Canon and in camera IS ?

[loebas]

Today I read an article about future developments for DSLR cameras.
Beside the usuall stuff my attention was drawn to the small remark about Image Stabalisation.
It said that the future DSLR cameras will have this in the body/sensor.
It seems that Minolta allready has this function on board.
Having this function in the camera means that you don't need any IS lenses anymore.

As i plan to buy an Canon IS lens I wonder if I should wait for Canon to come with on camera IS.
Can someone tell me wether Canon will introduce this in near future ?

[Jon]

They haven't formally announced it, and despite the wonderful opportunity members of this site provide them for market research and pilot testing of new equipment, they haven't leaked it to us, either. Actually, I'd stick with the lens-based IS as Canon, Nikon and Sigma have. The in-camera stabilization is going to shake the sensor to compensate for the lens vibration, and the sensor will have to move fairly severely to compensate for camera shake with a long lens; the lens focal length will have to be sent to the camera (and older, third-party lenses may not do this well), and the contacts/leads to the sensor will have to be able to take the flexing. Altrernatively, they'll have to put a lens in the camera body to shift, and that will complicate optical design, not least for third-party lensemakers. Putting stabilization in the lens allows them to shift an internal element less severely than something at the end of the "lever" will require, and the lens element/group doesn't require as many connections as the sensor in the camera will. In addition, by stabilizing the lens, not the camera, they can tilt, as well as shift, the stabilization group. Doing this with a sensor, or a lens element in the body, will require additional space.

[kawter2]

This would lose them money,

with this method they would only sell the technology one time (at camera purchase) vs the curent model which makes Canon $$$ every time a new lens is purchased.

The only thing that get Canon to do this is for a cometitor(s) with a large enough marketshare to steal Canon's glory, by having this feature on their cameras.

[Mark_Cohran]

While it may be in the future for some camera manufacturers, I seriously doubt it's in the near future for Canon. Besides, having IS in the lens means that the IS function will work regardless of the camera body, and that makes a lot more sense to me. I have far more money invested in glass than in bodies, and that's the way it ought to be.

[who me?]

Not to mention, more parts to break in the camera body. I think the amount of sensor movement would become an issue as Jon mentioned.
As it is, there was another post about someone who had the IS on his 70-200 IS lens die and he took apart his lens to see that part of the IS mechanism broke.
IS is a good thing but any parts that move do eventually wear out. To me, the ultrasonic dust remover system on one of the other cameras would be a much more useful item for the camera.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Yeah,. in short,. I wouldn't hold my breathe! :)

IF Canon makes this move,. it is a looooooong way down the road.

[lost]

Not to mention, more parts to break in the camera body. I think the amount of sensor movement would become an issue as Jon mentioned.
As it is, there was another post about someone who had the IS on his 70-200 IS lens die and he took apart his lens to see that part of the IS mechanism broke.
IS is a good thing but any parts that move do eventually wear out. To me, the ultrasonic dust remover system on one of the other cameras would be a much more useful item for the camera.

WOW this made me change my mind on in camera IS. Follow my logic. IS is more prone to wear so wouldnt it be best to have it on the shortest life span component. For now that is the Body. Which do you plan to have longer the Body or your L lenses? (Notice I said your because as of now I dont have one).

[karusel]

It would be interesting to know how much the sensor would have to move in order to stabilize a 400mm lens.

[kawter2]

It would be interesting to know how much the sensor would have to move in order to stabilize a 400mm lens.


The sensor wouldnt have to move, it could be a refractor in front of the sensor

[pierrot]

As usual... a lot of pure speculation for the cons as from the pros. ;)

[Mark_Cohran]

Well, having IS on the body would imply that it would be used a lot more than having IS in the lens. I mean, I use a variety of different lenses chosen to shoot the subject of the moment. So, I don't use my IS lenses all the time. Heck, even when I use my IS lenses, I don't necessarily use the IS function. If I'm using a tripod - which I do a lot - I won't use the IS function. So, I doubt the IS function in the lens is getting used all that much. Of course, if IS is built into the camera body, it can be switched off as well. I just don't think its as useful in the body as it is in the lens.

[ron chappel]

It's simply NOT true that longer lenses would need the sensor to move further.
It's also not true that sensor based stabilization has to move more than lens based stabilization .
Canon's better IS lenses currently outperform minolta's in-body system by about one stop's capability but there is obviously more to come from both systems

Obviously the flexable wireing leading to the minolta sensor sounds a worry but it's nothing like as bad as made out.Flexable printed circuits have been used for years in difficult situations and the limitations quite well understood.I would assume a worst case scenario of minolta bodys needing new connectors every few years?
As for moving parts,that's a non issue.If they can make sliding,rubbing shutter parts last very reliably for 300000 actuations i'm quite sure they can make simple pivot points to last as long as they want.

And to answer the original question- sadly no,i don't think canon are now interested in providing in camera IS.I really hope i'm wrong though!

[xuxu1]

I also doubt that Canon will go that way.
BTW....

AFAIK with the Mi**lta Maxxum 7D when having in camera IS turned on and taking pics, you don´t notice that IS is working. With the in the Len´s system from Canon... as soon as you press the shutter release half way and looking through the viewfinder you notice that camera shake is eliminated.

ED

[mdr]

Think yourself as being in charge of Minolta. You don't produce IS lenses, so what is the cheapest and quickest way of getting this to the market trying to compete with this? Include it in a new body, rather than releasing and manufacturing a large number of new lenses with IS.

Also, why would Sigma jump on the Canon/N***n bandwagon and start producing OS lenses? Surely they would not invest in this if Canon/N***n are changing to in body IS soon.

Whatever way you look at it, neither Canon nor N***n will include IS in their digital SLRs in the short to medium term future.

[PacAce]

This would lose them money,

with this method they would only sell the technology one time (at camera purchase) vs the curent model which makes Canon $$$ every time a new lens is purchased.

I'm not sure that is totally accurate. Think about how often people go changing their camera bodies when a new one gets announced. Now, think about how often people actually go out and change their lenses every time a new lens is announced. :D

Cameras on average may last a year or two or three but (good) lenses usually last almost forever.

[karusel]

Erm... I had a little thought... I say that in-camera image stabilization with a full frame 35mm sensor is not doable. The refractor (or, sensor, whatever) would basically have to move around the camera to compensate for the shake, but that means it would need excess FOV to do that. I assume it would work with a APS sensor and a regular lense but not with the APS lense. If it's too difficult to understand, suppose OOOO this much FOV comes in through the lens and the sensor size is OO, then refractor could move for one O either side; in full frame, the sensor is OOOO the same as the FOV of the lense, which leaves no additional O for the refractor to catch.

[robertwgross]

In-camera I.S. only makes sense if you have a camera with one lens permanently mounted.

In-lens I.S. makes better sense if you frequently change lenses. I'm making the rash assumption that most DSLR users change lenses.

If you think about the physics of what is going on, it makes better sense. With in-camera I.S., it works simply on how badly the camera body is vibrating around. With in-lens I.S., it works mostly by how badly the lens is waving around. Those are two completely different things.

---Bob Gross---