The results basically state that using Super SteadyShot gave us approximately two more stops in which to work.
In lens is 3, 4 supposedly for the newer 70-200 4L. I'd surely like to have IS in body so my Tamron 17-50 f2.8, 50mm & 70-200 4L all had 2 stop IS... Surely better than spending >2000$ to get the equivalent lenses with IS........
so a stop or so at 50mm, maybe (not sure how Phil figures close to 2 on the alpha)? You do realize that it will do less and less as focal length increases where it's actually relevant? Is it worth the additional complication (and lack of reliability) and cost to gain maybe a stop or so at short focal lengths? I'd rather get improved ISO to gain an extra stop - which IS something Canon has been giving it's customers with the best high ISO performance on the market. It's not as sexy as stamping "IS" on the box but it's far more important to taking actual images.
I don't believe there is a strong commitment for inbody IS from Canon for the DSLRs. Here is a Canon ad that will show its current commitment: http://web.canon.jp/Imaging/lens/index.html
The need for IS is still present at low light levels even with non-IS prime or zoom lenses. Therefore, I'll vote for an in body IS for Canon. (Not that my vote makes any difference to Canon.)
Canon is usually market driven (except for the 30D). Olympus, Pentax, and Sony all have in body IS. So there will be some pressure for Canon to develop it for the next upgrade of bodies.
Before I say this...I want to make clear that I do not want body IS in my Canon gear.
But I disagree when people say that body IS would be useless for superteles. Lens IS has a difficult time when say a fast 400mm to 600mm is used on a very sturdy tripod. Lens IS, if not automatically disabled, is easily confused by the minute vibrations near the lens center or mounting point and will drift or overcorrect in a negative feedback loop. Canon's current solution is to automatically turn IS off in these conditions.
Conversely, a body IS system on the same supertele and tripod setup would perform much better. The movement at the body would be detected and corrected relatively well for the vibrations at the ends of the rig. Essentially the sensor would 'float' relative to body movement, and the image would be effectively stabilized. Achieving more than a stop benefit would be easy, IMO.
Anybody is more than welcome to disagree with me but I have several Canon IS lenses from 17mm to 500mm so don't think I'm an in-lens IS hater
Tool Tucker wrote:
Such aggressive brand loyalty. It's quite amusing to the see the response "if you don't like it, leave."
First of all I glad to see that you're amused by the rise you got from everyone. Personally I don't think it was necessarily the content that elicited the reponses it did but rather your delivery.
Brand loyalty can be blind. I think what you're hearing are comments from extremely satisfied customers. Had you made the same statement about Nikon, my response would have been the same.
And yes, "if you don't like it leave." What's the point of complaining, speculating, wishing or hoping. Canon, Nikon, Fuji, Kodak, Pentax, Olympus...they're just tools of the trade. If something isn't working for you then find something that will rather than complaining that your current brand doesn't do it for you. Before you wave the flag of cutting edge technology at everyone, don't forget that some of the most incredible images of our time were taken with fully manual cameras and film. No AF, no program mode, no IS. Imagine that.
I don't actually know whether Canon is capable of building useful IS into the body that won't adversely affect image quality,
I'm sure that both Canon and Nikon are capable of building in-camera IS/VR or whatever you want to call it. They may even do so in their lower level or mid-level line of camera, for instance the Nikon D40. Do you honestly believe that it's not something that they're not working on? I'm sure there are a lot of goodies that these two companies have behind closed doors that would blow our minds (but we may never see).
. . .and if anyone should be able to do it properly, it should be Canon.
Talk about rabid brand loyalty. You chuckle at the rest of us for stating our personal preference but then insist that Canon "SHOULD" be the one to implement in-camera IS properly.
And once again, none of my lenses currently have IS, and no variants of them offered it, so yes, it would add value to my investment.
Maybe you should look for a better investment then.
inMtl wrote:
Huh? Sony & Pentax don't seem to have this problem with their IS inbody...
They do have the same problem, which is why their IS system is practically useless beyond 100mm. The sensor can't shift far enough to offset the motion of the camera without running into the edge of the image circle.
Steve Torelli wrote:
"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.
My experience in sales and manufactering has always supported the fact that there is greater margin on the lower cost items. Yes you may have to sell more but there's more to be made on each unit. Big ticket items like the MKIII are loaded with technologies that cost money to develop, produce and assemble. They are directed to a much narrower and specific market. It may take10 P&S cameras to equal the sale of 1 MKIII but at current costs and pricing they can probably sell 30 P&S to every one MKIII.
Steve Torelli wrote:
"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.
Bad analogy since the favored Caddy is a Chevy in disguise--gotta hand it to the marketing people there though.
Anyway, Canon has made is quite clear where they stand: in-lens IS is the road they are on & they are staying there. I happen to agree; I'd rather pay for IS where it's needed and not where it isn't--and when I have it I want it optimized for the lens it's working with. If the OP has been paying any attention, he would know Canon is perfectly capable of in-body IS--it's on several newer P&S models offered.
Common sense should tell you Canon is mainly looking out for Canon's best interests. When that happens to align with the consumers' we're all happy.
Canon owns the market in super high quality IS lenses and was/is a leader in stablization solutions (VideoCams/Binoculars, etc). They use their SLR bodies as a marketing vehicle for their extremely wide range of lenses. I, for one, have no need for a 1 stop, medium tele range, (but out of the finder) IS because I have their best stuff.
It seems that Canon's marketing decision (unlike their competitors who are way behind) is to stop their in-body IS just short of the DSLR and then add an IS "Kit Lens" to the mix for crossover crop sensor cameras. This way everyone get access to the best technology and I can still use my primes (up to the 180/189 length) with out the bulk cost and uncertainy of IS).
For normal to wides image stabilization isn't needed and doesn't help. For long telephoto's in lens IS is much more effective. So, in camera IS is really only a marginal advantage for short telephoto's. But if any of the fragile mechanics fail your out of luck? Heck, maybe the pro's really don't want 1 series reliability - NOT. Count me out of the in-body stabilization crowd. It's a marketing gimmick of little real value.
rceres wrote:
For normal to wides image stabilization isn't needed and doesn't help. For long telephoto's in lens IS is much more effective. So, in camera IS is really only a marginal advantage for short telephoto's.
I used to think so too until I started using it more on my 17-85EFs and 24-105L. I now find it quite useful for many applications of those lenses but especially in low light such as indoors when I can't use a flash or landscapes at sunrise/sunset.
*if* you've never tried to shoot a 50mm lens handheld at 1/15th then in camera IS might seem useless to you, if you have held your breath and hoped for the best at 1/15th then in camera IS may seem like it would be very useful. And if Canon is putting it in all the lenses (since it is so much more effective there), why didn't they put it in the new 50L Hmmm, yes, in camera IS very ineffective compared to no IS at all, right
I don't know why we are debating this. It's pretty obvious Canon will definitely have in-camera stabilization soon. It's not a matter of whether you want it or not... they will put it in because Sony and other competitors have it.
That doesn't mean Canon will abandon in-lens stabilization. The new IS lenses Canon develops will all have 4-stops of stabilization like the 70-200mmF4IS... while the in-body stabilization will prove 1 or 2 stops. There will either be an automatic detection system to turn the in-body off when IS lens is attached or there will be a button for the users to turn it off themselves.
Don't freak out guys... your camera and IS lenses are still good... but may drop in value a little bit when the new bodies come out.
There competitors might have it, but those competitors also charge as much or more for their lenses as Canons IS lens!!
Stunnaz wrote:
I don't know why we are debating this. It's pretty obvious Canon will definitely have in-camera stabilization soon. It's not a matter of whether you want it or not... they will put it in because Sony and other competitors have it.
That doesn't mean Canon will abandon in-lens stabilization. The new IS lenses Canon develops will all have 4-stops of stabilization like the 70-200mmF4IS... while the in-body stabilization will prove 1 or 2 stops. There will either be an automatic detection system to turn the in-body off when IS lens is attached or there will be a button for the users to turn it off themselves.
Don't freak out guys... your camera and IS lenses are still good... but may drop in value a little bit when the new bodies come out. ...Show more →
Stunnaz wrote:
I don't know why we are debating this. It's pretty obvious Canon will definitely have in-camera stabilization soon. It's not a matter of whether you want it or not... they will put it in because Sony and other competitors have it.
That doesn't mean Canon will abandon in-lens stabilization. The new IS lenses Canon develops will all have 4-stops of stabilization like the 70-200mmF4IS... while the in-body stabilization will prove 1 or 2 stops. There will either be an automatic detection system to turn the in-body off when IS lens is attached or there will be a button for the users to turn it off themselves.
Don't freak out guys... your camera and IS lenses are still good... but may drop in value a little bit when the new bodies come out. ...Show more →
I too am a little clueless why this topic seems so controversial to some. I'm even more puzzled over why so many view this technology as something even less desirable than a direct print button. Sure, it seems intuitive that in-lens stabilization could be optimized better for a specific lens. However, there is something very appealing to being able to shoot with a fast prime and gain a couple stops from in-camera stabilization.
