One area where Canon will fall behind...

[lukewarm]

One area where Canon will fall behind Sony & Pentax is the convenience of I.S. with prime lenses.

I can only imagine how nice it must be to use the reasonably priced 50mm, 85mm, 135mm, and 200mm prime lenses with anti-shake.

With Canon, it seems like fixed focal length and image stabilization are mutually exclusive for all but the long telephotos.

 

[Bobo Hodls]

I expect to see IS in some Canon DSLRs eventually, but I hope they don't adopt that across the entire model range.

--
...Bob, NYC

http://www.pbase.com/btullis

You'll have to ignore the gallery's collection of bad compositions, improper exposures, and amateurish post processing.

 

[Jeff Varszegi]

And since Nikon is their biggest competitor (maybe soon to be rivalled or exceeded by Pentax and Sony), it would be a coup for them to differentiate themselves by offering in-body IS early.

 

[carlk]

I expect to see IS in some Canon DSLRs eventually, but I hope they
don't adopt that across the entire model range.

--
...Bob, NYC

http://www.pbase.com/btullis
You'll have to ignore the gallery's collection of bad compositions,
improper exposures, and amateurish post processing.

 

[Henry Richardson]

I am using a 30D now, but my previous camera was a KM 7D with in-body stabilization. That is the killer feature and I sure miss it! I would love for Canon to add it in future bodies. Even if it was just in the APS-C bodies then that would be okay with me!

--
Henry Richardson
http://www.hrich.com
http://www.printroom.com/pro/intrepid

 

[Don_D]

And since Nikon is their biggest competitor (maybe soon to be
rivalled or exceeded by Pentax and Sony), it would be a coup for
them to differentiate themselves by offering in-body IS early.

I don't know about a coup....

One disadvantage of in body IS is that you have to pay for it again and again as you move up to newer camera bodies.
Is that worse than having to pay for it only once for each lens?

In body IS advantages/disadvantages would seem to depend on what IS or non-IS lenses you own or plan to buy.

Maybe the next XXD will have two models..an IS in body option for one and not the other....or maybe that's what you meant.
With lots of options it could get confusing!

--
Don
http://www.pbase.com/dond

 

[lukewarm]

One disadvantage of in body IS is that you have to pay for it again
and again as you move up to newer camera bodies.

Uhm, no.

Once a particular feature becomes a "standard feature" instead of an "extra feature", its cost no longer figures prominently during pricing. The cost will mostly be manufacturing cost, which is negligible.

 

[Henry Richardson]

One disadvantage of in body IS is that you have to pay for it again
and again as you move up to newer camera bodies.

People keep saying this but if you look at the cost of the KM, Sony, and Pentax cameras it is hard to make a case that they are priced excessively because they have in-body stabilization. They seem to pretty much offer it for free or very close to that.

Is that worse than having to pay for it only once for each lens?

Yeah, I would much rather pay for it in the body (especially since as I have already indicated there is no real price premium) than pay several hundred dollars extra on each lens to get it. Also, it is just not available for most lenses. Compare the cost of a Canon 70-200 f2.8L or f4L with IS and without it to see what it really means to have to pay for image stabilization.

--
Henry Richardson
http://www.hrich.com
http://www.printroom.com/pro/intrepid

 

[Barugon]

Of all the new DSLRs, the onlt one that interests me is the Pentax K10D because of it's anti-dust, anti-shake and weather seals.

--
Whoever said 'a picture is worth a thousand words' was a cheapskate.

http://www.pbase.com/dot_borg

 

[PhotoTom]

And its not adaptable to the needs of longer lenses, which is where you need IS anyway.
--
Tom

 

[Jeff Varszegi]

And its not adaptable to the needs of longer lenses, which is where
you need IS anyway.
--
Tom

Not having any longer lenses, I want IS on my shorter primes.

 

[Don_D]

One disadvantage of in body IS is that you have to pay for it again
and again as you move up to newer camera bodies.

People keep saying this but if you look at the cost of the KM,
Sony, and Pentax cameras it is hard to make a case that they are
priced excessively because they have in-body stabilization. They
seem to pretty much offer it for free or very close to that.

Is that worse than having to pay for it only once for each lens?

Yeah, I would much rather pay for it in the body (especially
since as I have already indicated there is no real price premium)
than pay several hundred dollars extra on each lens to get it.
Also, it is just not available for most lenses. Compare the cost
of a Canon 70-200 f2.8L or f4L with IS and without it to see what
it really means to have to pay for image stabilization.

So what you are saying is that IS is "pretty much free" in camera, but costs a several hundred dollars when IS is included in a lens. Is the "in camera" IS a technology that is significantly less expensive to manufacture than IS "in lens"?

If so, Canon is really missing the boat by only offering the "in lens" version of IS that costs them and their users so much.
I think there is more to the story.

Don
http://www.pbase.com/dond

 

[blakedotfr]

As Phil's reviews have pointed out, sensor-shift IS (at least what is available today, which admittedly is a decade behind Canon's lens-based system) is not as effective as "optical" (glass-based) stabilisation; one need look no further than a comparison between the current crop of sensor-shift cameras and the new 70-200 f/4L IS.

Having said that, the OP seems correct in suggesting that sensor-shift stabilisation will eventually become a "standard" feature looked for in most (if not all) DSLRs, at least at the consumer level, much like autofocus or motorized film drive was in the late '80s.

The way I see Canon implementing this (especially now that they have sensor-shift dust buzzer technology in the field) is that their sensor-based IS will be just as effective as everyone else's, but hopefully since they already have so much IS glass in the field they'lll be able to work out a way that the sensor-shift and lens-based systems can work together, so you get 2 stops of stability with a non-IS prime, and up to 6 (!) stops with a lens like the 70-200 f/4L IS, as the sensor and lens stabilization systems communicate and coordinate with eachother. The engineering required to do this is certainly non-trivial and I don't know if such a feat is even possible, but it certainly would be yet another proverbial feather in Canon's cap next to tilt-shift, DO, all the nice IS glass, low-noise CMOS sensors, FF digital, etc.

What I would hate to see happen is for them to implement sensor-shift IS and simply disable it when an IS lens is mounted. Such a tactic could make sense for Nikon if it was their only choice for proper ccd-shift IS implementation, as their VR lenses are almost all professional models and not likely to be owned by a consumer investing in a low(er)-end body with ccd-shift IS (now that the 18-200 is actually purchasable this argument is less valid, but I think there are still many times more Canon consumers out there with IS glass than Nikon VR owners), but it would certainly make a very large number of Canon users extremely disappointed or at best dis-incent many owners of IS lenses from upgrading to the new sensor-shift body.

As a sidenote, it's too bad that the Sigma 80-400 OS only exists in EF, Nikon, and Sigma mounts. If there was a Minolta or Pentax version, it would be possible to test what the heck would happen when you mount an IS lens on a stabilized body today.

 

[lukewarm]

So what you are saying is that IS is "pretty much free" in camera,
but costs a several hundred dollars when IS is included in a lens.
Is the "in camera" IS a technology that is significantly less
expensive to manufacture than IS "in lens"?

Image Stabilization was a new technology back in the '90s. It was considered a luxury. And as such, Canon could charge exorbitant amounts for this luxury. The manufacturing costs of I.S. today doesn't reflect the obscene amounts Canon is charging.

We are in a transition period right now, with Image Stabilization gradually becoming a standard feature in cameras (dSLRs and pan n' scans). Eventually, in a few years, everyone will expect I.S. in all their cameras. It'll make Canon look downright greedy for charging an extra $500 PER LENS for features that are already standard in $199 pan & scans.

People can make excuses for $1700 lenses having superior Image stabilization than the ones found in-camera. That may be true. But keep in mind that technology progresses. Most people upgrade their dSLR bodies every few years, and the in-camera I.S. will likely improve with each iteration. Therefore, your entire lens collection will benefit over the years. On the other hand, your entire $5000 collection of "L" lenses will not benefit from newer technology. They only get older and more outdated as the years go by. Your lenses will only benefit from newer I.S. technology if you buy new ones... which is precisely what Canon wants you to do.

 

[Jeff Varszegi]

And if you look at the difference in pricing between the K100D and K110D, the PRICE (not even the cost) of in-body IS is around $100 for their implementation. Not exactly breaking the bank.

It makes sense if you think about it. All that's needed is some sort of actuator to move the sensor, a motion sensor, and some extra electronics. The R & D cost is probably not negligible but not huge.

 

[007peter]

I am using a 30D now, but my previous camera was a KM 7D with in-body stabilization. That is the killer feature and I sure miss it! I would love for Canon to add it in future bodies. Even if it was just in the APS-C bodies then that would be okay with me

I also have switch to 30D from minolta. However, I kept my Minolta 5D with KM28-75 2.8 because it was cheaper than buying Canon 17-50 F/2.8. If and when Canon does IS in the body, I will sell my minolta and become a full Canonite.
-------
..FANBOY(i)sm is a NEUROSIS, Get Help!

 

[007peter]

have so much IS glass in the field they'lll be able to work out a way that the sensor-shift and lens-based systems can work together, so you get 2 stops of stability with a non-IS prime, and up to 6 (!) stops with a lens like the 70-200 f/4L IS, as the sensor and lens stabilization systems communicate and coordinate with eachother. The engineering required to do this is certainly non-trivial and I don't know if such a feat is even possible,

I don't buy the ITS TECHNICALLY-TOO-COMPLEX ARGUMENT. There is an easy way to make both In-LENS IS and In-Body IS work together, just
SWITCH-OFF THE BODY-IS WHEN YOU ATTACH AN IS LENS. Problem Solved.
-------------------
FANBOY(i)sm is a NEUROSIS, Get Help!

 

[Barugon]

And its not adaptable to the needs of longer lenses, which is where
you need IS anyway.

Image stabilization is most effective for handholding and not so effective for super telephotos that require a tripod anyway. Also, Pentax claims that their shake reduction is "compatible with ANY Pentax lens produced".

--
Whoever said 'a picture is worth a thousand words' was a cheapskate.

http://www.pbase.com/dot_borg

 

[midwestshutterbug]

Former Minoltan, who switched over to Canon because I truly dislike Sony business practices.

I owned every Minolta D-SLR and a wide variety of their glass as well.
In Camera As does not compare to in lens IS.

Period.

Oh wait, Short primes, AS is Greater than Lens IS -- or so the cry goes.
B*LLSH*T -- as my own personal experiences tell me.

I primarily shoot my kids doing their various activites. From T-ball to HS Volleyball, Marching band to School Plays, in all kinds of lighting...I should lack of lighting.

IS, by far, gives me more usable, even salvageable images.

I am sure In Camera Body stabilzation has it's proper place.
Say as a marketing tool for those who simply know no better
Specifically, Noobs and the Soccer Moms.

--
Dave Patterson
---------------------
Midwestshutterbug.com
----------------------------------
'When the light and composition are strong, nobody
notices things like resolution or pincushion distortion'
Gary Friedman

 

[kfarouki]

P&S is an abreviation which has two different meanings in two different domains:

"Point and Shoot": This is the meaning in photography, typically referring to a camera which requires little user input to use either because it has few settings or because its settings can all be configured automatically.

"Pan and Scan": This is the meaning in the world of film, referring to a technique for converting film from a wider-screen format to a less-wide screen format (typically either 16:9 or 2.25:1 converted to 4:3). The technique has film artists look at each scene of the movie and pick which sub-box is most relevant, throwing away the remining data on one or both sides. This reduces the intensity in action sequences and can often mean cutting characters out of wide-cut dialogs. The alternative is "letter boxing" in which black boxes are placed at the top and bottom of the screen to pad one aspect ratio into the other.

Your references in this post to "Pan and Scan" should have been to "Point and Shoot".

Again, my apologies if this was a clever pun forcing the reader to convert "pan and scan" to P&S and then to "point and shoot". I just found it hard to parse, and thought I'd share in case you weren't aware of the distinction...