the cameras I used had a 200mm lens on it, and it was *awful* at 200mm.
In a nutshell, it is no where as effective as the IS in any of my Canon lenses.
As stated, Canon and Nikon are doing this correctly. Why would anyone think that IS/VR for a 17-55mm lens would have the same requirements as a 400mm lens? That is what having IS/VR/OS in-body implies, but as we all know, this is not the case.
yeah most of the time when you see tests done that say it works ok (magazines/internet reviews) its normaly tested with the supplied kit lens which will be of the shorter end. It cant be taylored to the tele end of things. Whereas in lens you can designe the system for that lens.
If anyone should introduce in-camera IS/VR it should be Leica .... as they need to appease loyal users who have invested a fortune in Leica lenses. The fact that they are not doing it probably means that in-body IS/VR has its problems and is not as effective as IS/VR in lenses.
Just like adding video capability in DSLR, for Canon and Nikon, adding in-camera IS/VR will get a lot of upgrades from current owners, even if the in-camera IS/VR is only a stop or two to start with.
Just think of how many Nikon and Canon photographers that owned alternative lenses - each will buy one of these camera sooner or later. And we know that there are many of such photographers in this forum.
I've always been on the in-lens argument of this, because it is obviously better. But, if Canon/Nikon were to implement some kind of in camera IS/VR, even 1 stop, that's already pretty awesome.
IS just makes those long telephoto shots easier to handhold at slower shutter speeds. But, 1 stop would be a pretty big improvement if you ask me. Would I switch to a new 1D if it had it? Probably not . . .
In terms of getting the shot in low-light conditions .... yes, but not in terms of bokeh or background blur. Improvements in noise is not going to give you a nicer b/g blur like a fast lens could.
Ian.Dobinson wrote:
1 or 2 stops. well every new body that comes out is reported to be 1 or 2 stops better iso v noise so your getting near the same thing.
monochrome wrote:
Nikon and Canon are the only one's doing it right. They're putting it into the lenses at the point it's needed most, not the bodies. It makes sense to continue doing it this way, control the shake at the closest point to the subject.
{sigh} They're not mutually exclusive. There is no fast stabilized prime under 200mm, and almost certainly none in development.
Ian.Dobinson wrote:
OK so canon/nikon put IS in body so you can go and put a 3rd party lens on it. No profit in that.
No, they'd do it (kicking and screaming) to stay competitive. Also, it's a rare alt shooter who doesn't own a single Canon lens, and even for those oddballs Canon still makes money by selling them the camera and possibly accessories. You can't squeeze blood from a turnip.
