p.4 #1 · CR: Canon Sends Invitation For Major Mirrorless Presentation
I'm sure IBIS has its place. For my money (which is not much, such as it is), ILIS is where it's at. Perhaps it's not a zero sum game, but if it significantly increases cost, makes it less robust, or is detrimental to IQ, then count me out.
As long as Canon can offer IS on a wide range of lenses, then even the most basic or entry level EF mount camera can benefit.
Interesting that IBIS is under "recommended", and that "recommended" actually means "Strongly recommend Canon to consider, but we don't think Canon will implement this"
p.4 #3 · CR: Canon Sends Invitation For Major Mirrorless Presentation
amacal1 wrote:
I'm sure IBIS has its place. For my money (which is not much, such as it is), ILIS is where it's at. Perhaps it's not a zero sum game, but if it significantly increases cost, makes it less robust, or is detrimental to IQ, then count me out.
As long as Canon can offer IS on a wide range of lenses, then even the most basic or entry level EF mount camera can benefit.
Do you have any data suggesting that IBIS increases the cost of one camera more than ILIS does in one lens? The common perception of the economy in this is that it is cheaper to buy IBIS in one camera than ILIS in many lenses. When you keep the lenses and upgrade the camera, the coin is flipped of course.
p.4 #4 · CR: Canon Sends Invitation For Major Mirrorless Presentation
alundeb wrote:
Do you have any data suggesting that IBIS increases the cost of one camera more than ILIS does in one lens? The common perception of the economy in this is that it is cheaper to buy IBIS in one camera than ILIS in many lenses. When you keep the lenses and upgrade the camera, the coin is flipped of course.
I think it strongly depends on the lens you are talking about. IS for relatively dim lenses (e.g. like most of the EF-S zooms) costs almost nothing, just look at the retail prices of these lenses (also compared to similar non-IS versions). IS for a body is considerably more expensive due to all the additional changes required in the body (extra room, cooling, power, mechanical QC tolerances/sensitivity etc.). At the same time, IS for e.g. very bright long tele glass might be expensive because of the far higher requirements (bigger IS elements, much bigger displacements).
The way Canon does it now makes sense because most of the cost of IS is on those who want to use it; if you only buy entry-level bodies with kit zooms you pay very little and still get very effective IS, if you buy big bright tele primes you pay a fortune for IS (having it in-body might be cheaper, but probably also less capable). And yes, the frequent upgrading of bodies compared to lenses is another cost factor that favors in-lens IS.
p.4 #5 · CR: Canon Sends Invitation For Major Mirrorless Presentation
technic wrote:
I think it strongly depends on the lens you are talking about. IS for relatively dim lenses (e.g. like most of the EF-S zooms) costs almost nothing, just look at the retail prices of these lenses (also compared to similar non-IS versions). IS for a body is considerably more expensive due to all the additional changes required in the body (extra room, cooling, power, mechanical QC tolerances/sensitivity etc.). At the same time, IS for e.g. very bright long tele glass might be expensive because of the far higher requirements (bigger IS elements, much bigger displacements).
The way Canon does it now makes sense because most of the cost of IS is on those who want to use it; if you only buy entry-level bodies with kit zooms you pay very little and still get very effective IS, if you buy big bright tele primes you pay a fortune for IS (having it in-body might be cheaper, but probably also less capable). And yes, the frequent upgrading of bodies compared to lenses is another cost factor that favors in-lens IS....Show more →
I agree that it depends on the lens, but we still don't have any certain numbers. The cheapest Olympus camera with image stabilisation doesn't cost much, and not more than less advanced Olympus cameras without. The cheapest Canon APS-C kit lens with IS costs 40% more than the cheapest Canon lens, which is a prime lens thoug. So hard to compare, but I think that for the cheapest lenses, the IS is actually a substantial part of the cost.
p.4 #6 · CR: Canon Sends Invitation For Major Mirrorless Presentation
Why not have both? Why does it need to be one or the other?
Right now I have my Canon 135L stabilized on my A7R2 using IBIS only and my Batis 85 has in lens IS so I have both types of IS active when shooting with the 85.
I see zero downfall to having IBIS and a lot to gain.
p.4 #7 · CR: Canon Sends Invitation For Major Mirrorless Presentation
chez wrote:
Why not have both? Why does it need to be one or the other?
Right now I have my Canon 135L stabilized on my A7R2 using IBIS only and my Batis 85 has in lens IS so I have both types of IS active when shooting with the 85.
I see zero downfall to having IBIS and a lot to gain.
I wouldn't mind having both, but some seem concerned about the added cost of the camera. The opinions also seem to depend a lot on what kind of lenses people have. If I had just a few lenses and those are mostly zooms with AF and IS, I wouldn't think IBIS would be an important feature. Not that I would be against it either. As it is I have many prime lenses with manual focus as well, and for those IBIS is a clear operational advantage for focusing with magnified view. It is not only about what shutter speeds you can use, but the ability to see a stable magnified image in the viewfinder while focusing.
p.4 #8 · CR: Canon Sends Invitation For Major Mirrorless Presentation
alundeb wrote:
I wouldn't mind having both, but some seem concerned about the added cost of the camera.
Let's not kid ourselves with opinions, no one here has a clue what the development and manufacturing costs are for a clean sheet design. Those are the camera company state secrets. All we see are retail prices which have so much markup on top of the cost of goods sold that we'll never know if IBIS adds $x or $y to the final cost. I have to believe if Olympus and others can bring the technology to market at a good price point so can others.
p.4 #9 · CR: Canon Sends Invitation For Major Mirrorless Presentation
alundeb wrote:
I agree that it depends on the lens, but we still don't have any certain numbers. The cheapest Olympus camera with image stabilisation doesn't cost much, and not more than less advanced Olympus cameras without. The cheapest Canon APS-C kit lens with IS costs 40% more than the cheapest Canon lens, which is a prime lens thoug. So hard to compare, but I think that for the cheapest lenses, the IS is actually a substantial part of the cost.
I guess you are talking about official sticker prices for those kit lenses? Over here the 18-55 IS II costs around €60 (new, unbundled) and 18-55 DC III (non-IS) costs €50-60; the STM version can be found from around €75. I don't know if those costs are representative (official prices are much higher, like €120 for the 18-55 IS STM but there is plenty of sales at these lower prices) but they suggest that IS on those small lenses costs next to nothing.
For relatively cheap bodies there might be more incentive for Olympus to 'subsidize' IS costs in order to attract users.
p.4 #10 · CR: Canon Sends Invitation For Major Mirrorless Presentation
Those sales prices are not available here. The cheapest variant I can get in the major stores right now is NOK 1745, corresponding to around 180 EUR. And the non-IS 18-55 is discontinued. On top of all the other difficulties of guessing this, bringing in rebates and prices of discontinued models doesn't make the estimate any safer. But the IS most probably adds less than 100 EUR to the retail price of these small lenses
p.4 #11 · CR: Canon Sends Invitation For Major Mirrorless Presentation
Who cares how much lens IS costs if Canon does not include it into every lens. I know when I used to shoot with my 5d2, I sure would have loved stabilization on my 24 1.4, 135L and 200 2.8...but Canon thought otherwise.
Again, unless Canon changes their view and includes IS in all lenses, I'd very much would like IBIS so I can choose which lenses to purchase.
p.4 #12 · CR: Canon Sends Invitation For Major Mirrorless Presentation
chez wrote:
Who cares how much lens IS costs if Canon does not include it into every lens. I know when I used to shoot with my 5d2, I sure would have loved stabilization on my 24 1.4, 135L and 200 2.8...but Canon thought otherwise.
Again, unless Canon changes their view and includes IS in all lenses, I'd very much would like IBIS so I can choose which lenses to purchase.
In addition to this, I believe that in-body image stabilization becomes even more important the smaller and lighter the camera body gets. Not having any kind of image stabilization, I can still take a good handheld image with a 50 mm lens attached on my Leica M camera bodies at 1/15 of a second (especially with my M3 which is a solid brass camera body and ideal for low light longer exposures handheld). With my Sony A7R I can't do this - below 1/25 of a second is very hard to get the shot right just handheld (shutter vibration is part of the issue here).
I don't think that lens-based image-stabilization is better for "normal" focal lengths below 200 mm than in-camera IBIS. This technology has advanced quite a bit since Canon started to implement it for lenses only. It still might be beneficial for longer tele lenses to have IS directly in the lens - not sure since I am not shooting with long lenses. But for the rest I personally would not hesitate to vest into in-camera image-stabilization only.
p.4 #13 · CR: Canon Sends Invitation For Major Mirrorless Presentation
I have some IS lenses and the IS can be extremely useful. However, it is not a cure all. While I can capture tack sharp images at 1/30 or slower, it does nothing for subject movement. Even a relatively stationary subject at 1/30 can be soft because of movement.
If Canon does announce a FF mirrorless, I think it would have to bring more to the table than just EF lens compatibility to compete with the current crop of mirrorless and compel someone to buy it instead of the 5D4 or 6D.
p.4 #14 · CR: Canon Sends Invitation For Major Mirrorless Presentation
I would think IBIS would be a pretty important part of a new Canon ML line of bodies. As a latecomer to the market most of this tech has matured over time. If they release something that already looks outdated then they deserve the roasting they will get. Of course, given the recent sales data it may not matter at all to the vast majority buying camera's. Only on forums will you see any hand wringing.
If Canon does not go forward with IBIS then I do hope they have a 16-35/2.8 IS and 24-70/2.8 IS in the works to give us the Holy Trinity with IS.
p.4 #15 · CR: Canon Sends Invitation For Major Mirrorless Presentation
ggreene wrote:
I would think IBIS would be a pretty important part of a new Canon ML line of bodies. As a latecomer to the market most of this tech has matured over time. If they release something that already looks outdated then they deserve the roasting they will get. Of course, given the recent sales data it may not matter at all to the vast majority buying camera's. Only on forums will you see any hand wringing.
If Canon does not go forward with IBIS then I do hope they have a 16-35/2.8 IS and 24-70/2.8 IS in the works to give us the Holy Trinity with IS. ...Show more →
yes, I'm not wringing my hands from the lack of 'IBIS'
(but it does look useful if it works for the long telephotos) www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless
p.4 #17 · CR: Canon Sends Invitation For Major Mirrorless Presentation
So if the M50 is a "stripped" M6 then what could be missing? Weather protection, hotshoe, snap on EVF and or 14bit RAW or ALL ? ? ?
What's up with that rumored EF-M prime at Photokina, could it be M7 time ? ? ?
Let's hope that besides the M50 presentation they are also going to announce something far more ambitious (possibly to a select public that was especially invited for this). Otherwise 2018 is starting to look like a very boring Canon year ...
p.4 #19 · CR: Canon Sends Invitation For Major Mirrorless Presentation
artificialyello wrote:
So if the M50 is a "stripped" M6 then what could be missing? Weather protection, hotshoe, snap on EVF and or 14bit RAW or ALL ? ? ?
Never underestimate how Canon can cripple a camera, just look at all those APS-C DSLRs that look very similar at first glance...
p.4 #20 · CR: Canon Sends Invitation For Major Mirrorless Presentation
chez wrote:
Who cares how much lens IS costs if Canon does not include it into every lens. I know when I used to shoot with my 5d2, I sure would have loved stabilization on my 24 1.4, 135L and 200 2.8...but Canon thought otherwise.
Again, unless Canon changes their view and includes IS in all lenses, I'd very much would like IBIS so I can choose which lenses to purchase.
Why can't Canon or Nikon put an IBIS sensor into any DLSR camera if they wanted to do that?
I don't see what that has to do with MILC or an entirely new system.
