What is the fasination with in body IS ?

[Stocky72]

I do not know if I am missing a point with all of this clamour to see a an in body IS system similar to that found in the latest KM models.

Am I the only person who does not think that this is a good idea, in fact it scares me in someways. In no way would we want a frame of film to be moving in the body to help capture a sharper image, so why allow the image sensor to move.

Surely trying to get the light to focus accurately on a static object, such as a non moving sensor is a tough enough job but trying to get the light to focus on a moving object will be even harder to get right.

Why do people think that it is going to be so much better than the current IS system that Canon is using in their lenses ?

Looking forward to your responses.

 

[Chez Wimpy]

Why do people think that it is going to be so much better than the
current IS system that Canon is using in their lenses ?

Because Canon doesn't have IS in all of their lenses. 80-200/2.8, 135/2, 200/1.8, 400/5.6 would take on a whole new meaning. Not to mention the Bigma. Pretty sure that is the reason why people care.

--
-CW

 

[TimmyQ]

We have TC's and extension tubes. Why not an IS conertor that screws on between lens and body. Even if it cost $700 (£400-500)... I'd think about it. Imagine how useful it'd be!

shame it'll never happen.

--

 

[astefot]

I do not know if I am missing a point with all of this clamour to
see a an in body IS system similar to that found in the latest KM
models.

There is more than one advantage of having the IS system in the body...

• Flexibility: IS can be theoretically used with any lens, also with exotic optics and products from non-Canon manufactorers (for example, Russion mirror-based tele lenses)
• Price: If you have 5 IS lenses and if IS costs $100, then you pay a total of $500 for having IS available all the time. Assuming that the price of implemeting IS in the body costs the same $100, this will save you $400 - a nice weekend including a fine dinner with your partner...

 

[Stocky72]

I understand that point but are people not worried about the fact that the light is being projected onto a moving subject ?

Maybe I do not know enough about the technology but does the sensor stop moving during the exposure, if it does not then surely this will create a problem.

At least with the Canon IS the light is arriving at a fixed point...

 

[darkchylde]

I doubt that your prica calculation works for most ppl, if you consider the current development cycles of modern digital cameras you most likely end up with a new camera earlier than a new lens.

Mens, lenses are fixed costs, cameras repeatable costs, and you don't want to pay for the IS in camera system over and over again.

Regarding flexibility, I doubt the in camera system is flexible.
You need a smaller sensor to include the moveable area of the sensor.

People tend to be wanting FF sensors, in camera IS wouldn't work at all with your lens collection.

Take also into account that a lot of lenses have dropping performance towars the outer areas of the lens.

Take also into account, that the in camera IS can't be as good as in lens IS, because of the limited area it can operate in (again, the closer you get to FF, the less space the sensor can move, the less usefull it is).

Take also into acount, that with big, heavy lenses (which are the main purpose of IS) are not centered on the camera itself, but on the lens, so a gyroscopic system inside the lens is capable of better accuracy.

To sum up, in camera IS is not really something I want.

--
Raimund Rau

 

[darkchylde]

--
Raimund Rau

 

[actualeyes]

well that introduces optical issues changing the lens characteristics.

Can't see that happening.

 

[actualeyes]

I'm sure space has a lot to do with it. Making room in a lens body is easier than the camera body (esp with a well-evolved EOS structure).

But KM has proved that a very workable system of in-camera IS can be made to work at a reasonable price point.

KM cameras are equally as disposable (perhaps more so) than Canon, so why not keep paying for it in-camera?

Anyway, history is a funny thing, but the problem with Canon's is that the engineering was done for in-lens IS, and whilst subtle refinements to that cost little and can be made to make it work with each lens, in-camera IS would need a totally new design and the challenges it involves.

Whatever customers think about what might be nice probably isn't entering into the question - if the marketing folks say it won't make a dime difference to sales, and the engineering blokes say "new investment, more engineers", the thing is a pipedream.

Ciao for now
Andrew.

 

[astefot]

To sum up, in camera IS is not really something I want.

I haven't counted how many assumptions you made to derive that result. But of course, with all the "problems" you constructed, in-camera IS is not a desirable thing.

We will see. Canon is set on lens-based IS, and they have other, much more important things going on (EF-S). So in-camera IS isn't something we will see with SLR EF mount camera within the next 5 years anyway.

But given the advances in chip quality, Canon will be forced to overhaul their lenses anyway. One scenarios is that they introduce a newseries of lenses which can deliver the quality needed by high-resolution chips (for example, a 12MP non-Bayer design) and which work with IS-capable bodies. Such lenses could be backward compatible in the sense that they are fully functional on EF mounts, but do not have IS. Let's see, digital is still in its baby days. We will see a lot of new exciting stuff.

Before the 20D, nobody really believed that one can further increase resolution and even get lower noise levels. Canon made it happen. I would be very careful with making assumptions related to technological restrictions and such.

 

[astefot]

"Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae.ÊThe rset can be a total mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Fcuknig amzanig huh?"

...typos are not relevant. Further, only the most naive fools assume a correlation between writing skills and intelligence.

 

[Doc Tonic]

Having the IS within each individual lens allows canon to adjust the IS system specifically for the optics for that lens, thus allowing for a better overall IS system. The IS needed for say the 70-300 DO IS is far different from the 17-85 IS. Having the IS in the body of the camera limits its ability to stablize the image. However it is a nice little marketing gimmick and weak minds that don't understand that fall for it all the time. Good for business, bad for uneducated consumers.

 

[stu warner]

I was surprised how easily I could read your gibberish. Fascinating stuff!

 

[Stocky72]

So what you are saying is that it is all a big marketing ploy and very little practical use ?

 

[davenjen]

EOSman posted something similiar to this awhile back...i laughed for 2 days.

David
--
Life is worth capturing...one image at a time.

 

[Qwntm]

So what you are saying is that it is all a big marketing ploy and
very little practical use ?

Yes that's the way I see it too. I fear that it would actually decrease body reliability too.

--
Ed
http://www.edwardtmartins.com

 

[Guillaume paris2]

I understand that point but are people not worried about the fact
that the light is being projected onto a moving subject ?

KM's antishake moves the sensor before a fixed light ray hits it. Canon's IS and all the others move the light ray before it hits a fixed sensor. Where's the difference? There's still a moving element in the equation!

Maybe I do not know enough about the technology

You sure lack common sense. Read on.

At least with the Canon IS the light is arriving at a fixed point...

theoretically, yes. Realistically, not at all... Remember that the IS system just can't predict anything (you don't predict erratic movement!). So, in 1 word or in 100, any IS system just reacts to an already occured movement. How do you want it to steady the cam perfectly? it'll always have a given delay while keeping up with your shake. Therefore it'll always be moving during the exposure, or it'd mean it steadies the view before you shoot, then leave you with a shaky exposure? how useful.

It's the same for music: electronic pianos and samplers will ALWAYS have a delay between the moment you press a key and the moment the sound is played. It's getting ever shorter, but it will always be there. Only a real piano or instrument can play the sound the moment it's performed.

I'd add that, AFAIK, Canon or Minolta IS systems don't have the ability to counter either a side movement of the camera or a roll. The stabilization is only "rotational", as in "tilting or panning the camera around its center". If you shake to the left/right or rotate the cam on a vertical plane, you're out of luck. I guess the only IS system that "could" compensate for translation + roll would be the electronic sort that moves the captured image. Maybe the 2nd generation antishake will be able to rotate the sensor, and why not detect and compensate for translation.

No way Canon will ever be able to rotate the light rays with spherical elements in a lens...

I, for one, recognize the benefits of body stabilization instead of lens. Don't assume a technology is bad/inferior just because you can't have it or you don't understand it!

Guillaume
http://www.at-sight.com

 

[Stocky72]

Yeah that is one of my concerns as well but I am trying to find out why others are not picking up on this point.

Or why people seem to think it is the "Mutts Nutts"...

 

[Guillaume paris2]

if it's correctly implemented (i.e. correctly optimized for each type of lens and disabled when unable to properly stabilize a particular lens), it's as valid as lens-based IS... it only has the big advantage of providing IS in all lenses. I sure know I miss IS on wideangle lenses... Canon makes absolutely no 24-70 2.8 L IS lens, AFAIK. No 16-35 IS either. Same for the fisheyes and don't tell me wideangles negate the need for IS because shake is minimal/hardly visible. Still, no 24-70 IS is pathetic.

On the other hand, lens-based IS has the big advantage to render only one lens unusable when the IS system goes bad ;-)

example: my 1st copy of the 70-200 IS had a faulty IS unit that would cause Err01 lockups. My 2nd copy hasn't done it one single time in 2 months. Huge praise to lens-based IS, isn't it...

Guillaume
http://www.at-sight.com

 

[Stocky72]

Thanks for this and your earlier input.

I am asking questions as much as making assumptions beacuse I am open minded and want to see what all of the noise is about.

I do not disagree with any of your points and hopefully once this thread has died I might be in a better position to evaluate the future worth of such a system when I come to buy a new camera.

Thanks