I think, fundamentally, whether they realize it or not, a lot of folks don't want to see something newer or better than they have come out. It's a near fatal shot to their ego until they can go get one themselves. Ergo, a lot of rabid opinions against Canon adding (name that technology) to (name that camera line)
RJJR wrote:
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.
Edited by RJJR on Apr 17, 2007 at 02:44 PM GMT
I'll always take larger f stops on primes over an image stabilized zoom. Going to a prime with better handling erganomics is probably worth and additional stop. When you get the added two stops from the fater prime f stop you are right back up to 3 f stops - more benefit than is typically available from the in camera IS and comprable to in lens stabilization. Of cours a wall or railing is also often available, which can help in either case.
RJJR wrote:
Could be because it's f1.2 and they may not have been able to do that with the IS elements.
Besides, if you're shooting at 1/15th with a f1.2 lens maybe it's time to bump up the ISO or turn on a light.
At 50mm (I only have the 1.4) at 1/15th I find that I'm typically limited more by poor autofocusing accuracy, inability to see the correct focus in the view finder and subject movement (and IS won't help with those) rather than camera shake, but if I'm shooting that dark I'll almost always have my elbows firmly planted on an immovable object.
Nobody has convinced me that in camera IS is a good idea on the higher end bodies. I still think lots of serious photographers would prefer higher ISO performance and faster glass. Technology for technologies sake is not always a great thing, especially if it is going to decrease reliability.
>>Besides, if you're shooting at 1/15th with a f1.2 lens maybe it's time to bump up the ISO or turn on a light.
well... first off, f1.2 isn't always what you want because of the DOF and you may already be there at ISO... you can actually get there pretty quickly in available light situations (where flash and added lights are not an option).
mh2000 wrote:
>>Besides, if you're shooting at 1/15th with a f1.2 lens maybe it's time to bump up the ISO or turn on a light.
well... first off, f1.2 isn't always what you want because of the DOF and you may already be there at ISO... you can actually get there pretty quickly in available light situations (where flash and added lights are not an option).
No kidding.
You're the one that mentioned the 50L which is a 1.2 lens. I rarely shoot in the dark or go wider than f4.
If someone really needs in-camera IS in an SLR they're already available.
JeffBowser wrote:
I think, fundamentally, whether they realize it or not, a lot of folks don't want to see something newer or better than they have come out. It's a near fatal shot to their ego until they can go get one themselves. Ergo, a lot of rabid opinions against Canon adding (name that technology) to (name that camera line)
Jeff I think you are on to something here. If Canon does come out with an in-body IS most of the posts will say how great in-body IS is.
Lens based IS is great for telephotos lens, no body is debating that point. But what about wide angle and normal lens. I don't see Canon making a 24/1.4 IS and a 35/1.4 IS anytime soon. Whoever said IS is not useful with wideangle or normal lens should shoot more indoor where flash is either not allowed (museums) or desireable. And why does everyone keep making comments implying that good high ISO performance is impossible with in-body IS. You know it is possible to have both. Oh wait, I remember why. You have to justify everything Canon does in case your ego takes a beating.
Why don't I just switch systems like some people suggested? Well I have too much money tied up in Canon glass. Tripod? How would you like to carry a tripod everywhere you think you might run into a photo opportunity.
I mentioned the 50L because it was brand new and didn't come with IS which hints to me that Canon isn't serious about offering IS in all its new lenses. Also, at 50mm I rarely shoot wider than f2.2, but since I don't particularly like the other 50's I would still consider a 50L (after they work through the issues with focus) just for overall improved IQ... I would have been happy enough had they come out with an $700 50/2L that could take on Leica and Zeiss.
mark
>>No kidding.
You're the one that mentioned the 50L which is a 1.2 lens. I rarely shoot in the dark or go wider than f4.
If someone really needs in-camera IS in an SLR they're already available.
>>
I don't even understand what the big deal is with IS in the first place. I use it when I am in between set ups,and an opportunity arises or when the camera is off the tripod briefly. Bring a tripod!
Everyone likes Newer, Faster, Better - - Once it happens.
There were likely some detractors when lens IS came out to begin with -
purists who denied a need, and didn't want their equipment "bastardized."
When Canon is good and ready In-Body IS will make its appearance, like
it or not. In several lenses in their linup, for example the 300 F4 L, the option
to choose non-IS was completely removed. Personally I don't think the IQ of
this particular IS lens matched up, but Canon didn't much care. I was forced
to go to the used market to get a non-IS lens instead. Likely the same will
happen if we want the other newest technology that will be incorporated into
the next generation Mark IV XYZ - with In-Body IS. If you want the newest
technology, it will come with IS.
When Canon is good and ready they will likely phase out the 70-200 f2.8 non-IS, which some say is a dinosaur in todays lens evolution. And likely when they come out with a new 24-70 f2.8 IS, they will eventually phase out the non-IS model too.
Canon is going to do what benefits Canon, and we are going to go along for the ride. Just look at all the dabate between a crop cam, full frame, and modified crop, etc to see that we are all influenced; that to a certain extent we are all just sheeple. In reality they are all very good bodies, yet some would deny this fact - - Welcome To Corporate America. Not to say there is anything wrong with that; its a little tough on the 'ol ego at first realizing that we regularly in our everyday life are frequently heard to bleat baah, baah.
It's just a fact of life and a reality that Newer, Faster, Better is just a matter of time - and Canon will decide when .
I want my sensor to act like film, and hold very still.
I don't want it to shake or shimmy, or vibrate to dislodge dust.
I don't want it to wobble around to stabilize images.
I want it solidly affixed to my camera body.
When I want IS, I want it built into the lens, customized to that particular lenses attributes.
Tool Tucker wrote:
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.
Personally, I would value a major improvement in AF, a much better viewfinder, auto shifting ISO and a lower noise sensor over IS built into the camera.
The ability of my 20D to handle noise already gives me 1 full stop over the Sony and the Pentax body.
mh2000 wrote:
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!!!
The manual focus lens might work on an IS body so long as they aren't zooms. If the lens fails to report the focal length, the sensor will not know the correct distance to move to correct.
.