Canon feeling threatened by in-Camera IS?

repeat in the 1D forums..

Canon appears to be launching a campaign of their IS lenses. I think they are begining to feel threatened by the in-camera IS systems being offered by other manufacturers. They are trying to justify why IS lenses are better than in-camera IS

http://www.usa.canon.com/app/emails/eosmarch07/index.html

Users want IS, so Canon is giving customers what they want. About 3 or 4 months ago Canon had a magazine ad showing their IS lenses stating that IS in the lens is better performance than in-camera sensor shifting.

Hellashot said:

Users want IS, so Canon is giving customers what they want. About
3 or 4 months ago Canon had a magazine ad showing their IS lenses
stating that IS in the lens is better performance than in-camera
sensor shifting.

Click to expand...

If sensor IS doesn't show a stabilized image while shooting, then I'd have to agree that in lens is better. Makes sense too that customizing for each individual lens would produce better results than having one on the sensor to try to handle every possible lens combo there is.

--
Steve

YES! I hope they are forced to drop the super premium they are charging for IS. I am sure for their key entry level/prosumer level IS will be a big issue with the inbody IS having a great advantage. Personally I think inlens IS is better but not everyone will care that much or pay for each lens having IS.

Blue II said:

Hellashot said:

Users want IS, so Canon is giving customers what they want. About
3 or 4 months ago Canon had a magazine ad showing their IS lenses
stating that IS in the lens is better performance than in-camera
sensor shifting.

Click to expand...

If sensor IS doesn't show a stabilized image while shooting, then
I'd have to agree that in lens is better. Makes sense too that
customizing for each individual lens would produce better results
than having one on the sensor to try to handle every possible lens
combo there is.

--
Steve

Click to expand...

I have not owned a incamera IS camera. But I do know there is a little more to it then just all lens are the same. I have used a K10d. K10 does have a menu so you tell the camera about the lens if its a manual lens. Thats something you cant do with in lens IS. Computer chip lens (autofocus) tell the camera what the focal lenth is automatic. So its a little more then just sensor shift alone. I do beleive in the lens IS is better. But having in camera IS is a big plus IMO. I love to have both worlds and I dont see why we cant at least in the D series.
--
Steve

Canon has the better methodology, why shouldn't they run an ad campaign to push their view. Both schemes seem to work but Canon has chosen to do this in the lens which has benifits that they feel add value, such as a stable VF, compatability with with Film bodies, support for their FF sensors etc. etc.

I see it as a camaigh to educate the masses, those same people that choose the most MP etc. People can make a better decision if they know all the facts.

David Hull said:

Canon has the better methodology, why shouldn't they run an ad
campaign to push their view. Both schemes seem to work but Canon
has chosen to do this in the lens which has benifits that they feel
add value, such as a stable VF, compatability with with Film
bodies, support for their FF sensors etc. etc.

Click to expand...

I wonder how much it would add to the price of the body? Bet it would be a big money saving to anyone that buys a few lenses. I wonder if it will come to the day that canon puts in in camera and no longer makes new lens models with it built in.
--
http://www.pbase.com/ken_5

Yes, there are still many users of film and film cameras being sold by both Canon and Nikon. You can't have in-body IS with a film camera. Therefore Canon and Nikon will continue to offer in-lens IS. The manufacturers that offer in-body IS don't sell film cameras
--
John W
The only normal people are the ones you don't know very well....!!!

at least for me,

so is canon, can't afford L Lens LBA, incl. IS,...
+ full frame 1DS+,....
now if I do,... probably still won't be canon,
at that point a 645D might just be right.

even got a buddy, with nikon glass, 28years old nikon glass,
he'd be more that happy , to get in body IS, with a split screen for his glass,
and he ain't gonna replace his trusty old friends, all with new VR stuff.

cheers, Robert

John W. said:

Yes, there are still many users of film and film cameras being sold
by both Canon and Nikon. You can't have in-body IS with a film
camera. Therefore Canon and Nikon will continue to offer in-lens
IS. The manufacturers that offer in-body IS don't sell film cameras
--
John W
The only normal people are the ones you don't know very well....!!!

Click to expand...

--
http://www.RobsPhoto.com

Robert Scultz said:

at least for me,

so is canon, can't afford L Lens LBA, incl. IS,...
+ full frame 1DS+,....
now if I do,... probably still won't be canon,
at that point a 645D might just be right.

Click to expand...

Umm alot of non-L lenses have IS. I think from trying to figure out what you were trying to say. don't need L glass for IS.

from their supplier Sony. On the digital side that is. A BIG negative for Nikon.

Why would they do that?

Doesn't matter whether in lens is better.

All bodies should have IS. IS can remain in lenses too - just turn it off in the body when using in-lens IS.

In-body IS allows stabilisation of lenses that don't have IS including a lot of superb old manual glass. It alows a substantial saving for anyone that wants some form of IS but doesn't want to pay for or can't afford IS lenses. It is also an advantage for connoisseurs using rare glass that is never stabilised.

There's also the fact that in-lens IS makes lenses heavier and reduces optical performance slightly due to the extra glass involved.

In lens IS is great. It isn't going anywhere especially in pro level telephoto lenses.

However, in body IS should be in every camera body. It's more versatile, better value and most importantly, can be turned off. It offers advantages for every user at any level and is v cheap indeed to add.

Simple isn't it.

To get a little more involved:

Consider that when (not if) EVILs finally appear, you WILL be able to see the effect of sensor stabilisation in the VF.

Also, as soon as live-view makes it into all DSLRs, there is no reason you couldn't see the effect of IS on the LCD (if seeing the effect is that vital - which it isn't for me).

There is no reason not to have IS in all bodies. Keep it in the super-teles and high-end mid-long zooms (and anything else) if there's a demand for it.

I saw another thread on the news discussion forum saying that a full benchmarked test comparison of in lens vs in body IS is on the way imminently. Apparently the results are eye opening. Can't wait to see the full details and to decide for myself.

Canon should only be "worried", if they chose a profiteering direction with little regard for the needs/wants of their customers or the value for money of the products they offer. Perhaps Canon hope to keep in lens IS dominant because it makes them more money. However in the real world having BOTH in lens AND in body is truely the best solution. Sad fact is that having it in body means you need it in less lenses and that will cost Canon money. Tough. Canon can either embrace it as an opportunity, add the feature and watch their market share thrive, or pretend that it's rubbish and that we should all pay through the nose and watch customers buy competitors products instead. Again, it's v simple.

Hope to see in body IS from Canon v soon alongside some more nice in-lens IS superteles.

I'd love a 200-500 f4-5.6 L IS (100-400 replacement) and a stabilised small-bodied DSLR with pro AF. Not holding my breath!

auser said:

repeat in the 1D forums..

Canon appears to be launching a campaign of their IS lenses. I
think they are begining to feel threatened by the in-camera IS
systems being offered by other manufacturers. They are trying to
justify why IS lenses are better than in-camera IS

http://www.usa.canon.com/app/emails/eosmarch07/index.html

Click to expand...

--
Keep photography wild.

by releasing a low-price consumer 55-200 VR lens.

That's a good thing.

Phil is currently designing a system to test the effectiveness of the various IS/VR and in-camera stabilization schemes:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=22547883

We'll soon know the truth...

-------------------------------------------
See the colors of my world in:
thw.smugmug.com

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=22542932

Take a look through. Phil's reply to my comment says that he's working on a providing an IS comparison for us soon.

Great news. Especially great because that other site is doing some work on an IS comparison too.

There will be plenty of opportunity for debate should the separate results disagree. Hopefully they will agree and that would potentially be really great news for all camera buyers as we'd all know with reasonable confidence what the total pros/cons of each system were!

I expect the results will say that both work well and that having BOTH in cam IS AND in lens IS available for various tasks/budgets is the true 'best' scenario for consumers. We just need one company to offer both in cam IS and in lens IS, instead of pretending that 'their' system is the be all and end all 'BEST' for all shooting situations and budgets ON ITS OWN!

To say we can only use one IS system is like saying you can use higher ISO OR a larger aperture to increase shutter speed, BUT NOT either or both under different circumstances. Clearly ludicrous.

Just as ISO or aperture would each on occasion be better than the other for increasing shutter speed under a certain set of circumstances; in cam IS and in lens IS are each better under certain circumstances (including non-photographic circumstances like the financial circumstances of the user) and should both be available to all shooters.

It is almost certainly true however that if/when in body IS becomes dominant due to its obvious theoretical benefit to all shooters, IS lens sales will decline.

I'm sure the results of the tests will show that in-lens systems only has clear advantages over a certain focal length and what is important is that that focal length is likely to be above that at which most users capture the vast majority of their shots. That means that in lens IS may prove to be of little use to most users most of the time they need IS with in-body being fine for the task. I am also sure that the results of the tests will show that in-lens IS is significantly superior for pro super-tele use.

We shall see and I stand to be corrected.

--
Keep photography wild.

This is a company that introduced the EF line of lenses, in those days a clean cut from there former lenses. Alienating all their users who had a vast investment in expensive tele lenses. But those were the ones who wanted that eos 1 (600 at first) the most.

Nowadays all are glad that canon made that decision. Over time it gave them a deciding edge over the competition. It allowed for AF moters in the lens, catered for each lens, and USM. That's why at sports games you mostly see Canon systems.

Now, do you think that canon does not believe in their decisions anymore? But with a strong marketing division you can be sure that they want everyone to know that their choice is the best. So that is what canon is doing. But threatened??

Rob.
--
'Life is funny but not Ha Ha funny. Peculiar I guess'. (Mr. E.)

I suspect Canon will need to respond to in camera IS, if for no other reason than this will increasingly be a key selling point for consumer cameras. Whether its better than lens IS or not is irrelevant - it is a headline feature consumers will expect, just like the megapixel count.

It also needs to be remembered that when Canon made the brave move to EOS mount lenses, lens IS was the only option. I don't question that it was a good decision at the time, but that was many years ago.

I feel that lens IS is the better option with long lenses (simple physics will always make this so), but at shorter focal lengths, it is perhaps not so clear cut.

I would not be surprised if in camera IS turns out to be the big new feature of the 40D when it appears ... frankly, I can't see much else that would prevent the 40D from being another minor upgrade (except possibly EVIL).
--
Colin K. Work
[email protected]
http://www.ckwphoto.com

auser said:

http://www.usa.canon.com/app/emails/eosmarch07/index.html

Click to expand...

One point not mentioned in Canon's defense of lens-based Image Stabilization (IS) is that sensor shift IS adds considerably to the weight to the of ur body-lens combo in all times even in situations where u don't need IS (eg u are lugging ur camera with a tripod for a night shot). A good example of how much weight the sensor approach adds to the body is the Pentax K100D vs K110D, the former is equiped with sensor-shift IS and weighs 560g, the later lacks IS but otherwise identical to the former and weighs 485g:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0605/06052205pentaxk100d.asp

However I must say that overall I'd prefer to have the IS in the sensor, simply because that way I have to pay for it only once (or everytime I buy a body rather than everytime I buy a lens) and because if use an old lens or the like u always have IS.

Now imagine if Canon reconsider the matter and make a future model with sensor-shift IS, u attach one of the by-then-old IS lenses, turn on both lens and sensor IS and shoot; what is going to happen? Will u get super-stabilized image or will the sensor and lens IS mechanisms work discordantly so as to produce results worse than no stabilization whatsoever. Testing this will soon be possible on FourThirds by using the Pano L1's stabilized kit lens mounted on the Oly E510 body equiped with sensor-shift.

--
Ahmed Elnagar

David Hull said:

Why would they do that?

Click to expand...

If the competition is successful in putting IS in the body it would certainly have an effect on Canon. There will be those that go for in body, even "if" it is slightly less effective, since it will cost them thousands less than if they had to get multiple Canon lenses with IS.

What they would do is beyond me. I guess they could just go on as they have been and start an advertising campaign stating just how much better it is in lens. Competition is good for us all and perhaps it will cause Canon to put IS in all their lenses and reduce the price! But, perhaps they will just jump on the bandwagon and put it in body. Certainly "if" they do that it will be a big decision for them and I would think it would be the end of "new" lenses with IS.

A bunch of what ifs!
--
http://www.pbase.com/ken_5

PixelMinded said:

However I must say that overall I'd prefer to have the IS in the
sensor, simply because that way I have to pay for it only once (or
everytime I buy a body rather than everytime I buy a lens) and
because if use an old lens or the like u always have IS.

Click to expand...

Well, that brings up an arguement against what I wrote earlier in this thread. LOL! Perhaps it is best in lens since a lot of folk go out and buy a new camera everytime one is released! So in the long run it might still cost less to buy multiple lenses with IS than multiple bodies.
--
http://www.pbase.com/ken_5