no I doubt it. the system is not as efficient as the in lens IS.
what would be the point? their current long telephotos all have IS in lens...and there is more to those lenses than the IS..in fact the IS is just a feature but the real attract of these lenses is the speed.
--
I think it's logic to assume that the in-lens IS is located at the center of gravity for the lens, not at the end of it, so that it is more balanced. I gyroscope I think must be centered as possible to be efficient. the mecanism in a lens is probably bigger, more efficient than what they can put inside a tiny camera as well.
--
No argument there, and all of Canon's long lenses, save the 400 / 5.6L, already have IS in them.
Are you saying a 200 / 2.8L, 135 / 2L, 100 / 2, 85 / 1.8, and even a 50 / 1.2L (and lower) will not benefit from in-camera IS? No way. No way. What's IS doing on the 24-105 / 4L IS, then?
No one is asking Canon to do so. Just switch the in-camera IS off when you're using those lenses. To those who say they do not want to pay the extra cost for in-camera IS when they are not using it, it's a burden they will have to bear, just as those who do not need AF on their lenses must bear the same burden, those who do not need automatic metering must bear the burden, those who do not need multiple AF points must bear the burden. If you look at the cost of the Sony A100, and Pentax K10 (sp?), and compare those costs to Canon DSLRs without in-camera IS, it quickly becomes obvious that the price premium for in-camera IS is ridiculously low.
Yeah, but on the other hand, the 400/5.6 on an IS body is a lot more efficient than on a non-IS body, even if in theory a 400/5.6 IS would be even more efficient than that, if one existed.
Like the 17-55 IS? Or, say, the 24/1.4, for that matter. How 'bout the 50/1.2?
They wouldn't have to remove it from the lenses. Just put an on/off switch in the body like they do for the lenses. This way when you're using it with a lens that's already stabilized, you can use the better system, and when you're using it against a lens that's not, you can at least use the better than nothing system.
wnat IS doing on the 24-105? it is in-lens like it should be for best efficiency, although it is not as critical at those focal. that's the thing, the companies who have in-camera IS usualy have limited range in the telephoto. they would be out of options otherwise.
you're in luck..there are some available already. don't hold your breath on the Canon though.
well, so far it seems that the burden is on your side. I feel no burden.
and you're talking like IS in camera is there..it's not.
they will not be forced to do anything. Quite the opposite, they are now putting the in-lens IS on more lens..see they just released the 70-200 F4 with IS..do you honestly think they would have gone to such expenses if they were about to release in-camera IS? I don't think so.
there is no reason for them to go in-camera instead of in-lens, which is a better design.
you said earlier that you wanted it badly..and now you say it is of limited use to you? wierd.
--
oh yes? and how exactly do you know that? I would like to see your reference here.
that'S debatable at that focal. might not make one bit of difference.
and why would they be investing more money in producing and designing new lens like the 70-200 F4 with IS in-lens if they were about ready to go in-camera? waste of money
maybe that would work for short focal length..but I seriously doubt that they will do it. why on earth would they have release the 70-200 F4 IS then? non sense.
it's not obvious to me at all. quite the opposite.
But it would be half the cost if IS were in the body, and, as you say, IS is not as critical that those FLs.
Nope, not holding my breath, and certainly not for FF. We shall see what the future brings. Unless Canon pulls a rabbit out of its hat with a big jump in high ISO performance, in-camera IS will be too important to ignore when the competition has it, and you don't.
Exactly my point. But when the burden does come to your side, will you ***** about the extra cost?
Or a little IQ check. Obviously, I was referring to the time when in-camera IS will be in Canon DSLRs.
I understand this point, but disagree. Just as there's a $300 50 / 1.4 and $1600 50 / 1.2L, a $330 85 / 1.8 and $2000 85 / 1.2L II, there will be a market for in-camera IS and lenses with IS for those that can afford it. Just look at the cost of the 70-200 / 4L IS compared to the 70-200 / 4L non-IS! That financial canyon will "force" many current, and potential, Canon DSLR consumers to competetors that have the much less expensive 70-200 / 4 non-IS lenses with in-camera IS. Canon's best strategy is to offer IS both in-lens and in-camera. They will attract the high and the low.
Just like there's no reason to by a Honda when you can get a Lexus, which is a better design? You don't think price is an issue for a lot of people? I wish I lived in that world!
Can't answer to that. If attracting the low end and the high end does not make sense, like having 1.6x DSLRs and FF DSLRs, then I don't know what more to say.
Exactly so. I want it badly, but it is of limited use. By that, I mean the advantages of FF are not outweighed by the advantages of 1.6x with in-camera IS.
On the contrary, arguing is free entertainment -- not unlike road rage. : )
Do not jinx it! Take it on faith! : )
Surely you've at least heard of common sense?
You seem to have a very skewed idea of photography. As someone who owns a 400/4 DO IS, 100-400 IS, or 400/2.8 IS whether or not it makes "one bit of difference" at that focal length.
Well, you DO realize that Canon is in business to sell thing, right? And that they're in competition with other photographic companies, not just Nikon, but also Pentax, Olympus, and Sony? All of whom are starting to put stabilizers in the body, taking first-time customers away from Canon. That doesn't just mean less body sales, but lenses, flashes, and so on.
not sure it would be half the cost. if they were about to do that, I don't see the point of producing more "consumer" L with in-lens IS. it's redondant. To me it just seems very unlike after the release of that lens. to me it just confirm Canon intention to go in-lens.
important for people coming from the point and shoot market maybe. I don't see how this will affect any sale for serious amateur since it is the lens system that is more important.
depends what will be the extra cost. I would not pay 200$ more for it, maybe 50$ ok, but would not be happy with more.
my IQ is fine..it is 140 so no problem there, what,s yours? I was refering to your assumption that this time will come. you wrote that it'S a burden they WILL have to bear as if it was a certitude. why the reality check here.
do you have some plugs at Canon to know this?oh sure..now who would pay 1200$ for the same lens with IS that they can get without IS for 500$ if there is in-camera IS?
that's my point..who would pay that much for in-lens IS if they can get it in-camera and get the lens for 500$? do you think Canon is that stupid to produce such lens if they plan on introducing in-camera IS?
) it cost them a lot of money to design a new lens and they must make sure they sell enough of them.and who what that be? remember that Canon also produce the 70-300 IS that is quite affordable. I don,t seen other manufacturer coming even close in term of lens choice.
they already do attract the high and the low. in order for those companies to be a real competitor to Canon, they would have to improve their lens line a lot, not to mention their image quality.
it's not an appropriate analogy. there is a lot more to the Lexus than just fancy breaks whereas the 70-200 F4 L is basicaly the same lens without IS. it has similar image quality and range and speed. so if on top of that they introduce the in-camera is..buy buy the new 70-200 F4 IS sale..they won't sell any or very few.
..you are basicaly saying the same thing as I was saying. who would pay such high price for in-lens IS if they had the possibility to get it for 500$ and get in-camera IS?
another reality check here..the high end is the 70-200 F2.8 L IS, not the 70-200 F4 L IS. there is a lot more difference between those cameras than there is in the 70-200 F4 IS vs non IS.
it's your money..if you want to buy something of limited use to you, then your choice. I know what most people would do though.
yes and what your common sense tell you about the recent release of the 70-200 F4 IS? do you honestly think they would sell a lot of them at 1200$ if they were to introduce the in-camera is?
you're talking about in-lens IS..I was talking about in-camera IS which is far less efficient with long lenses.
in fact, I seem to be the only one taking that into account here.
lets see..how long ago was the in-camera IS introduced? do you think they missed that many sales? gee..they must be near bankruptcy by now.
sure..but most are too limited in lens choice and more expensive in price for the lenses anyway. it's not like the in-camera IS just poped out yesterday. it's been there for a while now and I don't see Canon suffering much from it.
again what are your references for that assumption? no common sense accepted.
do you honestly think that all consumers will buy a DSLR? the point and shoot cameras are getting better and better..I think probably most consumer go that route and mostly keep amateur and prosumer, pros, are going DSLR.
what about the point and shoot cameras? look at the amount of them made..vs the amount of DSLR made.
they sure don't. but with your good common sense, how do you explain the release of the 70-200 F4 IS then? answer me this..how many do you think they would sell if they would do a XT with in-camera IS? why even produce that lens? it'S a waste of time then. no body will buy it at such high cost if there is in-camera IS.
Lens IS works in two directions up/down and left/right. There is no back and forth. The pentax K10D can compensate for rotational motion which is something lens based IS cannot do.
The 70-200 / 4L non-IS is basically half the cost of the 70-200 / 4L IS.
And you think people coming from the compact digicam market is a small and insignficant group? By the way, I guess I'm not a serious ameteur by your definition.
Probably more like $100 for 1.6x.
And I prefer not to use a tripod, since convenience and free framing outweighs preparation and rigid framing for my type of photography.
A little higher, but why quibble? Was spelling on that test? Sorry -- couldn't resist! Just goes to show IQ ain't the whole story, huh? : )
I'll quote you: "time will tell".you're saying this time WILL come and they WILL have to bear it.
yeah, right
But didn't you claim that in-lens IS is superior? Who would pay $1600 for a 50 / 1.2L that's only half a stop faster than a $300 50 / 1.4?
Covering high and low ends. Not stupid -- pragmatic.
Take another look at the competetors' lens lines. It's happening as you type. Nikon has a 105 / 2.8 macro IS, 200 / 2 VR, and 200-400 / 4 VR that Canon lovers would love to have. Pentax is coming out with some ver good glass to add to their line as well.
So which is it? Is in-camera IS as good as in-lens IS, or, as you stated earlier:
You can't have it both ways.
What is it you know that most people would do that I don't? Buy a DSLR that only has an in-lens IS system as opposed to a DSLR with in-camera IS that gives IS to all their lenses for $100 extra? Was that it, or did I guess wrong?
It turns off compensation in the left/right direction.
ok that's what you meant. it is 1200$ so it is a bit more expensive than half. there is quite a bit in difference in price.
if they won't buy into Canon because some other manufacturer have in-camera IS, then why is the XT best selling camera? it's not like this gadget does not exist..it does and does that drive Canon to brankruptcy? nope.
