EOS4ever wrote:
Isn't the EF-S 17-85 IS a low-cost kit lens
Some may argue whether it's really "low cost," but when I said Canon could release such a lens next week, the implication was that they could choose to package it with their low-end bodies and knock $200 off the cost of buying the body and lens separately.
That would effectively blunt any "in-body IS rage" that might exist. Remember that compared to Sony and Pentax, Canon is holding the cards in most other specifications.
Tool Tucker wrote:
But it does nothing for existing bag of primes, nor my 17-40L which I'd love to be able to hand hold in lower light.
TT
Big deal. So you want body IS to solve your issues. Canon already offers a good and an excellent solution to your issues: 17-85IS and 17-55IS. With the 18-55IS...Canon will have 'shown its colors'
Looking at your equipment:
Canon 350D
17-40L
135L
85 f/1.8
60 f/2.8 macro
I see why wou might want body IS, but I think you just need to consider one of the IS lenses above or consider learning how to work around your gear limitations. You're not getting body IS from Canon. This has been an interesting thread. Good luck with your photographic endeavors
Only a fool would suggest that the 17-85 IS or 17-55 IS is a good replacement for a stabilized f/1.8 85mm prime. It is certainly not for sure that we will not get in-body IS from Canon. They just haven't done it yet.
jvarszegi wrote:
Only a fool would suggest that the 17-85 IS or 17-55 IS is a good replacement for a stabilized f/1.8 85mm prime. It is certainly not for sure that we will not get in-body IS from Canon. They just haven't done it yet.
Exactly. And Canon doesn't make a habit of putting IS in its sub 300mm primes. Nor does it have IS in two of its most popular walkaround L Zooms the 17-40L and 24-70L.
Perhaps there are a few of us who already have such lenses who might feel attracted to a new body if it offered us an added value to them.
I say this having seen the underwhelming response to the recent upgrades in the 30D and 400D.
Adding IS to the body would be a MAJOR upgrade. Presuming it enhances and not detracts from image quality.
Canon has gone on record as saying that they think lens IS is superior to in-body IS. Now, it may be true that 'way off below the horizon there is a Canon body with IS, but they would not be marketing against it if they had any current plans whatsoever to produce it (notice that they never said dust-busting was a bad idea).
What we do see is Canon continuing to release lenses with IS, including short zooms. It's more likely they will continue to release lenses with IS--that's the solution they already have on the table.
Tool Tucker wrote:
All that review tells us is that Sony's choice of system does work, but is inferior to that of Pentax.
One would like to think that when Canon inevitably debuts its in-body IS system that, given their long experience and success in this area, it would:
1. Be compatible with, and preferably enhance, any existing in-lens system. Certainly not make it redundant.
2. Enhance any Canon lens compatible with it. If not, the camera should automatically disable it.
3. Be easily disabled.
4. Be superior to anything currently offered by Sony, Pentax, Oly, Panasonic, et al.
Keep reading point 4 until it sinks in.
TT
Point well made and should be easily taken.
I am consitently amazed at how "fixed" minds
become to new ideas and concepts. It is like people
are afraid of moving forward, and in earnest believe
that somehow if they want to badly enough that they
can "freeze" time. I wonder how well they do holding
people in "freeze frame" in their personal lives?
As I stated before having had experience in R&D
I guarantee you at this very moment that there are
PhD's and researchers employed by Canon doing
In-Body IS work. To think otherwise is simply folly.
jvarszegi wrote:
Only a fool would suggest that the 17-85 IS or 17-55 IS is a good replacement for a stabilized f/1.8 85mm prime. It is certainly not for sure that we will not get in-body IS from Canon. They just haven't done it yet.
Then call me a fool. IF we see the 18-55IS kit lens it will be 'for sure'. They've already looked into it and decided not to. What is so hard for you guys (all three of you ) to understand that your wants aren't going to materialize?
I will never want IS. I will never buy a camera body with IS in it. End of story. I hope they never come out iwth such a thing, because that would mean I would end up pay ing extra money for something I will never use. That's just stupid.
Ahhhh... a different debate (or is it the same one - Film is better than Digital, Film will soon be replaced by digital, IS on the lens is better than IS on ......).
TT, you make a lot of assumptions....
" ....If the next camera it releases - say, the 40D - omits in-camera Image Stabilization (in which its technology leads the market) in favour of leaving it up to the individual lens, it sends out a strong message that it's not acting in the best interest of its customers
....the longer they pretend it's not an issue, the more of us who'll ask where Canon's priorities lie."
You are sounding as if you speak for everyone.... or that you've made a survey and can prove your words.... and I know you can't!
I don't want IS on the camera, and that does not mean Canon isn't acting in the best interest of the customer.
I have never doubted where Canon's priorities lie.
No thanks. Leave the gimmicks to the Rebel line if in body IS you must have. If you want IS worth having buy it in lense where it can be engineered to match the FL being used. Every gimmick you add to my camera body is one more thing I didn't need which can fail on me when I can least afford it to fail.
If I understand correctly, Canon and Nikon together have the vast majority of the market. Both N&C continue to introduce new VR/IS lenses, and neither use sensor-based VR/IS. This should be a clue.
Dan Martin wrote:
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.
No. I don't want this. As a user of superteles I favor in-lens IS. I don't see how in-camera stabilisation could perform better than what we currently have now in-lens. The Canon IS system is excellent, or should I say fantastic, the best there is. In-lens stabilisation allows for engineering the IS system to match the focal length it is serving. I definitely do not want a generic in-camera IS.
Canon actually leads the DSLR market right now.
Sorry to break your dream but this will never happen.
Well said, Ocean. I always find it amusing when some amatuer tries to tell the best in the market what they should be doing. Microsoft, Canon....etc, etc, etc. Lord Lord, help us tote this bale.
Stunnaz wrote:
Canon's priority is to make money. Money talks.
Yep, and companies earn money by producing things people want. Canon does a great job and they get my vote, and my money, every time. Since they're REALLY good at what they do, I bought some stock too. So can you.
As a stockholder, you can quit whining about those capitalist pigs and become one. (Beats beeing an ignorant mark)
Robin Snyder wrote:
No thanks. Leave the gimmicks to the Rebel line if in body IS you must have. If you want IS worth having buy it in lense where it can be engineered to match the FL being used. Every gimmick you add to my camera body is one more thing I didn't need which can fail on me when I can least afford it to fail.
) to understand that your wants aren't going to materialize?