I've lost count of in-camera IS vs. in-lens tests. Every single time the lens IS wins by some margin. That's not to say in-camera IS isn't worth having, but to say it's a true alternative to in-lens IS doesn't hold true, at least not yet.
I'm entering this late, and there are a lot of "experts" here on a lot of things. I'm not going to get into the merits of Lens IS versus Body IS as I'm no expert. But the following went unchallenged, and it doesn't take an expert to figure this out.
Yakim Peled wrote:
I think that….
A. It is technically feasible to have both BIS (Body based IS) and LIS (Lens based IS) working together.
A lot of things are "technically feasible" but completely impractical. Yakim Peled wrote:
1. Despite asking, I have never heard a good explanation why it is not possible.
Here ya go: IS works on detection of motion - NOT via optical means. In other words, there is nothing analyzing the motion of the image on the sensor (certainly not in IS lenses). To do so would lead to false correction for things such as leaves blowing on a tree, or people moving. Nope. It all works via detection of motion by physical means.
OK, given this. If the camera body is trying to correct for motion it detects, and the lens is already correcting for the same motion, they are going to create a complete and utter mess - unless the lens is transmitting very specific information about the correction it is making and the body is then using that information to modify its correction. This is a much more complicated correction, given the potential for varying focal lengths.
So the simplest way for them to work together is to shut down one or the other when both are present. Yakim Peled wrote:
2. Oly have just introduced the E-510 with BIS and Leica is developing a 14-50 and 14-150 with LIS for it.
B. Canon will never sell a body with BIS, at least in the near future, because of marketing considerations. They may introduce more lenses with LIS, they may lower the prices of lenses with LIS but they will not produce and sell a body with BIS. Reason: Keep market differentiation.
I don't do prognostication. I'll leave that to all of you experts. But as long as there might be some experts reading this, riddle me this Batman? To what extent does body-IS accomplished via a moving sensor, increase the likelihood of sensor cleaning damaging or misaligning said sensor. It's something I would worry about. Granted, there is undoubtedly some sort of locking mechanism to prevent this, but how strong is it? Would there be any issues with in-body IS when you also have a self-cleaning sensor that must vibrate very fast to dislodge dust?
Note that I'm not claiming any of this would be problematic. It's just stuff I didn't see mentioned as I skimmed through this very long thread.
Kamil Kisiel wrote:
No, but lots of people here (Canon's home, and nearly 25% of their market) do.
I have heard that a large percentage of Japanese photographers prefer to print directly from the card, either from the camera or from a card inserted into a printer (which is why printers now have card slots), and that compared to the West, fewer people are interested in printing from a personal computer.
Tool Tucker wrote:
Surprised to hear that. Seems very out of place on a camera of that quality.
TT
I'm not sure if that is a joke. The 30D is of average quality and only $1100, so the print button may appeal to that market segment. Of course 25% may refer to the people that have used the printer button at least once.
Well, my point was mostly that much Canon's camera design is driven by the needs and trends of their home mark market. This is often the case with many Japanese produced products and is often why we wonder "Why the heck does this gizmo do it this way?". Usually the answer is, because that's the way they prefer to do it in Japan It may be surprising, but after working in Japanese company for over a year, I've come to realize that many of them are still quite ignorant of many of the desires and trends in the western world.
But anyway, this is a total digression from the topic at hand, I'm just always a bit irked when people complain about the direct print button without fully realizing the reasoning behind it. I agree though it's probably not much use to most people in North America.
Kamil Kisiel wrote:
Well, my point was mostly that much Canon's camera design is driven by the needs and trends of their home mark market. This is often the case with many Japanese produced products and is often why we wonder "Why the heck does this gizmo do it this way?". Usually the answer is, because that's the way they prefer to do it in Japan It may be surprising, but after working in Japanese company for over a year, I've come to realize that many of them are still quite ignorant of many of the desires and trends in the western world.
But anyway, this is a total digression from the topic at hand, I'm just always a bit irked when people complain about the direct print button without fully realizing the reasoning behind it. I agree though it's probably not much use to most people in North America....Show more →
Tool Tucker wrote:
Canon (and Nikon) is facing an interesting quandary right now. 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, but instead protecting a path it beat long ago. A path its newer rivals in DSLRs aren't following, and they're being praised for it.
We now know it's possible to build some degree of IS into the camera, and we all know it's something we want. The question is whether Canon is willing to not only match its competitors, but lead them, and at the same time, partially abandon its legacy of in-lens stabilization.
Personally, I see no reason why an element of IS shouldn't be built into the camera, even if it's not as effective as the in-lens technique. It mightn't be perfect, but even one stop's worth would help.
Besides which, there's no good reason why they can't offer both. Perhaps one would enhance the other. In any case, Canon is now officially behind the market in this area. And the longer they pretend it's not an issue, the more of us who'll ask where Canon's priorities lie.
tell me the REAL technological advantage to the in camera system vs the in lens system? if you can then i will give it some thought. as i have the original Minolta in camera anti shake system in one of my PS cameras though kindod of nifty it was far from a truely effective IS system. too limited. you unfortunately sound like the "next big thing" kind of person.
as to the rivals having it. the 2 major competitors canon and nikon both support the optical in lens system vs the others that are clawing to get percentage points from either them or each other or to just plain get on the radar. remember the company that developed the original anti shake in camera system that all others are based on is out of the camera business. the revolution is having a slow start i guess.
by the way who is the WE you are talking about? as in we want this and that?
Tool Tucker wrote:
North America isn't the rest of the world.
TT
you are right its not. but when it comes to business and sales of major products it is a greater portion of it then you think.
hey you have Holden down under. a GM car the way they could be made. i was down your way 2 years ago and had a commador for a week.
Every so often, someone asks why a feature found on entry-level or pocketable cameras isn't on DSLRs. They usually get flamed on the grounds that only lowly "consumers" would use such a thing, and serious photographers don't want it. That was the overwhelming response to questions about live view until Canon announced it for the 1D3. Now it's the response to in-body IS. No, it wouldn't replace in-lens IS, especially in long focal lengths, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be useful. Whether Canon will see it being to their financial advantage is another issue altogether.
I had one more thought that I'll risk adding to an already overly long thread. How does the idea of a very precise, fast moving miniturized, moterized mechanical system (read unreliable and delicate system) comport with Canon (and Nikon's) image of the manufacturer of rock-solid pro gear? I have heard the analogy made many times that the 1 series cameras can be used to slug would be muggers or, in a pinch, drive nails. The 5D and 30D cameras have a much much more solid feel than the Sony bodies. Canon brads about huge extensions in shutter MTBF. Who would want their costly SLR gear to be more delicate than it already is? I'll be very surprised if Canon introduces in-body stabilization soon - or ever in the case of their pro/prosumer lines. I personally would much prefer improvements in ISO performance and dynamic range. (edited to add - and improved ruggedness)
rceres wrote:
Holy cow! This thread is still meandering on?
I had one more thought that I'll risk adding to an already overly long thread. How does the idea of a very precise, fast moving miniturized, moterized mechanical system (read unreliable and delicate system) comport with Canon (and Nikon's) image of the manufacturer of rock-solid pro gear? I have heard the analogy made many times that the 1 series cameras can be used to slug would be muggers or, in a pinch, drive nails. The 5D and 30D cameras have a much much more solid feel than the Sony bodies. Canon brads about huge extensions in shutter MTBF. Who would want their costly SLR gear to be more delicate than it already is? I'll be very surprised if Canon introduces in-body stabilization soon - or ever in the case of their pro/prosumer lines. I personally would much prefer improvements in ISO performance and dynamic range. (edited to add - and improved ruggedness)...Show more →
I think your point about the possible delicacy of such a system is speculative at best. In any event, it is not only the camera that may break. Perhaps sensor-based IS would have a longer MTBF and be more rugged than in-lens IS... we do see reports here of broken IS systems in lenses like the 70-200 IS. However, we do not often or ever hear of USM failing.
Tool Tucker wrote:
......However, if Canon is already capable of building in-camera IS as good, or even superior to that being currently offered in its new range of lenses, and refuses to implement it because it makes more money multiple selling a redundant technology, that adds weight and price to a lens, then we're being dudded, and it deserves to gradually lose market share.
Efforts in R&D should be focused on other, better technology like 'full color' sensors and pushing the high ISO performance further. Features that will actually enhance their 1 series cameras. I believe more people in recent years have switched (mostly from Nikon) because of superior image quality and specifically high ISO performance. Beyond that, a full-color (hopefully FF) sensor that out performs Sigma's SD14 should be Canon's next goal. I'd like it in 8 to 10MP or so...
jvarszegi wrote:
I think your point about the possible delicacy of such a system is speculative at best. In any event, it is not only the camera that may break. Perhaps sensor-based IS would have a longer MTBF and be more rugged than in-lens IS... we do see reports here of broken IS systems in lenses like the 70-200 IS. However, we do not often or ever hear of USM failing.
lets face the fact that you don't hear much about USM period as there are more IS type lenses out and in use and abuse today then there are USM camera bodies.
jvarszegi wrote:
[
I think your point about the possible delicacy of such a system is speculative at best. In any event, it is not only the camera that may break. Perhaps sensor-based IS would have a longer MTBF and be more rugged than in-lens IS... we do see reports here of broken IS systems in lenses like the 70-200 IS. However, we do not often or ever hear of USM failing.
USM's are rugged and reliable due to their remarkably simple and roust mechanical design. It's not speculation - complex mechanical and optical systems are more difficult to maintain and are less reliable than simpler systems. Ask any military aviation maintenance professional.
It may be surprising, but after working in Japanese company for over a year, I've come to realize that many of them are still quite ignorant of many of the desires and trends in the western world.