Xti image stabilization?

[carolsta]

When do you think that Canon will come out with IS in the camera body to compete with Sony/Pentax? Is it worth it to buy an xti upgrade?
CS

[crn3371]

With Canon heavily invested in IS lenses, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for an IS body.

[kumicho]

not going to happen (why would Canon put a system in a camera that negates the $400 upcharge they tack on to every IS lens they sell?) but would love to see it anyway. It would be extremely beneficial on the short end, and just imagine if they could get the system in the body and the system in the lens to work with each other.......

[StealthLude]

I dont think its going to happen.

I keep reading IS in the lens is more effective and IS in the camera body.

[Bob_A]

When do you think that Canon will come out with IS in the camera body to compete with Sony/Pentax?

Never.

Is it worth it to buy an xti upgrade?


Upgrade from what?

[MagentaJoe]

In lens IS is better than in camera IS. Each IS system is geared toward the focal length and the aperture of the given lens.

[chris clements]

never

[roqdawg]

I think that for entry level SLR's (xxxD, or possibly an xxxxD?), Canon is right now fighting a losing battle over "body based" IS system and needs to re-think it's stratagy. Sure they have demonstrated that the lens based system is more effective and I've seen the adds running in the photography magazines that explain Canon's system as being superior, but the average Joe buying a first time DSLR from CC or BB is going to compare features at the sales counter and go probably go with more features for less (or same) cost, and in body IS will look awful apealing to him.
Canon needs a low cost "IS" kit lens so it's cameras can compete head to head at the sales counter and in the Sunday Newspaper Sales flyers with the body based systems to the first time buyer without costing too much more than the competition, and needs to work on lowering the cost of lens based IS in general to keep salesmen from scaring potential buyers away from the line of Canon lenses.

Tom

[carolsta]

Never.



Upgrade from what?
Upgrade from a RebelD

[Specs]

Canon has no reason to move IS tech to the body. There IS lenses already have the best image stablization in the industry.

[rhys]

Canon has no reason to move IS tech to the body. There IS lenses already have the best image stablization in the industry.

Canon lenses can correct for vertical and horizontal movement. Pentax's K10D corrects - in body - for vertical, horizontal and twisting motions - for those who find their camera tilts when you press the shutter button.

I am beginning to like the K10D. In fact, at 10mp plus DNG file format, I am tempted to dump my (reducing) Canon gear to buy a K10D based system.

[adas]

Canon lenses can correct for vertical and horizontal movement. Pentax's K10D corrects - in body - for vertical, horizontal and twisting motions - for those who find their camera tilts when you press the shutter button.

I don't think you can tilt a camera with a long lens attached to it. But if one can do it, they must go back to the first lesson in photography "Pressing the Shutter Button". This has nothing to do with ususal hand shake.

[Bob_A]

Upgrade from a RebelD

The XTi looks to me to be a good upgrade from a 300D, and not a big step from the XT. Maybe even consider a used 20D instead of the XTi.

[CyberDyneSystems]

I think the next Rebel model will have in body IS simply so Canon can re-distinguish itself from the dozens of low end DSLRs that Noink is flooding the market with.

[CyberDyneSystems]

I don't think you can tilt a camera with a long lens attached to it. But if one can do it, they must go back to the first lesson in photography "Pressing the Shutter Button". This has nothing to do with ususal hand shake.

Tilt as in side to side,.. nor front to back.

[Bodog]

No doubt that IS in the lens is the best solution. But the competition has shown that IS in the body is better than no IS at all. Canon has had the market pretty much to themselves until now and could charge the $400 plus premium for their lenses. That may be about to end...

[jiggling_john]

the other solution is some cheap ef-s lenses geared solely towards the lower end of the market that have IS in them, in body IS is never ever going to happen for the higher end canon cameras.

[puttick]

No reason at all why Canon couldn't do it. Lens IS probably is better, but in-body IS is clearly better than none. Don't worry about incompatibility, as the lens could tell the camera (a) if it already has in-lens IS, and (b) the focal length, so that the sensor-based IS can be optimised for the lens.

What their marketing decision will be, who can tell.

[Lester Wareham]

In body IS is inferior to lens IS and will not be effective much beyond 100mm due to engeneering constraints.

However, I would not be surprised to see IBIS added at the entry level just to have the same marketing tick points as the other manufactures. This will only happen if Canon think the lack of it is impacting sales.

[ggw2000]

Going to be a bunch of people with egg on their face here;) . Canon will be forced to come out with a body with stabilization. They might say no now but when they get their butt whipped in sales of <$1k cameras by the others they will follow suit. You need to understand that high price IS lens are not bought by "joe" sixpack. Come back in 12 months and tell me I was wrong:p . Gerry

[freakeystyley34]

Isn't body IS only good for 2 stops, whereas lens IS is good for 3?

[DevonTT]

A Google search led me here, months after this discussion took place. Forgive me for chiming in so late.

Two years ago I purchased a Konica Minolta Maxxum 5D after shopping around for my first DSLR. At the time, it was the only DSLR that had built-in anti-shake. Knowing how much I detest using a flash and carrying a tripod, I reasoned that this single feature would probably improve my shots in the most significant, visible way.

A few months after I bought my camera, KM's technology was purchased by Sony. Although the Maxxum 5D has been discontinued, I could choose to add to my system by buying Sony or Minolta lenses.

But I'm not going to. What I really want is to trade up to Canon or Nikon and build my system with higher quality lenses, but I'm not willing to do that until one of them offers a DSLR with IS built into the body.

See, I'm spoiled. I want to pay for IS once, not every time I buy a lens. I've read all the arguments that say in-lens IS is superior, but... I don't care. I'm part of the very LARGE "pro-amateur" market that is willing to make some tradeoffs in image quality in exchange for products that I don't have to mortgage my house to afford.

Probably 90% of my shooting does not activate the anti-shake in the camera I'm using now. Which means if I'm using a theoretical Canon or Nikon with IS built in the body, it won't be activated 90% of the time--meanwhile, I'm shooting through high-quality glass. For the other 10% of my shots, I'm using less-than-optimal IS built into the body instead of the lens, which is still far better than no IS at all. And that's good enough for me.

Bottom line: I'm looking at you, Canon and Nikon. Whichever one of you puts IS in the body first, you get my money. And probably lots more money from thousands of other consumers like me who are waiting for the camera they really want.

I think Canon and Nikon will have no choice but to build IS into at least SOME of their pro-amateur models. Sony and now Pentax have a significant market advantage that the industry leaders would be foolish to dismiss.

[_aravena]

^Nope. Go test it. It hardly helps at all. And the nicer lens tend to have it and if not, they're faster anyways. I've done a lot of boredom testing at CC with Sony's 70-300 and Canon's 70-300 IS and even Nikon's 70-300 VR and their 55-200 VR. Sony just sucks, end of story and don't get me started on Olympus. Lens is more effective and why negate a current circulation of product by putting it in body?

You have to understand marketing to understand truth.

[DevonTT]

^Nope. Go test it. It hardly helps at all. And the nicer lens tend to have it and if not, they're faster anyways. I've done a lot of boredom testing at CC with Sony's 70-300 and Canon's 70-300 IS and even Nikon's 70-300 VR and their 55-200 VR. Sony just sucks, end of story and don't get me started on Olympus. Lens is more effective and why negate a current circulation of product by putting it in body?

You have to understand marketing to understand truth.

Um... I have tested it. You can turn the anti-shake off on the KM to see a direct with/without comparison.

So I'm not quite sure what you're referring to.

As for marketing, that's what a do for a living, so perhaps I'm approaching this subject with a different perspective than most.

[_aravena]

^I mean compare to IS in the lens and even in camera. IN extreme conditions yes it works, but for so so lighting it sucks. I'll try and get pics, bring my card to work. Then explain the marketing perspective. I think one who works in it would understand a change would not help companoies financially, especially if they're doing fine as it is.

[DevonTT]

"Doing fine" is a relative term. :) Most companies want to grow from year to year, which means they can't afford to lose share to their competitors. When Sony purchased KM technology in 2005 it announced that its goal was to own 25% of the DSLR market in the next few years. As of September 2007, Sony has captured 10% of the global market.

Nikon and Canon must continue to innovate in order to maintain their leadership. Sony and Pentax have proven that in-body IS, despite its limitations, is an attractive feature to a lot of consumers. Nikon and Canon can either respond by introducing a similar competing technology, or they can try to compete by lowering the cost of their VR lenses, which I doubt will happen, or they can continue to position VR lenses as the higher-quality, more expensive choice, recognizing that they will lose a lot of sales to people who don't want to pay for image stabilization over and over again.

It's rather pointless to argue about what Nikon and/or Canon will do. I simply posted to provide one consumer's perspective on anti-shake technology that may or may not drive their product decisions. Time will tell.

[MagentaJoe]

Clean images with a 25,000 ISO,or faster, sensor will make all this a moot point in the future. Having a super fast shutter speed available all the time in any light means that IS just won't be needed as much as it is now, if at all. That's where the real future is.

[_aravena]

Nothing has been proven by in body IS. It's quite pointless only showing consumers love new things, which is duh...the basics of marketing. The idea is not to be wowed by something so new. This is like talking how wi-fi SD's are going to take the market by storm. Who doesn't want to spend $100 on 2GB when you can get the same thing only you have to use a card reader for $12 totally 2GB and card reader @ $32. Sony's A100 have dropped from $899 to $699 in less than a year with no announcement of a replacement and doubtful replacement. Pentax is hardly popping up in retail, good to see their numbers show something.

The problem with your marketing thinking is that in one year something has happened with a new product. Meanwhile Canon and Nikon, despite your misinterpretation of them "doing fine", look over all this with experience and knowledge of consumers in the DLSR market. I can tell you the D40 beats almost anything though the release of the S5 has an interesting competitive edge, that I've seen. Not sure overall, but still interesting in seeing customers compare the two.

Sony and Pentax will be a dream unless they find a way to make their name worth something. I've had many people come in and ask about Pentax only because they had lenses for that. If it weren't for that, they wouldn't get one. That's people that already own a Pentax camera. Experience wins not gadgetry, at least not in the long run. Given it maybe my area but we've had a Sony Alpha, the same one, in my store for 6 months. Had the 2nd person look at too the other day.

In body has proven little, especially when you compare in body to in lens.

[Phiberglass]

Ya I wouldn't hold my breath either >.<

[Bob_A]

Canon and Nikon to date have gone the right way IMO since the in-lens IS gives a better result than in-camera.

But i suppose either company can bow to consumer pressure the same way they have in the MP race for small P&S cameras. In this example more MP results in poorer IQ due to huge noise from packing too many photosites on a small sensor, yet because consumers think more MP is better the manufacturers have given them what they want.

And when you say that Sony has captured 10% of the DSLR market, that's sounds like they have made close to no ground whatsoever over what 3rd place Konica-Minolta had before they acquired the brand. Frankly I wouldn't be surprised if Sony loses DSLR market share.

[DevonTT]

I'm sorry, I'm having trouble parsing your run-on sentences. I think you said consumers like having something new. But that's only half true. They also want it better and cheaper. For a lot of people, in-body IS fits that bill. Obviously, for you, it doesn't.

Again, this is pointless.

MagentaJoe is the only one adding anything to this discussion by pointing out how innovations in sensors may make anti-shake technology obsolete. Which supports my overarching point that all manufacturers, even the lofty Nikon and Canon, have to keep innovating to satisfy the desires of the market. Nobody can sit on their laurels for long and expect to keep their market share.

BTW, if super-fast sensors are the future, then I would be pretty p'o'd if I'd sunk thousands of dollars into lenses that had stabilization built in. Yet another reason not to invest in Canon or Nikon right now--or at least their IS lenses.

[DevonTT]

And when you say that Sony has captured 10% of the DSLR market, that's sounds like they have made close to no ground whatsoever over what 3rd place Konica-Minolta had before they acquired the brand. Frankly I wouldn't be surprised if Sony loses DSLR market share.

That depends on how you look at it. Sony had no market share at all in DSLRs prior to 2006. KM had about 10%. Sony went from 0-10% in two years. How long did it take KM to get to 10% before it folded?

I wouldn't count Sony out just yet.

And by the way, I'm not a big Sony fan. I'm just trying to look at this objectively. They're an aggressive marketing organization with aggressive R&D department behind it. Canon and Nikon ought to be looking over their shoulders.

[Bob_A]

That depends on how you look at it. Sony had no market share at all in DSLRs prior to 2005. KM had about 10%. Sony went from 0-10% in two years. How long did it take KM to get to 10% before it folded?

I wouldn't count Sony out just yet.

And by the way, I'm not a big Sony fan. I'm just trying to look at this objectively. They're an aggressive marketing organization with aggressive R&D department behind it. Canon and Nikon ought to be looking over their shoulders.

I look at it that Sony took over K-M's market share, so unless they messed up totally they should have had the same share where K-M left off ... 10%. In other words Sony has done nothing to expand the K-M/Sony combined market share since the acquisition.

Sony has never been particularly innovative in the digital camera market. My biggest concern is that they will take all of the hard work and innovations by a lot of dedicated K-M designers and waste it all. IMO I don't think Canon or Nikon should worry about them at all.

[myself62]

canons in lens is will get cheaper as time goes on, so i think that canon will have is in all new camera's with kit lenses and be very competitive with all the other major makers. actually i think they are supplying is with new kit now.

[Lester Wareham]

Bottom line: I'm looking at you, Canon and Nikon. Whichever one of you puts IS in the body first, you get my money. And probably lots more money from thousands of other consumers like me who are waiting for the camera they really want.

I think Canon and Nikon will have no choice but to build IS into at least SOME of their pro-amateur models. Sony and now Pentax have a significant market advantage that the industry leaders would be foolish to dismiss.

The first thing to understand is in body IS is limited to being effective on lenses shorter than about 100mm, the reason is the physical constraint of the size of the sensor displacement needed to correct for the image displacement. Another big drawback of in body IS is it does not stabilize the viewfinder image.

These are the basic reasons for Canon and Nikon using in lens stabilization.

So in body stabilization is only good for short telephoto at a maximum. As has been noted increasing ISO sensitivity with reducing noise is reducing the need for both flash or IS on shorter lenses. For example with a 28mm f1.8 lens I can comfortably shoot in domestic lighting without flash or IS (in body or otherwise).

Other constraints of any IS system are it becomes less effective at shorter focal lengths and higher magnifications. The reason for this is the IS system can only compensate for the up/down - left/right rotational degrees of freedom, the is another rational and 3 other displacement degrees of freedom for a 3D object that become relatively more significant at shorter focal lengths or higher magnifications. This is why Nikon's VR macro lens was a bit of a white elephant, the stabilization has almost no advantage at macro distances and starts to reduce at magnifications above 1:30.

However, Canon does have full frame IS lenses down to 24mm and crop camera IS lenses down to 17mm that seem to be reasonably effective. Having carefully tested the effectiveness of the 24mm system I can see the system is less effective than at 100mm and above, most likely for the reasons noted above.

So you can start to see that introducing in body IS for Nikon or Canon that already have a good range of VR/IS lenses would be a bit of a Gimmick, rather like putting the word "macro" on a zoom lens that can focus to 1:4.

Having said that I suspect if they think it will bring in additional customers they might implement in body IS even if it has limited usefulness. I don't see why in body and in lens IS could not be engineered to work together by turning off the in body when an IS lens is fitted.

However, if they are only implementing IS as a "me to" marketing feature Canon/Nikon would need to consider if it would reduce sales of IS/VR lenses. I think considering the reduced lens line-up penetration of VR and it's increased cost on the Nikon side they have most to loose and gain.

[DevonTT]

I look at it that Sony took over K-M's market share, so unless they messed up totally they should have had the same share where K-M left off ... 10%. In other words Sony has done nothing to expand the K-M/Sony combined market share since the acquisition.

Sony has never been particularly innovative in the digital camera market. My biggest concern is that they will take all of the hard work and innovations by a lot of dedicated K-M designers and waste it all. IMO I don't think Canon or Nikon should worry about them at all.

If Sony indeed "took over" KM's share, its market share would now be 20%, not 10%.

Because KM stopped manufacturing and selling DSLR's, the transition to Sony can't really be considered an acquisition. Sony bought out their technology and KM shut down. There's no acquired customer base when that happens--you either have a KM camera from before the buyout, or you've bought a new Sony.

If you want to argue that Sony's success is due to KM fans buying the product, that's up for debate. Personally, I think it's more likely the result of the camera's price point and features, plus Sony's strong brand name and massive distribution.

It's anybody's guess how innovative Sony will prove to be with DSLRs. They sure led the way with digital video, though, so who knows?

[MagentaJoe]

MagentaJoe is the only one adding anything to this discussion by pointing out how innovations in sensors may make anti-shake technology obsolete. Which supports my overarching point that all manufacturers, even the lofty Nikon and Canon, have to keep innovating to satisfy the desires of the market. Nobody can sit on their laurels for long and expect to keep their market share.

You really should just dump your current system while you still can and grab up a Canon this week, prices are crazy low right now! Arguing on an all Canon forum that Canon isn't the best is a pointless exercise that you are bound to get tired of sooner than later.

Most importantly, NEVER argue with a psycho clown.

I should add that I have a Sony DSR-PD170 video camera and the optical stabilization is fantastic. So they HAVE the technology and could implement it into their lenses fairly quickly which is what they should be doing if they want to really compete on the professional level.

[Jonathan]

I think that one fact that you are overlooking here is that Canon and Nikon sell camera systems not just cameras. By that I mean that they pitch their products at people in such a way that they are encouraged to grow through the product range as their skill and interest in photography grows. This is a long term strategy - not just the "throw more features at it" short term nonsense that we see from others. Watch any movie, TV program or red carpet event and you will see 2 camera brands.

Canon focus their marketing and product development at people like us (on this board) and many like us. They are more interested in people who upgrade their bodies once every 2 years and fill up their bags with glass than they are with people who make comments like "I'm looking at you, Canon and Nikon. Whichever one of you puts IS in the body first, you get my money." I think you'd be safe in assuming that they are not looking at you.

Take a look at the 40D. Canon could have loaded that up with all sorts of toys and a bunch of extra MP if they simply wanted to play the "shiny new thing" game. Lets face it, putting a 10MP sensor into a camera over a year after the 400D came out and Pentax and the likes were fitting their cameras with them clearly shows that they are not interested in the "mines bigger than yours" argument. They made the camera more usable, improved quality and made it more clearly defined within their overall product range. It's now a clear upgrade from the 400D. Just read all the "400D vs 30D Should I upgrade" threads if you don't believe me.

As I said at the start, it's about selling systems. It's about upgrades, repeat business and brand loyalty - and given the fact I've just spent 10 minutes defending a company I don't work for it must be working :-)

[Lester Wareham]

... Take a look at the 40D. Canon could have loaded that up with all sorts of toys and a bunch of extra MP if they simply wanted to play the "shiny new thing" game. Lets face it, putting a 10MP sensor into a camera over a year after the 400D came out and Pentax and the likes were fitting their cameras with them clearly shows that they are not interested in the "mines bigger than yours" argument. They made the camera more usable, improved quality and made it more clearly defined within their overall product range...

All good points, Canon have said they will not use in-body IS as it is clearly a technically inferior solution.

However, I must say that any company that can put a direct print button on a semi-pro camera :shock: might put in-body IS in :p .

Presumably the direct print button is there for printer marketing reasons and due to cross division pressure within Canon corporate. So sufficient marketing pressure could add in-body IS, probably on an entry level DSLR, possibly on semi-pro cameras, even if it is of limited gain.

[ALaS]

Shake is in the lens not the body. IS lenses are more effective.

[sumozebra]

There's a reason why Canon doesn't use in-body IS.
With in-body IS, the IS is placed on the sensor, shifting it to match the movement.
This is great in the sense that it doesn't require you to use IS lenses, however, when you look through teh viewfinder or live-view, the image in the viewfinder will be affected by your shaking.

With lens IS, the entire process is IS-ified (if that's a word) The viewfinder, live preview, sensor, they're all benefitted from the IS capabilities rather than just the sensor.

[hotrod1935]

With so many Canon IS lenes, no shake reduction bodies for now.

[neilwood32]

Why would the market leader feel that they have to adopt a system that has been proven to be poorer? To steal market share from a rival with afraction of their sales? To try to chase the chasing pack (sounds daft but thats what that decision would amount to)?

My guess is that those who have adopted the "in body" system have only adopted the system to reduce production costs in order to try to make their system seem more competetive.

Canon will stick with the proven system (in lens IS) rather than downgrade their system as the only rival i think they fear (if any) is Nikon who have also adopted the same system.

[Collin85]

Canon just introduced the well-received 18-55 IS and 55-250 IS lenses - so don't expect in-body IS anytime soon.

[JamieMcCoyPhotography]

With so many Canon IS lenes, no shake reduction bodies for now.



And IS Body is simply a selling point.

You don't shake on what you can hold......you shake in the length - things that get weaker.

In other words the Camera Body is not where you are quivering....it's the lens - the longer the lens gets the more shake it gets....


Canon and Nikon camera do not need a IS Body Selling Point.
The camera have such advanced technology that they don't need a selling point to surpass the sells of competition.

[Lester Wareham]

Hmm, some folks don't want to learn do they.

God forbid business reality and laws of physics should get in the way of the novice users preconceptions.

[MagentaJoe]

Hmm, some folks don't want to learn do they.

God forbid business reality and laws of physics should get in the way of the novice users preconceptions.

Absolutely. It's so hard to not be snippy back. :lol:

[Bob_A]

If Sony indeed "took over" KM's share, its market share would now be 20%, not 10%.

Because KM stopped manufacturing and selling DSLR's, the transition to Sony can't really be considered an acquisition. Sony bought out their technology and KM shut down. There's no acquired customer base when that happens--you either have a KM camera from before the buyout, or you've bought a new Sony.

If you want to argue that Sony's success is due to KM fans buying the product, that's up for debate. Personally, I think it's more likely the result of the camera's price point and features, plus Sony's strong brand name and massive distribution.

It's anybody's guess how innovative Sony will prove to be with DSLRs. They sure led the way with digital video, though, so who knows?

Sony's technology is K-M's technology ... it's the K-M brand in a slightly different package with the Sony name on it. So IMO Sony has gone nowhere with an already established system.

[Bob_A]

Absolutely. It's so hard to not be snippy back. :lol:

:lol:

[RX350]

I had sony a100 , all i can say sony IS sucks, it is more of marketing thing.
and sony crapy non IS glass cost more then canon or nikon 'IS' glass

[Bodog]

I seem to recall similar threads around a year ago, the gist was " no self respecting dslr mfr. (especially Canon) would ever put live preview in a their dslr body". That Olympus toy isn't even a "real" dslr. Let's see what happens next month...:D

[Lester Wareham]

I seem to recall similar threads around a year ago, the gist was " no self respecting dslr mfr. (especially Canon) would ever put live preview in a their dslr body". That Olympus toy isn't even a "real" dslr. Let's see what happens next month...:D

Yes exactly. Canon are there to make money, not pontificate on DSLR engineering aesthetics. If they think they will make money from a next to useless feature (in-body IS not LiveView) then they will add it.

The proof is the wonderful print button.

[Kuma]

A Google search led me here, months after this discussion took place. Forgive me for chiming in so late.

Two years ago I purchased a Konica Minolta Maxxum 5D after shopping around for my first DSLR. At the time, it was the only DSLR that had built-in anti-shake. Knowing how much I detest using a flash and carrying a tripod, I reasoned that this single feature would probably improve my shots in the most significant, visible way.

A few months after I bought my camera, KM's technology was purchased by Sony. Although the Maxxum 5D has been discontinued, I could choose to add to my system by buying Sony or Minolta lenses.

But I'm not going to. What I really want is to trade up to Canon or Nikon and build my system with higher quality lenses, but I'm not willing to do that until one of them offers a DSLR with IS built into the body.

See, I'm spoiled. I want to pay for IS once, not every time I buy a lens. I've read all the arguments that say in-lens IS is superior, but... I don't care. I'm part of the very LARGE "pro-amateur" market that is willing to make some tradeoffs in image quality in exchange for products that I don't have to mortgage my house to afford.

Probably 90% of my shooting does not activate the anti-shake in the camera I'm using now. Which means if I'm using a theoretical Canon or Nikon with IS built in the body, it won't be activated 90% of the time--meanwhile, I'm shooting through high-quality glass. For the other 10% of my shots, I'm using less-than-optimal IS built into the body instead of the lens, which is still far better than no IS at all. And that's good enough for me.

Bottom line: I'm looking at you, Canon and Nikon. Whichever one of you puts IS in the body first, you get my money. And probably lots more money from thousands of other consumers like me who are waiting for the camera they really want.

I think Canon and Nikon will have no choice but to build IS into at least SOME of their pro-amateur models. Sony and now Pentax have a significant market advantage that the industry leaders would be foolish to dismiss.


I can relate to this post. I had been a Minolta user since 1979. The 5D and the 7D were nice bodies (albeit the 7D's did have many issues). I can't recall what the claimed in camera IS stops was (maybe 3 to 4 stops claimed). I was waiting around for Sony's replacement to the 7D and just got tired of waiting. I don't want to knock Sony's dslr lineup.

But I've read most of what others have read about in-camera IS vs. in-lens IS. From what I gather in-camera IS can compensate for lenses approximately 100mm or less due to engineering constraints. The thing is at 100m or longer is where you start needing IS the most due to focal length.

From where I'm sitting I'd rather not see Canon bother with in-camera IS. I'm hoping and quite frankly expecting the IS lenses I'm buying today to last me 10 yrs or longer (perhaps only selling these lenses to buy new technology if it makes sense to). I don't make tons of money but I manage to always pay cash for my camera equipment. If I buy a 100-400 IS lens this year and pay $1310 for it and use it for 10 years that works out to $131 a year. Thats not so bad. After all the glass is the long term investment and the major part of why people buy Canon.

And DevonTT you might want to look at glass prices for Sony lenses. Your issue is not wanting to take out a mortgage for glass. But a new Sony 70-200 2.8 G lens costs around $2200 vs. $1458 for Canon (during instant rebates). And thats with in-lens IS. And last time I checked a Sony 1.4 TC cost $567 vs. $267 for Canon. And on top of all that Sony's lens lineup is quite small when you compare it to Nikon or Canon. I know this is only due to Sony having to take over Konica-Minolta production but its still a decision factor. Best of luck if you decide to hang in there with Sony. I'm sure they'll do well down the road. :D

[danielyamseng]

canon n deicede to go with lens IS. If they follow, then olympus mught think canon ran out of idea and keep copying them:)

[Atlasman]

In lens IS is better than in camera IS. Each IS system is geared toward the focal length and the aperture of the given lens.

I happen to own an Olympus E-510 and the Leica 14-50mm IS lens and did some test shots and the premise that lens based stabilization is better is far from the truth.

Economic pressures will eventually force Canon and Nikon to develop sensor-based stabilization--this is inescapable.

[Atlasman]

[quote=Lester Wareham;2853418]In body IS is inferior to lens IS and will not be effective much beyond 100mm due to engeneering constraints.

I went to my local dealer during the summer to test out all in-camera stabilization--from Sony, Pentax, and Olympus.

On the Olympus, I test their 100-400 (35mm equivalent) lens and produced sharp images throughout its zoom range and at 60th second shutter range.

That sensor-based stabilization can't be effective beyond 100mm is wishful thinking.

[Atlasman]

But I'm not going to. What I really want is to trade up to Canon or Nikon and build my system with higher quality lenses, but I'm not willing to do that until one of them offers a DSLR with IS built into the body.

See, I'm spoiled. I want to pay for IS once, not every time I buy a lens. I've read all the arguments that say in-lens IS is superior, but... I don't care. I'm part of the very LARGE "pro-amateur" market that is willing to make some tradeoffs in image quality in exchange for products that I don't have to mortgage my house to afford.

I think Canon and Nikon will have no choice but to build IS into at least SOME of their pro-amateur models. Sony and now Pentax have a significant market advantage that the industry leaders would be foolish to dismiss.

I've started buying Olympus because of Canon's stance on in-camera stabiliation or lack of it.

[Lester Wareham]

[quote=Lester Wareham;2853418]In body IS is inferior to lens IS and will not be effective much beyond 100mm due to engeneering constraints.

I went to my local dealer during the summer to test out all in-camera stabilization--from Sony, Pentax, and Olympus.

On the Olympus, I test their 100-400 (35mm equivalent) lens and produced sharp images throughout its zoom range and at 60th second shutter range.

That sensor-based stabilization can't be effective beyond 100mm is wishful thinking.

It is all about the size of the image displacement, sensor based systems have trouble moving the sensor far enough to compensate for movement with longer lenses. There was a technical article about this recently but I can't quite remember where.

Of course a major advantage of in lens IS is the image in the viewfinder is stabilized - this is very significant with longer lenses.

Update: There is in fact something on this in the Xti white paper (http://www.robgalbraith.com/public_files/Canon_Rebel_XTi_White_Paper.pdf)on page 12.

"Some of Canon’s competitors have chosen to use in-body image stabilization. The technique
involves moving the image sensor in a controlled fashion, based on signals from
movement detecting sensors in the camera body. The obvious advantage of this system
is that users have some sort of stabilization available with almost any lens they connect
to the body. Short focal length lenses require smaller sensor deflections; 24 or 28 mm
lenses might need only 1 mm or so. Longer lenses necessitate much greater movement;
300 mm lenses would have to move the sensor about 5.5 mm (nearly 1/4”) to achieve
the correction Canon gets with its IS system at the same focal length. This degree of
sensor movement is beyond the range of current technology. Short and “normal” focal
length lenses need stabilization much less often than long lenses, so the lenses that
need the most help get the least. Further, in cameras with smaller than full-frame, 35
mm film size sensors, equivalent focal lengths become longer, by a factor of 1.5 or 1.6,
exacerbating the problem by making all lenses longer."

[Atlasman]

I can definetly see the advantage that a lens-based IS has in the long end, but may I suggest you go out and test the Olympus E-510 IS and the Olympus 50-200mm (100-400mm 35mm equivalent) and get a reference to how good sensor-based stabilization can be.

In the short end, I've compared the Leica 14-50mm Mega O.I.S. and the E-510 IS and consistently got a greater number of keepers from the sensor-based IS--at the entire focal range. That this condition exists tells me that Canon's statements may hold in the theoretical, but may not hold in the actual.

[Lester Wareham]

I can definetly see the advantage that a lens-based IS has in the long end, but may I suggest you go out and test the Olympus E-510 IS and the Olympus 50-200mm (100-400mm 35mm equivalent) and get a reference to how good sensor-based stabilization can be.

In the short end, I've compared the Leica 14-50mm Mega O.I.S. and the E-510 IS and consistently got a greater number of keepers from the sensor-based IS--at the entire focal range. That this condition exists tells me that Canon's statements may hold in the theoretical, but may not hold in the actual.

I don't think there would be any problem with the short end, your report on the 200mm is interesting. That is equivalent to what, 250mm on APS-C so it is beginning to get fairly long. I guess the 2X crop factor makes the in body IS solution easier to implement, personally I would prefer better noise performance of larger photo sites.

The problem is most IS evaluation seems to be currently subjective, as far as I know I am the only person to have published quantative IS test (http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photography/LensTests/IS_Tests/index.htm). I don't expect to see reviewers doing this any time soon.

It just makes it difficult to judge how effective these things are. The average user probably just thinks extends operation to lower shutter speeds, where as in reality it changes the micro-contrast characteristic against shutter speed for handheld conditions.

[Atlasman]

I don't think there would be any problem with the short end, your report on the 200mm is interesting. That is equivalent to what, 250mm on APS-C so it is beginning to get fairly long. I guess the 2X crop factor makes the in body IS solution easier to implement, personally I would prefer better noise performance of larger photo sites.

The problem is most IS evaluation seems to be currently subjective, as far as I know I am the only person to have published quantative IS test (http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photography/LensTests/IS_Tests/index.htm). I don't expect to see reviewers doing this any time soon.

It just makes it difficult to judge how effective these things are. The average user probably just thinks extends operation to lower shutter speeds, where as in reality it changes the micro-contrast characteristic against shutter speed for handheld conditions.

My "quantative IS test" is simple: find a subject that requires low shutters, do a session of varying perspectives and frames, identify which has more keepers.

[Lester Wareham]

My "quantative IS test" is simple: find a subject that requires low shutters, do a session of varying perspectives and frames, identify which has more keepers.

Heh - that is exactly what I mean....

[Broncobear]

I think the next Rebel model will have in body IS simply so Canon can re-distinguish itself from the dozens of low end DSLRs that Noink is flooding the market with.

I agree, and if you look closely at rebel owners they probably own the least expensive IS lens glass. My guess is the 450 D will stay at 10 MP and offer more features like the 40D and maybe a suprise like IS.

thing is, they could literally bury themselves if they make it better than the 40D.

[gary88]

I believe Canon already addressed this issue with the 18-55 IS and 55-250IS. Don't you think it would be a little odd if Canon, upon just releasing these lenses (well at least the 18-55 right now), would go ahead and put in-body IS in the new Rebel (which most people buy with the supplied kit lens)? Then they would have to regress to using the older 18-55 non-IS kit lens. I think Canon is smarter than that.

I'm still a firm believer Canon DSLRs will always have lens-based IS.

[mikepaco]

Has anyone considered the E3, which has 5 stops of IS, more than any lens Canon or Nikon puts out.

[jake22]

It wouldn't make sense to introduce a new feature on a entry-level camera instead of the to 1D3. Anyway there are only 5 more days left to wait (http://canon-eos-7d.blogspot.com/2008/01/7d-launching-on-24th-on-january-along.html).

[DVS_WiNdz]

I think highly unlikely.. with all the IS lenses that Canon has.. if every newer body came out with in camera IS, it'll make all the IS lenses become obsolete.

[cloose]

It wouldn't make sense to introduce a new feature on a entry-level camera instead of the to 1D3. Anyway there are only 5 more days left to wait (http://canon-eos-7d.blogspot.com/2008/01/7d-launching-on-24th-on-january-along.html).


Like the dust reduction system that was introduced on the XTi ???

[JohnnyG]

I definitely think we'll see in body IS on a Canon DSLR in the next 6 months. It has to happen as the market is really demanding that feature. It wouldn't negate the lens IS, it would only work if no lens with IS was mounted. Simple really and necessary for the market.

I would imagine that the Rebels would get it first and then later, who knows what, but it's definitely coming. Market forces are demanding in body IS so it's going to happen.

This is my opinion as to where the Canon low end DSLR's are going in the near future. I think it would be nice when I mount my 17-40 that doesn't have IS, that at least the body would. Pretty cool for sure.:cool: I can see it happening for all of the DSLR's in the future.
Why not???

[Atlasman]

I definitely think we'll see in body IS on a Canon DSLR in the next 6 months. It has to happen as the market is really demanding that feature. It wouldn't negate the lens IS, it would only work if no lens with IS was mounted. Simple really and necessary for the market.

I would imagine that the Rebels would get it first and then later, who knows what, but it's definitely coming. Market forces are demanding in body IS so it's going to happen.

This is my opinion as to where the Canon low end DSLR's are going in the near future. I think it would be nice when I mount my 17-40 that doesn't have IS, that at least the body would. Pretty cool for sure.:cool: I can see it happening for all of the DSLR's in the future.
Why not???

Its a matter of time!