Any info on inbody stabilization for Canon - or rumors ?

Anything info on this at all ?
--
Best wishes, rennie12

In case you've not noticed, Canon has been putting IS in the lenses, not in the body.

If you want IS, buy the lenses. If you don't want IS, don't buy the lenses.

--

Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.

• Michael Crichton

In the body? Not likely. Not likely at all.
--
When I ask which Canon lenses are best,
people tell me to 'go to L.'

It is a shame but I agree.

Better to pay $300 once thanon each lens. Plus you are more likely to upgrade your camera than your lens (if you get good ones) to get the latest version.

DotCom Editor said:

In the body? Not likely. Not likely at all.
--
When I ask which Canon lenses are best,
people tell me to 'go to L.'

Click to expand...

Craig J said:

Better to pay $300 once thanon each lens. Plus you are more likely
to upgrade your camera than your lens (if you get good ones) to get
the latest version.

Click to expand...

I've used the same IS lens on 3 bodies so far. I have good lenses which will last many body upgrades. I'd rather pay once rather than many times and I'd rather have a stabilized viewfinder and a stabilized image to the AF sensors.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

If the question is so irritating, why not move along vs. stopping long enough to toss out a few demeaning (and unnecessary) remarks? I think the OP is aware of Canon's current offer, he was just wondering anyone has any scoop on changes.

Why do you do this?

--
http://www.pbase.com/misterpix

ljfinger said:

I'd rather have a stabilized viewfinder and a stabilized image to the AF
sensors.

Click to expand...

You know, I've had the same question as the OP, but I'd never thought about the implications. I routinely use IS to help with composition (i.e. steady the viewfinder) and to give my AF a stable target. Never struck me that I'd give that up if it went into the body. Very useful post. Thank you.

--
http://www.pbase.com/misterpix

A problem I can see with in-body IS is the additional moving parts. I'm not sure how much of an impact this would be. But bear in mind that whatever needs to move would have to move more the larger the sensor is. So you have not only an increased mass to move but an increased distance it must move (for typically used lenses).

Also, with interchangeable lenses, there would be a wide variety of motion profiles. That might be a challenge to engineer.

I'd have to work out the math, but I suspect as well, that an in-lens mechanism would require very little motion with respect to the lens housing than if the adjustment were made at the focal plane, when using long lenses. In other words, a small adjustment to the lens element will result in a relatively large motion at the focal plane, so a smaller adjustment is necessary for an in-lens mechanism than an in-camera mechanism.

These things are just speculation on my part. Feel free to point out where I'm wrong.
--
http://www.pbase.com/victorengel/

That was certainly an unpleasant post - what did I ever do to you to warrant that ?? FYI I have 2 Canon stabilized lenses. Neither of them, however is a prime f 2.8 or 1.8 - either of which could be stabilized with inbody stabilization.

Or don't you know what inbody stabilization is ??

--
rennie12

The thing is, though, that in-body stabilization already exists and is proven to work to some degree. I would like to have it in order to have, for instance, a stabilized 85mm f/1.8. It doesn't matter if the stabilization is not as good as in-lens IS-- heck, I'd like an extra half stop of free light on my non-stabilized lenses!

I like to have body IS for the primes. i find it ironic. Canon put IS on the big lenses. These lenses have tripod collar. Some of these are too heavy to hand held for a long period of time. That basically leave IS useless if you use a tripod or monopod anyway. Some lowe end tele are less heavy, probably benift more from IS.

rennie12 said:

That was certainly an unpleasant post - what did I ever do to you
to warrant that ?? FYI I have 2 Canon stabilized lenses. Neither
of them, however is a prime f 2.8 or 1.8 - either of which could be
stabilized with inbody stabilization.

Click to expand...

IMO question you originally posted is pointless.. you are aware of that, are you? Who do you think can/would answer? What kind of answers did you expect?

You can/will get a lot of speculations (pulled from crystall ball), comparisons on which is better, wishes,... but no answer.

Greetings,
Bogdan
--
My pictures are my memories
http://freeweb.siol.net/hrastni3/

--

”Hegel was right when he said that we learn from history that man can never learn anything from history.” – George Bernard Shaw

Why?

Because I already have DSLR 3 bodies. In case of the inbody IS I would already buy 3 Image Stabilisers, but I only need??? one for now which is at my 70-200 lense.

Yes. The idea would be fine for those who don't buy original Canon lenses, but I really don't respect Sigma lenses which is why it doesn't bother me.

Did any of you ever personaly tried Minolta 7D? I'm not shure because I found it can't compare to Canon in lense IS that you can find at 70-200 IS.

If there was a scoop it would already have been here. Do you really think someone sees this thread and says "gee, I did not know someone is interested, I'd better tell"?

We've seen a lot of these 'rumor fishing' threads lately and they are a nuisance. Don't see why people should have to step by

Joe Reilly said:

If the question is so irritating, why not move along vs. stopping
long enough to toss out a few demeaning (and unnecessary) remarks?
I think the OP is aware of Canon's current offer, he was just
wondering anyone has any scoop on changes.

Why do you do this?

--
http://www.pbase.com/misterpix

Click to expand...

For me and quite a lot of people that have IS as it's currently implemented it's hard to believe that there is value in a system that only solves at most 1/3rd of the problem. As others have pointed out, the vewfinder and - even more importantly - the autofocus sensors need stabilisation too and the only system that can assure this is the true optical stabilisation.

For me in body IS would be mostly useless anyway as I almost exclusively use it on a tripod while composing/focusing and it's off during the shot (where mirror lockup takes it's place).

--
regards
Karl Günter Wünsch
Visit my gallery at
http://www.fotocommunity.de/pc/pc/mypics/461808

Karl Günter Wünsch said:

As others have
pointed out, the vewfinder and - even more importantly - the
autofocus sensors need stabilisation too and the only system that
can assure this is the true optical stabilisation.

Click to expand...

This is something I have never thought about and is probably the main advantage of lens stabilisation.

My point above re upgrdes is this. Early IS was only one stop, now it is three stops, what if next generation is 5 stops. I will probably upgrade my camera before I upgrade my lens so I will miss out on the benefits of the new system.

However, viewfinder stablistion (done via the lens) is very important and I assume focus is too so in lens must b the best system. I will have to remember this argument if I ever have to upgrade lens to get a better system (would be a good time to upgrade to L if it does happen).

ditto (NT)
--
Jay
Equipment on Profile

hockeynut said:

In case you've not noticed, Canon has been putting IS in the
lenses, not in the body.

If you want IS, buy the lenses. If you don't want IS, don't buy
the lenses.

Click to expand...

Had a bad day, eh?

Man, take a good look out the window, have a cup of coffee, watch pretty girls go by, or whatever. Cheer up. Such bad humor is not good for your health. ;-)

--
Best regards,

Bruno Lobo.



http://www.pbase.com/brunobl

Minolta's AS did work very well. There are definately arguments in both directions. I do like the in lens stabilization that I have in my two Canon IS lenses (100-400L and 24-105L) and find the stabilization in the viewfinder to be very helpful for focus and composition. It was nice, however, to never have to worry about stabilization when using short bright primes. Since my switch to Canon, I do find myself carrying a tripod with me where I never did with the Maxxum unless I had a special purpose (timed exposures, etc...) But Alas, Minolta is gone and you can't find quality lenses for them anywhere.

Sony is releasing a limited selection, but they are way overpriced. That's why I switched. If Canon came out with a stabilized body that would work in concert with the in lens stabilization, I'd buy one tomarrow.

The big reason I think Canon will NOT release a stabilized body is the fact that in body stabilization will be a huge problem in a full frame camera, and that seems to be the direction Canon is heading. There's simply not room in the camera for the big sensors to move in a way that would be meaningful.

There's also the fact that if the IS goes bad in my 100-400 and I need to send it back, then I'm out a lens. If the in body stabilization goes out (there are plenty of posts about this happening in the KM forum) you're out of business.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bernarrking