Reading mode: Light Dark

Should Canon make DSLR with on-body IS?

Go to last post
Kendunn said:
So, if Canon does come out with internal IS, and you use an IS
lens, do you get a total of 4-6 extra stops of shutter, lol?
Click to expand...
No.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)
 
David Martin said:
Dunno if you've seen images taken with some of the primes and
in-body AS, but they look good to me, and there is no way that
Canon or anyone else are going to put IS into those sort of lenses.
If you are in a seriously low-light situation and can't use a
tripod, then it will get shots you can't get with other equipment.
Not a bad option to have, IMO.
I also can't see any way Canon or Nikon would say:- 'look guys,
Sony's inbody stuff is a lot better than our in-lens AS!' - so
their assessment should be taken with a few ladles of salt.
I accept that in some ways the in-lens is better, certainly at long
focal lengths, but those lenses aren't going to go away anyway.
Click to expand...
lets be honest here...most of the people who are going to upgrade from a P&S to a Dslr is going to be shooting mostly in automatic mode anyway If you are in a seriousl low light situation you are much better off with faster glass then having IS either in the lens or in the body I have a 50 f/1.8 a 85 f/1.8 and a 28-135 IS I use the primes and have pretty much packed the IS away and use it rarely nothing beats speed I personaly dont want to have a camera with a sensor that is movable inside the body I am glad these forums werent around in the 90s when new film cameras were only introduced every 2-5 years the whining for more features for less price would of been unreal lol
 
These "Canon will never..." comments are interesting.

1. Unless anyone here actually works for Canon, it's all just speculation.

2. The market will decide. I'll say that again, the market will decide.

3. History is filled with companies that said "We'll never sell a product that" fill in the blank.

Does lens-based OS/IS work better, at least anecdotaly it appears yes. Does that matter to millions of camera users around the world? I'd say a resounding NO.

Let's face it, virtually 90% of PS cameras take marginal photos to any DSLR user but did that keep Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Pentax, etc., etc., etc., from selling PS cameras? Hardly, they wouldn't be in business today if they had ignored people who said "I just want it to take pictures."

If the market shifts towards in-body IS/OS, I think Canon will have no choice. My guess? Canon/Nikon are watching closesly.

So is the competition.

Trees
 
I see it coming at the low- to mid-range of the DSLR range, despite it not being as effective as lens-based IS. Correcting a wide to mid-telephoto lens is one thing - correcting a super-telephoto like the 400/2.8 is a completely different situation. The in-camera system will be fairly effective in the "normal" range of lens focal lengths that most users operate, but the lens-based system will be more effective as the focal length gets longer. The range of motion required by the sensor is just too great when the lens multiplies the movement like a supertele does.

--
Tom
 
ljfinger said:
It makes sense because it's cheap up-front and applies to lenses
without IS. It especially applies to companies who have very few
or no IS lenses.

But it's still weak and inferior technology that probably costs
more in the long run.

But Canon will end up having to implement it because consumers
aren't always informed enough to know the difference.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)
Click to expand...
That is correct, unfortunately.

--
Tom
 
EosSteveMD said:
If you are in a seriousl low light situation you are
much better off with faster glass then having IS either in the lens
or in the body
Click to expand...
I just hate that sort of comment because it's just flat wrong.

IS and fast apertures don't compete with each other. They are different and are used for different things.

IS allows you to shoot deep depth-of-field in low light without a tripod or other support. Fast lenses cannot do that.

Fast lenses allow you to shoot shallow depth-of-field in low light without a tripod and to freeze subject motion. Slow IS lenses cannot do that.

These are different concepts.

I have a 35/1.4L and a 24-105L IS. I use them entirely differently. When I have subject motion, I go for the fast prime, unless I need deeper depth-of-field in which case high ISO is all you can do. When I have stationary subjects and don't need or want shallow depth-of-field, I use the IS zoom.

Of course, having both speed and IS in the same lens is the ultimate in flexiblity but Canon makes exactly zero lenses faster than f2.8 with IS. So, presently your stuck with one or the other but not both. In-camera IS could help with this. For example, I'd love an 85/1.4L IS that focuses like the 85/1.8. That lens not being in the Canon lineup, I'd settle for an 85/1.8 with a stabilized camera. It's better than nothing. What I do right now is shoot with the 70-200/2.8L IS at crank up the ISO.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)
 
guess I don't spend enough time on here to keep up with all the over used jokes, sorry. BTW, did you hear the one about the priest, photographer, and the Playboy model.....?
 
Trees said:
These "Canon will never..." comments are interesting.

1. Unless anyone here actually works for Canon, it's all just
speculation.

2. The market will decide. I'll say that again, the market will
decide.

3. History is filled with companies that said "We'll never sell a
product that" fill in the blank.

Does lens-based OS/IS work better, at least anecdotaly it appears
yes. Does that matter to millions of camera users around the
world? I'd say a resounding NO.

Let's face it, virtually 90% of PS cameras take marginal photos to
any DSLR user but did that keep Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Pentax,
etc., etc., etc., from selling PS cameras? Hardly, they wouldn't
be in business today if they had ignored people who said "I just
want it to take pictures."

If the market shifts towards in-body IS/OS, I think Canon will have
no choice. My guess? Canon/Nikon are watching closesly.

So is the competition.

Trees
Click to expand...
--
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
 
It wouldn't bother me in the least if Canon or Nikon or anyone else went to putting IS in the camera. I only have one IS lens, and it's not going to effect the way it shoots anyway. It would bring the costs down on glass, no doubt about it. Someone else pointed out though, by putting IS in the camera, you add complexity to the camera and would run the risk of increased failure rates (one more thing to break) I like a simple body, and by simple I mean not too many things to break. I don't need a NASA designed camera body and NASA designed functions to take photographs. I don't shoot consumer modes, so consumer features are the least of my concerns. I don't need the camera trying to fixing my mistakes, I don't want the camera to guess at what I'm trying to do and get it wrong. I don't want the camera to keep me from doing what I want to do. Give me a good, clean high megapixal count for resolution, a full frame and the ability to set the camera manually and I'll be a happy photographer. Gimme something that breaks within a year of getting it, I won't go back. I don't want the camera to break when I need it to work.
I'll worry about how much the image wiggles, that's my responsibility.
--
Visit me at

http://www.radiodenver.org/
 
You're right. As things currently stand, you can't activate both systems at the same time, and I'm aware of that.

I was suggesting something new. A reworking of the IS system to allow simultaneous co-ordination of body and lens actuators.

New generation IS lenses 'aware' of the presence of the body-based central motion sensor/CPU would have to be designed.

However, the body is also backward compatible with older IS lenses, so that if it detects the presence of an old IS lens, it will not activate the dual IS co-ordination system.

Where there is a will, there is a way.
 
Yohanes Mangitung said:
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.
Click to expand...
What pros or amateurs use, is unimportant. Both categories use every type of equipment, the only dividing line is that the pro has photography as a main source of income. The only question that is relevant is this one: What meets one's requirements?

I am not a pro, but I nevertheless want the highest quality I can possibly afford. A sensor which is mounted in a stabilizing system will necessarily be less durable than a sensor that is fixed and therefore much more stable.

Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway
 
Corne Ferreira said:
Why on earth would you want to put something
that needs precise alignment on a moving mount.
Click to expand...
It is totally beyond me. Perhaps many people do not care if the camera has a rather short life span.

Fortunately, the semi-pro and pro cameras will always be made with more durability and reliability in mind.

Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway
 
M_G said:
More mechanically moving parts => more likely to wear out. I
replace the camera more often than the lens => make the lens
reliable and the camera disposable.
Click to expand...
Why should we accept disposable cameras? We have every reason to choose reliable lenses and reliable cameras.

Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway
 
I'll try to respond to some of these apparent misconceptions...
Karl Günter Wünsch said:
Yohanes Mangitung said:
As you know, Pentax, Samsung, Sony, and Panasonic (do I miss one?)
all offer on-body IS, which is really tempting.
Click to expand...
Wrong, only Pentax, Samsung (relabled Pentax) and Sony do offer in
Body IS. The Panasonic OIS is a lens IS!
Karl Gnter Wnsch said:
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.
Click to expand...
Won't happen because those people with IS lenses do know and have
the proof that in body IS is only a mediocre system that leaves
vital components out of the equation as:
  • in body IS doesn't account for the autofocus sensors.
Click to expand...
The autofocus sensors are completely independent systems that are not related to the CCD to begin with, at least with the Pentax system.
Karl Gnter Wnsch said:
  • in body IS doesn't account for the metering sensors (combine that
with the nagging for spot metering and you'll see the problem).
Click to expand...
Same thing here, metering is independent of the CCD. The CCD is covered by the shutter at this time remember?
Karl Gnter Wnsch said:
  • in body IS doesn't account for framing (not everyone crops to get
their preferred composition).
Click to expand...
The anti-shake does not affect the framing at all. I dont quite understand how this conclusion can be reached.
Karl Gnter Wnsch said:
  • in body IS doesn't yet handle panning (and probably may never
will as the movement while panning is quite different from camera
shake).
Click to expand...
True, but neither does in-lens IS. Panning implies that you want a certain amount of motion, in order to capture the moving subject. IS should be turned off.
Karl Gnter Wnsch said:
An IS system that leaves those components out in the dry is a
cheapskates way of the manufacturer saying: I don't care about the
images, I can't be bothered to develop in lens IS.
Click to expand...
Actually I have seen images coming out of the K100D and they are astounding. Handheld 600mm lens photos that look like they were taken with a tripod! I think personally in-body IS is better because all lenses, including the cheap ones, automatically get much better when handheld. The K100D with IS improves the image by 2 - 3.5 fstops and the K10D from 2.5 - 4.0 fstops.

regards,

Robert Gonzalez
 
Robert Gonzalez said:
I'll try to respond to some of these apparent misconceptions...
Click to expand...
Wow. And yet your own answers are all wrong.
Robert Gonzalez said:
Karl Günter Wünsch said:
  • in body IS doesn't account for the autofocus sensors.
Click to expand...
The autofocus sensors are completely independent systems that are
not related to the CCD to begin with, at least with the Pentax
system.
Click to expand...
That would be the point. Stabilizing the CCD does not stabilize the image that is going to the autofocus sensors.
Robert Gonzalez said:
Robert Gonzalez said:
  • in body IS doesn't account for the metering sensors (combine that
with the nagging for spot metering and you'll see the problem).
Click to expand...
Same thing here, metering is independent of the CCD. The CCD is
covered by the shutter at this time remember?
Click to expand...
Right. And therefore stabilizing the CCD will do nothing to help the metering sensors.
Robert Gonzalez said:
Robert Gonzalez said:
  • in body IS doesn't account for framing (not everyone crops to get
their preferred composition).
Click to expand...
The anti-shake does not affect the framing at all. I dont quite
understand how this conclusion can be reached.
Click to expand...
Of course it does. It moves the sensor relative to the image you see through the viewfinder. That's how it works.
Robert Gonzalez said:
Robert Gonzalez said:
  • in body IS doesn't yet handle panning (and probably may never
will as the movement while panning is quite different from camera
shake).
Click to expand...
True, but neither does in-lens IS. Panning implies that you want a
certain amount of motion, in order to capture the moving subject.
IS should be turned off.
Click to expand...
IS mode 1 works great for panning but, if you are struggling with framing, there's even a special panning mode that stabilized only the axis perpendicular to the direction of motion. I usually use mode 1 for panning and it works great!

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top