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.
You are making a wild leap to the assumption that the in-body IS mechanical design will not be simple and robust. You are also making an assumption that the failure rate of the new subsystem will make it the weak link in the camera body. I'm just pointing out the speculative nature of your opinions; they are not based on anything real.
michael49 wrote:
I am sure that this is unfortunately true.
As has been stated ad-nausium in this thread, in-body IS is only marginally better at middling focal ranges. Not particularly useful for wides, not effective for telephotos. I dobut very much that a Canon in-body IS would be much more effective than say a system designed by the very capable Sony engineers. I doubt very much that this is true.
sjms wrote:
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.
USM is in the lens. You don't hear much about it failing because it is more robust than in-lens IS. There is a good chance that the actuation of a sensor-based IS system will work more like USM, or at least be simpler than in-lens IS. There is much less mass to move, and the sensor only has to slide back and forth in two directions.
sjms wrote:
well then your option is simple do not buy canon and and go with your choice of challengers such as olympus panasonic leica and others.
remember vote with your conscience and your wallet
Ah, the old "go somewhere else" argumentation technique that works so well... until a new feature is implemented. Reasoning that one should not want a feature because it is not offered by Canon is specious.
rceres wrote:
As has been stated ad-nausium in this thread, in-body IS is only marginally better at middling focal ranges. Not particularly useful for wides, not effective for telephotos. I dobut very much that a Canon in-body IS would be much more effective than say a system designed by the very capable Sony engineers. I doubt very much that this is true.
It is infinitely better when used on the many, many lenses that don't implement IS. You scoff because you don't want or need the feature, but that doesn't mean others' wants or needs are not real.
jvarszegi wrote:
You are making a wild leap to the assumption that the in-body IS mechanical design will not be simple and robust. You are also making an assumption that the failure rate of the new subsystem will make it the weak link in the camera body. I'm just pointing out the speculative nature of your opinions; they are not based on anything real.
Not sure I would call it a "wild leap" in my assumption that in-body IS that involves any sensor motion relative to the camera body is going to be less reliable than a sensor mechanically fixed to the body. That will degrade overall system reliability to some extent. If you can figure out how to make a moving sensor design more reliable than a fixed sensor you will become wildly famous and rich as you patent and sell this idea/technology to defense and other industries.
In the end, in-body IS might or might not be more reliable than in-lens IS especially if you consider the effect on overall reliability of having multiple cameras and/or lenses - but - if you really want in-body why not just buy a Sony? Seems like that company is moving in a technology direction more to your liking.
And infinately better? Wow! That's a lot of improvement over my current lenes. But I don't think I'd be able to see much difference. - I'll not be buying any in-body stablised cameras but others should feel free to want one.
this just adds to the cameras cost, and most people, who want IS - Have it, why make those people (the ones that matter, not the mom-n-pop photo people) pay more for more redundent technology
in lens IS > *
you can TRY to match it with a sensor, but it just wont perform as well
Canon's attitude will be "Deal with it"
dosent mean you HAVE to stay with canon - but those of us who understand the benifits of having higher speed motors for tele's and low speed motors for normal/macro will benifit. Having it built into the camera will solve nothing, and only add more parts to break down - and at least if the IS breaks on the lens, you can switch it...
jvarszegi wrote:
USM is in the lens. You don't hear much about it failing because it is more robust than in-lens IS. There is a good chance that the actuation of a sensor-based IS system will work more like USM, or at least be simpler than in-lens IS. There is much less mass to move, and the sensor only has to slide back and forth in two directions.
The USM motor only has to create motion in a single axis at a fixed speed. This is several factors of difficulty simpler than moving in two coupled axes in a varying speed in order to match the magnitude and direction of the motion of the camera.
Also keep in mind that ring USM motors are actually quite large and have very few moving parts and even fewer wear parts.
nads wrote:
The USM motor only has to create motion in a single axis at a fixed speed. This is several factors of difficulty simpler than moving in two coupled axes in a varying speed in order to match the magnitude and direction of the motion of the camera.
Also keep in mind that ring USM motors are actually quite large and have very few moving parts and even fewer wear parts.
You say it is "several factors of difficulty" simpler, but of course these words mean nothing. Odds are that the sensor-based IS system will have a lower failure rate than even USM.
Of course, one thing that all the speculative arguments based on the supposed failure of the sensor-based systems fail to account for (besides the relative failure rate of lens-based IS systems) is that as long as the failure rate is negligible, it doesn't matter. Any argument about the failure rate of in-body IS is hot air unless it points to some source of reliable information that actually bears on the subject.
Failure rate would nto be my concern. However, Canon has a enough trouble producing lenses that are collimated properly. I don't need any more problems such as misaligned sensors. I can just see everyone sending their cameras in for service. Gee the right side and the left side are not in focus at the same time or the framing is not right since the mechanism is a bit off.
One thing I think the big camera makers should do is build in self-calibration features. For instance, if you could put your camera on a tripod, aim a lens at a test chart and adjust it until the focus is perfect, then enter an offset into the camera for that lens, it would solve most of the problems people have with focus issues (they're mostly straight front/back focus due to miscalibration).
One thing I think the big camera makers should do is build in self-calibration features. For instance, if you could put your camera on a tripod, aim a lens at a test chart and adjust it until the focus is perfect, then enter an offset into the camera for that lens, it would solve most of the problems people have with focus issues (they're mostly straight front/back focus due to miscalibration).
yeah, it's called the 1D MkIII. Look at the 'white paper' on the camera...it's already done by Canon
yeah, it's called the 1D MkIII. Look at the 'white paper' on the camera...it's already done by Canon 