I agree with having the option of both types of IS on the same camera. That way we could use high quality primes without on lens IS and have the option of using in camera IS when needed. That would give users a lot more flexibility and Canon can sell more bodies and continue with the IS in lenses which they seem to be able to advance in qulaity (e.g. the new 70-200 f4 IS with 4 stops of IS and advanced internal optics).
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Should Canon make DSLR with on-body IS?
- Thread starter Yohanes Mangitung
- Start date
History is filled with former market leaders who did not look behind at the competition.
Canon shouldn't add in-body IS because the competition is doing it. Canon should do it if enough customers want it. And customers will want it if it either offers better IQ (than no IS at all), or if marketing (Canon or competition) does a good job of sowing FUD. Canon (and every successful company) is in the business to make money. They will offer in-body IS if they think it will make them more money, directly or otherwise.
It's very likely Canon has already invested into research of in-body IS - even if the research consists of one engineer working on it part time. After all, they offer IS on their P&S cameras. Whether it'll ever make it into production cameras will depend on the market, the whims of whoever is in charge, and the flutter of a butterfly's wings in the Amazon.
Theodore Mason
Member
I hope this is not a stupid question, but I can not seem to work out the physics...
What happens if you have IS on the lens AND on the camera?
Do the two complement each other? Is it possible to get the two to complement each other? Or is this physically impossible?
What happens if you have IS on the lens AND on the camera?
Do the two complement each other? Is it possible to get the two to complement each other? Or is this physically impossible?
Lee Kuo Ann
Active member
I think the systems an coexist..
You have the motion sensor and controller in the Body. That central CPU coordinates the degree of correction needed in both the body and the lens.
eg. If the sensor detects that an offset of 20 degrees is necessary, it then sends an instruction to the lens IS to correct by 10 degrees and the body IS to correct by 10 degrees.
The big advantage is that you can add up the 3 stop gain from the lens, and the 3 stop gain from the body, for a total of 6stop IS!
As a member of the casual amateur photographer demographic, let me say I think body based IS is a great idea!
Did canon in their wisdom and foreknowledge develop lens based IS because its necessarily better than body based IS? No. Lens based IS was developed back in days of film when that was the ONLY option (since you couldn't tilt the 35mm negative).
Sensor based IS in its infancy, relatively speaking. Through further R&D, it is plausible that it will challenge the efficacy of lens based IS.
As a long tern canon user (> 15y), I'm glad that other companies are introducing innovative technologies to shake canon out of complacency. That can only be good for consumers.
You have the motion sensor and controller in the Body. That central CPU coordinates the degree of correction needed in both the body and the lens.
eg. If the sensor detects that an offset of 20 degrees is necessary, it then sends an instruction to the lens IS to correct by 10 degrees and the body IS to correct by 10 degrees.
The big advantage is that you can add up the 3 stop gain from the lens, and the 3 stop gain from the body, for a total of 6stop IS!
As a member of the casual amateur photographer demographic, let me say I think body based IS is a great idea!
Did canon in their wisdom and foreknowledge develop lens based IS because its necessarily better than body based IS? No. Lens based IS was developed back in days of film when that was the ONLY option (since you couldn't tilt the 35mm negative).
Sensor based IS in its infancy, relatively speaking. Through further R&D, it is plausible that it will challenge the efficacy of lens based IS.
As a long tern canon user (> 15y), I'm glad that other companies are introducing innovative technologies to shake canon out of complacency. That can only be good for consumers.
Lee Kuo Ann
Active member
I agree!
Let the pros buy their EOS 1Ds and I$ lenses.
But give us amateurs (who can't or won't pay for I$ lenses) the option of IS on humble collection of non-IS lenses.
So what if lens based IS is better? Better I have half-past-six IS than none at all.
My guess is that eventually Canon and Nikon will feel enough pressure to introducce body based IS. Better to lose the battle than lose the war. If a new generation of students and amateurs start buying into a different brand and system, Canon will eventually be marginalised when those amateurs turn serious or professional.
Let the pros buy their EOS 1Ds and I$ lenses.
But give us amateurs (who can't or won't pay for I$ lenses) the option of IS on humble collection of non-IS lenses.
So what if lens based IS is better? Better I have half-past-six IS than none at all.
My guess is that eventually Canon and Nikon will feel enough pressure to introducce body based IS. Better to lose the battle than lose the war. If a new generation of students and amateurs start buying into a different brand and system, Canon will eventually be marginalised when those amateurs turn serious or professional.
Lee Kuo Ann
Active member
An example already exists... In-camera flash.
Even though a dedicated flash unit is better than in-camera flash, you'll find inbuilt flash on non-pro bodies. Why? Different markets. Non-pros are happy enough with in-camera flash. They'd rather buy a camera with flash than one without.
Now why couldn't Canon do that? Sony can.
Even though a dedicated flash unit is better than in-camera flash, you'll find inbuilt flash on non-pro bodies. Why? Different markets. Non-pros are happy enough with in-camera flash. They'd rather buy a camera with flash than one without.
Now why couldn't Canon do that? Sony can.
D
David Martin
Guest
In their recent comments on it, they poo-poohed it a bit, but said that it would bve silly to say never - my guess is that they will hang on as long as they can, until they figure their sales are being hurt - that's what I would do anyway!
Pentax should be turning out around 30,000 bodies with IS a month, and Sony even more, so let's hope they sell well.
No doubt in my mind that Canon have a version pretty much realy to put in as and when they need it.
Regards,
DaveMart
'Just a wildebeast on the plain of life'
Please see profile for equipment
Pentax should be turning out around 30,000 bodies with IS a month, and Sony even more, so let's hope they sell well.
No doubt in my mind that Canon have a version pretty much realy to put in as and when they need it.
--
Regards,
DaveMart
'Just a wildebeast on the plain of life'
Please see profile for equipment
David Hull
Veteran Member
Good comments. Some I had not thought of before.
Canon has a nice white paper on the 400D that addresses the physical limitations of in-body IS.
http://www.robgalbraith.com/public_files/Canon_Rebel_XTi_White_Paper.pdf#search=%22Canon_Rebel_XTi_White_Paper.pdf%22
I think the thing that bothers Canon if that they cannot de-rattle the entire sensor assembly well enough to provide anti-shake for a long telephoto lens.
According to Canon they would have to move the entire sensor assembly + - .25 inch to do what they think needs to be done for their longer lenses.
Remembering from Physics that:
Ek=1/2*M*V^2
This says that the amount of energy (kenetic energy) required to move a given mass is directly proportional to that mass and proportional to the square of the velocity at which you attempt to move it.
If you put the IS at the sensor, you have to move a larger mass (the entire sensor assembly – now with the added mass of the dust removal gizmo) as opposed to a small lighter lens element. Not only that but you have to produce more velocity at the sensor because the image moves further at that point in the same amount of time. It takes much less energy to do it in the lens. This translates to less cost, smaller motors, longer battery life, and better overall performance.
This is even more of an issue with the full frame cameras because there is more mass. Thee may be an additional issue with the mount in the FF case where there may not be enough room to move the sensor the full + - .25 inch and still have a good picture.
Canon has a lot more telephoto lenses than Sony and a lot more pro users who depend on them. Sony’s ability to de-shake a long telephoto lens has not been evaluated as far as I know, while cannon’s capability is seen on the sports page of every newspaper every Monday morning.
Canon has a nice white paper on the 400D that addresses the physical limitations of in-body IS.
http://www.robgalbraith.com/public_files/Canon_Rebel_XTi_White_Paper.pdf#search=%22Canon_Rebel_XTi_White_Paper.pdf%22
I think the thing that bothers Canon if that they cannot de-rattle the entire sensor assembly well enough to provide anti-shake for a long telephoto lens.
According to Canon they would have to move the entire sensor assembly + - .25 inch to do what they think needs to be done for their longer lenses.
Remembering from Physics that:
Ek=1/2*M*V^2
This says that the amount of energy (kenetic energy) required to move a given mass is directly proportional to that mass and proportional to the square of the velocity at which you attempt to move it.
If you put the IS at the sensor, you have to move a larger mass (the entire sensor assembly – now with the added mass of the dust removal gizmo) as opposed to a small lighter lens element. Not only that but you have to produce more velocity at the sensor because the image moves further at that point in the same amount of time. It takes much less energy to do it in the lens. This translates to less cost, smaller motors, longer battery life, and better overall performance.
This is even more of an issue with the full frame cameras because there is more mass. Thee may be an additional issue with the mount in the FF case where there may not be enough room to move the sensor the full + - .25 inch and still have a good picture.
Canon has a lot more telephoto lenses than Sony and a lot more pro users who depend on them. Sony’s ability to de-shake a long telephoto lens has not been evaluated as far as I know, while cannon’s capability is seen on the sports page of every newspaper every Monday morning.
Jonas Palm
Senior Member
Exactly - if a certain lens-IS would actually be superior, just don't use the in-body IS for that lens. It really is as simple as that. Canon didn't actually choose lens-IS either, there was no other choice for film cameras. For digital cameras it doesn't make sense not to offer in-body IS. If you don't find it useful, just don't turn it on.
I know I would find it useful. In fact, I'd like to have it on the FF cameras as well. I'm fully aware that with some lenses this would lead to marginal performance in the corners at extreme shifts, but I'm a big boy - I can make those choices myself. And if the sensor needs to shift extensively to compensate for my shake, well, a little worse performance in a corner that is out of focus anyway just doesn't matter diddly squat compared to the benefit.
Canon is milking us for their IS lenses. It's a simple as that.
Unfortunately they don't offer IS for a number of interesting optics, some of which I own, and I despair of Canon ever coming around to doing the reasonable thing.
D
David Martin
Guest
Well, they would find problems, wouldn't they - since they seel a lot of very pricey AS glass and don't offer in-body AS, theya re hardly liekly to say it is the best thing since sliced bread!
That doesn't mean that there are no problems, or even that in-body is as good as in-lens stabilisaiton.
I have little doubt that the long glass will continue to have IS in the lesn - Sony are not yet at any point to be competing fro the pro sptorts market with Canon.
It's also perhaps not worth developing in-body IS for FF cameras - Canon have no current competition to worry about there, any way, so why should they bother?
I still don't see that any of that means that in-body AS is not very handy to have in APS-C sensors, and perhaps for use mainjly at below 200mm
When yoiu don't need it or are using longer glass you can always turn it off anyway.
For people who can't afford a fortune the $100-150 for the in-body AS is a bargain though, and more ambitious or wealthier users will benefit from it's use on primes, if they don't fancy lugging a tripod.
It works very well for this, and there are umpteen greatt shots on the Minolta forum which would have been difficult to catch with a normal camera.
--
Regards,
DaveMart
'Just a wildebeast on the plain of life'
Please see profile for equipment
Karl Gnter Wnsch
Forum Pro
As they are currently designed they can't.
Wrong, the lens has it's own processor and actuator and the lens IS is working without any controller feedback from the body.
No it's a fallacy as 70% of the problem hand shake is composed of (seem my first post in this thread) isn't dealt with in body IS.
--
regards
Karl Günter Wünsch
Visit my gallery at
http://www.fotocommunity.de/pc/pc/mypics/461808
I don't know why you keep forgetting a simple fact:
Canon is a business. They're about making money.
They've invested large $$$$ in R&D for IS equiped lenses.
They've built 70-200 2.8 IS and now a 70-200 f4 IS lens - every new lens has IS.
Why, as a business, would they want to put IS in the body so you can go out and buy a cheaper third party lens and gain the benefit of IS?
Forget about what you want. I want a million $$$ so I can quit my job but Canon isn't going to give me that.
Canon will resist this until the end - otherwise lenses like the ones above are now expensive junk.
So, all you people who want in-body IS, try to think like a business - tell me why, from Canon's perspective they SHOULD give it to you?
If Sony captures 20% market share then you might see it. But they're a long way from that yet.
Don't get me wrong - I don't object to in-body IS. I want whatever works best. I just don't understand this whining about it - it's like saying:
It's like me saying "I want a more affordable 300mm 2.8 lens - Sigma can do it for $2000, why can't Canon". The answer is: Because they don't have to!!
Canon is a business. They're about making money.
They've invested large $$$$ in R&D for IS equiped lenses.
They've built 70-200 2.8 IS and now a 70-200 f4 IS lens - every new lens has IS.
Why, as a business, would they want to put IS in the body so you can go out and buy a cheaper third party lens and gain the benefit of IS?
Forget about what you want. I want a million $$$ so I can quit my job but Canon isn't going to give me that.
Canon will resist this until the end - otherwise lenses like the ones above are now expensive junk.
So, all you people who want in-body IS, try to think like a business - tell me why, from Canon's perspective they SHOULD give it to you?
If Sony captures 20% market share then you might see it. But they're a long way from that yet.
Don't get me wrong - I don't object to in-body IS. I want whatever works best. I just don't understand this whining about it - it's like saying:
It's like me saying "I want a more affordable 300mm 2.8 lens - Sigma can do it for $2000, why can't Canon". The answer is: Because they don't have to!!
José B
Forum Pro
I used to own a KM Maxxum 7D and I can tell you without a doubt that the in-body system works. I wish I saved all my test pictures of my Maxxum 300/4 G + 2x TC of which I have gained 3-4 stops.
Some poster mentioned about panning, well maybe he/she has not seen some of panning samples posted at the KM DSLR forum.
So although I have the 24-105 IS and 70-200 IS, I would like to see Canon manufacturer an in-body IS in the near future so I can have the rest of my non-IS lenses stabilized.
Cheers,
José
Shooting with the famous Replacements (1DMarkIIN, 30D and SD700IS)
http://www.pbase.com/jmb_56/canon_1dmk2n
http://www.pbase.com/jmb_56/canon_30and20d
http://www.pbase.com/jmb_56/maxxum_7d
Some poster mentioned about panning, well maybe he/she has not seen some of panning samples posted at the KM DSLR forum.
So although I have the 24-105 IS and 70-200 IS, I would like to see Canon manufacturer an in-body IS in the near future so I can have the rest of my non-IS lenses stabilized.
Cheers,
José
--Do you think that Canon is moving towards Body-IS? I've been
thinking about this and came up with few theories/possibilities I
want to share with you.
As you know, Pentax, Samsung, Sony, and Panasonic (do I miss one?)
all offer on-body IS, which is really tempting. You can even get
the new Pentax K100D for around $600, and get some old good lens
for it, which is a great bargain for DSLR. How do Canon and Nikon
react to this future threat from the agile newcomers? I came up
with two possible scenarios:
1. Canon joins the bandwagon by using body-IS on its next DSLR.
It's good for consumers but somewhat bad for Canon. It might kill
the market for Canon IS lenses, which we all know is Canon's cash
cow. Prices of IS lenses will drop significantly.
2. Canon decides not to include body-IS on next DSLR. Canon might
loose the market for entry-level DSLR to Pentax and the other
newcomers, which is also bad. Even worse, before Canon even knows
it, it's lost significant market share to the DSLR newcomers.
Personally if I were Canon, I would go for #1. Create DSLR with
body-IS. Yes, it'll probably kill the market for IS-lenses but
Canon can secure the market for entry-level DSLR. Now, I said that
it might kill the market for IS-lenses, because professionals
would still go for IS lenses for their 1d/1ds DSLR. If I were a
pro, do I want to use DSLR used by amateurs (even if it has
body-IS)? No. So I think the market for IS-lenses would only
decline, not die.
Failure to join the body-IS DSLR market might create worse
consequence for Canon. It's going to lose significant market for
entry-level DSLRs, which I believe is huge. So, for Canon, make
body-IS for the next xxxD and xxD DSLRs and leave IS-lenses for the
pro.
Just my thoughts. What do you think?
--
Sincerely,
Yohanes N. Mangitung
Shooting with the famous Replacements (1DMarkIIN, 30D and SD700IS)
http://www.pbase.com/jmb_56/canon_1dmk2n
http://www.pbase.com/jmb_56/canon_30and20d
http://www.pbase.com/jmb_56/maxxum_7d
José B
Forum Pro
Also, I could never understand this stabilized viewfinder thing? What is the importance of this? Unless I am on a speedboat taking pictures of Crockett (Miami Vice), atop an elephant in South Asia or taking pictures on a plane-----what is the benefit? Heck, more than likely I will be taking pictures in a museum, building, train station where tripods are prohibited. So I will be on stable footing and not moving----I really don't get this stabilized viewfinder.
Another thing, if it is to frame a flying bird----well, IS does not freeze the action anyway. Also, I've taken pictures in a tennis tournament with the AS on.
Cheers,
José
Shooting with the famous Replacements (1DMarkIIN, 30D and SD700IS)
http://www.pbase.com/jmb_56/canon_1dmk2n
http://www.pbase.com/jmb_56/canon_30and20d
http://www.pbase.com/jmb_56/maxxum_7d
Another thing, if it is to frame a flying bird----well, IS does not freeze the action anyway. Also, I've taken pictures in a tennis tournament with the AS on.
Cheers,
José
--Some poster mentioned about panning, well maybe he/she has not seen
some of panning samples posted at the KM DSLR forum.
So although I have the 24-105 IS and 70-200 IS, I would like to see
Canon manufacturer an in-body IS in the near future so I can have
the rest of my non-IS lenses stabilized.
Cheers,
José
--Do you think that Canon is moving towards Body-IS? I've been
thinking about this and came up with few theories/possibilities I
want to share with you.
As you know, Pentax, Samsung, Sony, and Panasonic (do I miss one?)
all offer on-body IS, which is really tempting. You can even get
the new Pentax K100D for around $600, and get some old good lens
for it, which is a great bargain for DSLR. How do Canon and Nikon
react to this future threat from the agile newcomers? I came up
with two possible scenarios:
1. Canon joins the bandwagon by using body-IS on its next DSLR.
It's good for consumers but somewhat bad for Canon. It might kill
the market for Canon IS lenses, which we all know is Canon's cash
cow. Prices of IS lenses will drop significantly.
2. Canon decides not to include body-IS on next DSLR. Canon might
loose the market for entry-level DSLR to Pentax and the other
newcomers, which is also bad. Even worse, before Canon even knows
it, it's lost significant market share to the DSLR newcomers.
Personally if I were Canon, I would go for #1. Create DSLR with
body-IS. Yes, it'll probably kill the market for IS-lenses but
Canon can secure the market for entry-level DSLR. Now, I said that
it might kill the market for IS-lenses, because professionals
would still go for IS lenses for their 1d/1ds DSLR. If I were a
pro, do I want to use DSLR used by amateurs (even if it has
body-IS)? No. So I think the market for IS-lenses would only
decline, not die.
Failure to join the body-IS DSLR market might create worse
consequence for Canon. It's going to lose significant market for
entry-level DSLRs, which I believe is huge. So, for Canon, make
body-IS for the next xxxD and xxD DSLRs and leave IS-lenses for the
pro.
Just my thoughts. What do you think?
--
Sincerely,
Yohanes N. Mangitung
Shooting with the famous Replacements (1DMarkIIN, 30D and SD700IS)
http://www.pbase.com/jmb_56/canon_1dmk2n
http://www.pbase.com/jmb_56/canon_30and20d
http://www.pbase.com/jmb_56/maxxum_7d
Shooting with the famous Replacements (1DMarkIIN, 30D and SD700IS)
http://www.pbase.com/jmb_56/canon_1dmk2n
http://www.pbase.com/jmb_56/canon_30and20d
http://www.pbase.com/jmb_56/maxxum_7d
DotCom Editor
Veteran Member
No. No. No. No.
--
When I ask which Canon lenses are best,
people tell me to 'go to L.'
--
When I ask which Canon lenses are best,
people tell me to 'go to L.'
When I'm shooting at 400mm on the 20D (640 equivalent), I can't even keep the center focus point on the subject without IS. I shoot model aircraft a lot and being able to track a tiny, high-speed object at 640mm-equivalent while keeping the center focus point on the plane is what allows me to get > 95% keepers. Last time I was out (last weekend) I tried it without IS a couple of times. I got 1 keeper out of about 10 or 12 shots. Mostly, the AF was hunting or focusing on the background.
Without a stabilized viewfinder and image to the autofocus sensors, long lenses are essentially useless to me for what I do with them. A tripod doesn't help at all since I'm tracking both vertically and horizontally, and I've never been able to get even a monopod to be useful in that environment. So it's IS or I don't get the shot.
This is very nearly a full-frame (cropped a couple of percent on the right just for uniformity) and this plane was going 150mph about 200 feet away (it passed me about a second later). I can consistently get tightly-framed shots like this at 640mm equivalent because I have lens IS. With in-camera IS, this shot wouldn't have been possible for me.
--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)
D
David Martin
Guest
Perhaps the market for people shooting model aeroplanes is not huge!
In body IS should help in a lot of situations, although maybe not as much as a good in-lens solution.
Regards,
DaveMart
'Just a wildebeast on the plain of life'
Please see profile for equipment
In body IS should help in a lot of situations, although maybe not as much as a good in-lens solution.
--When I'm shooting at 400mm on the 20D (640 equivalent), I can't
even keep the center focus point on the subject without IS. I
shoot model aircraft a lot and being able to track a tiny,
high-speed object at 640mm-equivalent while keeping the center
focus point on the plane is what allows me to get > 95% keepers.
Last time I was out (last weekend) I tried it without IS a couple
of times. I got 1 keeper out of about 10 or 12 shots. Mostly, the
AF was hunting or focusing on the background.
Without a stabilized viewfinder and image to the autofocus sensors,
long lenses are essentially useless to me for what I do with them.
A tripod doesn't help at all since I'm tracking both vertically and
horizontally, and I've never been able to get even a monopod to be
useful in that environment. So it's IS or I don't get the shot.
This is very nearly a full-frame (cropped a couple of percent on
the right just for uniformity) and this plane was going 150mph
about 200 feet away (it passed me about a second later). I can
consistently get tightly-framed shots like this at 640mm equivalent
because I have lens IS. With in-camera IS, this shot wouldn't
have been possible for me.
--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)
Regards,
DaveMart
'Just a wildebeast on the plain of life'
Please see profile for equipment
José B
Forum Pro
Hi Lee Jay,
First of all that is a very nice shot!
Secondly, I'm sure if you had a 7D and 400/4.5 G with the AS turned on you still would have made that shot. Also, how is that any different than any of my shots with the 300/4 and the 7D. I know AS/IS does not stop the action but I turn on the AS all the time as I need a bit of stability when my arms get tired especially in tennis events where I usually shoot for 6 hours.
Here on this shots, my centre focus point was always on the subject like yours. In other words, I still don't see a difference between AS and IS.
Tennis with the 7D and AS:
Tennis with 1DIIN/30D and 70-200/2.8 L IS
Cheers,
José
Shooting with the famous Replacements (1DMarkIIN, 30D and SD700IS)
http://www.pbase.com/jmb_56/canon_1dmk2n
http://www.pbase.com/jmb_56/canon_30and20d
http://www.pbase.com/jmb_56/maxxum_7d
First of all that is a very nice shot!
Secondly, I'm sure if you had a 7D and 400/4.5 G with the AS turned on you still would have made that shot. Also, how is that any different than any of my shots with the 300/4 and the 7D. I know AS/IS does not stop the action but I turn on the AS all the time as I need a bit of stability when my arms get tired especially in tennis events where I usually shoot for 6 hours.
Here on this shots, my centre focus point was always on the subject like yours. In other words, I still don't see a difference between AS and IS.
Tennis with the 7D and AS:
Tennis with 1DIIN/30D and 70-200/2.8 L IS
Cheers,
José
--When I'm shooting at 400mm on the 20D (640 equivalent), I can't
even keep the center focus point on the subject without IS. I
shoot model aircraft a lot and being able to track a tiny,
high-speed object at 640mm-equivalent while keeping the center
focus point on the plane is what allows me to get > 95% keepers.
Last time I was out (last weekend) I tried it without IS a couple
of times. I got 1 keeper out of about 10 or 12 shots. Mostly, the
AF was hunting or focusing on the background.
Without a stabilized viewfinder and image to the autofocus sensors,
long lenses are essentially useless to me for what I do with them.
A tripod doesn't help at all since I'm tracking both vertically and
horizontally, and I've never been able to get even a monopod to be
useful in that environment. So it's IS or I don't get the shot.
This is very nearly a full-frame (cropped a couple of percent on
the right just for uniformity) and this plane was going 150mph
about 200 feet away (it passed me about a second later). I can
consistently get tightly-framed shots like this at 640mm equivalent
because I have lens IS. With in-camera IS, this shot wouldn't
have been possible for me.
--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)
Shooting with the famous Replacements (1DMarkIIN, 30D and SD700IS)
http://www.pbase.com/jmb_56/canon_1dmk2n
http://www.pbase.com/jmb_56/canon_30and20d
http://www.pbase.com/jmb_56/maxxum_7d
José B
Forum Pro
I think most of you will embrace this technology.
Cheers,
José
Shooting with the famous Replacements (1DMarkIIN, 30D and SD700IS)
http://www.pbase.com/jmb_56/canon_1dmk2n
http://www.pbase.com/jmb_56/canon_30and20d
http://www.pbase.com/jmb_56/maxxum_7d
Cheers,
José
--Do you think that Canon is moving towards Body-IS? I've been
thinking about this and came up with few theories/possibilities I
want to share with you.
As you know, Pentax, Samsung, Sony, and Panasonic (do I miss one?)
all offer on-body IS, which is really tempting. You can even get
the new Pentax K100D for around $600, and get some old good lens
for it, which is a great bargain for DSLR. How do Canon and Nikon
react to this future threat from the agile newcomers? I came up
with two possible scenarios:
1. Canon joins the bandwagon by using body-IS on its next DSLR.
It's good for consumers but somewhat bad for Canon. It might kill
the market for Canon IS lenses, which we all know is Canon's cash
cow. Prices of IS lenses will drop significantly.
2. Canon decides not to include body-IS on next DSLR. Canon might
loose the market for entry-level DSLR to Pentax and the other
newcomers, which is also bad. Even worse, before Canon even knows
it, it's lost significant market share to the DSLR newcomers.
Personally if I were Canon, I would go for #1. Create DSLR with
body-IS. Yes, it'll probably kill the market for IS-lenses but
Canon can secure the market for entry-level DSLR. Now, I said that
it might kill the market for IS-lenses, because professionals
would still go for IS lenses for their 1d/1ds DSLR. If I were a
pro, do I want to use DSLR used by amateurs (even if it has
body-IS)? No. So I think the market for IS-lenses would only
decline, not die.
Failure to join the body-IS DSLR market might create worse
consequence for Canon. It's going to lose significant market for
entry-level DSLRs, which I believe is huge. So, for Canon, make
body-IS for the next xxxD and xxD DSLRs and leave IS-lenses for the
pro.
Just my thoughts. What do you think?
--
Sincerely,
Yohanes N. Mangitung
Shooting with the famous Replacements (1DMarkIIN, 30D and SD700IS)
http://www.pbase.com/jmb_56/canon_1dmk2n
http://www.pbase.com/jmb_56/canon_30and20d
http://www.pbase.com/jmb_56/maxxum_7d
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum