What if Canon doesn't offer IBIS ....

[Johann Kruger]

We'll wait for IBIS since we have Sony already. We know Canon will eventually have IBIS to ensure image quality.

 

[T O Shooter]

I saw this on the Canon M forum

"I suspect it's going to be a cold day in Hell before we see IBIS on a Canon system. IBIS was originally created by the OTHER companies who were unable to get around Canon's IS and USM patents. Back in the early 2000s it was amusing to watch those things shake the sensor so hard that it fell off the mount. Someone noted the other day that IBIS isn't suited to larger FF sensors due to the weight+size vs vibration. I don't know.
.
Now Canon's newer lenses offer superior OIS compared to earlier lens releases... and those without this feature generally don't need it (f/1.2 for example)."

I have no idea if there's any truth to it, but I'll throw it out there. FWIW, haven't read this thread, just happened to see the title and remembered I had read this when checking over on Canon to see what they thought of their new ML.

 

[TOF guy]

I saw this on the Canon M forum

" IBIS was originally created by the OTHER companies who were unable to get around Canon's IS and USM patents"

Nikon VR Sigma OS forgot what Tamron calls it but several manufacturers other than Nikon have it. The theory that "the other companies were unable to get around Canon's IS patents" does not seem right. I can make the same case for USM (AFS etc.).

. Back in the early 2000s it was amusing to watch those things shake the sensor so hard that it fell off the mount.

Completely made up story.

Someone noted the other day that IBIS isn't suited to larger FF sensors due to the weight+size vs vibration. I don't know.
.

IBIS has been used for FF sensors by Sony for quite a few years now.

Now Canon's newer lenses offer superior OIS compared to earlier lens releases...

And IBIS has improved as well. Besides as good as optics based O/S can get it cannot accomplish all that sensor based stabilization can do, such as compensating for motions around the lens axis.

and those without this feature generally don't need it (f/1.2 for example)."

That's if you're using that lens only wide opened and never in darkish environment.

I have no idea if there's any truth to it,

None

 

[BGD300V1]

We would be very surprised and will be watching the announcement.







--
My photo blog: http://birdsnbugs.com
RF Stock Portfolio - http://www.dreamstime.com/resp129611

 

[NikonD800Es]

Right ... just look how Nikon heavily "trimmed" D500 and even more so D850.

Some more bad jokes up your sleeves?

The impression I get is that Nikon is always on the lookout for features to trim from its cameras. I mean, just look at that single card slot and teeny, tiny buffer in the Z6/Z7.

So, if Canon removes IBIS, Nikon just might be emboldened to do likewise!

 

[T O Shooter]

I saw this on the Canon M forum

" IBIS was originally created by the OTHER companies who were unable to get around Canon's IS and USM patents"

Nikon VR Sigma OS forgot what Tamron calls it but several manufacturers other than Nikon have it. The theory that "the other companies were unable to get around Canon's IS patents" does not seem right. I can make the same case for USM (AFS etc.).

. Back in the early 2000s it was amusing to watch those things shake the sensor so hard that it fell off the mount.

Completely made up story.

Someone noted the other day that IBIS isn't suited to larger FF sensors due to the weight+size vs vibration. I don't know.
.

IBIS has been used for FF sensors by Sony for quite a few years now.

Now Canon's newer lenses offer superior OIS compared to earlier lens releases...

And IBIS has improved as well. Besides as good as optics based O/S can get it cannot accomplish all that sensor based stabilization can do, such as compensating for motions around the lens axis.

and those without this feature generally don't need it (f/1.2 for example)."

That's if you're using that lens only wide opened and never in darkish environment.

I have no idea if there's any truth to it,

None

 

[Yxa]

... in its FF ML camera? Implications on Z6/Z7 if that's true?

the real deal is when adapting lenses that aren't stablized themselves. Coming from Sony A-mount, I can't imagine myself with a camera that doesn't have this feature.

Adding stabilization on the lens also means raising the sale-price of the deisgned lens.

I have the Panasonic GH4 , and it has no IS and relies on the lens stabilisation

I also have the GH5 that has IS and that together with lens stabilisation (Dual IS) makes a world of difference when recording a video.

I think DJI and Zhiyun will sell a lot of gimbals for the new Canon camera

 

[whimsicalmike]

… no IBIS in the Z6/7, while Canon brings out its FF ML with IBIS?
World War III would break out if you extrapolate from the hysteria around the single memory slot.

It seems it’s slot too. And VF 0.71 magnification. Plus a few restrictions in video and AF tracking also limited.

Looks like Nikon has pulled most stops in the Zs. I also don’t get the fast zoom and the 1.2 prime at launch, very heavy and large lenses, not for this body. Only nice lens is the 35, for me at least.

It’s interesting how the Sony trolls are absent from Canon forum. They were very active here, including people starting threads about how one card was the end of the world, etc.

They are probably recuperating from the offensive here

or maybe they attack the biggest threat

 

[whimsicalmike]

Adding stabilization on the lens also means raising the sale-price of the deisgned lens.

And most likely the size and weight also