Reading mode: Light Dark

Why No IS On My Prime

Go to last post
Hahahahaha... I very well know that higher ISO's make faster shutter speeds. The thing is I'm going for Pentax who's called the best high ISO in the class by DP.. and I'm guessing they have pre-digital fast primes although maybe I'm wrong.
--
Erik Stouffer
 
Wow that's a long time. It's discouraging for me but I won't give up. It will just make me think twice when results really matter and I'll make sure to get the shot on both my zoom and the 1.4 I guess the days are upon me where I'll just be carrying my tripod though.

It's nice to know it's your favorite though, thanks for your post.

--
Erik Stouffer
 
Thanks for your post but it's f*cked up how they are unwilling to make these changes for the customer when they could have hose to put in body IS and never would have had to deal with the cost increases in putting it in the lens. We deserve for them to make it. They really chose to make it more difficult for them, so they could make more money.
--
Erik Stouffer
 
THey deserve to make it for us*
Erik Michael Nahman Stouffer said:
Thanks for your post but it's f*cked up how they are unwilling to make these changes for the customer when they could have hose to put in body IS and never would have had to deal with the cost increases in putting it in the lens. We deserve for them to make it. They really chose to make it more difficult for them, so they could make more money.
--
Erik Stouffer
Click to expand...
--
Erik Stouffer
 
Okay I understand that, but based on the review dp gave the lens isn't as sharp as it is until 4.5-5.6.. Unfortunately what IQ this lens really has is limited to slow appertures

And that's what I hate about Canon.
--
Erik Stouffer
 
For all you good people commenting on here I give you a gift. This article shows between 2.7 and 2.1 stops of extra light in an On Camera IS.

Image Stabilization Test: Olympus E-520 SLR Body - SLRgear.com

Read more at:

Also Canon could just have a feature where you enable IS on camera or disable it then you an shoot with IS lenses hence they still have a market for those who believe the false truths that lens IS is better.. AHHHH!! Did I just ome up with a solution and a marketing scheme. Let's give the idea away if you all want to write to Canon I will join you.

--
Erik Stouffer
 
Great Bustard said:
Canon needs to implement sensor IS -- it's that simple. They are heavily invested in the lens IS system, because they came up with that solution in the film era. But snubbing sensor IS simply because they feel it will take sales away from their IS lenses does not sit well with me.

There are those that argue that lens IS is superior to sensor IS. Well, given that none of my lenses have IS, nor are there even IS versions of any of my lenses, I don't see how lens IS is superior to sensor IS, which would give all my lenses IS at one small price.

Furthermore, there's no reason that lens IS cannot coexist with sensor IS -- best of both worlds (that's not to say that both IS systems can be run at the same time, however).

Canon, get over it. Implement sensor IS. And figure out how to make a sensor as good as Sony's sensor in the K5 and D7000 while you're at it.
Click to expand...
I agree completely. I think it would give them a marketing advantage if nothing else. To offer consumers the choice would be great. It's sort of like being able to use the viewfinder versus live view to compose; two-in-one.
 
It is all about keeping the customer happy f*ck their business losses. I would happily pay one or two hundred extra for a IS lens or better yet on the camera. And if they chose to allow you to enable or disable your on-camera IS then they could still market IS lenses to those who believe the false truth that it's a better system in camera.
--
Erik Stouffer
 
Great Bustard said:
John_A_G said:
Great Bustard said:
Canon, get over it. Implement sensor IS. And figure out how to make a sensor as good as Sony's sensor in the K5 and D7000 while you're at it.
Click to expand...
Here's the business reality. You want the feature great. But there hasn't been a compelling reason yet for Canon to give it to you.
Click to expand...
That's a weak argument, in my opinion. There was no "compelling reason" for updating the 300 / 2.8L IS, either.
Click to expand...
Haha.. I love this
Great Bustard said:
Great Bustard said:
There simply aren't enough people choosing Oly, Pentax, Sony over Canon/Nikon BECAUSE OF anti-shake to make it a business need.
Click to expand...
Likewise, there aren't enough people choosing Nikon over Canon because of the performance of the 300 / 2.8L IS to "make it a business need".
Great Bustard said:
It's pretty evident by both Canon and Nikon NOT doing this that they believe the lost revenue is greater than the increase in customers they would gain. If one of those two blinks the other would have to follow.
Click to expand...
This, I agree with. Canon likely feels that if they implement sensor IS that Nikon will immediately follow, and all it will do is result in a loss of sales of IS lenses, with no net gain of new customers.

However, let's talk about that short interim period when Nikon plays catch-up. When Nikon came out with the D3, how many customers did Canon lose to Nikon who chose it over the 1D3? How much damage was done to Canon by the time they released the 1D4?

Of course, one could argue that this Nikon triumph was not the D3 itself, but the AF fiasco with the 1D3. Fair enough. But there is reason to think that Canon would, indeed, stand to gain.
Great Bustard said:
BUT, Oly's DSLR is a burning platform so that's not a competitor anymore.
Click to expand...
Which is a terrible shame. I was hoping they would grow and put more pressure on Canon to implement similar features and improve their consumer lenses.
Great Bustard said:
Pentax still has a minute market share so that's not a threat. Only Sony is a real threat. And their marketing blunders over the last 2 years (creating all kinds of confusion regarding where there direction and commitment is) has halted their growth.
Click to expand...
Sony's new sensor in the K5 and D7000 is a game changer -- I mean 14 stops of DR at base ISO?! Let's see what happens while that starts to sink in on the market.
Click to expand...
But the K-5 has better reviews for optical quality than the 7d. That's huge. I mean to me it is. Their lenses are cheaper and higher quality to and they have an amazing range. It's true they don't have a lot of primes and some of the ones they do look like jokes but for me I don't mind I can use the old primes without AF. For every other user Pentax is killing their market by having so few primes, and having the primes they do as slow as they are and as ugly. Also the K-5 is expensive, but I think it's worth it. They lead on high ISO's. What's this 14 stops all about I don't think that's true especially if it's advertised.
Great Bustard said:
Great Bustard said:
So, while there's no argument that in-body IS would benefit photographers there's no reason right now for canon to do it. You can wish all you want that canon did not go the in-lens route but they did. But make no mistake - they are businesses. They're only going to lose money when they have to. And the only thing that will cause them to have to is market pressure. Pentax and Oly aren't exerting enough market pressure. SO it's up to Sony.
Click to expand...
Go Sony!
Great Bustard said:
But the reality seems to be - not enough people feel it's a make-or-break issue and are thus going elsewhere for their DSLR needs. It doesn't matter if Canon loses SOME customers. They have to lose MORE revenue in lost customers to make up for the cost in revenue brought in by IS (and the cost of R&D for implementing in their cameras). Until the loss is greater it's a bad business decision. I get you don't like that. But running a business isn't always about keeping EVERY customer happy.
Click to expand...
If it were just me, sure, that would be one thing. But my opinion is far from a minority opinion. And, the thing is, if it's Nikon that goes with sensor IS first, which would be smart for them to do, it widens the gulf, sucking more customers from Canon.

Canon has been riding on it's "past glory", just like American car manufacturers did. Then the Japanese came along with better cars, and by the time that the American car manufacturers decided to react, it was too little too late.

The moral of the story is: don't turn off the engines just because you're cruising smoothly at 40,000 ft.
Click to expand...
I don't know but i'd like to pretend I do so I'll say this: Canon is riding on their past glories, and they need to develop new primes anyways the 1.4 I have hits it's sweet spot at 4-5.6 that's too high for a md-grade prime. It's not very mid-grade at all and the 1.8 if I'm not mistaken hits it's sweet spot at 3.5 if I'm right based on what Dp says. And both of those suck compared to the Pentax 12-60 if I'm right? It's a 2.8 and it has a higher amount of sharpness at like 3.3 (3.2??)

--
Erik Stouffer
 
Serious photographers don't much care what the lens looks like. They care about the functionality and images the lens provide. Those Pentax pancake primes are some fine lenses. And look again at the selection of primes available from Pentax; it sounds like your information is off.

As for your situation, you should be able to hand-hold with consistent good results at 1/60. If you're careful and pay attention to what you're doing, 1/30.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/donkiyoti/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
  • Question Question
300 / 400mm Primes Electronic Manual Focus Information
Replies
12
Views
2K
John Crowe
John Crowe
J
  • Poll Poll
Zoom and a flash or a fast prime?
2 3
Replies
48
Views
7K
TJ Olympus
TJ Olympus
C
24-70 replacing all primes?
2
Replies
36
Views
14K
polizonte
polizonte
PHXAZCRAIG
Which three primes for general purpose vacation photography?
Replies
18
Views
13K
RBFresno
RBFresno
A
Why no 70mm prime?
2
Replies
37
Views
9K
yardcoyote
Y

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