Canon's new Hybrid IS

[gmosc]

I'm gonna be a jerk here and you'll probably hate me like my wife does when I guess who-did-it in movies....

I have no interest in the VR debate at short focal lengths I just enjoy analyzing things.

I haven't checked your history nor have I been closely following this debate but here goes...

I think that you probably have been intensely debating the issue of VR on lenses like the new pro 24-XX zoom. You stand on the correct side of the argument and insist that it IS necessary and Nikon should put it on. Loyal users of Nikon (almost fanboys) have been arguing passionately against VR on this kind of a lens for all kinds of reasons including that it is useless on shooting macro.

Nobody has been convincing anybody and everybody has been spinning their wheels.

But Tadah! This new technology by Canon "proves" your points nicely. So with this canon info in your pocket you casually stroll over to the Nikon forum where this debate has been going on FOREVER and post the link to prove that once and for all, you were right!

I sensed there was a reason for you posting this and now I think I've figured it out. How close did I get? I'm pretty sure you won't see it this way, but I have a feeling that the people who had been arguing with you probably see it (If I'm right- but of course I could be TOTALLY wrong which my wife would LOVE)

How close did I get? huh?

I'm just being cheeky with my hunch and really have no true interest in convincing anyone on either side of the debate.

Guy Moscoso

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0907/09072207canonhybridIS.asp

It says "The system, which the company claims is a world's first for SLR lenses, will be incorporated into a lens that will be released before the end of 2009. It is designed to offer improved stabilization performance at closer subject distances, and particularly for macro shooting."

I bet this will be very interesting; I wouldn't be surprised, if Canon would include this technology in their revised 24-70/2.8L ...

--

Robert Capa said 'you can never get close enough'. Well, he did.... He also often visited my daily photoblog at http://logatec.blogspot.com/

 

[HeyItsJoel]

OTOH the fast short primes and wideangle f/2.8 zooms can only be stabilized with an in-body VR.

Frank, please expound on this further. How do wideangle/short primes "can only" benefit from in-camera stabilization vs. VR?

My position is, neither really need it. wideangles are, well, too wide and short primes have apertures going for them. VR should start once you pass the 100mm mark for the primes (ie: 105mm VR macro).

Nikon should admit that and should include in-body VR in future camera's.

I just don't see it, IMO.

 

[HeyItsJoel]

Sounds like you're a prime candidate for Canon.

Besides, Nikon already has VR 1 and VR II. Why wouldn't they do VR 3? Heck, the 80-400 still sells for a nice amount and its overall system is quite dated.

The reason why this wouldn't be a bad business decision for Nikon is because EVERYONE KNOWS that Nikon is slower than mud to implement anything in FX let alone come out with new lenses that replace their current bests. (Too busy making a zillion 18-XX/X's).

So noone is going to assume that there is ever going to be an 85/1.4 VR3 any time soon. There isn't even an 85/1.4G, let alone a VR 1!

The 17-35 is still selling at a price that would make you think it was cutting edge and its been out forever. I mean who the heck would believe that new technology would ever make Nikon want to actually use it?

More realistically Nikon will implement in a few lenses that seem trendy or are critically ready for replacement or that can be some kind of gimmick in a kit and then it will completely ignore the technology for any lens you actually would want to see it used in for another 5-10 years.

Nikon will probably be selling VR 2 lenses still being sold at nearly current prices when VR 5 is out.

The Nikon Micro 200/4 doesn't even have VR at all and it still sells at full new tech price! Did lack of VR kill stop people from buying the Micro 200/4?

No. Why?

Because if there one thing you can count on -- its Nikon being slower than hell while charging you early adopter prices for 3-20 year old technology. So why would any right-minded Nikonian wait to see what comes out in a year, when they know its going to be nothing for another 5, at least. Most people wont even wait 3 months for what they want right now.

Does Nikon care that its 80-400 doesn't have very good AF? Nah.
Does Nikon care that its 200/m doesn't have VR? Pff.

Does Nikon care that half its line of cameras couldn't even focus an 85/1.4? Nope!

Does Nikon even care that 99% of its FX users might want a new 35mm at the same time as the DX users? Ha! You're dreaming.

Would Nikon care if anybody wanted a VR 3 on their 105/VR, which still feels newish in the lineup despite being years old? Or would Nikon care if anyone wanted a VR 3 on the 24-702.8, which doesn't even have any VR at all?

Don't count on it.

But you can pretty much bet money that there will be an 18-xxx or 55-xxx DX kit lens that will have it sooner than anything else.
--

Sincerely,

GlobalGuyUSA

 

[The Keither]

Dude, bitter much?

Besides, Nikon already has VR 1 and VR II. Why wouldn't they do VR 3? Heck, the 80-400 still sells for a nice amount and its overall system is quite dated.

The reason why this wouldn't be a bad business decision for Nikon is because EVERYONE KNOWS that Nikon is slower than mud to implement anything in FX let alone come out with new lenses that replace their current bests. (Too busy making a zillion 18-XX/X's).

So noone is going to assume that there is ever going to be an 85/1.4 VR3 any time soon. There isn't even an 85/1.4G, let alone a VR 1!

The 17-35 is still selling at a price that would make you think it was cutting edge and its been out forever. I mean who the heck would believe that new technology would ever make Nikon want to actually use it?

More realistically Nikon will implement in a few lenses that seem trendy or are critically ready for replacement or that can be some kind of gimmick in a kit and then it will completely ignore the technology for any lens you actually would want to see it used in for another 5-10 years.

Nikon will probably be selling VR 2 lenses still being sold at nearly current prices when VR 5 is out.

The Nikon Micro 200/4 doesn't even have VR at all and it still sells at full new tech price! Did lack of VR kill stop people from buying the Micro 200/4?

No. Why?

Because if there one thing you can count on -- its Nikon being slower than hell while charging you early adopter prices for 3-20 year old technology. So why would any right-minded Nikonian wait to see what comes out in a year, when they know its going to be nothing for another 5, at least. Most people wont even wait 3 months for what they want right now.

Does Nikon care that its 80-400 doesn't have very good AF? Nah.
Does Nikon care that its 200/m doesn't have VR? Pff.

Does Nikon care that half its line of cameras couldn't even focus an 85/1.4? Nope!

Does Nikon even care that 99% of its FX users might want a new 35mm at the same time as the DX users? Ha! You're dreaming.

Would Nikon care if anybody wanted a VR 3 on their 105/VR, which still feels newish in the lineup despite being years old? Or would Nikon care if anyone wanted a VR 3 on the 24-702.8, which doesn't even have any VR at all?

Don't count on it.

But you can pretty much bet money that there will be an 18-xxx or 55-xxx DX kit lens that will have it sooner than anything else.
--

Sincerely,

GlobalGuyUSA

 

[thomas2279]

Me 2 wish Nikon did add Vr to the excellent 24-70 lens and we probably have to wait for Ver 2 model of this lens; nor has the Canon got IS in it - although it is rumored to be coming out of Ver 2 of the Canon equivalent with IS.
--



My Pictures & Web Site: http://www.dltp.co.uk

 

[noirdesir]

OTOH the fast short primes and wideangle f/2.8 zooms can only be stabilized with an in-body VR.

Frank, please expound on this further. How do wideangle/short primes "can only" benefit from in-camera stabilization vs. VR?

Tele do not benefit from in-body VR as they already have in-lens VR (at least for those tele lenses with VR, which most > 135 mm have by now).

Wideangle/short primes will benefit from in-body VR as there will probably never be in-lens VR for them.
By how much they benefit is another question.

 

[neil holmes]

OTOH the fast short primes and wideangle f/2.8 zooms can only be stabilized with an in-body VR.

Frank, please expound on this further. How do wideangle/short primes "can only" benefit from in-camera stabilization vs. VR?

Tele do not benefit from in-body VR as they already have in-lens VR (at least for those tele lenses with VR, which most > 135 mm have by now).

Wideangle/short primes will benefit from in-body VR as there will probably never be in-lens VR for them.
By how much they benefit is another question.

Hi

There is a lot of benefit...having in camera stabilization just means more options for shooting with short fast primes and wide angles.

If you want a long lens stabilized with Nikon and Canon you do not get much choice but with in camera even people who do not want to spend or can not afford to spend so much can get a stabilized long tele.

One of my favourite lenses stabilized is my Nikon 85 1.8. I also experimented with a faulty 35 1.4 Nikon lens and saw enough that if i can find the right one for the right price I will get it to use stabilized on my Pentax.

I love using other short lenses stabilized as well though.

There are now three mounts that can use dual systems

Oly have had a stabilized Panasonic lens for a while and Sigma has started making stabilized lenses for Pentax and Sony....only a 18-250 OS so far but should be more if it sells. I do not think the demand has been all that great though as there are plenty of other stabilized lens options for Pentax in that focal range (IE any other lens on a stabilized camera).

Choice is a good thing.

neil
http://www.flickr.com/photos/26884588@N00/

 

[Photo_AK]

I'm gonna be a jerk here and you'll probably hate me like my wife does when I guess who-did-it in movies....

Yup, you really are being a jerk and no, I don't hate you - you're gonna have to do a whole lot more for that to happen ...

I have no interest in the VR debate at short focal lengths I just enjoy analyzing things.

Cool, but you're mostly wrong - so where's the point?

I haven't checked your history nor have I been closely following this debate but here goes...

You obviously should do both; check my history and follow the debate.

I think that you probably have been intensely debating the issue of VR on lenses like the new pro 24-XX zoom.

Nope ...

You stand on the correct side of the argument and insist that it IS necessary and Nikon should put it on.

Nope ...

But Tadah! This new technology by Canon "proves" your points nicely.

Not really ... because I don't really have a point ...?

So with this canon info in your pocket you casually stroll over to the Nikon forum ...

Nope ... I casually stroll over to the Canon forum ...

... where this debate has been going on FOREVER and post the link to prove that once and for all, you were right!

Wouldn't know that, 'cause I don't follow those debates.

I sensed there was a reason for you posting this and now I think I've figured it out.

Yeah, that's right - you "sensed" and you "think". But what you should is ... KNOW. And I don't care much for what you sense and think.

How close did I get?

Not even.

I'm pretty sure you won't see it this way, but I have a feeling that the people who had been arguing with you probably see it.

I'm sorry to brake it to you, but ... no one was arguing with me, so what are you talking about?

(If I'm right- but of course I could be TOTALLY wrong which my wife would LOVE)

I'm happy for your wife. She must be a lovely person.

How close did I get?

Not even, really not even close.

huh?

Huh what?

I'm just being cheeky with my hunch and really have no true interest in convincing anyone on either side of the debate.

No, you're being silly and a jerk, not cheeky.

Just have a cup of coffee and relax a bit, and while you're at it, stop making your wife happy. Just show her how nice a guy you are and make her suffer.

--

Robert Capa said 'you can never get close enough'. Well, he did.... He also often visited my daily photoblog at http://logatec.blogspot.com/

 

[gmosc]

You got me. I was totally wrong.

You probably won't believe me when I say I don't mind being wrong, but it is true. I have absolutely no emotion involved in this just a hunch.

Thanks for the info on the new technology.
Later.

Guy Moscoso

I'm gonna be a jerk here and you'll probably hate me like my wife does when I guess who-did-it in movies....

Yup, you really are being a jerk and no, I don't hate you - you're gonna have to do a whole lot more for that to happen ...

I have no interest in the VR debate at short focal lengths I just enjoy analyzing things.

Cool, but you're mostly wrong - so where's the point?

I haven't checked your history nor have I been closely following this debate but here goes...

You obviously should do both; check my history and follow the debate.

I think that you probably have been intensely debating the issue of VR on lenses like the new pro 24-XX zoom.

Nope ...

You stand on the correct side of the argument and insist that it IS necessary and Nikon should put it on.

Nope ...

But Tadah! This new technology by Canon "proves" your points nicely.

Not really ... because I don't really have a point ...?

So with this canon info in your pocket you casually stroll over to the Nikon forum ...

Nope ... I casually stroll over to the Canon forum ...

... where this debate has been going on FOREVER and post the link to prove that once and for all, you were right!

Wouldn't know that, 'cause I don't follow those debates.

I sensed there was a reason for you posting this and now I think I've figured it out.

Yeah, that's right - you "sensed" and you "think". But what you should is ... KNOW. And I don't care much for what you sense and think.

How close did I get?

Not even.

I'm pretty sure you won't see it this way, but I have a feeling that the people who had been arguing with you probably see it.

I'm sorry to brake it to you, but ... no one was arguing with me, so what are you talking about?

(If I'm right- but of course I could be TOTALLY wrong which my wife would LOVE)

I'm happy for your wife. She must be a lovely person.

How close did I get?

Not even, really not even close.

huh?

Huh what?

I'm just being cheeky with my hunch and really have no true interest in convincing anyone on either side of the debate.

No, you're being silly and a jerk, not cheeky.

Just have a cup of coffee and relax a bit, and while you're at it, stop making your wife happy. Just show her how nice a guy you are and make her suffer.

--

Robert Capa said 'you can never get close enough'. Well, he did.... He also often visited my daily photoblog at http://logatec.blogspot.com/