Stunnaz wrote:
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).
If Sony only focuses on the bottom segment they will surely loose. As you state correctly that lens upgrades etc. is where the big money is, people will tend to look for Canon or Nikon because they have a full fledged upgrade path, not only in lenses but in cameras too. So your 'investment' is better protected by not choosing Sony. That's why it is very important for Canon to invest in the (semi-)pro gear, which they seem to understand pretty well, looking at the 1D MkIII. So if you think Canon puts its priorities on its consumer cameras...
As for in-body IS, I'm not looking for it. Then again, I'm not against it either IF it doesn't degrade image quality and as long as I can switch it off. I put far more trust in the in-lens systems of my 70-200 and 100-400. to sum it up: in-body IS is not on my wish list for my future cameras.
Edited by Emile Gregoire on Apr 21, 2007 at 01:38 PM GMT (Reason: typo - typed Sony where I meant Nikon)
Emile Gregoire wrote:
If Sony only focuses on the bottom segment they will surely loose. As you state correctly that lens upgrades etc. is where the big money is, people will tend to look for Canon or Sony because they have a full fledged upgrade path, not only in lenses but in cameras too. So your 'investment' is better protected by not choosing Sony. That's why it is very important for Canon to invest in the (semi-)pro gear, which they seem to understand pretty well, looking at the 1D MkIII. So if you think Canon puts its priorities on its consumer cameras...
As for in-body IS, I'm not looking for it. Then again, I'm not against it either IF it doesn't degrade image quality and as long as I can switch it off. I put far more trust in the in-lens systems of my 70-200 and 100-400. to sum it up: in-body IS is not on my wish list for my future cameras....Show more →
I don't think either Canon or Sony will "lose"... it will be a fight for market share. Canon has a huge lead, but it's obvious that Sony is in the process of catching up, judging from the success of the Alpha so far.
Although some people will look at upgrade path as a reason to purchase their new DSLR, some will not. Many reasons contribute to why people choose their first SLR, upgrade path may be one reason and image stabilization may be another. Regardless, Sony is in the process of adding cameras to their line, so they should have at least 1 or 2 pro cameras in the next year or two.
Over 80% of DSLR is under $1,000 is a statistic that Canon or any other manufacture will not ignore though. I understand your point, that if Canon focuses on the 20% of the prosumer cameras, then that would give consumers another reason to choose Canon... but the focus is still on the 80% market though, that's where the money is.
Image Stabilization... and let me add another function, Live View... will both make it to all of Canon's cameras.
jvarszegi wrote:
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!
Also, I find the stabilized veiwfinder image to be very helpful for manual focusing. I don't completely trust AF. Still, not an argument per se, but a very useful by-product of in-lens IS.
Emile Gregoire wrote:
If Sony only focuses on the bottom segment they will surely loose. As you state correctly that lens upgrades etc. is where the big money is, people will tend to look for Canon or Sony because they have a full fledged upgrade path, not only in lenses but in cameras too. So your 'investment' is better protected by not choosing Sony. That's why it is very important for Canon to invest in the (semi-)pro gear, which they seem to understand pretty well, looking at the 1D MkIII. So if you think Canon puts its priorities on its consumer cameras...
As for in-body IS, I'm not looking for it. Then again, I'm not against it either IF it doesn't degrade image quality and as long as I can switch it off. I put far more trust in the in-lens systems of my 70-200 and 100-400. to sum it up: in-body IS is not on my wish list for my future cameras....Show more →
Sony has 2 new cameras coming which sit above the A100. Don't worry they'll have 30D, D80 and D200, K10D competitors and I bet within 2 years they have a FF 5D competitor if they succeed with the other cameras.
RJJR wrote:
Also, I find the stabilized veiwfinder image to be very helpful for manual focusing. I don't completely trust AF. Still, not an argument per se, but a very useful by-product of in-lens IS.
This is still not an argument against in-body IS-- it's an argument for in-lens IS, no? I want in-body IS so I can use it with lenses like the 85L and 135L for low-light handheld people shots.
A. It is technically feasible to have both BIS (Body based IS) and LIS (Lens based IS) working together.
1. Despite asking, I have never heard a good explanation why it is not possible.
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.
Unless Canon either increases the projected image circle of it's EF-S lenses or makes a smaller crop, then in-body IS is dead - the movement of the sensor, even 1 mm, will result in at least optical vignetting (light falloff) in whatever corner the sensor has moved to, and could result in hard vignetting as the hard edge of the lenses' tube or hood blocks incoming light. I doubt that Canon will revamp it's lens lineup for a gimmic. (Note: the same applies to EF lenses on full-frame, a constraint that all full-frame manufacturers will have to deal with)
It'll be much better for them to present a relatively low-priced IS kit lens (which will provide better performance than in-body IS anyway). It will be more effective, and will not present an enormous expense. The profit margin on IS for consumer glass will be smaller, but the customer will continue to get superior performance.
Sony has only just dipped its toe into the DSLR water and released in-body IS upon debut. I'm yet to see any criticism or complaints for them doing so.
It knows goodwill works both ways with cameras. A good reputation at the top-end brings business to the bottom end - look at Nikon - and a good experience at the P&S end will bring customers into their DSLRs.
I predict Sony will make a more serious play at the 30D/D200 market share and end up leading the entire Digicam market within 2 years. Those in the know will stick with their Canon and Nikon, but digital photography is a big consumer market now, and gearhounds are not the bread and butter.
Just a consideration: I'm going to receive my 1DmkIII next month and it will have BIS capable of one more stop at least!
I'm not crazy, I'm talking of the new sensibility perfomances offering us 3200 ISO as standard and 6400 as High ISO.
Doesn't this show us that Canon is moving toward an overall upgrade of sensors perfomances instead that adding new mechanical (and breakable) parts to Pro bodies?
As many others wrote, I too woud like to have BIS and LIS for when I need them but, IMHO, the path is more toward better sensors, better coupling materials, better amplification, better algorithms or, in few word toward better electronics than mechanics.
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.
mirages wrote:
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 . ...Show more →
It has *everything* to do with marketing. Why would you market and claim (in the little video clips and ads) that in-lens IS is superior, put it in everything from superteles to consumer wide-normal-short tele zooms (like 17-85 and 28-135)...then jump on the body IS bandwagon? If the kit lens gets made with IS, they will be proving that they are 'sticking to their guns' and we would not likely see a body IS camera from Canon any time soon.
And for the other comment about live preview...it's already in the 1DIII, so it *is* coming to other Canon DSLRs in the future.
mh2000 wrote:
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).
You may want to check this. Yes the Pentax can work with such lenses, but you must imput the focal length manually. In the case of the zoom, you must keep the zoom at the length you input in order for the sensor to shift in alignment with the image circle.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
the A100. Don't worry they'll have 30D, D80 and D200, K10D competitors and I bet within 2 years they have a FF 5D competitor if they succeed with the other cameras.
Do you also believe that this FF competitor will have in-body IS? What KM lens had a large enough image circle to work well with a sensor that shifts out of the center?
Tool Tucker wrote:
I predict Sony will make a more serious play at the 30D/D200 market share and end up leading the entire Digicam market within 2 years. Those in the know will stick with their Canon and Nikon, but digital photography is a big consumer market now, and gearhounds are not the bread and butter.
Digital photography as a whole is primarily a consumer market. However as with most markets, as price increases consumer research prior to purchase also increases.
Blind consumerism may be rampant in the $100-400 market for P&S cameras and even in the $600-700 range of entry level dslr's, but once you hit the midrange and prosumer level of DSLR the majority of people do some background research before they ever buy. Brand favoritism spawned from previous product ownership no longer reigns at this point.
Unless buyers are doing their research by reading Pop Photo, odds are they will move to Nikon or Canon.
Grant808 wrote:
It has *everything* to do with marketing. Why would you market and claim (in the little video clips and ads) that in-lens IS is superior, put it in everything from superteles to consumer wide-normal-short tele zooms (like 17-85 and 28-135)...then jump on the body IS bandwagon? If the kit lens gets made with IS, they will be proving that they are 'sticking to their guns' and we would not likely see a body IS camera from Canon any time soon.
The "Bandwagon" you are alluding to is nothing more than a fixed image you in particular have in your mind about how something is or should be. Someone who is knowledgeable about marketing would not be so foolish as to believe that Canon was not hard at work in their lab with In-Body IS. They did not become the innovation market leader for no reason.
Canon does not play by anyone else's illusions or self-imposed strict constructionist image of the marketplace. As I stated before, Canon is the 800 pound gorilla, and Canon alone makes the rules .
Grant808 wrote:
It has *everything* to do with marketing. Why would you market and claim (in the little video clips and ads) that in-lens IS is superior, put it in everything from superteles to consumer wide-normal-short tele zooms (like 17-85 and 28-135)...then jump on the body IS bandwagon? If the kit lens gets made with IS, they will be proving that they are 'sticking to their guns' and we would not likely see a body IS camera from Canon any time soon.
mirages wrote:
The "Bandwagon" you are alluding to is nothing more than a fixed image you in particular have in your mind about how something is or should be. Someone who is knowledgeable about marketing would not be so foolish as to believe that Canon was not hard at work in their lab with In-Body IS. They did not become the innovation market leader for no reason.
Canon does not play by anyone else's illusions or self-imposed strict constructionist image of the marketplace. As I stated before, Canon is the 800 pound gorilla, and Canon alone makes the rules .
No, the 'bandwagon' in my reference are the newcomers using the body IS gimmick to carve their puny market niche. Are we not speaking the same language? Canon doesn't need or want body IS because they are the 800 pound gorilla.
Grant808 wrote:
No, the 'bandwagon' in my reference are the newcomers using the body IS gimmick to carve their puny market niche. Are we not speaking the same language? Canon doesn't need or want body IS because they are the 800 pound gorilla.
So YOU think...
And, if Microsoft thought like you do, we would all still be using Windows '95.
Hey guys -- I like the new format of this dpReview forum . . looks like Fred Miranda!
Can't believe I've read every post in this thread
mirages wrote:
So YOU think...
And, if Microsoft thought like you do, we would all still be using Windows '95.
The problem is
1. Lens IS is better than BIS. Windows 95 is BIS.
2. For BIS -- the SENSOR MUST MOVE. And that puts it out of the image circle. Of course pentax M42 lenses work on the BIS system . . . the image circle is huge in comparison to the sensor. Won't work on FF without re-desigining the entire lens lineup -- efs lenses won't work on the cropped bodies (unless they have a been designed secretly for it). It will work on a crop sensor with full-frame lenses, but I doubt canon will go that route. The only candidate is the 1.3 crop cameras, not an entry level arena.
3 . For marketing . . .Image Stabilization . . Canon has it. Just needs to introduce a few more kit lenses, and then can market how their system is superior to the competition.
PS. If the 5d update has FF stabilization in the body . . . I'll buy one for everybody who has posted here. Two for Mirages . . . Kevin.
kevin2i wrote:
The problem is
1. Lens IS is better than BIS. Windows 95 is BIS.
2. For BIS -- the SENSOR MUST MOVE. And that puts it out of the image circle. Of course pentax M42 lenses work on the BIS system . . . the image circle is huge in comparison to the sensor. Won't work on FF without re-desigining the entire lens lineup -- efs lenses won't work on the cropped bodies (unless they have a been designed secretly for it). It will work on a crop sensor with full-frame lenses, but I doubt canon will go that route. The only candidate is the 1.3 crop cameras, not an entry level arena.
3 . For marketing . . .Image Stabilization . . Canon has it. Just needs to introduce a few more kit lenses, and then can market how their system is superior to the competition.
PS. If the 5d update has FF stabilization in the body . . . I'll buy one for everybody who has posted here. Two for Mirages . . . Kevin....Show more →
We all hope your wallet matches the size of your ego .
There is no problem. To say that Canon is restricted by their competitors current technology, or any we perceive today as necessarily so or must be defies the entire logic and premise of research. Why do you think Bell invested so much money into Bell Labs? Do you really believe Canon isn't doing the same? I'll let you spin off on this on your own - 'Nuff Said .
mirages wrote:
The "Bandwagon" you are alluding to is nothing more than a fixed image you in particular have in your mind about how something is or should be.
No, fixed sensor
Seriously, why is it that *you* think it's going into a Canon body again?
I've heard *very* logical reasons why it won't from many others...but just a couple of flimsy reasons that Canon *might*.
Because it degrades the camera to a lower level and creates another divide ~ listen in the days of film there were equalities in photography from the humble beginner to the arrogant professional.
In camera stabalisation, on it's own cannot offer a solution where it's needed most, and not as a gimmick, though Canon will almost certainly offer it, they have not ruled it out as evidenced by the many, many interviews by Canon personnel.
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.
. 