Canon and Nikon made a mistake with IS.....

[Mthorpe_Davies]

I was thinking about this today after having a look at Minoltas new 70-200 and 300 f2.8 lense, both of these are a bit smaller and lighter than the canon equilivants. I believe this is due to not having IS in the lense. I have also been told that canons older 70-200 and 300 f2.8 non IS lense are optically sharper because they don't have the extra elements needed for IS.

I'm no expert and this is just my opinion and I can't back it up. I think the Canon and Nikon systems were designed for 35mm film based SLR's, had Canon (and to a lesser extent Nikon) waited a little longer I would bet the farm on it that these IS lenses would not exist today. With film it would have been next to impossible to have in body IS as film had to be as flat as possible, hense the pressure plate. With digital this isn't an issue, so in body IS is pratical and I would guess more benifical to the majority of photographers. Everyone would benefit and can use existing lense.

Canon had a great idea with IS, Nikon copied it and now Minolta and Olympus are refining it and bringing it to the masses. Fom what I have read Oly has patented an in body IS system like Minolta.

What do you lot think of my theory, it may have some holes in it but I feel pretty confident that had the big two waited IS would be totally different today......

[Guillermo Freige]

Both approachs have its advantages and disadvantages
IS lenses can be used in film and digital bodies, but at you said optical quality can be affected, and the lenses are expensive and big.
AS bodies can work with any lens. but as the CCD itself must be moved, you need a lens with extra coverage area to avoid vignetting. This is not a problem with APS sensors with full circle lenses, but I don't know what will happen with small circle lenses, or with full frame sensors.
Also, in the Minolta case, the AS system forced Minolta to use a smaller and lighter cooling system because the movable nature of the CCD, and it affect adversely noise levels, or at least some reports are saying that.
For now I'm happy with Canon approach. It allowed me to shot with IS lenses for the past 5 years with film and now with digital, but AS bodies sound as the right idea for the digital age.

[vvizard]

It's logical in my ears too, that the solution in the future will be to do shake-reduction in camera, and not in the lens. Yes, both probably have disadvantages, but I think doing it in lens have most of them for futuristic use, here's some I can think about:

Lenses will probably always be expensive to produce, adding IS will also add price/weight. On the other hand, putting in larger imaging-sensors than needed might give disadvantages I'm not aware of now, but at least big image-sensors can be produced very cheap in the future, and probably won't add much overall weight.

IS probably works great (haven't tried it), but I think Canon will do best in developing in-house IS starting now, to not get behind in this game. What they don't need to do, is putting it in a camera for sale yet. They might very well ride the IS-wave for as long as it have an advantage. And then, if the in-house IS turns out better, they might switch themself, as long as they do develop such system. It's not like old IS-lenses can't be used or anything, I guess the IS-mode can be turned off, so all the overhead all IS-lenses will give on "new" bodies is some added weight.

Another thing I think will play in the same ballpark in the future, is better sensors and algorithms, to produce less noise at high ISO-speeds. Just look at the current EOS's, if they can get 3-4 times less noise than what they have today, high ISO's will be a really great contender for IS, as it not only help reduce camera-shake, but also subject-motion. There sure is some physical limit for how hard ISO-values can be bent, but I think the MK-II is nowhere near the low ISO-noise we will be able to see in 10-15 years.

Just my two cents.

[Andy_T]

I was thinking about this today after having a look at Minoltas new 70-200 and 300 f2.8 lense, both of these are a bit smaller and lighter than the canon equilivants. I believe this is due to not having IS in the lense. I have also been told that canons older 70-200 and 300 f2.8 non IS lense are optically sharper because they don't have the extra elements needed for IS.

That's the first time that I've heard this story - the non iS version of the 70-200 or 300 being any less sharper than their IS counterparts.

That of course doesn't mean it's not true, but I've seen these lenses discussed about a hundred times (on this or other forums) without any mention to that.

Bottom line ... I'm sceptical.

Best regards,
Andy

[vvizard]

I was thinking about this today after having a look at Minoltas new 70-200 and 300 f2.8 lense, both of these are a bit smaller and lighter than the canon equilivants. I believe this is due to not having IS in the lense. I have also been told that canons older 70-200 and 300 f2.8 non IS lense are optically sharper because they don't have the extra elements needed for IS.

That's the first time that I've heard this story - the non iS version of the 70-200 or 300 being any less sharper than their IS counterparts.

That of course doesn't mean it's not true, but I've seen these lenses discussed about a hundred times (on this or other forums) without any mention to that.

Bottom line ... I'm sceptical.

Best regards,
Andy

I've seen it mentioned many times, but I've never seen people wildly agree on it. I really think the difference in quality between IS or not is tiiiiny, or that it all boils down to good, exceptionally good, and bad samples of a lens. And of course, if you've owned the 70-200L, and upgrade to the IS-version and get a bad sample, it's easy to blame the IS.. Just my thoughts on it..

[Pekka]

I was thinking about this today after having a look at Minoltas new 70-200 and 300 f2.8 lense, both of these are a bit smaller and lighter than the canon equilivants. I believe this is due to not having IS in the lense. I have also been told that canons older 70-200 and 300 f2.8 non IS lense are optically sharper because they don't have the extra elements needed for IS.

That's the first time that I've heard this story - the non iS version of the 70-200 or 300 being any less sharper than their IS counterparts.

That of course doesn't mean it's not true, but I've seen these lenses discussed about a hundred times (on this or other forums) without any mention to that.

Bottom line ... I'm sceptical.

Best regards,
Andy

See http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/70_200/index.htm

MTF's in Canon Lens Work III show that non-IS is slightly better in especially in edges, but bokeh is much better on IS version. Odd thing is that IS version is clearly worse with 1.4X extender, which is a pity because that is why I'm considering getting IS version (non IS works only on center point AF with 1.4X).

[ron chappel]

I agree with the original poster-in body IS is the future
...or at least the medium term future! :D It's all abit tricky to predict what will happen with all this but it is safe to say that both canon and nikon have 'wasted' alot of resources with in-lens type IS.

the argument over the sharpness of IS versus non-IS has proponents on both sides.Frankly i don't think i'll worry about a tiny difference as i am very happy to buy an IS lens regardless-the benifits are just too good to pass up....and both versions are outrageously sharp anyway :D :D :D :D

Incidentally i'm sure nikon invented IS but canon pushed it much harder.nikon had an image stabilized point and shoot camera in the mid(?) 90's sometime.

[MarkH]

I think that IS in the lens is best, because it is available - that counts a lot to me.

Maybe in body IS will be better, maybe it wont. Until the cameras are available with in body IS and are carefully evaluated and compared to the Canon equivalent then they are just pipe dreams.

I will be interested in reading a comparison between the Minolta D-SLR with in body IS and a 70-200 f2.8 (and 300 f2.8) and the Canon with 70-200 f2.8L IS (and 300 f2.8L IS) to see if the Minolta turns out to be better.

IS - better in body or lens? Too early to tell, IMO.

[ron chappel]

True mark
Even though i don't have much $,i'm seriously considering an IS lens even though i know it will lose value rather quickly sometime in the future.
Is lenses are proven while only minolta has promised in body IS so far...but at what cost?

[kb244]

Maybe canon and nikon should just invest in making adapters, much like teleconvertors that are Image Stabalizers and teleconvertors in one attachment, therefore any lens can be image stabalized.

[cmM]

Frankly i don't think i'll worry about a tiny difference as i am very happy to buy an IS lens regardless-the benifits are just too good to pass up....
Could someone be kind and elaborate on these benefits of image stabilization, because so far what I understood from different articles and websites they help "in low ambient lighting when shootin with slow shutter speed and hand holding the camera.
My first lens on my shopping list is a 70-200mm L 2.8. Initially I was going to go IS, and after reading these articles I decided it's not worth the extra $600. Am I making a mistake? (the amoun of low light, indoor shooting for me will be trivial compared to outdoor nature and sport shooting).
:roll: Now I'm confused.

[Guillermo Freige]

IS in the lens has another advantage. You are actually seeing a stabilized image in the optical viewfinder. Body-based IS needs an EVF or LCD preview to see the effect, and both of them are much worse than an OVF. Of course it´s still possible to have an OVF camera with body-IS, but the lack of IS efficiency feedback is clearly a disadvantage....

[CoolToolGuy]

IS in the lens has another advantage. You are actually seeing a stabilized image in the optical viewfinder. Body-based IS needs an EVF or LCD preview to see the effect, and both of them are much worse than an OVF. Of course it´s still possible to have an OVF camera with body-IS, but the lack of IS efficiency feedback is clearly a disadvantage....

You reminded me that the 'pre-shot preview in a DSLR' issue would need to be resolved as well. Canon has their pellicle mirror technology that they recycle from time to time, but it is a bit of an issue with an SLR.

[iwatkins]

In addition, a sensor based IS would be no good for all those thousands of photogs who still use film in their Canon bodies. Lens based IS still helps them, so saying that Canon or Nikon missed the boat by providing lens based IS is just plain wrong, IMHO of course. ;)

Cheers

Ian

[kb244]

It all depends on the targeted audience. Most canon or nikon shooters I know, typically have a couple bodies, or have a digital, and an old film body, the fact you can interchange the lens is great, and the fact IS on one camera, is still IS on the other. I wonder what would happen if someone used IS on the lens, in combination with IS on the sensor.

[Tom W]

I have an external IS called "Manfrotto". ;)

[Tom W]

In addition, a sensor based IS would be no good for all those thousands of photogs who still use film in their Canon bodies. Lens based IS still helps them, so saying that Canon or Nikon missed the boat by providing lens based IS is just plain wrong, IMHO of course. ;)

Cheers

Ian

Actually, that's probably why its in the lens in the first place. And who's to say that there cannot be an "IS teleconverter" attachment at some point that will resolve the whole issue with less cumulative fatigue on the sensor connecting wires than a "floating sensor" setup would have.

Of course, faster, cleaner ISO's will also resolve part of the issue and that is something in which Canon is a leader.

[karusel]

Guillermo, what an excellent point! I haven't thought about it until I've read it... However, I think it would not bother not to actually see the stabilized picture, as you would know from experience what shutter speeds to use in order to do what you want to do. You would only benefit from stabilized picture if your hands are really shaky, or you're shooting driving on really really bad roads, or possibly off road, but other than those ultra rare circumstances I can't think of anything...

[Guillermo Freige]

Guillermo, what an excellent point! I haven't thought about it until I've read it... However, I think it would not bother not to actually see the stabilized picture, as you would know from experience what shutter speeds to use in order to do what you want to do. You would only benefit from stabilized picture if your hands are really shaky, or you're shooting driving on really really bad roads, or possibly off road, but other than those ultra rare circumstances I can't think of anything...

I actually use IS feedback a lot, because I tend to shot at really low shutter speeds (1/15 for 300mm, 1sec for 28mm), at least with film (ISO 400 isn't that sensible for indoor shots as in churchs or night pictures) so the proper body support makes a huge difference. In film this is the only way to be confident of a stable enough shot. Of course in digital you can review the picture, but I've already found my initial thoughts seeing how well the IS is working are usually confirmed by the review.

[KennyG]

IS in the lens allows it to be optimized for that particular lens. It can then be used on any body. You also see what you are getting, not possible for sensor based IS in a DSLR.

I believe in-camera IS will appear from Canon in P&S models like the 'G' range very soon. It suits this type of application and the user who demands all the gadgets like movie mode or LCD preview. IMHO this is where it belongs.

[Longwatcher]

The number one problem with IS in the body is that if the IS breaks the odds are good that your whole camera system is down for the count. If IS on a lens goes out, you can always change lenses.
The IS system does some pretty fast shaking and would probably put considerable more stress on the sensor then it does on one of the lens elements. The sensor is the most important part of the camera system. While you put stress on the camera by handling it, it would not nearly be the same as handling it and having an IS system in the camera.

Second, the majority of shake is most noticable near the end of the lens, thus the best place for correction of the shake is as close to the end of the lens as possible. Actually, I think the middle of the lens requires the least effort to correct, if I remember right, but the best place would be the end.

Third, Some one has already mentioned the WYSIWYG problem with putting the IS in the body of an SLR. But this would be resolved by an interchangable lens camera with an LCD viewfinder. So 50/50 for now.

On a nuetral note; IS still has improvements so do you upgrade the occasional lens, or do you upgrade your camera. For a 10D class camera it is 50/50, below it would be the camera, above it would be the one or two lenses.

As a side note: In all of the comparisons I have read, there has been no significantly noticable difference between a lens with IS (when turned off) and a lens without IS (at least for recent lenses). When turned on however, there is a noticable difference.

Lastly, I can't say why, because I suspect it is something subconscious I am forgetting, but I feel that putting it in the body is not a good thing beyond what I have mentioned above.

[leony]

So, how many Minoltas and OLYs have you seen at the last Olympic games? Compare that to Canons and Nikons.

In-Camera IS is a great tech for ZLRs (SLRs with built in lenses). It will never make it to pro-grade cameras.

The reason Minolta and OLY are not contenders at this time is that their high-tech gizmos (Like OLYs D-series lenses that "let light hit the sensor at right angles" and now the in-body IS) only appeal to amateurs/advance amateurs. What appeals to pros is the lens selection as well as lens quality and compatibility with future equipment.

Another often overlooked factor: If a 1Ds or a 300mm f/2.8 dies in the middle of the job, I can rent one in just about any large town in the world. Try renting a Minolta or an OLY to finish the job. It's probably easier to rent a digital MF outfit than an OLY...

[robertwgross]

If you think about the physics, I.S. is going to work easiest (and therefore probably the best) the closer you have it toward the front of the lens, or the farther away from the nodal point. Sticking it inside at the sensor doesn't make any sense to me.

---Bob Gross---

[Mthorpe_Davies]

I bet you couldn't rent a 1d body in any large town in the world, Auckland is a small city (pop 1.2 million) and I have tried to rent one and couldn't, I also tried to rent one in Melbourne (pop 3.0 million) and couldn't there either. In big cities like London I agree no problem but I bet you would have problem outside London.

I still believe that had digital been more advanced when canon started making IS it would have been in body and pro's would be using it. Film is dying, it will hang on for another decade or so but it is on the way out digital is the future nearly all profession pj and sports guys use digital, they may have an F5 or Eos 1 in the bag or back home but I bet it doesn't get used.

What looks really interesting is the proposed Nikon F6 modular body that I have read about. It's apparently like a 35 mm version of medium format system, a base unit which you can attach various different components to i.e. different viewfinders, digital or film backs.

I think we are in a new golden age of photography where innovations will be coming thick and fast over the next few years, rather like when AE came out or when AF was new. Fantastic time for gear heads.

[ron chappel]

[Could someone be kind and elaborate on these benefits of image stabilization, because so far what I understood from different articles and websites they help "in low ambient lighting when shootin with slow shutter speed and hand holding the camera.
My first lens on my shopping list is a 70-200mm L 2.8. Initially I was going to go IS, and after reading these articles I decided it's not worth the extra $600. Am I making a mistake? (the amoun of low light, indoor shooting for me will be trivial compared to outdoor nature and sport shooting).
:roll: Now I'm confused.

I was just judging the worth of IS by the HUGE percentage of shots i lose because of camera shake (for all kinds of reasons)
Sure,most of the surf pics and other bright conditions don't need it but i estimate that half of my long lens use is in conditions that the shutter speed is just too low.
**i should add!!!- the lenses i normally use are slow consumer zooms with small maximum apertures,and the IS lens i want is the 75-300IS.
If you are getting an f2.8 lens then the benifits are less of course.
I personally think i would like IS no matter which lens it's on but i do tend to like shooting in low light........... :) :)

[Guillermo Freige]

Third, Some one has already mentioned the WYSIWYG problem with putting the IS in the body of an SLR. But this would be resolved by an interchangable lens camera with an LCD viewfinder. So 50/50 for now.


It´t me :). Regarding the LCD "solution", I don´t think so. First, personally I'll never use a stamp size LCD to compose a picture instead of a good old OVF in a DSLR. Second, the image is too small to judge anything, much less camera shaking!. This, of course, if someday DSLRs finally have a preview LCD, but to me the only useful thing of it can be a live histogram to check exposure, not to use it as a composition tool.

[Belmondo]

It´t me :). Regarding the LCD "solution", I don´t think so. First, personally I'll never use a stamp size LCD to compose a picture instead of a good old OVF in a DSLR. Second, the image is too small to judge anything, much less camera shaking!. This, of course, if someday DSLRs finally have a preview LCD, but to me the only useful thing of it can be a live histogram to check exposure, not to use it as a composition tool.

Agreed. We spend an awful lot of money for SLRs mainly for the ability to see what the lens is seeing. It'd be a step backwards in my mind.

[CoolToolGuy]

IS in the lens has another advantage. You are actually seeing a stabilized image in the optical viewfinder. Body-based IS needs an EVF or LCD preview to see the effect, and both of them are much worse than an OVF. Of course it´s still possible to have an OVF camera with body-IS, but the lack of IS efficiency feedback is clearly a disadvantage....

You reminded me that the 'pre-shot preview in a DSLR' issue would need to be resolved as well. Canon has their pellicle mirror technology that they recycle from time to time, but it is a bit of an issue with an SLR.

The entire concept of an 'SLR' is to see the image through the lens that is recording the image. An LCD may still allow that, but then you have the bright sun issue to contend with. The entire SLR concept would have to evolve significantly to permit pre-shot viewing with in-body IS.

And, as mentioned before, it may work with the 1.6 crop factor, but an increase in the sensor size (even to 1D dimensions) along with in-body IS may require development of new lenses with an image circle larger than the current EF lenses. And they will be EXPENSIVE - a la medium format.

Concepts notwithstanding, I don't see Canon going with yet another brand new lens mount protocol. The backlash from the pro users would be tremendous.

[kb244]

Also with using the LCD, you'd have to either get rid of the mirror, or the mirro has to stay up, then when you go take the shot, the mirror gota go down, then back up to take the shot. Which is probally part of the shutter lag issues in point and shoots. Also just using the LCD continusily and using the same kind of mettering abilities, would drain the battery like a mofo.

[BigRed450]

My 2 cents....
I use 2 IS lenses, the 100-400L and the 28-135. I find one of the real benefits of IS that hasn't been mentioned yet is for focusing, as the IS stabalizes the image in order to get a better Focus Lock, especially with longer lenses.

IMHO If going to in-body IS means having to incorporate an EVF then I will stick with in-lens IS, Thank-you. I used a Fuji S602Z for a year to do Moto X, Iceracing, horse events and portraits. The EVF has only one advantage, the ability to have your image preview in the viewfinder rather then on the LCD (no need to chimp). EVF refresh rates can be slow at times and there is an EVF time lag of 0.6 sec or more (dependent on camera model) which means you are not seeing exactly whats happening at the exact moment. That being said it can be worked around, I did it and got excellent results, but it is very inconvenient and requires practice...

[4walls]

I love the idea of in body IS. What a great innovation for Minolta and Oly. And give
credit to Olympus for their sensor cleaning technology as well.

[DocFrankenstein]

Why do you need a bigger sensor? Let's say you use an extremely low shutter speed... like 1/5th of a second.

The camera isn't gonna shift more than 3-5 degrees. If you imagine how far the sensor has to move to compensate for that 5 degree shift, it's minimal... A millimeter at most.

IMO the in-body camera shake wouldn't be useful. Any serious bump would damage it sensor moving mechanism and/or the gyros.

but I'd like to see a camera with rotating sensor, so that I'll be able to use normal lens as tilt/shift... :confused:

I should patent that prolly... :p

[aikidoforever]

Hey Mthorpe_Davies,

The new Minolta 70-200F2.8 and 300F2.8 do in fact have IS built in. I was a Minolta user and had waited for ever for them to introduce IS technology in their lenses. Back in 2002 (I think) they introduced these new lenses both having the built in IS. Then, within 1 year the rumors started regarding them finally coming out with a DSLR with intergrated IS... So, I was wondering why??

Anywhoo, just thought I would correct you...

Thanks,

Ivan

[CyberDyneSystems]

Not to mention the fact that when Canon introduced IS there was no option for moving the CCD/Cmos around..

....as it was a thing we used to call "film" back then ;)