>>As a matter of fact before selling my Nikon gear, I still regularly used several, brace yourself, MANUAL FOCUS LENSES!!!! Why? Because they were incredibly sharp, had great color rendition and contrast, and just happened to be the right lens for the given task.
If your imaging is suffering that much try a tripod.
If the tripod is the answer, why have IS in a lens? And I shoot MANUAL FOCUS lenses on my Canon gear still for all your old reasons... and GUESS WHAT? In-body IS would work with them too!!!
I intend to own my lenses for longer than I own a camera body. I think IS in the lens is the technology that will keep me from buying it over and over. My lens requirements are not all that complicated. A normal zoom suits 95% of my needs and I think it is likely that Canon will develop a 24-70 IS soon and they already have a 17-55 f2.8 IS for EF-S. A couple fast primes, a wide angle zoom and telephoto lens takes care of the rest. The wide angle lives on my tripod, so no IS needed. The telephoto is the lens where I need the IS most and here Canon's solution works best.
With Canon's full frame sensor on various models, wouldn't it require a larger-than-full-frame sensor to accomplish in-body IS? I'm sure that in-body IS is relatively easy to accomplish on the smaller, lightweight sensors that other companies may use but on the Canon's larger, heavier sensors it may actually be a problem.
Also ... I'm sure IS tuned for a particular lens has to be more effective than a generic in-body IS system could be.
As for the notion that it's something that only beginners would want. Well trial it in a Rebel first, as they did with the dust removal system, and watch those with the x0D series bleat.
Nothing to do with brand loyalty. Nikon is smart enough to keep the stabilization in the lens as well. In-camera stabilization is a gimmick for consumers.
IS in the camera is more practical than in lens.
Those great Africa wildlife shots like in pursuit of ...
are mostly done with Helicopter stabized geo sync stablize system
and at up to 2 miles away.
Until they put it in camera ... Ill stick w a tripod.
Lenses and especially bodies are rapidly depreciating tools. Do not confuse them with an investment.
There are many things Canon needs to add/improve before considering sensor stabilization.
If you think a tripod is a substitute for current Canon lens IS system you have never used an IS lens. Perhaps you should limit your posting to your knowledge set.
Actually, considering in-body image stabilization would probably be very high on Canon's list of priorities at the moment, given that the lack of it is a big differentiator for those graduating from P&S - which is the biggest market for DSLRs.
Profits, profits, profits
The same reason I'm in the business that I'm in!
If I was Canon and I had the #1 DSLR market share, killing other competitors and making a ton of money, then why would I cannibalize my super high-margin products? no way!
Different story for those 2nd-tier players who are struggling to stay afloat. They must put those sweet features into their cameras, thereby hurting their own margins, just to attract people to buy them.
"Actually, considering in-body image stabilization would probably be very high on Canon's list of priorities at the moment, given that the lack of it is a big differentiator for those graduating from P&S - which is the biggest market for DSLRs. "
That market is by far the least profitable. Canon doesn't make much money selling Rebels nor do Nikon selling D40s. Like any other product, the profit is in the accessories, or the more upscale models. GM makes more money selling one Cadillac than they do selling ten Chevies.
should Canon put IS on the body of their 5000$ camera? no... People there can easily afford lenses with IS if they're interested.
For XT, I believe there should be IS. Sure it doesn't replace a tripod. Nobody said it does. It's IMAGE STABILIZATION. As in, REDUCES SHAKE. As such, it definitely has it's uses and isn't a gimimck. Head out to dpreview and check out the effectiveness of the different IS of inbody IS. You'll see it DOES make a SIGNIFICANT difference.
The reason they don't do it IMHO is not to cannibalize the sales of their IS lens... why spend 500$ a pop for IS on lenses when ur body has it... They prefer to sell 4 lenses with IS than 4 non-IS lenses (which might as well be Tamron, Sigma, Tokina, et..) without IS because IS in body might be good enough for most...
Canon is going to be upgrading their 18-55 kit lens with IS and adding a new EF-S 55-250 with IS as I mentioned about a month ago in this thread: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic2/515986
The thread is archived, but I can now confirm the lenses are real and will be released in the summer.
There's no chance Canon will go to an in-body IS system anytime soon. The image circle projected by EF-S lenses is too small to allow any meaningful shift of the sensor, and most EF lenses would have the same problem for a full frame body.
Dan Martin wrote:
The image circle projected by EF-S lenses is too small to allow any meaningful shift of the sensor, and most EF lenses would have the same problem for a full frame body.
Huh? Sony & Pentax don't seem to have this problem with their IS inbody...
I'm a newbie looking in from the outside, so correct me if I'm wrong on anything. I've never used in-camera or in lens IS.
It would seem to me though that even with it being more expensive, the fine tuning offered by having IS in the lens would be preferable. Doesn't the canon IS system give up to 3 stops in the newer models? I could see how that would preferable to say 1 stop on an in-body system.
Perhaps canon could offer in body IS on its lower models, say the next rebel. However even as someone VERY new to photography I would see this as a method to sell more cameras to more newbies. Not to help real photographers get better shots.
Anyone ever done some sort of a "scientific" look at in-body IS in regard to how much it actually helps?
Since sensor movement is very limited in-body IS becomes less and less useful as focal length increases which is exactly opposed to what you would want/need.
Honestly if it's going to give me "1 stop" at 17mm I don't care to have the additional cost/complication involved.
To satisfy all of the "unwashed masses" Canon should just do what Fuji does and rename high ISO ability as "image stabilization" - just to keep the wiz bang 3 million features that have little to do with capturing images crowd happy.
