Tool Tucker wrote:
We now know it's possible to build some degree of IS into the camera, and we all know it's something we want.
No, I don't particularly want sensor-based IS at this point. Canon would have to redesign may lenses to increase the circle of coverage or images may need to be cropped to compensate for the shift. Not only is the framing inaccurate, but the shaky view is annoying compared to having an IS lens. If anything, Canon should continue to build more IS lenses.
EB
Edited by EB-1 on Apr 17, 2007 at 09:25 PM GMT (Reason: typo)
A few things to contemplate when wishing for Canon to produce in-body IS.
1) EF-S 17-55 IS - Canon would not be producing this lens with IS if they had any intention of selling an entry level body with IS built in. This lens already has a tough time competing against the 17-40L and Tamron's 17-50... just think if those had IS added via body!
If Canon were to release a body with IS, all future sales for the 17-55 would be jeopardized. They invested a lot of money to create this lens and bring it to market. I highly doubt they did this knowing that it would have a 1.5-2 year product life cycle
2) The future is Full Frame and In-Body won't cut it on Full Frame. Why? Heck, look at all of the threads complaining about light fall off on these bodies. If you add IS to that sensor the issue will only get worse.
3) EF-S lenses (And Digital Only lenses as a whole). Ever take the time to think that Canon and others are specifically designing a lens around a smaller sensor? Now you've got the same issue on a crop sensor as you would have with a standard lens on a FF body. Not enough image circle to go around moving the sensor.
I guess one must ask theirself one question - "do I want mediocre IS or good IS?" The answer to that will dictate whether one goes with in-body (mediocre) or lens-based (good) image stabilization.
In-body IS is a nice gimmic, and it's better than nothing when the need arises, but it's vastly inferior to lens-based systems, especially on long lenses where IS is the most useful.
I cannot see why we can't have both types of IS. It doesn't matter that in-lens IS is better and I hope they release even more, but many lenses will never get IS and having IS in the body is most welcome IMO. I like to use say a 50 f/1.4 in low light, but I don't want to always be wide open, being able to use f/4 rather than f/2 or ISO 800 rather than ISO 3200 would be great sometimes. And many places you can't use tripods.
As others have said, make the camera turn inbuilt IS off when an IS lens is attached.
Of course when Canon do offer it and market forces will dictate they do in time, every nay-sayer will be telling us what a brilliant idea it is.
Of course when Canon do offer it and market forces will dictate they do in time, every nay-sayer will be telling us what a brilliant idea it is.
You can count on that. I view in camera IS like the built in flash on my 20D. Yes, it is not as good as a 580ex, but then again, it is always with me and I can use it in a pinch.
Nothing to say that new technology will not dramatically alter the way IS can be applied In-Body. Everyone who states there is a limitation to it I would say yes, today, but, tomorrow is definitely another day .
And, lest we forget, tomorrow may have already happened in the lab...
Who among us would not like to know that we are getting the best possible IQ from each and every "click?"
If In-Body IS helped to accomplish that, who would be the naysayers then
Dan Martin wrote:
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.
Thank you. This point was made months ago in the PMA preview thread when people wanted or didn't want IC (In Camera image stabilizer as one FMer called).
I said then and I'll say it now: with the small size of the sensor on a ASP-C camera, Canon would have to make a bigger one in order shift the sensor in a meaningful way. One more thing to break.
How can it be a bad thing if Canon incorporates in-body IS into their cameras... with the option of turning it off (or a sensor that disables it when your IS lens is attached)? I know I'd much rather have that than the little printer button that's on my XTi right now.
In-body IS does not mean no more in-lens IS. The argument that in-lens IS is better is moot... because you can have both. Size and cost shouldn't be a factor either... Sony did it with their Alphas.
Anyhow, no matter what we say... it's most likely that Canon will have in-body IS very soon. Possibly on the upcoming 40D.
>>I guess one must ask theirself one question - "do I want mediocre IS or good IS?"
again, why is it one or the other? Of my lenses, only one has recently been introduced with IS, so it is mediocre IS or NO IS... at least for the forseable future.
RJJR wrote:
I kind of like my "In-body IS doesn't stabilize the image in the viewfinder." reason.
Understood. You can like it, but it's not a good argument. A non-stabilized viewfinder doesn't cause problems shooting with shorter lengths, like 85mm and 135mm. Next!
MY reading is that the Pentax SR works with all M42 manual focus lenses (including zooms), not just ones that report to the camera. The camera also retains focus confirmation and better metering than Canon (which seems to be purposely crippled).
Stunnaz wrote:
How can it be a bad thing if Canon incorporates in-body IS into their cameras... with the option of turning it off (or a sensor that disables it when your IS lens is attached)? I know I'd much rather have that than the little printer button that's on my XTi right now.
In-body IS does not mean no more in-lens IS. The argument that in-lens IS is better is moot... because you can have both. Size and cost shouldn't be a factor either... Sony did it with their Alphas.
Anyhow, no matter what we say... it's most likely that Canon will have in-body IS very soon. Possibly on the upcoming 40D. ...Show more →
It is one more thing to build, buy, break, and fix (and warranty).
Canon's east coast rep told me that it's canon's policy to release new tech in the consumer bodies - the reason being that more are in use than teh upper models, so they can see what problems arise much sooner and make any adjustments needed. The first IS lens was a conumer lens, and the dust shaker was in a consumer body first.
so any in-body IS will be in a consumer body first.
Yes, you can have both. But as others have stated, if you're Canon there is no reason to put it in the body. You're leading the market (46% or so market share) - sony has like 6% and oly/pentax/samsung/etc share the remaining 13% (nikon has 35%). The little guys have an incentive to be different in hopes of selling cameras - offering something that the consumers may want. I thoguht the sony alpha had all kinds of neat features...but the image results don't measure up from all I've read.
Canon is of the opinion IS belongs in the lens - they keep brining out more lenses with IS. It'd probably be cheaper to put IS in the bodies - lots less parts and engineering.
Consumers keep buying canon over the competetion. So I guess perhaps they're right
I appreciate IS. My next lens will be the 70-200 2.8 IS. I DON'T want it in the body though. I use a flash too - but i don't want some honkin big 580 built into the body, even thought it could be done.
If you think Canon puts its priorities on its professional cameras you're definitely wrong. Over 80% of SLR sales are $1,000 and under, and this is the segment that Sony is going after. This is where the money is, and first-time/newbie DSLR owners are the most important (obviously... because DSLR owners have to stick with the same brand for future lens upgrades/accessories... where the BIG money is).
Canon is definitely very worried about Sony, and likely a lot more worried about Sony than Nikon. Sony is #2 in point-and-shoots, and that has great influence on 1st time DSLR buyers. People used to using Sony point-and-shoots may upgrade to a Sony SLR.
My point is... it is extremely, EXTREMELY likely that Canon will come out with in-body image stabilization soon.
While I am usually not a naysayer in general...I just don't see IS going into a consumer body, when IS is going into their consumer lenses. The real tell tale will be if it actually shows up in the basic kit lens soon or not. A plastic mount 18-55IS lens would probably be the most definitive step they could take against body IS.
An investment is bought to make money. Holding it's value is still losing money.
Investments have two parts: capital gain/loss, and income.
If you're using your lens to take photos to generate income, and that's creating more income than you;re losing in depreciation, then you are going to make money even if the lens falls in value.
Grant808 wrote:
While I am usually not a naysayer in general...I just don't see IS going into a consumer body, when IS is going into their consumer lenses. The real tell tale will be if it actually shows up in the basic kit lens soon or not. A plastic mount 18-55IS lens would probably be the most definitive step they could take against body IS.
A plastic mount 18-55IS lens would probably be the most definitive step they could take against body IS.
What you state above is not based on marketing reality.
First and foremost you are talking about one lens only.
They could easily put IS into the 18-55 lens to pump sales,
which would have absolutely nothing to do with their plans to
introduce IS into a lower end or higher end camera body. These
two contingencies have nothing to do with each other, and do not
correlate at all.
In-Body IS is all but a certainty - it's already being done by the
competition, so at this point it's about making a better mousetrap.
When and at what entry level Canon decides to take it out of the lab
and into the marketplace to sell to joe consumer, however, is anyones
guess. Canon makes the rules .
.
.