I think in-lens IS certainly has it's advantages for specific uses but I also find it ironic that before the Sony a900 came out, one of the major arguments against in-body IS in pro Canon and Nikon cameras was that it was not technically feasible in a FF body. There is a little egg on CanNikons face to wiped off here.
brainiac wrote:
Let me just clarify that I'm not saying I don't want ibis, just that I am realistic about what it achieves, and therefore for me, great high iso and bright lenses are far more important. I'm even a bit fed up with my awesomely sharp 24-105 because I find f4 constricting. I just don't shoot static subjects enough for IS to be much use to me. For others who shoot static scenes more, it will be more useful.
chez wrote:
Thats fine until you need f3.5 for the DOF required in the shot.
Or ISO 100 for clean images. I work in 3D imaging, and everything I shoot for work; textures, modeling reference, asset surveys, etc. has to be as low ISO as possible with as much DOF as possible.
In body IS and clean low ISO are imperative for me, sometimes. But we all have different priorities.
When Im shooting for myself, or an event, I have a whole different set of priorities...
There can be plenty of substitutes for f1.2 and ISO 12800 given the situation and priority, and assuming you arent Brainiac shooting a Britsh wedding in a cave .
But there is never ever a substitute for the right tool for the right job .
This thread is about the Sony A900, which has in-body IS. Then people in this forum make false statements about the justification for lens-based IS, for which I provided a logical counterargument. Now you're calling me a troll simply because you disagree but can't provide a coherent rebuttal.
Frankly, there are people with multiple systems around here. Nobody should be confined to a particular subforum on the basis of statements that are not confined to a single system, as is the case with image stabilization technology.
Oh, and by the way, Canon and Nikon are not the only manufacturers that use lens-based IS. Several Four Thirds lenses also have IS....Show more →
You have not given any kind of suitable counterargument as to why Canon hasn't included body-IS. No one here is saying that in-lens IS doesn't have advantages, although it seems like you are implying that everyone is against it. So why do you think Canon doesn't include it? It can't add all that much to the body price, if even the cheapest of APS-C cameras have it.
The lack of in-body IS is the primary reason I haven't bought into micro 4/3 yet. Olympus has it, but the af isn't great, so I'm waiting. The Panasonic with that great little 20mm f1.7 doesn't have the IS, so there isn't anything out there meeting my needs, yet. As someone who doesn't shoot a lens over 135mm, and shoots nearly all primes, in-body IS is far and away the more useful IS system. If I was a sport shooter with 600mm primes, it would be a different story. I would guess that the majority of shooters would benefit more from in-body IS vs. in-lens IS, but I don't see why we don't have both in order to cover all bases.
Jorge Torralba wrote:
and who says the A900 is ugly? Is is quite an elegant looking beast.
I did, when it came out, maybe just due to the different look of the pentaprism, but I have since come around... it is actually quite sleek, especially with the zeiss glass attached.
As far as body aesthetics go (of as insignificant importance as they are), I actually think it's the best looking SLR on the market, my other camera, a D700, being one of the ugliest (basically tied with all Nikon bodies ).
douglasf13 wrote:
As someone who doesn't shoot a lens over 135mm, and shoots nearly all primes, in-body IS is far and away the more useful IS system. If I was a sport shooter with 600mm primes, it would be a different story. I would guess that the majority of shooters would benefit more from in-body IS vs. in-lens IS, but I don't see why we don't have both in order to cover all bases.
++1 for me as well.
I like the B&W version Jorge. I think it really shows off the subte tonality and rendering of that particular lens.
+1. m4/3 bodies are perfect candidates for IBIS since they dont suffer from one of the major limitations of IBIS on tarditional SLRs i.e. the viewfinder satbilization. Thanks to the EVF the viewfinder will be stabilized even with sensor based IS. So it was rather surprising that panasonic chose not to include IS in the body
douglasf13 wrote:
The lack of in-body IS is the primary reason I haven't bought into micro 4/3 yet. Olympus has it, but the af isn't great, so I'm waiting. The Panasonic with that great little 20mm f1.7 doesn't have the IS, so there isn't anything out there meeting my needs, yet. As someone who doesn't shoot a lens over 135mm, and shoots nearly all primes, in-body IS is far and away the more useful IS system. If I was a sport shooter with 600mm primes, it would be a different story. I would guess that the majority of shooters would benefit more from in-body IS vs. in-lens IS, but I don't see why we don't have both in order to cover all bases.
I don't think that IS for wide angles is that necessary. I shot 1/10th second with my 21mm Zeiss f:2.8 wide open, and there is no motion blur, which means that, at ISO 3200, I can handle very, very dark churches. On my 180mm it is a totally different story, and I need a lot of light to get my speed up.
The effects of motion blur go down with focal length, no doubt. Just consider the old, hand-held, rule of thumb that suggested 1/focal length of lens as a min. shutter speed. With a 21mm, that's pretty slow! The counter argument is that as MP/resolution increase, such as on 20+MP cameras, any blur becomes more noticeable than it ever did on film. Thus, I still think it is very helpful in a high resolution camera such as the a900, even with wides.
I agree, Philber, that wide angles require IS less, although I think I can go slower than 1/10 with my 20mm prime. The big advantage is in the 35-100 prime range, and, of course, with alt glass.
p.s. not to mention the only zoom I use, a 24-70 2.8
I am not arguing against in-body stabilisation in itself. If I could get it for free, meaning for no money, no extra weight, no battery usage, no increase in complexity/potential problems, I would certainly not object...:-)
I hear you, although, to tell you the truth, SSS is important enough to me that I'd list it very high on my list of important features, with probably only ttl metering, A mode and MAYBE autofocus ranking above it.
Considering how much use my 24-105 gets b/c of its IS, I certainly would love to have whatever stabilization I'm given. Running around western European churches makes one appreciate 1/3 second exposures at 24mm quickly.
Even 1 stop of IS in a 28/2 would be fantastic.
The less tripod use I can get away with, the better, IMHO. Love mobility.
Perhaps the 5dIII will have it ;-) since I'll be probably ready for another camera by the end of its production cycle...ha.
This thread has convinced me to put my 24-105 on B+S. It's a superb lens, very sharp and exemplary general optics only made better by DPP's lens corrections. I'm selling because of f4. It's that simple. For some, the only standard zoom with IS is a no brainer. For others it can't compete with an f2.8 zoom. It totally depends what you shoot.
I would love to have the d3x resolution, the d700 iso capacity (the d3x is close i guess, when re-ressing), in house stabilization for my alternativ lenses, the a900 viewfinder... i guess the a900 only misses on iso capacity
.