About 4 people I know with a 70-200 f/2.8 IS (including me) has had problems with the IS. The camera would randomly shut off in certain modes or when shooting vertical due to a busted IS motor. I would hate to have IS directly built into a body. Sending a lens off to get repaired is better than sending in your body to get repaired when you have deadlines to meet and can't risk losing your main rig.
Parker_Dawson wrote:
About 4 people I know with a 70-200 f/2.8 IS (including me) has had problems with the IS. The camera would randomly shut off in certain modes or when shooting vertical due to a busted IS motor. I would hate to have IS directly built into a body. Sending a lens off to get repaired is better than sending in your body to get repaired when you have deadlines to meet and can't risk losing your main rig.
Many things can fail on a camera. You can point to nothing showing that in-body IS has appreciably increased the failure rate of any camera-- it is reliable.
The actuators used to vibrate the sensor are so simple they are not prone to frequent failure, and the camera can work with IS shut off.
It's defintely a mistake to think that in-body IS would fail as often as in-lens IS, which must move a large mass at high speed. In addition your anecdote shows that you and your friends are extremely unlucky; even in-lens IS doesn't fail often. You should play the lottery.
It's interesting that we no longer hear the old overdone "arguments" about how in-body IS is impossible. I don't know why we still hear "arguments" based on a nonexistent, supposed failure rate.
Nikon 70-200 F2.8 VR $1630
Canon 70-200 F2.8 IS $1550
Sony 70-200 F2.8 $1700
hmmm...how come sony's lens without IS/VR is more expensive than Nikon and Canon's? Same aperture, same focal length, but without VR/IS.
If you only purchase 3rd party lens, then body IS is a good function to you. If not, it is very useless because most Canon and Nikon's lens come with IS/VR. Beside you arent paying extra money for IS/VR. Moreover, you can get discount when you purchase non IS/VR lens from Canon/Nikon.
hmmm...how come sony's lens without IS/VR is more expensive than Nikon and Canon's? Same aperture, same focal length, but without VR/IS.
I'm going to take a stab at this... because the different companies have different cost and price models for their different products?
If you only purchase 3rd party lens, then body IS is a good function to you. If not, it is very useless because most Canon and Nikon's lens come with IS/VR.
Wrong.
Beside you arent paying extra money for IS/VR. Moreover, you can get discount when you purchase non IS/VR lens from Canon/Nikon.
You're not getting a discount when you buy a non-IS lens. You're getting the shaft when you pay hundreds more for a similar lens with IS added.
There's nothing saying that a camera maker has to include a certain feature in all its bodies. In any event it would be cheaper to put IS in the body than in every lens for people who have more lenses than bodies, and their lenses might last longer.
I'd agree with this. I have 6 lenses and not a single one with IS, and just because the new models are coming out with IS in the EF-S series doesn't mean that everyone is going to go out and buy the new lens. Don't people always say that you invest in glass and change the body? So why would you change all the glass to upgrade to the new IS versions. Sure if I was buying a new lens I would go with the IS version but I still want to use my 'old' glass that doesn't have IS.
I'd be happy to have the in-body IS in the entry level DSLR and if it proves to work well maybe Canon/Nikon would move it up to the pro cameras.
hmmm...how come sony's lens without IS/VR is more expensive than Nikon and Canon's? Same aperture, same focal length, but without VR/IS.
I'm going to take a stab at this... because the different companies have different cost and price models for their different products?
so do you want to pay extra for the same product? is sony 70-200 a lot better than Canon or Nikon's? is its focus faster than Canon and Nikon's? lol i guess not.
Canon, Nikon and Sony makes different products but they do the same job, especially for 70-200 lens. It's same as AMD and Intel makes different CPU, but they all do the same job. why do you want to pay a CPU at a higher price without better performance.
however, the reason that sony's users still buy its 70-200 lens because lens is a monopoly business in each dslr system.
If you only purchase 3rd party lens, then body IS is a good function to you. If not, it is very useless because most Canon and Nikon's lens come with IS/VR.
Wrong.
Of course, not all of canon and nikon's lens have IS/VR, but why do you need IS/VR on wide angle and normal lens. well i know it's a good option, but it's not a essential function rite.
Beside you arent paying extra money for IS/VR. Moreover, you can get discount when you purchase non IS/VR lens from Canon/Nikon.
You're not getting a discount when you buy a non-IS lens. You're getting the shaft when you pay hundreds more for a similar lens with IS added.
There's nothing saying that a camera maker has to include a certain feature in all its bodies. In any event it would be cheaper to put IS in the body than in every lens for people who have more lenses than bodies, and their lenses might last longer.
At least, Canon gives you choices. you can purchase a non IS lens which have same performance as sony's 70-200 lens, but at cheaper price. After all, not everyone need IS/VR, and Canon is not forced everyone to purchase this function.
My point is you wouldnt spending less with body IS if you are a Canon L lens users. If Canon have lS on its camera body but they sell lens at sony's price model, I would rather to have the current situation that Canon not adapts IS on its camera.
I always recommend my friends olympus or sony's dslr system if they only want to spend $1-2 thousand dollar on a dslr system. yes in that case, body IS do save you some $.
however, if you are going to spend ten thousand dollar or more on a dslr system, then Canon and Nikon is always the better choice here, and in this case, body IS is not a big deal here.
oajlu wrote:
so do you want to pay extra for the same product? is sony 70-200 a lot better than Canon or Nikon's? is its focus faster than Canon and Nikon's? lol i guess not. ... [etc. etc.]
I am not detecting an argument against in-body IS here.
oajlu wrote:
Of course, not all of canon and nikon's lens have IS/VR, but why do you need IS/VR on wide angle and normal lens. well i know it's a good option, but it's not a essential function rite.
Sure, just like in-lens IS is a good option, but not essential. Neither is AF, really. As a matter of fact, to capture an image you really only need a pinhole lens, right?
oajlu wrote:
At least, Canon gives you choices.
... and the choice I want is in-body IS. You fail to consider that Sony stabilizes, for example, its 85mm f/1.4. Believe me-- ask any Sony shooter whether he feels that he was "forced" into the option to have stabilized fast primes, and he will say "no".
oajlu wrote:
however, if you are going to spend ten thousand dollar or more on a dslr system, then Canon and Nikon is always the better choice here
Only until Sony catches up, which will happen. That's just a statement that Canon and Nikon are market leaders. They have bigger lens systems, yadda yadda yadda. This is not an argument against the merits of in-body IS. You are in essence saying "In-body IS is not desirable because the market leaders don't choose to offer it to us."
I wouldn't like it. One added benefit of IS/VR is a steady image in the viewfinder. I can use that to judge whether the shot will come out. With in-camera, that's not possible.
jvarszegi wrote:
You do realize the bulk of lenses out there are EF lenses, yes?
And? Are you trying to say that in-body IS is a worthless feature if it doesn't provide four stops of stabilization?
Count off to yourself all the fast primes under 200mm that have stabilization, then report back.
I shoot a 5D so yes I'm aware of the EF lineup. I'm also aware that the bread and butter of the SLR market is the entry level. That's where the money is regardless of how much the pro bodies cost. Having said that, the all the entry camera outfits for sale are coming with IS lenses and EF-S lineup has several entry level priced lenses all with IS.
One reason for the lack of IS at the lower focal range is that if you follow the 1/focal length rule, it's less important. What are you going to take a picture of with a 24mm 1.8 lens that would require IS?
It's in Canon's best interest to get the main part of their market share going with IS before they deal with 2 or 3 primes. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to realize that they will sell more 18-200 EF-S IS lenses in one week than they will a 135 f/2 L with IS no matter how cool that lens would be. I'd rather have a fast prime with excellent performance wide open than IS. I know I'm not alone here on that one.
Yes, in body IS is worthless to me if I can get a better IS from the lens YRMV.
The beauty of this market is that no-one is shoving a Canon to your eye. If you want in body IS then get another camera. The majority of Canon users are plenty happy with the IS where it is.
By the way, there are some 3rd party IS lenses out here. I'm toying around with the Tamron 28-300VR lens. It's a nice lens if I'm not bringing the bag with me. There are others and I'm sure there will be more to come.
I'd like to see some typical examples of how IS impacts the pictures on settings like an 1/50th second exposure (handheld obviously), and then comparing the canon 70-200 2.8 IS with it's in lens IS compared to the Sony, both at 150mm or something.
I've often read that in-lens IS works better (makes sense to me from a physical point of view), but that doesn't mean in-body IS doesn't work at all. The 2 don't have to exclude eachother. Simply disable in-body IS when you connect a lens with the IS, or maybe even let the two systems work together.
Eitherway, none of my lenses have IS, so I wouldn't mind in-camera IS as long as it's an improvement over no IS at all, and as long as it doesn't exclude you from using lenses with (better) IS.
Esquire08 wrote:
I wouldn't like it. One added benefit of IS/VR is a steady image in the viewfinder. I can use that to judge whether the shot will come out. With in-camera, that's not possible.
Two minor disagreements. First, the steady viewfinder is only important at longer focal lengths; sports and wildlife shooters will of course continue to prefer and use the already-excellent IS in the super telephotos. Second, in-body IS does at least stabilize the view in LiveView, which will be an added benefit to many macro shooters and others who like that feature.
Looking at the lens lineup in your profile, I don't think you're seeing a huge benefit from a stabilized view from your 70-200L. I know this because I use a non-stabilized version and it works just fine handheld at 200mm, no issues tracking at all, and I have only average-steady hands.
In addition, I peg you as a people shooter because of the lenses in your profile. You really wouldn't want a stabilized 24-70L, or 50 f/1.4? Really? My experience shooting with cropped cameras is that even at 50mm 1/80s handheld, I get some shots ruined due to camera shake during the heat and excitement of an event, and I am probably better than many people at holding still (you may of course be much better).
How about a stabilized 17-40L-- wouldn't that increase your ability to handhold that lens in varying conditions? If you shoot landscapes, the answer will be "no" because you are probably using a tripod. If you shoot city handheld, the answer should be "yes".
Eric Gottesman wrote:
... I'm also aware that the bread and butter of the SLR market is the entry level. That's where the money is regardless of how much the pro bodies cost.
I am sure many pro shooters would appreciate stabilized fast primes. In fact, they would appreciate them more than the "bread and butter" low end crowd, at whom the cheap stabilized lenses are aimed. That's the same pro crowd that buys bodies for better AF and other features that don't sell to the masses.
Eric Gottesman wrote:
One reason for the lack of IS at the lower focal range is that if you follow the 1/focal length rule, it's less important. What are you going to take a picture of with a 24mm 1.8 lens that would require IS?
You're right about this, the value does diminish with focal length, although it doesn't go away. Some thoughts on your question are wide-angle handheld shots at events (subject movement diminishes in importance with subject size), interior shots where a tripod cannot be used, handheld city shots, etc. Of greater use, of course, would be a stabilized 135L, etc. for people shooters.
Eric Gottesman wrote:
It's in Canon's best interest to get the main part of their market share going with IS before they deal with 2 or 3 primes.
I think this is a failed argument. Canon could have gotten all of their market share going with IS by releasing in-body IS on every camera. They could have cheaply included it in the low-end bodies and effectively stuffed Sony, and gained an easy-to-achieve advantage over Nikon. As it is, Nikon will probably introduce this inevitable progression first.
Eric Gottesman wrote:
You don't have to be a rocket scientist to realize that they will sell more 18-200 EF-S IS lenses in one week than they will a 135 f/2 L with IS no matter how cool that lens would be.
Maybe they should just can the pro lens lineup, eh?
Eric Gottesman wrote:
I'd rather have a fast prime with excellent performance wide open than IS. I know I'm not alone here on that one.
Nobody's prying your fast primes out of your hand. I'm saying that I would like mine to be stabilized.
You're failing to get that nobody wants in-lens IS to go away. Now tell me, if you had the option to stabilize your 135L and other primes for very little money, but for only about two stops, you would turn it down? That's the rough value proposition.
Eric Gottesman wrote:
Yes, in body IS is worthless to me if I can get a better IS from the lens YRMV.
Okay, so it is not necessarily worthless to you then. Thank you for admitting this. You cannot get better IS from lenses like the 135L, 85mm f/1.8, etc.
Eric Gottesman wrote:
The beauty of this market is that no-one is shoving a Canon to your eye. If you want in body IS then get another camera. The majority of Canon users are plenty happy with the IS where it is.
Your last fallback: telling me to go to another brand when logic fails. I'll pass; thanks for the offer, though. The beauty of the Internet is that people can discuss things in a polite way on discussion boards. If you don't like it, the beauty of the situation is that you can shut off your computer, go outside and take some pictures.
Do you have some market research to point to, or are you just assuming that the feature wouldn't sell because it's a self-serving statement?
It's clear to me that no amount of rational discussion will change your mind, which is fine. I am bookmarking this thread so that when Canon does introduce in-body IS, we can analyze the issue again.
To be completely honest, if Canon offered an in-body IS to the 5D II (or similar) that gave me 2 stops worth and would turn off when an IS lens is detected (or worked together), my ears would be up. I have a feeling that the price for this in addition to all the other features it has would make an already expensive camera even more so.
I'm sure it's possible, but I have a gut instinct that Canon will not go this route (coming out with more and more IS zooms) and based on my priorities and some others that have chimed in here it won't be missed. That is not to say I would turn down a perfectly functioning in-camera IS that didn't add another $1000 to the body. I'm not irrational;-)
Eric Gottesman wrote:
To be completely honest, if Canon offered an in-body IS to the 5D II (or similar) that gave me 2 stops worth and would turn off when an IS lens is detected (or worked together), my ears would be up. I have a feeling that the price for this in addition to all the other features it has would make an already expensive camera even more so.
I'm sure it's possible, but I have a gut instinct that Canon will not go this route (coming out with more and more IS zooms) and based on my priorities and some others that have chimed in here it won't be missed. That is not to say I would turn down a perfectly functioning in-camera IS that didn't add another $1000 to the body. I'm not irrational;-)
Maybe that's how it will be. History certainly supports your view. Here's hoping you do get a cheap option to add stabilization to all your lenses one day, no matter how it's achieved.
