PDA

View Full Version : Heresy here: Should Canon consider image stabilized bodies?


ThomasOwenM
3rd of November 2007 (Sat), 18:33
When I went to get DSLRed, it came down to Canon or Sony. Every now and then I find myself getting a little Sony envy. I went with Canon because my research showed that Canon's sensors on the EOS line were the best in the industry for low-light/high ISO and minimal noise, outperforming Sony (and Nikon and everyone else).

And the articles I read also proved that a Canon with an image stablized Canon lens outperforms a Sony with an image stablized body. However, Sony does have the advantage of image stablization being at your disposal with any lens you put on one. It turns out I like some Canon and Sigma non-telephoto prime lenses that don't have image stablization available to them. With these lenses the Sony-style body-based image stablization would be nice because that IS certainly outperforms no image stablization.

I wonder if the following is possible (and take notes if you work in Canon development). What if Canon made a 40D or 5D type of camera with image stablization in the body, but it still had the ability to use Canon image stabilized lenses? If it detected the presense of an IS lens, it would automatically shut off the body-based IS. Then if you put a non-image stablized lens on, you at least have the option of turning body-based IS on. You would then at least have decent IS instead of none at all. Go ahead and slap on that f/1.4 prime and have some IS. Then you've got the best of both worlds.

Feasable?

tekkie
3rd of November 2007 (Sat), 18:36
feasible yes, will it every happen? I highly doubt it because its pretty much useless from my point of view, why increase production costs when they are putting IS on almost all the lenses now

bottom line is IS on the lens is better and I dont ever see Canon or Nikon changing that

simwells
3rd of November 2007 (Sat), 18:38
I'd still like it mainly for primes, but can't really see it happening.

Mark_Cohran
3rd of November 2007 (Sat), 18:42
Don't see it happening. Canon put out a white paper not too long ago emphasizing their position that in-lens IS was far more effective.

Mark

cdifoto
3rd of November 2007 (Sat), 18:47
Should they do it? Perhaps.
Will they do it? No. The 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 EF-S IS (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B000V5K3FG/ref=ord_cart_shr/102-4000023-0128130?%5Fencoding=UTF8&m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&v=glance) @ $189 is evidence of that.

ThomasOwenM
3rd of November 2007 (Sat), 18:48
...why increase production costs when they are putting IS on almost all the lenses now

Actually, IS is unavailable on any of the non-telephoto primes. Another option would be to make such lenses with IS. However, I'm not a photographic engineer; perhaps making those is not possible for some reason.

JeffreyG
3rd of November 2007 (Sat), 18:49
In body to stabilize shorter primes + in lens on all the existing ones (the camera could shut down the in body when in lens is detected) would be killer, but don't hold your breath.

I'm also thinking that in-body is not feasible on the 135 format bodies. I'm guessing the image circle of the lens does not have enough room to allow the sensor to shake around. Certainly nobody would be happy having random corners vignette or get fuzzy because the sensor was at the far end of the shake range when the shot was taken.

RX350
3rd of November 2007 (Sat), 19:06
well i had sony alpha for year and " Im.St." close to useless .
they saying its like having every lens with IS , only problem it doesnt work,
at least not effective . this is only move to get market attention.

number six
3rd of November 2007 (Sat), 19:21
Hmmmm. I haven't thought much about it, but it seems to me that the optimal stabilizing effect required would vary with the focal length of the lens.

Thoughts, anyone?

-js

Jim G
3rd of November 2007 (Sat), 19:24
Sure, they should be considering it... they'd be mad not to look at the options. Given the recent IS kit lens releases, though, it seems as though they're taking the in-lens route which they still say is superior.

tekkie
3rd of November 2007 (Sat), 19:27
Hmmmm. I haven't thought much about it, but it seems to me that the optimal stabilizing effect required would vary with the focal length of the lens.

Thoughts, anyone?

-js

Totally agree, the only way I can see in body working properly is having the lens tell the camera which lens is attached, and then the camera would need to know the optimal settings for that lens. I guess you could upload the settings files to the camera for all the lenses your using.

then I am sure it would work much better, but I still dont see it happening :)

JeffreyG
3rd of November 2007 (Sat), 19:33
Totally agree, the only way I can see in body working properly is having the lens tell the camera which lens is attached, and then the camera would need to know the optimal settings for that lens. I guess you could upload the settings files to the camera for all the lenses your using.

The camera does know this. It's in the EXIF.

AutoXer
3rd of November 2007 (Sat), 19:33
I question whether in-lens image stabilization is really any more "effective" or "superior" since the in-camera system can be programmed to vary itself by simply reading the focal length of the lens and performing accordingly. Frankly I think in-lens is just about higher profit. Just my own personal view.

jZ

JWright
3rd of November 2007 (Sat), 19:34
Personally, I don't feel IS is really necessary on any lens below 200mm, hence there is no need for in-body IS. Putting the IS in the body so it is available with all lenses is a marketing ploy and of no real value.

IS is a relatively new development. Sure, it is nice to have the extra help IS gives at longer focal lengths, but what did photographers do to minimize camera movement before IS? They utilized proper handholding techiniques, used the old rule of shutter speed = 1/focal length, and/or used a tripod.

FUBAR247
3rd of November 2007 (Sat), 19:35
Given the recent IS kit lens releases, though, it seems as though they're taking the in-lens route which they still say is superior.

Of course they will say in-lens is superior, given the choice of either making a user pay a one off premium to have IS on a body or make users pay a premium for each lens that has IS, I know what I would be doing if I was in Canon's position :cool:

tekkie
3rd of November 2007 (Sat), 19:39
The camera does know this. It's in the EXIF.

yes some of the info is in the exif but does the camera know the difference between a canon 70-200 and a sigma 70-200? I dont think so

John T
3rd of November 2007 (Sat), 19:44
Personally, I don't feel IS is really necessary on any lens below 200mm, hence there is no need for in-body IS. Putting the IS in the body so it is available with all lenses is a marketing ploy and of no real value.

Absolutely!

IS is useful on the longer focal lengths - but not essential. In fact, even though it's usefull at times it's not really essential at all - makes you wonder how the "giants" of the 20th century managed to create their masterpieces without it! ;)

JeffreyG
3rd of November 2007 (Sat), 19:45
Personally, I don't feel IS is really necessary on any lens below 200mm, hence there is no need for in-body IS. Putting the IS in the body so it is available with all lenses is a marketing ploy and of no real value.

If IS is not necessary, then neither is any ISO above 100. These are just gimmicks.

Seriously, while IS is of huge usefullness on longer lenses, it is also very handy on the shorter ones as well. I can think of tons of examples:
1. Blurring water without a tripod.
2. Getting large DOF for landscapes without a tripod.
3. Getting a blur free background when dragging the shutter (flash photography).
4. Candids of sleeping children.

I especially tend to like IS on my 17-55 for (2) and (3). I think IS is a wonderful feature useful across the f.l. range.

makes you wonder how the "giants" of the 20th century managed to create their masterpieces without it!

They used tripods of course. Tripods are a pain though, especially when travelling or shooting family stuff. Most people will prefer IS to a tripod.

You don't see too many hobbiests (even the serious ones) who want to lug around the 50 kg of gear Ansel Adams used. Ever see a picture of all that crap strapped onto his car?

John T
3rd of November 2007 (Sat), 19:48
If IS is not necessary, then neither is any ISO above 100. These are just gimmicks.

Seriously, while IS is of huge usefullness on longer lenses, it is also very handy on the shorter ones as well. I can think of tons of examples:
1. Blurring water without a tripod.
2. Getting large DOF for landscapes without a tripod.
3. Getting a blur free background when dragging the shutter (flash photography).
4. Candids of sleeping children.

I especially tend to like IS on my 17-55 for (2) and (3). I think IS is a wonderful feature useful across the f.l. range.
You just have to learn how to hold your camera steady! ;)

JeffreyG
3rd of November 2007 (Sat), 19:50
yes some of the info is in the exif but does the camera know the difference between a canon 70-200 and a sigma 70-200? I dont think so

When I open a picture in Elements 5.0 it tells me the lens used and at what focal length. Really, the camera knows this.

The camera also knows the maximum aperture of the lens and uses it to decide how to run the AF system. Below f/2.8 and it changes. Below f/5.6 on a non 1D and it refuses to work at all.

Pete-eos
3rd of November 2007 (Sat), 19:54
Can't see Canon going down the in-body route. I can see them having IS on all future lenses, its clearly cheaper and lighter to implement, look at the new kit lens. A 28 f/1.8 USM IS would be rather cool :)

Tom W
3rd of November 2007 (Sat), 20:30
Bogen/Manfrotto has offered universal image stabilization for years....

http://www.pbase.com/photosbytom/image/80936265.jpg

:D

RedHot
3rd of November 2007 (Sat), 20:34
No. Canon has developed a new less complicated less costly IS system that they've put into their new 18-55 IS and 55-250 IS that retail for $200 and (I think) $300 to compete with olympus, pentax, and sony that have moving image sensors.

Canon is clearl sticking to moving lenses. I believe all their P&S cameras with IS are lens based and not moving sensors.

longisland.km
3rd of November 2007 (Sat), 23:27
IS is a relatively new development. Sure, it is nice to have the extra help IS gives at longer focal lengths, but what did photographers do to minimize camera movement before IS? They utilized proper handholding techiniques, used the old rule of shutter speed = 1/focal length, and/or used a tripod.

There is one more thing they did before IS...they threw out all the blurry ones and made sure nobody saw them. ;)

_aravena
3rd of November 2007 (Sat), 23:35
well i had sony alpha for year and " Im.St." close to useless .
they saying its like having every lens with IS , only problem it doesnt work,
at least not effective . this is only move to get market attention.

Now I wish I kept the pics. WE had one in Ritz and happened to have an old Minolta mount Sigma 135-400 and wow it took some nice pics. Now, this was around when I was going to sell my Rebel, and it took me a sec to realize, may have been the lens. It was APO so idk, but the IS was on and I was shooting in a mall. Dead light, nice ISO, I think I had it on 200, maybe 400. Still, it's useful, but I don't see Canon doing so. It'd be nice, but I wouldn't pay more. Like the 40D was $1300 new? Or was it $1400? I already forgot. Aniwho, I wouldn't pay $1600 or more for in body IS. They already make great cameras and low noise on higher ISO levels is the in body IS. ;)

Grentz
4th of November 2007 (Sun), 01:47
If they did do it, it would compete with their own lenses and make people not buy some IS versions of lenses. Not really a smart move on Canon's part...

(for example...why buy the 70-200 f/4 IS over the just f/4? Or f/2.8 IS over the just f/2.8?? if there is in body IS)

Also, as said and seen lens IS is more effective than in body IS.

Myles7
4th of November 2007 (Sun), 03:11
They could rework the anti-dust shaker... ;)

agent.media
4th of November 2007 (Sun), 07:02
They utilized proper handholding techiniques, used the old rule of shutter speed = 1/focal length, and/or used a tripod

You just have to learn how to hold your camera steady!

Obvioulsy you havn't had to do much nightclub/bar photography, as in camera IS makes shots like below a possibility for me.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2041/1772956558_04333b1cb0.jpg
Exposure: 0.1 sec (1/10)
Aperture: f/2.8
Focal Length: 28 mm
ISO Speed: 3200

twofruitz
4th of November 2007 (Sun), 07:11
To be honest, i dont want to falk out another $200-$300 for a technology which i dont need?

If people need it, they buy the lens.

JMHPhotography
4th of November 2007 (Sun), 07:15
Don't see it happening. Canon put out a white paper not too long ago emphasizing their position that in-lens IS was far more effective.

Mark

yeah... but Nikon put a white paper out a couple of years ago why they'd never do a FF sensor. ;) Market demands trump, what you as a company think is better.

JMHPhotography
4th of November 2007 (Sun), 07:16
Obvioulsy you havn't had to do much nightclub/bar photography, as in camera IS makes shots like below a possibility for me.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2041/1772956558_04333b1cb0.jpg
Exposure: 0.1 sec (1/10)
Aperture: f/2.8
Focal Length: 28 mm
ISO Speed: 3200

So you're saying you couldn't pull this shot off with say... the 17-55mm with IS? not buying it!

Personally, I'd rather have IS in the lens... it's far more useful there. The in camera route prevents you from benefitting the IS through the viewfinder... having an IS lens, I can clearly see what IS is doing through my viewfinder.

Tyreman
4th of November 2007 (Sun), 07:32
Um good.
then we'd get to sell off all our "old" stuff and buy again.
I'm estatic.:)

BrantG
4th of November 2007 (Sun), 07:38
Curious as to how many stops an in camera IS system would have vs in-lens IS.

_aravena
4th of November 2007 (Sun), 07:42
^Sony reports 2-3 while in lens can range from 2-4, pending on the lens. Some of Canon's new ones report 4 I believe while something older like the 100-400L is 2-3?

Agent, is it pitch black where you shoot? F2.8 and ISO 3200 and that's all you got? I did shoot in pitch black at F2.8 ISO 800 and saw my pumpkin almost as much. Something is wrong there.

Tom W
4th of November 2007 (Sun), 08:01
Obvioulsy you havn't had to do much nightclub/bar photography, as in camera IS makes shots like below a possibility for me.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2041/1772956558_04333b1cb0.jpg
Exposure: 0.1 sec (1/10)
Aperture: f/2.8
Focal Length: 28 mm
ISO Speed: 3200

Might be a little bit of luck that you got the subject to hold still long enough for 0.1 seconds of exposure.

DStanic
4th of November 2007 (Sun), 10:46
I don't know if the IS in my Sony H5 is in the lens/sensor but it doesn't really seem to do much. Seems when I need it most the "blinking hand" comes on indicating that it can not be used due to low light or whatever. I was blown away by the IS in the Canon lens playing with it in the store. Clearly superiour vs in body IMO!

JWright
4th of November 2007 (Sun), 11:17
There is one more thing they did before IS...they threw out all the blurry ones and made sure nobody saw them. ;)

Don't we still do that?

agent.media
4th of November 2007 (Sun), 14:56
Agent, is it pitch black where you shoot? F2.8 and ISO 3200 and that's all you got? I did shoot in pitch black at F2.8 ISO 800 and saw my pumpkin almost as much. Something is wrong there.

Go find a dark trendy bar down some alleyway, and try and get a well exposed ambient shot as ISO 800. You pumpin was probably brighter than this bar, it only looks as if there was alot of available light.

Might be a little bit of luck that you got the subject to hold still long enough for 0.1 seconds of exposure.

That too! But i would never have been able to hold still enoguh for .1 sec without IS.

Me_XMan
4th of November 2007 (Sun), 15:11
IS in bodies is a waste of money. I would not buy it.

agent.media
4th of November 2007 (Sun), 16:09
Well I must admit, coming from the Konica Minolta 5D I found my ability to keep steady shots on a 50mm 1.4 was reduced by at least a stop or two. So it was handy in that regard, but then I find my performance on a 2.8 standard zoom is greatly increased (I have the 17-55 2.8) with the Canon IS system as compared to a non IS lens on the KM body.

_aravena
4th of November 2007 (Sun), 21:23
^:rolleyes:

Glenn NK
5th of November 2007 (Mon), 00:41
I'm surprised that this topic comes up so often.:confused:

And no, it's not heresy, but it's been made pretty clear by the industry leaders (Canon and Nikon) that they believe lens based IS is more effective, and will continue that way.

The leaders lead, the others do their best.;)

M24
5th of November 2007 (Mon), 00:42
I can't see Canon going away from IS on the lens. I've shot with some friends' Minolta and Sony DSLRs and after comparing images with comparable glass, the IS on the sensor didn't impress me all that much.

Perhaps the latest Sony Alpha will be better, its "IS" system advertises 5 stops. I'll believe that when I see it.

Best,

Michael

Grentz
5th of November 2007 (Mon), 00:51
Perhaps the latest Sony Alpha will be better, its "IS" system advertises 5 stops. I'll believe that when I see it.

Best,

Michael


Seems to me Canon or Nikon would come out with the in lens version before the technology came for an inbody version.

Just from the fact they have more experience in this stuff and that there is a lot more room in the lens than in the body. But who knows ;)

agent.media
5th of November 2007 (Mon), 03:41
Regardless of whether it is technically superior, there is something really cool about 'seeing' it go dead flat through the viewfinder.

Mike V
5th of November 2007 (Mon), 06:17
Maybe Canon will release a stabiliser attachment that will fit to any lens, like they have already for video (i.e. IS-20B) ?

kumicho
5th of November 2007 (Mon), 19:38
I want either Canon or Nikon to come out with in-body IS that works IN CONJUNCTION WITH the IS in lenses. Just imagine a data port sending info from the gyro (probably still in the lens) to adjust both the IS elements in the lens and the sensor in the body??? Good GAWD that would be hot. :)

longisland.km
5th of November 2007 (Mon), 21:54
So you're saying you couldn't pull this shot off with say... the 17-55mm with IS? not buying it!



I believe the challenge is to use the 24-70 f/2.8L, the wonderbrick that everybody loves, not the 17-55.

Glenn NK
5th of November 2007 (Mon), 23:05
I want either Canon or Nikon to come out with in-body IS that works IN CONJUNCTION WITH the IS in lenses. Just imagine a data port sending info from the gyro (probably still in the lens) to adjust both the IS elements in the lens and the sensor in the body??? Good GAWD that would be hot. :)

My concern would be that it would further complicate the camera unnecessarily. It might be a technical wonder and hot, but is it good engineering? (check out my bio - good engineering is simple not complex).

The lens based system seems to really work well - at least that's been my experience.

canotographer
6th of November 2007 (Tue), 01:32
I want either Canon or Nikon to come out with in-body IS that works IN CONJUNCTION WITH the IS in lenses. Just imagine a data port sending info from the gyro (probably still in the lens) to adjust both the IS elements in the lens and the sensor in the body??? Good GAWD that would be hot. :)

Take my words... It will happen sooner than we all can believe. My prediction is .. it will be here within the next two upgrade cycle or by 2010. When the growth rate of the industry shows noticeable deceleration, major players will do whatever they can stretch to maintain their market share. The time will come.

Karl Johnston
1st of December 2008 (Mon), 14:16
I read through all the posts in this topic, couldn't find this note:

IS just creates a couple more elements and 1 - 2 more groups for the image quality to be detoriated.

The way I see it is; it's a consumer feature.

If you think about it, in any low light you'll be using a tripod anyway. A tripod (good one) costs about 300-500 $ ONCE and not 300-500 everytime you buy a lens. It adds up if you get a lot of lenses in the tp range.

IS is great if you cant flip one out, but the way they make them now they're so easily carried (mine weighs less than 2 lbs! without attatchments..) and so easily adjusted, there's really no need for IS which can't be used effectively on tripod anyway.

IS is also great if you shoot a lot of indoors. But whoever has a house the size of what would deem necessary to carry a small telephoto (100 and above - 15 m of zoom potential) probably would just buy IS just because.

In a debate of IS versus non IS - i like non IS; i like to keep it simple

:D

Another thing about IS that i can bitch about - it makes the lens effectively 2x heavier. So if you DO use it on a tripod then, if it's a cheap tripod, then it wouldn't be as effective as the nonIS lens (if you had a choice, this is really flipping heads or tails now).

If you were considering IS over non IS i would go for non is what im getting at.

I don't really know why 17-55 2.8 has an IS feature. It's generally a stabilized focal length at 55, handheld, unless you like to shoot 0"3 and above out of moving cars (vacation lens; see? consumer orientated feature).

I do believe IS seems to be a consumer feature, though, especially with a company like sony. They make VCRs and tvs ... and despite their IS bodies have you noticed that their lenses tend to be a couple hundred for so (new) more expensive than canon's?

That said, IS is not useless. I would rather have an IS lens if I were going on trips where I would be doing a lot of creative shooting or wildlife shooting. If i were climbing a tree in -20C i would rather have the IS lens. It has its purposes, a tool, like anything else.

egordon99
1st of December 2008 (Mon), 14:23
WOW, IS is a "consumer" feature, now there's some flame-bait if I've ever seen any :)

Yep, and my 70-200mm f/4 IS obviously takes consumer photos. :lol:

I use my 70-200mm f/4 IS indoors ALL THE TIME (usually with flash though) and the IS helps tremendously. Outside I do NOT use a tripod, and the IS helps tremendously. I guess I'm a "new school consumer" photographer ;)

As for the in-body/in-lens debate, my last system was Pentax, and it was really nice having my 35mm f/2 and 50mm f/1.4 lenses stabilized :)

sadowsk2
1st of December 2008 (Mon), 14:23
Don't see it happening. Canon put out a white paper not too long ago emphasizing their position that in-lens IS was far more effective.

Mark

Do you have a link to this white paper by chance?

number six
1st of December 2008 (Mon), 14:47
Another thing about IS that i can bitch about - it makes the lens effectively 2x heavier.

Two times heavier? Come on. Have you ever held an 18-55 IS in your hand?

Or how about the 70-200 f/4? The B&H site lists the IS at 1.7 pounds and the non-IS at 1.56 pounds. The difference is 2-1/4 ounces.

-js

JeffreyG
1st of December 2008 (Mon), 18:26
I read through all the posts in this topic, couldn't find this note:

IS just creates a couple more elements and 1 - 2 more groups for the image quality to be detoriated.

The way I see it is; it's a consumer feature.

This must be why Canon put IS on their main consumer lenses like the:
EF 300 1:4L IS USM
EF 300 1:2.8L IS USM
EF 400 1:2.8L IS USM
EF 500 1:4L IS USM
EF 600 1:4L IS USM

They didn't want to engineer it into the more expensive 'pro' lenses till they got those cheapies done first.


Another thing about IS that i can bitch about - it makes the lens effectively 2x heavier. So if you DO use it on a tripod then, if it's a cheap tripod, then it wouldn't be as effective as the nonIS lens (if you had a choice, this is really flipping heads or tails now).

Have actually ever even looked into the IS lenses. Where there are direct counterparts like the 70-200 lenses the IS version usually weighs 5-10% more....not 100% more.

I don't really know why 17-55 2.8 has an IS feature. It's generally a stabilized focal length at 55, handheld, unless you like to shoot 0"3 and above out of moving cars (vacation lens; see? consumer orientated feature).

Because sometimes you need to stop down for DOF, and this can pull shutter speeds down too low. Sure, if the intended shot is a 20x30 wall hanger then I'd get a tripod out, but not every photo has to be perfect. But they all do need to be reasonably sharp even for web images or smaller prints and IS is perfect for this.


That said, IS is not useless. I would rather have an IS lens if I were going on trips where I would be doing a lot of creative shooting or wildlife shooting. If i were climbing a tree in -20C i would rather have the IS lens. It has its purposes, a tool, like anything else.

Right....so what was all the earlier stuff?

Collin85
1st of December 2008 (Mon), 18:33
If you think about it, in any low light you'll be using a tripod anyway.

Thanks for carpeting that generalization onto the masses. :rolleyes:


Another thing about IS that i can bitch about - it makes the lens effectively 2x heavier.

You must be drunk. Sleep this off - you'll feel better in the morning.

I don't really know why 17-55 2.8 has an IS feature. It's generally a stabilized focal length at 55, handheld, unless you like to shoot 0"3 and above out of moving cars (vacation lens; see? consumer orientated feature).

Rodinal? :lol:

JeffreyG
1st of December 2008 (Mon), 19:02
You must be drunk. Sleep this off - you'll feel better in the morning.


I've posted when drinking a few times. It's never pretty.

Karl Johnston
2nd of December 2008 (Tue), 06:34
WOW, IS is a "consumer" feature, now there's some flame-bait if I've ever seen any :)
:)

I expected people to disagree, and that's okay :D I just won't respond to the debates I see as redundant.

To further back up what I was saying;


Right....so what was all the earlier stuff?


Examining the topic from all sides, it's a tool. Definately isn't a necessity. In lenses like the 18-55 2.8 it's really not necessary. This lens is specifically targeting the vacation lens - for walking around and shoot the area, landscapes and cityscapes, large groups of people and zooming in a bit to get candids across the street or over other people's heads at the museum. The 2.8 is for indoors, the IS is for steadying those hands.

In lenses large and heavy with higher focal lengths than 100-200 it can help a lot because without a tripod, a very very very sturdy one designed to hold lenses above 400 - it can be nearly impossible to get the shot you're wanting.

That said, you don't need IS to get there. Before IS was possible, people in film used to do it and do just fine.

Not every photo HAS to be perfect. That said not every photo has to be a photo at all; but that's philosophy and we won't go there.

JeffreyG
2nd of December 2008 (Tue), 06:44
Examining the topic from all sides, it's a tool. Definately isn't a necessity. In lenses like the 18-55 2.8 it's really not necessary. This lens is specifically targeting the vacation lens - for walking around and shoot the area, landscapes and cityscapes, large groups of people and zooming in a bit to get candids across the street or over other people's heads at the museum. The 2.8 is for indoors, the IS is for steadying those hands.

The vast majority of photography is such. But I think you are giving short shrift to the usefulness of IS for many working pros. IS on short lenses for dragging the shutter in wedding and event photography, IS on medium lenses for performing arts photography, IS on long lenses for wildlife photography.

In lenses large and heavy with higher focal lengths than 100-200 it can help a lot because without a tripod, a very very very sturdy one designed to hold lenses above 400 - it can be nearly impossible to get the shot you're wanting.

So is it a consumer feature that doubles the weight of the lens and destroys IQ or not? You sure came out strong with some crazy claims to start with and you still have not returned to discuss how Canon's best and most expensive lenses were some of the earliest to get IS.

And the 400/2.8 (That classic consumer lens) didn't double to 30 pounds and degrade to having poor IQ when IS was added.

That said, you don't need IS to get there. Before IS was possible, people in film used to do it and do just fine.

There are a lot of tools people have now that they didn't have before. This is why there are more photographers now taking better photographs than before. People used to travel from New York to Oregon in Ox drawn wagons. More people do it more comfortably now in Boeing 757's.

desai99
2nd of December 2008 (Tue), 06:50
Simple economics will make it a race.

Either IS would become cheap enough that it will be included on most Canon lens in the next 2-3 years
OR
Canon will consider introducing IS camera bodies.

Karl Johnston
2nd of December 2008 (Tue), 07:24
So is it a consumer feature that doubles the weight of the lens and destroys IQ or not? You sure came out strong with some crazy claims to start with and you still have not returned to discuss how Canon's best and most expensive lenses were some of the earliest to get IS.

Doubles was a hyperbole, come off of it :D. It does not "destroy" IQ it deteriorates it, not by anything noticeable to the average viewer who may not want "every picture to be the best" but any elements of glass you put in addition will cause some lack in sharpness or contrast.

I guess there's no changing your mind, i'm really not bothered to start a war over something as silly as image stabilisation, just came to state my opinions of it. All they are is opinions, and most are from my own experiences.

I already stated why long lenses have an advantage to having IS, scroll up and read it again.

I'm not saying IS is a bad thing, I'm saying it's a consumer feature. What's stopping a pro not use a consumer lens? 50 mm 1.8 is a consumer lens, and many pros use that. Lenses are tools, 18-85 in one photographer's hands can be better than the results a 24-105L can in another's.

A friend of mine biked from here to Edmonton, alberta, on a rocky mountain mountain bike he bought for 150 bucks. Sure it took him forever- that's 1100 miles ! - but it can be done.

All these new features, to me, just seem to be creating a trend for handicapping people and directing them to buy only lenses with the added 200-300 $ IS feature. It strikes me as a marketing ploy. One day in the future we will all scoff at the photographer who thinks HD video in a camera is not a necessity, and mark my words it will happen!

dj sin
5th of December 2008 (Fri), 01:31
have you ever tried the 800mm stabiliser ?

try it and ... it does a ENORMOUS job .. you would have to move the sensor 1 inch up and down to cover all that movement ... but the lens is makes it feel like it's not a big deal to stabilise when activated.

zeva
5th of December 2008 (Fri), 01:56
lol the 800mm must do an enormous job! its an enormous lens!