When is Canon going to put IS in their DSLRs?

[Cadenza]

They already have the technology, after all... this has got to be happenning SOON!

Greedy bastards at Canon... I hope the new Pentax and the Sony A100 does well. Let's boycott addtional purchases of Canon equipment until they put IS in their DSLRs.

[GNMink]

Hehe.....there are disadvantages to having the IS on the sensor vs the lens to begin with. I'd rather see some sort of sensor cleaning incorporated into the camera personally. You never know, the low end EOS may end up with IS built in but I don't think the pro versions will anytime soon.

[Cadenza]

What are the disadvantages to having the IS on the sensor? And Why would pros not want IS? You can turn it off, just like you can turn off AF when you want to use MF.

[GNMink]

I didn't say the pros wouldn't want it, I said it probably wouldn't be on a pro level canon camera anytime soon mainly cause the charge an arm and a leg for "L" glass with IS ! lol

The primary disadvantage to having the IS on the sensor is you can't see the IS in action as it works, only after the shot.

[PAFC2004]

When they no longer make more money on their IS lenses over their non IS lenses.

[imrtun]

Sensor based IS doesn't work with full frame.

[I Simonius]

They already have the technology, after all... this has got to be happenning SOON!

Greedy bastards at Canon... I hope the new Pentax and the Sony A100 does well. Let's boycott addtional purchases of Canon equipment until they put IS in their DSLRs.

Canon already has two additional prototype possibles for this:

--One is armbands that have the IS integral, so you can use it with any camera or other optical device, looks quite futureistic like something off predator - but looks cool:cool: :cool:
( has been held back by accusations that it is an more aid to lovemaking than photography)

--One is for the overwheight customer; The in camera itself has a turbo function for the IS which applies the IS more rigourously and can double as an excercise mode to tone up the arm muscles, or super turbo mode that applies IS to the whole body. Quite popular in hollywood this one! Unfortunately they are still ironing out the bugs on how to stop the teeth rattling. Sounds promising though!

( I think it was the term 'charging an arm and a leg' that gave them the idea)

[DDA]

:mrgreen:

I would say never (I know, never say never :lol: ) But they have spend so much money developping IS for the lens, that they now need payback ;-)

[Jim G]

Is the statement that IS wouldn't work with a full-frame sensor based on the theory that if the sensor moves it may move out of the area covered by light coming through the lens? I haven't seen a link that states this but it seems logical.

[zacker]

there is no other reason besides the money one... Someone hit it right smack in the middle of the head "theyspent so much developing the IS in the lens, now they want to get paid back" but id like to add, paid back.....twenty fold!

Canon makes a great product but ya cant help but notice at times, just how greedy they actually are. Other MFG's can do it.. there is no excuse.
As for seeing it work, I dont care if i can or not, id rather see it on my Images than through the viewfinder..personally!
-zacker-

[storeman]

Simple answer would be........

If you really want on camera IS that much then go with the manufacturer that makes it.
Yeah, I agree that if the IS resides in the lens rather than the camera body then there is a whole boatload of profit to be made from IS lens sales BUT I can't help but think that the top dogs in Canon have looked at this issue from the purely financial side and decided that staying with lens IS will not severely hurt their sale figures.

The other thing to take into account is that on camera IS is a fairly new technology and no-one really knows what the long term reliability of this technology will be. It may turn out that it could become unreliable some way down the line resulting in either expensive repair charges or an IS camera with an unusable IS system.

[I Simonius]

They already have the technology, after all... this has got to be happenning SOON!

Greedy bastards at Canon... I hope the new Pentax and the Sony A100 does well. Let's boycott addtional purchases of Canon equipment until they put IS in their DSLRs.

Greedy? This is capitalism mate! (get used to it - haven't we already been down this road?))

It's about making money - greedy is a term that could be applied to every company - if they could get away with making more they would. Market forces and all that. Greedy indeed:lol:

NO company will make less than the market will bear - it has nothing to do with greed
Accusing them of being greedy is like accusing flies of being unhygenic, it's what they do!

Wouldn't you prfer Canon to be the market leader and to be able to afford the R+D so we can have funky shiny new lenes. They need to stay ahead of the game to do that and that means making lots of money! Just look at it as your worthwhile contribution to the great cause of technological superiority. After all you don't have to buy their lenses if you don't want to

Perhaps what you really mean is 'I can't afford it' ???

[SkipD]

Why does Canon use IS in the lenses?

Film cameras can use the IS lenses and have full advantage of the IS feature. There is absolutely no way to move the film around to emulate the in-camera IS.

Building IS into a full-frame digital camera would have a couple of major problems. The first is the space required for the mechanisms. This would increase the already huge size of the cameras. The second, and probably more important, consideration is the fact that the lenses are already JUST covering the 35mm film frame sized sensors. Start moving them around, and you will lose light at the edges, making the images have less quality - an unacceptable move in my opinion.

[chris clements]

Never.
For the reasons stated & a few more:
full-frame issues
compensation at the film plane can never be as successful/efficient as at the lens 'node' (not sure that's the right word!)
do we need it? Shake is rapidly becoming less of an issue now quality doesn't drop off at higher ISO's.

I liken this to the original AF wars, where most went down the body-based one-size-fits-all driveshaft route, and one was initially pilloried for putting individually-tailored motors into each lens. We know who won that one!

[tzalman]

There is also the small matter of patent rights. Previously Sony had one and Minolta had a slightly different patented method. Now Sony has both of them. Of course, if Canon doesn't mind paying Sony a percentage on each camera....
Elie

[Lord_Malone]

I see possibly an external mounted IS (much like a battery grip) manufactured by Canon for use with lenses with non-IS capapbility. Something like this? http://www.ken-lab.com/stabilizers.html

I'm not smart on the technology that goes into IS, so I'm not sure if this is practical or cost effective.

[lmitch6]

I hope not...that would make one additional 'dongle' I'd have to make sure is turned off. I hate paying for things I know I'm not likely to use :-) My shooting needs just don't require it.

[Brianbar]

If I were a first time buyer of a DSLR, I would go for IS on the camera.
So from this standpoint it could very well effect Canon and Nikons sales in the future.

Brian

[ScottE]

Has anybody done any tests to determine if IS in the camera is as effective or as durable as IS in the lens? At the sensor, the movement has to be much bigger than in the lens where the image path is smaller. The sensor has to move perfectly perpendicular to the lens, while near the nodal point of the lens a rotational movement is used. It seems to me that big sliding movements at the sensor would be both less effective and mechanically less durable than tiny rotational movements at the nodal point in the lens.

In any case, if I want image stabilization in my camera, I just sit it on a tripod.

[Tom W]

Canon already has two additional prototype possibles for this:

--One is armbands that have the IS integral, so you can use it with any camera or other optical device, looks quite futureistic like something off predator - but looks cool:cool: :cool:
( has been held back by accusations that it is an more aid to lovemaking than photography)

--One is for the overwheight customer; The in camera itself has a turbo function for the IS which applies the IS more rigourously and can double as an excercise mode to tone up the arm muscles, or super turbo mode that applies IS to the whole body. Quite popular in hollywood this one! Unfortunately they are still ironing out the bugs on how to stop the teeth rattling. Sounds promising though!

( I think it was the term 'charging an arm and a leg' that gave them the idea)

I've had some success with the "overweight customer" approach. ;)

[Tom W]

Why does Canon use IS in the lenses?

Film cameras can use the IS lenses and have full advantage of the IS feature. There is absolutely no way to move the film around to emulate the in-camera IS.

Building IS into a full-frame digital camera would have a couple of major problems. The first is the space required for the mechanisms. This would increase the already huge size of the cameras. The second, and probably more important, consideration is the fact that the lenses are already JUST covering the 35mm film frame sized sensors. Start moving them around, and you will lose light at the edges, making the images have less quality - an unacceptable move in my opinion.

Indeed, on full-frame, a sensor-based IS would only be useable on tilt-shift lenses with enlarged image circles.

Frankly, while we do live in a "disposable" society of sorts, I would expect that a body-based IS system (at least on the sensor) would present some long-term reliability issues. You're physically moving the sensor which must remain connected electrically through flexible cable. It must remain precisely on the focus plane. And to be effective, it must move a greater distance than a lens-based system since the lens-based IS works much closer to the nodal point of the lens rather than the focus plane. A 1 mm corrective movement in the lens might require several mm of lateral movement at the sensor to produce the same result.

All that movement for a system that isn't fine-tuned to any individual lens but must compromise its effectiveness over a wide range of lenses.

I can't say that Canon won't ever do it, but I can say that the resulting camera will most likely take a back seat in longevity to the equivalent non-IS camera. Canon's recent additions of the 24-105 & 17-55 IS lenses indicates that Canon believes that the lens is the best place for this feature.

[Hellashot]

They already have the technology, after all... this has got to be happenning SOON!

Greedy bastards at Canon... I hope the new Pentax and the Sony A100 does well. Let's boycott addtional purchases of Canon equipment until they put IS in their DSLRs.

Plain and simple - it won't happen. :)

[lon10c]

Have a question.

If Canon had "IS" in the lens and "IS" in the camera would they cancel each other out and would the image always be blurry?

There is a thread on "FMdotcom" about a future 22mpix, 1Ds-MIII that will sell for something in the neighborhood of $10k. You just upped that by another $5k.

[Col_M]

Another problem that could arise...
IS in camera fails - possibility of no more pics that day and no pics while it's away for repair.
IS in lens fails - swap it for another lens from your bag and carry on taking pics.

[Andy30D]

To my knowledge there are only a couple of Bridge cameras that have IS on the sensor.

I have a couple of cannon lenses with IS and I find them excellent, to attach another gizmo to the sensor just leaves one more thing to go wrong, with the IS on the lens I feel in total control. I find I only really need it for shots over 80mm when it does help to get sharper shots (but obviously I do leave it on most of the time @ whatever Focal length I am using).

In my opinion you should be able to get a sharp shot through camera technique more than relying on IS shots.

Use a Tripod or learn how to hold your camera properly.

Another question, if Canon have not done it yet then I doubt it can be done that easily as I would of expected NIKON to try and implement this technology already to get an edge over Canon with their SLR's.

Andyb

[Jon]

there is no other reason besides the money one... Someone hit it right smack in the middle of the head "theyspent so much developing the IS in the lens, now they want to get paid back" but id like to add, paid back.....twenty fold!

Canon makes a great product but ya cant help but notice at times, just how greedy they actually are. Other MFG's can do it.. there is no excuse.
As for seeing it work, I dont care if i can or not, id rather see it on my Images than through the viewfinder..personally!
-zacker-WRONG! They developed IS back before there was anything but film in use. Can't use sensor-based IS on film, and they do still have a film clientele, whatever you might like to think. And since they're also committed to full-frame, unlike everyone else (and doing quite well at finding people who want it), they're not about to start the lens system redesign that they'd need to implement to get lenses that could be used with a full-frame image-stabilizing sensor.

There's also the minor question of how well in-camera IS works with long lenses. There hasn't been an awful lot said about how well K-M's system in their DSLRs works (and isn't likely to be now) with long lenses. Canon's approach allows them to tailor the IS to the lens, and put the moving element where ti does the most good with the least work. Putting the IS in the body will increase body size and require you to vary the degree of motion based on the focal length of the lens in use. It'll also require a 1:1 correspondence between camera/lens motion and the sensor motion, at what's arguably the part of the system that's moving the least (since you're holding it).

[delhi]

So how is the IS incorporated with the S3 IS camera? If it can be done in that P&S shooter surely it can be integrated into our EOS dSLRs.

[cdifoto]

So how is the IS incorporated with the S3 IS camera? If it can be done in that P&S shooter surely it can be integrated into our EOS dSLRs.

Tiny sensor, only one lens to accomodate. :rolleyes:

[jj1987]

So how is the IS incorporated with the S3 IS camera? If it can be done in that P&S shooter surely it can be integrated into our EOS dSLRs.
It has a smaller chip, less MP so I'm sure flaws arent as easy to spot.

[zacker]

its amazing at how many people can see the negatives and not look for ANY positives at all.. Its easy to say No it cant be done because of this or that but in reality... nothing great that has ever been done would have been accomplished if this bunch had been there!

maybe in the long run and/or great scheme of things, IS in the body wont work for FF but, what about the cropped cams? Are you saying The great mother canon cant do it but Sony/ Minolta can? I have looked into the KM route and everyone i talked to said it works great, If I hadnt put so much into the EOS system, I prolly would have went that route..plus, Canon in my mind does make a better product.. Hey, Im only saying it would be nice to have an IS body from Canon.. Relax guys, I aint saying its gonna happen, besides, even id=f it did.... None of you would be forced to buy it, so whats the hassle???

Ok, if Canon doesnt make an IS body, Cant they make more or a better range of IS lesns that are affordable? Only one Non L IS lens and its about the cost of an L lens, the rest of the non L IS lenses arent F2.8.... I love my 28-135 but..... it would rock at F2.8
-zacker-

[dmstraton]

What everyone has failed to notice is that this is a marketer's dream:

Most consumers hopping in on the Sony Alpha are going to like the feature because they think it is will work, and they don't know anything about nodal points, focal planes, etc. Just look at the current batch of commercials on TV about the new Cybershots with "blur" technology. They show a guy photographing a hummingbird or a person photographing a kid on a swing like the "anti-blur" is going to freeze the blur from the action (like a fast shutterspeed), not from people shaking the camera. They are muddying the waters and consumers won't know the difference.

Also, most don't know about APS versus full-frame, but they do know that more megapixels is "better". No, they don't know about pixel density, dynamic range, or high-ISO (maybe in a basic kind of way, but that's it).

Sony is a big company with great marketing, big pockets and more importantly: Great distribution. This camera's marketing will probably muddy the waters, and based on that will probably be fairly successful - with consumers. C'mon 10MP with anti-blur for $900 USD? It's w*tdream for a marketer and unsuspecting consumer...Canon and Nikon will need to dig in deep with the next generation of cameras...and NIkon is already using a 10MP sensor (probably the same one...).

Despite this, I don't think pros or advanced amateurs are going to run out and buy one.

[Jon]

maybe in the long run and/or great scheme of things, IS in the body wont work for FF but, what about the cropped cams? Are you saying The great mother canon cant do it but Sony/ Minolta can? I have looked into the KM route and everyone i talked to said it works great, If I hadnt put so much into the EOS system, I prolly would have went that route..plus, Canon in my mind does make a better product.. Hey, Im only saying it would be nice to have an IS body from Canon.. Relax guys, I aint saying its gonna happen, besides, even id=f it did.... None of you would be forced to buy it, so whats the hassle??? In order to make a crop body with stabilization in the sensor, they'd have to abandon the EF-S line, since those don't cover enough beyond the sensor to allow motion. Do you really want to sacrifice wide angle lenses for in-body IS? Canon's made an IS decision that supports their entire camera line, film, FF digital, and crop digital. K-M film users are SOL for IS. Any Canon owner, even of the first EOS ever made, can get IS if they really want it. Which is fairer?

[Kickstart]

Hi

How much does the sensor actually need to move to compensate?

To be honest I suspect some form of automatic sensor cleaning will appear soon, and with that I would think you already have most of the hardware to add IS on the sensor.

All the best

Keith

[RyanD]

Personally I would rather buy a camera that has low noise 3200/6400 ISO. There isn't really a need to develop such a system, since it’s really only beneficial on the tele-end of focal lengths. There's not that much shake on a 20mm. (Unless you're on a roller coaster....) Plus, using a tripod on long lenses is better than any IS technology available.

[chekone11]

Plain and simple - it won't happen. :)

Why in the world would I boycott them over something I don't want anyway, lol. IS lenses work on my film cameras... and any future FF cameras. That's it in a nutshell. It's a better overall "system" (actually, it's the only way to make an IS system (film+digi w/ compatible accessories) with IS in the lens.

[chekone11]

What everyone has failed to notice is that this is a marketer's dream:

Most consumers hopping in on the Sony Alpha are going to like the feature because they think it is will work, and they don't know anything about nodal points, focal planes, etc. Just look at the current batch of commercials on TV about the new Cybershots with "blur" technology. They show a guy photographing a hummingbird or a person photographing a kid on a swing like the "anti-blur" is going to freeze the blur from the action (like a fast shutterspeed), not from people shaking the camera. They are muddying the waters and consumers won't know the difference.

Also, most don't know about APS versus full-frame, but they do know that more megapixels is "better". No, they don't know about pixel density, dynamic range, or high-ISO (maybe in a basic kind of way, but that's it).

Sony is a big company with great marketing, big pockets and more importantly: Great distribution. This camera's marketing will probably muddy the waters, and based on that will probably be fairly successful - with consumers. C'mon 10MP with anti-blur for $900 USD? It's w*tdream for a marketer and unsuspecting consumer...Canon and Nikon will need to dig in deep with the next generation of cameras...and NIkon is already using a 10MP sensor (probably the same one...).

Despite this, I don't think pros or advanced amateurs are going to run out and buy one.

Well said. The Sony is a average electronics consumers dream... any soccer mom with a Sony Handycam will transition right into one of these babies (what, with anti-blur and all). I'm sure it'll take a great picture, but it's all marketing and distrobution.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Thread move to "rumors" forum.. mostly becuase in the last few weeks there are a number of additional discussion re: in body IS here to peruse.

Some points I'd like to re-iterate and perhaps add to.

In Body IS works on the Minolts because the lenses are designed for full frame. For in body to IS to work with a full frame sensor, then the existing lenses which do not have the lee-way on full frame that they do on crop cameras, will not work. Even larger lenses will be needed, this is the opposite direction that most manufacturers are going, looking for smaller diameter lenses to fit the smaller sensors.

In Lens IS worlks much better on long lenses. (so far.. who knows what the future may hold)

In Body IS will be a marketing buzz word.
I'd like to see Canon incorporate in body IS into 1.6X and 1.3X bodies if possible. Such a system should be designed to work in concert wioth the lens IS.

I do not think EFS lenses can work with in body IS on a 30D for the same reasons an EF won't work on a full frame.

There are in fact more than just "one" consumer grade "non l" lenses with IS. Some EFS, the 28-135mm, the 75-300mm.. etc..

[CyberDyneSystems]

So how is the IS incorporated with the S3 IS camera? If it can be done in that P&S shooter surely it can be integrated into our EOS dSLRs.

The lens on that camera was designed to work with it.
(Is the S3's IS in body anywya? or is it in lens? )

Again.. with a 1.6X crop camewra, the existing line of EF lenses wil have the leeway needed for in body IS to work.
On a full frame it won't, and EFS won't work on 1.6X (you'd need an even smaller sensor to work with EFS)

[Tom W]

(Is the S3's IS in body anywya? or is it in lens? )


Don't know whether it's actually in the body or the attached lens, but Canon does call it "optical image stabilization" so it probably is lens-based, even if the IS lens is buried deep within the camera.

[Keaka]

With so many reported problems with autofocus and the endless search for apparent "sharp copies" of lenses, the worst thing canon can do right now is release an IN BODY IS camera.

Lens IS stabilizes the light as it hits the autofocus sensor, and thus the autofocus is more accurate. Start moving the sensor around instead and you lose that extra precision.

[NBEast]

OK then, how about a 3rd party (forget Canon) make a TC with IS. After all, tele is where we really need IS. See how quick Canon figures out the copy-cat.

As far as FF sensor being "impossible", Boloney! If I had a button that turned on sensor IS and reduced it to a 1.2 crop image, I'll bet it's always on when a non-IS lens is mounted. My 70-200 f4.0 lens is now useful indoors. Same for the 50 f1.4 etc etc. Even if it weren't a 3-stop IS. I think this would not kill the IS market. See, a simple idea. Surely the engineers can come up with one that'll fly and we will buy.

The flexing cables ... maybe. There's a lot of amazingly critical electronics running on flexble cables. They run fine for years. The engineers can solve this.

We're laying down way too quickly. If the engineers say it couldn't (or shouldn't) be done, don't you believe it. It may not be everything an in-lens IS is, but it'll save many photos and open the door to new possibilities.