Canon sensor based image stabilization

[Rio Sundoro]

I have recently read articles on speculation and various technical issues should Canon put IS on the body. What I've always been curious, has anyone ever tried putting a Panasonic image stabilized lens on an Olympus body which has in built IS? Do the two systems actually contradict one another?

[Lester Wareham]

In the unlikely event Canon adds inferior in body IS presumably it will be set to only operate with non-stabalised lenses.

There has been a lot of chat about this, a search should turn up lots of threads.

[gotak]

People have done sigma stabalized lens on in body stabalized cameras. Do a search..

[Elisha]

if they do implement it, it would give users much more choice of lenses. No need to always get IS lenses. But I would get an IS telephoto lens just to have the viewfinder stabilized at longer focal lenghts.

[JWright]

Canon will not release a camera with in-body stabilization. They make way too much money selling IS lenses to kill off that cash cow...

[DStanic]

Imagine if they released a body with IS and it had issues, everybody would be in an uproar and start switching to Nikon :rolleyes:

I guess they would probably put it in a Rebel first but there are so many EFS lenses that have IS that it really wouldn't make any sense at this point in the game.

[beeng]

Imagine if they released a body with IS and it had issues, everybody would be in an uproar and start switching to Nikon :rolleyes:
You could say that about anything Canon does :P

too much money selling IS lenses to kill off that cash cow
That is one of the main reasons it won't happen any time soon. Not only would they be cannibalizing their own business, but they would need to revamp the majority of their lens line and re-release them without IS.

[JWright]

I guess they would probably put it in a Rebel first but there are so many EFS lenses that have IS that it really wouldn't make any sense at this point in the game.

Take a look at the Canon USA website... When you look at it, there really aren't that many EF-S lenses at all. The Canon site shows only eight EF-S lenses, six of which are IS.

There are 53 EF lenses with 21 having IS. All together, about 30% of Canons current lens lineup is IS.

[beeng]

Considering that EFS was only released in 2003, that is quite amazing. EF has been around since '87 and has had plenty of time to develop a long line of lenses. :P

[pwm2]

A more important factor is that there is no need for a full set of EF-S lenses, since a large number of EF lenses are available. It is only on the wide end that there are something to really gain by creating unique EF-S lenses.

[beeng]

Well, from a business perspective there is. EFS lenses are marketed as digital only (ie consumer level). EFS lenses don't need to be as good quality compared to their full frame counterparts. Crop sensors use less of the lens and Canon can afford to go a bit lax on quality as long as the center of the lens is sharp.
Is there a -need- for EFS lenses on anything but wide angle lenses? No. But that won't stop them ;)

[DStanic]

Take a look at the Canon USA website... When you look at it, there really aren't that many EF-S lenses at all. The Canon site shows only eight EF-S lenses, six of which are IS.

There are 53 EF lenses with 21 having IS. All together, about 30% of Canons current lens lineup is IS.

Well there are 7 that have IS, according to wikipedia. Out of 9 total focal lengths. I know the 17-85 is discontinued (I think) but it is still a popular lens.

15-85 IS
17-55 IS
17-85 IS
18-55 IS
18-135 IS
18-200 IS
55-250 IS

I consider that "alot" of EF-S lenses with IS. So why would they bother with in body IS?



And how about lenses such as the 70-200 f/2.8 IS where they can charge wayyy more money then the non-IS version, and people that need it WILL pay for it.

[SkipD]

Crop sensors use less of the lens and Canon can afford to go a bit lax on quality as long as the center of the lens is sharp.The hilited part above is not true. Any camera image is formed using all of the lens' surfaces. What is true, and probably what you are thinking about, is the fact that an APS-C camera (a so-called "crop" DSLR) will not record the whole image projected by a lens designed for the 35mm film format. That does not mean that the edges of the lens elements do not contribute to forming the smaller image.

[beeng]

The hilited part above is not true. Any camera image is formed using all of the lens' surfaces. What is true, and probably what you are thinking about, is the fact that an APS-C camera (a so-called "crop" DSLR) will not record the whole image projected by a lens designed for the 35mm film format. That does not mean that the edges of the lens elements do not contribute to forming the smaller image.
What you said is what I meant... I just put it in very simple terms. My statement about quality requirements still holds true.

[DStanic]

The hilited part above is not true. Any camera image is formed using all of the lens' surfaces. What is true, and probably what you are thinking about, is the fact that an APS-C camera (a so-called "crop" DSLR) will not record the whole image projected by a lens designed for the 35mm film format. That does not mean that the edges of the lens elements do not contribute to forming the smaller image.

I thought EF-S lenses sit back further into the camera, and therefore use MORE of the lens compared to a regular EF lens. ???

[Elisha]

You guys seem to be forgetting about primes. Imagine if Canon did have in-body IS, your 135mm f/2 would be magic when used handheld at 1/30th.
Not to mention 50mm f/1.4 at 1/15th.

If You have used a camera with in-body IS you would know what I mean.
Plus it tells you when you can achieve the sharpest shot with the stabilization effectiveness meter in the VF.

[HappySnapper90]

Canon will not release a camera with in-body stabilization. They make way too much money selling IS lenses to kill off that cash cow...

What I think Canon might do is put moving image sensors in their 2 entry level modes: XS and T1i to compete where the sales are, at the low end, with companies like olympus, pentax(hoya) and sony that offer in-camera IS. Canon has a big lead (and always has) with their entry level models but it would be a way to keep the heat on the competition.

middle and high end models would not get moving image sensors because most of the high end lenses have IS in them and lens-based IS is better for longer focal lengths..

[Bodog]

I have recently read articles on speculation and various technical issues should Canon put IS on the body. What I've always been curious, has anyone ever tried putting a Panasonic image stabilized lens on an Olympus body which has in built IS? Do the two systems actually contradict one another?
To answer your original question, Olympus tells you to turn off either the lens or in body IS.

[bjyoder]

What I think Canon might do is put moving image sensors in their 2 entry level modes: XS and T1i to compete where the sales are, at the low end, with companies like olympus, pentax(hoya) and sony that offer in-camera IS. Canon has a big lead (and always has) with their entry level models but it would be a way to keep the heat on the competition.

middle and high end models would not get moving image sensors because most of the high end lenses have IS in them and lens-based IS is better for longer focal lengths..

EXCEPT...

They have already competed by putting IS into the 18-55 and 55-250 - the two most common lenses for the average consumer that has a camera in the Rebel line - while pricing them competitively with the competition (i.e. Sony 55-200).

Canon only needs to compete on IS in the consumer/ameture market; they have done this, as it was noted before, by having a great lineup of "digital only" EF-S lenses that contain IS. When you get to the advanced ameture, prosumer, professional models, the most stiff competition is from Nikon, and guess what? They don't have in-Body IS, either... ;)

[DStanic]

EXCEPT...

They have already competed by putting IS into the 18-55 and 55-250 - the two most common lenses for the average consumer that has a camera in the Rebel line - while pricing them competitively with the competition (i.e. Sony 55-200).

Canon only needs to compete on IS in the consumer/ameture market; they have done this, as it was noted before, by having a great lineup of "digital only" EF-S lenses that contain IS. When you get to the advanced ameture, prosumer, professional models, the most stiff competition is from Nikon, and guess what? They don't have in-Body IS, either... ;)

Exactly..

I only see them putting IS in body as a last defence if Nikon dominates them in sales for a long time, but that's not really happening.

[Rio Sundoro]

To answer your original question, Olympus tells you to turn off either the lens or in body IS.

Thanks. A pity I could't find the article again, but the author speculated about the effect of in body stabilization with canon's IS lenses. So I thought why not just stick panasonic lens on olympus body and see what they turn up.

[HappySnapper90]

EXCEPT...

They have already competed by putting IS into the 18-55 and 55-250 - the two most common lenses for the average consumer that has a camera in the Rebel line - while pricing them competitively with the competition (i.e. Sony 55-200).


Canon is still out in front, but if they really want to put the heat on nikon, moving image sensors is the way to do it. It would also be the way to reduce sony to the 3% to 5% market share level of pentax and olympus.

[bjyoder]

Canon is still out in front, but if they really want to put the heat on nikon, moving image sensors is the way to do it. It would also be the way to reduce sony to the 3% to 5% market share level of pentax and olympus.

I wouldn't consider an inferior Is system to be putting the heat on Nikon. Yes, Sony wouldn't be able to tout it as an "advantage." However, as it has been stated, virtually all of the lenses a typical consumer would buy have IS for a nominal fee - if any! :)

[pwm2]

I wouldn't consider an inferior Is system to be putting the heat on Nikon. Yes, Sony wouldn't be able to tout it as an "advantage." However, as it has been stated, virtually all of the lenses a typical consumer would buy have IS for a nominal fee - if any! :)
The typical buyer of the entry level systems do not think about IS quality. The seller tells them that camera A has IS in the body, while camera B requires them to buy lenses with IS. The typical buyer notices that IS in the body must be the better solution. In the real world, the majority of decisions will be based on feelings and assumptions and not on real facts.

It is important to realize that the majority of buyers of entry-level cameras are not part of any web forum where they will get any real technical education. They look at the shape/color of the unit instead of the technical specifications. Technical specifications are just gibberish.

[bjyoder]

The typical buyer of the entry level systems do not think about IS quality. The seller tells them that camera A has IS in the body, while camera B requires them to buy lenses with IS. The typical buyer notices that IS in the body must be the better solution. In the real world, the majority of decisions will be based on feelings and assumptions and not on real facts.

It is important to realize that the majority of buyers of entry-level cameras are not part of any web forum where they will get any real technical education. They look at the shape/color of the unit instead of the technical specifications. Technical specifications are just gibberish.

When I sell cameras, I generally do note that Camera "S" has in-body IS, while Camera "C" has it in the lenses. I tell the advantages of each, and then note that, even though all lenses attached to "S" will be stabilized, if they are starting new, they are likely to only buy lenses for "C" that are stabilized; so at this point, there is no longer an advantage. Not to mention that even the salesman that has basic knowledge should know that entry level cameras from Canon and Nikon come with stabilized lenses, so there is no direct advantage anyway.

[pwm2]

It is always good when a seller gives the prospective customer enough information to make an educated decision. But that is quite seldom the case. And - at least where I live - a lot of customers buys their equipment on the net, in which case they normally don't have a seller to talk with.

[Elisha]

Regardless everyone is forgetting about the non stabilized primes here.
The 50mm, 85mm and 135mm will highly benefit from in-body-IS unless Canon decides to bring out IS versions.
Plus you can always turn off in-body IS just like IS on the lenses anyway.
IS is better than no IS. In-body or on lens.

[tkbslc]

I have recently read articles on speculation and various technical issues should Canon put IS on the body. What I've always been curious, has anyone ever tried putting a Panasonic image stabilized lens on an Olympus body which has in built IS? Do the two systems actually contradict one another?

Yes, if you put an IS panasonic lens on an Olympus IS body, the body IS turns off automatically. Canon could easily do something similar. They would probably rather let us wait and buy each L prime in an IS version over the next 10 years, first.

[tkbslc]

When I sell cameras, I generally do note that Camera "S" has in-body IS, while Camera "C" has it in the lenses. I tell the advantages of each, and then note that, even though all lenses attached to "S" will be stabilized, if they are starting new, they are likely to only buy lenses for "C" that are stabilized; so at this point, there is no longer an advantage. Not to mention that even the salesman that has basic knowledge should know that entry level cameras from Canon and Nikon come with stabilized lenses, so there is no direct advantage anyway.

Except now Sony has some fairly decent cheap primes that would be stabilized. Lots of newbs buy the nifty 50 on their Canon. Sony just came out with a nice 50mm of their own. 50mm 1.8 with 3 stop IS could make for some low light fun for sure.

[manipula]

To answer your original question, Olympus tells you to turn off either the lens or in body IS.

Didn't when I fitted a Panasonic 14-45 OS onto an Olympus Pen. No conflicting stuff either.

[bjyoder]

Except now Sony has some fairly decent cheap primes that would be stabilized. Lots of newbs buy the nifty 50 on their Canon. Sony just came out with a nice 50mm of their own. 50mm 1.8 with 3 stop IS could make for some low light fun for sure.

There's no doubt those primes would benefit, but the line of thought that was being carried through was for the consumers. Most typical, entry-level consumers (read: soccer moms and dads) don't want those primes because they don't understand the appeal. To them, it's just another lens that they have to carry around, and switch on and off often because "it doesn't even zoom."

..

I don't believe in-body IS should be added anywhere in the Canon line-up. I would have to pay extra for a system that I wouldn't use much (as many of the lenses I'm looking at buying/upgrading to have IS). Also, Canon would have to take away some R&D time and cost from other endeavors; this would probably cause more folks to whine about Canon being so far behind in technology... ;)

[dustyporch]

Also, Canon would have to take away some R&D time and cost from other endeavors

Like adding video recording features that most don't want? :)

In body IS is a feature that would actually get me to upgrade to a new camera... unlike video. I'm not sure Canon will ever do it, but I wish they would!

[pwm2]

Like adding video recording features that most don't want? :)

In body IS is a feature that would actually get me to upgrade to a new camera... unlike video. I'm not sure Canon will ever do it, but I wish they would!
They already spent the time producing the video features for their P&S line. So getting in into the DSLR only required a bit of adaptation to make it fit in the menu system. And as has already been noted - the initial 5Dmk2 firmware did contain an absolute minimum of adaptation - not even support for selecting ISO or aperture.

[tkbslc]

Personally, I love the Lens IS. It is WAY better to have your VF stabilized too, and have a tailored IS unit specifically for each lens. BUT, the two systems are not mutually exclusive. You could have an IS sensor AND a body sensor and the lens could just take over it if it had IS.

You wanna talk about wasting R&D? How about reingineering perfectly good lenses just so they can have IS? Why not develop the the tech once or twice for teh body and then all of a sudden every lens in your lineup has a new life. The only lenses I see it killling sales for are the two IS 70-200Ls, but really the lens IS is a lot better at that length. Perhaps many serious shooters would still choose them.

[Bodog]

Didn't when I fitted a Panasonic 14-45 OS onto an Olympus Pen. No conflicting stuff either.
Manual, pg. 63. See notes

[Lester Wareham]

...
I don't believe in-body IS should be added anywhere in the Canon line-up. I would have to pay extra for a system that I wouldn't use much ...

I don't know that would be the case. It is very clear Canon sells cameras and probably lenses for what the market will bare.

More importantly, is there any technical reason why you might not want in body IS?
Is it detrimental to reliability or image quality in some way. If properly engineered in I don't see why unless an industry expert here wants to say otherwise.

So it is clear Canon don't want to introduce in-body IS. Although inferior to lens IS it is also clear the real reason for this is not to compromise IS lens sales.

So I agree, if Canon starts loosing sales like they did for not having video, better AF and weather proofing (if I can use that word) in a APS-C body, and possibly live View too (I may be wrong on that one), then it will be introduced.

So yes the place that Canon will feel the loss of sales (if that happens) will be the lower cost end.

But if Canon has to introduce it I can't see it not being across the whole range including the pro bodies. Why not; the only possible reason is if there are reliability or IQ reasons and that does not seem credible.

[bjyoder]

I don't know that would be the case. It is very clear Canon sells cameras and probably lenses for what the market will bare.

More importantly, is there any technical reason why you might not want in body IS?
Is it detrimental to reliability or image quality in some way. If properly engineered in I don't see why unless an industry expert here wants to say otherwise.

So it is clear Canon don't want to introduce in-body IS. Although inferior to lens IS it is also clear the real reason for this is not to compromise IS lens sales.

So I agree, if Canon starts loosing sales like they did for not having video, better AF and weather proofing (if I can use that word) in a APS-C body, and possibly live View too (I may be wrong on that one), then it will be introduced.

So yes the place that Canon will feel the loss of sales (if that happens) will be the lower cost end.

But if Canon has to introduce it I can't see it not being across the whole range including the pro bodies. Why not; the only possible reason is if there are reliability or IQ reasons and that does not seem credible.

To add in-body IS, the consumer would be paying for it somehow; either on the front end (in higher cost cameras) or on the back end (with fewer features in the camera). Also, it is just one more thing to break, and may add complications when trying to fix other parts of the camera, raising prices there as well.

I'm not fundamentally against in-body IS, rather, I prefer lens-based because of it's advantages. Canon has a great lineup of lenses with IS, and I'm sure we'll see more introduced. I don't think Sony is that big of a threat; and even so, I'm sure Canon

[krb]

Well, from a business perspective there is. EFS lenses are marketed as digital only (ie consumer level). EFS lenses don't need to be as good quality compared to their full frame counterparts. Crop sensors use less of the lens and Canon can afford to go a bit lax on quality as long as the center of the lens is sharp.
You have that wrong. Since the EF-S is designed for a smaller sensor the lens is made smaller. This makes it cheaper to manufacture but it also means that the sensor is capturing all the way to the edges of the lens so corner sharpness becomes as much of an issue as it is when using EF lenses on full-frame.

[Elisha]

I'm not fundamentally against in-body IS, rather, I prefer lens-based because of it's advantages. Canon has a great lineup of lenses with IS, and I'm sure we'll see more introduced. I don't think Sony is that big of a threat; and even so, I'm sure Canon

You do realize Sony captured almost 9% market share by the end of summer 2008 since introducing it's a100 in September 2006?

So Canikon is obviously loosing sales.

[pwm2]

You have that wrong. Since the EF-S is designed for a smaller sensor the lens is made smaller. This makes it cheaper to manufacture but it also means that the sensor is capturing all the way to the edges of the lens so corner sharpness becomes as much of an issue as it is when using EF lenses on full-frame.
Note that a 100/2.8 is a 100/2.8 even if designed for EF-S. It still has to collect the same amount of light. The only difference is that it doesn't need to light out the same size of image circle. So it isn't obvious that the lens will be smaller, and it isn't obvious what will happen to corner sharpness for the simple reason that it isn't obvious how many of all the lens elements that can take advantage of the EF-S mount.

You only know that a lens can be made smaller when you are reducing the FL at the same time. And it is only for the UWA where you can really take advantage of the shorter distance between lens and sensor allowed by the EF-S mount.

[krb]

Note that a 100/2.8 is a 100/2.8 even if designed for EF-S. It still has to collect the same amount of light. The only difference is that it doesn't need to light out the same size of image circle. So it isn't obvious that the lens will be smaller, and it isn't obvious what will happen to corner sharpness for the simple reason that it isn't obvious how many of all the lens elements that can take advantage of the EF-S mount.

You only know that a lens can be made smaller when you are reducing the FL at the same time. And it is only for the UWA where you can really take advantage of the shorter distance between lens and sensor allowed by the EF-S mount.
I'm not sure that I follow what you are saying. A lens that is designed for the APS-C sensor projects a smaller image circle than a lens designed for a 35mm sized sensor. When you combine a small sensor with a larger image circle then you are "cropping" off the edges where image quality is most likely to be reduced. You would get the same effect if you used a "full frame" disgital camera like the 5D with a lens designed for medium or large format cameras.

[pwm2]

I'm not sure that I follow what you are saying.
I am saying that the Olympus 300/2.8 is 3.3kg despite using the 4/3 format.

The Canon 300/2.8 is 2.6kg while being designed for FF35.

The front part of the lens will not be able to take advantage of the smaller sensor size since it will be the aperture size that decides how big maximum opening the lens must have. In the end, it will be hard to tell how many of the lens elements that can be made smaller, and where not all of the lens is used together with the smaller sensor.

So it isn't a known fact how much lighter the EF-S lens would be compared to an EF lens with same FL and aperture.

And it isn't a known fact exactly how the corner sharpness would change when creating an EF-S lens with same FL and aperture.

The only real gain in weight from EF-S is that you will get the same field-of-view with a lens with 1.6x shorter FL. And the shorter distance between lens and sensor makes it easier to make a 10mm EF-S lens than a 10mm EF lens. But the shorter distance between lens and sensor, or the smaller sensor, doesn't give much advantage for long focal lengths.

[Rio Sundoro]

Didn't when I fitted a Panasonic 14-45 OS onto an Olympus Pen. No conflicting stuff either.

This is what I've been expecting actually. So when you stick the lens and both IS turned on, you get stabilized image in the viewfinder too? And results were ok? Did you get any boost up IS effect? Perhaps with lens or camera IS alone, you normally gain 2 stop advantage, but with the combo, the advantage goes up to 3 stop?

[manipula]

Manual, pg. 63. See notes

:confused:

This is what I've been expecting actually. So when you stick the lens and both IS turned on, you get stabilized image in the viewfinder too? And results were ok? Did you get any boost up IS effect? Perhaps with lens or camera IS alone, you normally gain 2 stop advantage, but with the combo, the advantage goes up to 3 stop?

I don't own either camera, and frankly I wouldn't own a Pen if it was given to me (though a GF1 partly appeals), so I won't be checking user notes in manuals. I do however, work in the industry as well as work freelance taking snaps. So given the opportunity to put both side by side, I swapped the Panasonic lens onto the Pen and it didn't kick up a fuss. It didn't provide bonkers uber-OS, it just didn't freak out. After years in the industry, this simple fact that complimentary but competing products actually work together impressed me, especially seeing as when it happened it didn't start flagging warnings asking me switch X, Y and Z about to stop them arguing.

[alessandro2009]

Canon will not release a camera with in-body stabilization. They make way too much money selling IS lenses to kill off that cash cow...
+1
Simple and clear.

Note:
I would add the same answer is valid even for Nikon.

[DStanic]

You do realize Sony captured almost 9% market share by the end of summer 2008 since introducing it's a100 in September 2006?

So Canikon is obviously loosing sales.


I think it's due to the fact that Sony is a BIG name. They're up there with their video cameras, so wouldn't it make sense for people to think their DSLRs are a good choice? Of course in-body IS is a nice feature to have, but I don't think it's swaying people from buying Canon/Nikon. Low price and the Sony logo....

[DStanic]

On a side note, if next month Canon were to release a 60D with in-body IS, I'm gonna be pi$$ed that I bought the Tamron 17-50 VC!! :) lol

[Elisha]

I think it's due to the fact that Sony is a BIG name. They're up there with their video cameras, so wouldn't it make sense for people to think their DSLRs are a good choice? Of course in-body IS is a nice feature to have, but I don't think it's swaying people from buying Canon/Nikon. Low price and the Sony logo....

Their big name definitely contributes to the sales but also all the silent Minolta lovers suddenly had use for all their old lenses.
The prices of Minolta AF lenses started rising again from mid 2008 onwards because of Sony DSLR introduction.

Sony is a threat and right now the biggest one for Canikon. And they push Steady Shot Inside big time. Now if only the Sony Store sales people knew what they were talking about, Sony would have a bigger chunk of market share.

[20droger]

Well there are 7 that have IS, according to wikipedia. Out of 9 total focal lengths. I know the 17-85 is discontinued (I think) but it is still a popular lens.

15-85 IS
17-55 IS
17-85 IS
18-55 IS
18-135 IS
18-200 IS
55-250 IS

I consider that "alot" of EF-S lenses with IS. So why would they bother with in body IS?



And how about lenses such as the 70-200 f/2.8 IS where they can charge wayyy more money then the non-IS version, and people that need it WILL pay for it.
Ah yes! Wikipedia, that paragon of accurate, complete, and up-to-date knowledge.

Canon has released thirteen (not nine) EF-S lenses. The ones with IS are in bold:

EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM
EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM
EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM
EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM
EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
EF-S 18-55mm f3.5-5.6
EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 II
EF-S 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 USM
EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 II USM
EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS
EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS
EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS
EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS

In my personal opinion, Canon will not produce an in-body IS system because such a system would be a step backwards. To produce maximum stabilization, the IS must be matched to the focal length of the lens. Canon does this with all their IS primes. And very well, I might add.

For their IS zooms, it seems that the IS is matched to (optimiz0ed for) about 75% of maximum zoom, especially on their zooms with a large zoom factor. Why? Because everything in life is a compromise. Matching to the 100% zoom value would produce relatively poor stabilization at minimum zoom. But then, the higher zooms benefit more from stabilization.

For a similar reason, the in-body stabilization of a Sony DSLR appears to be optimized for a focal length of around 50mm, which is equivalent in angle of view to around 100mm for a full-frame 35mm camera.

[20droger]

The hilited part above is not true. Any camera image is formed using all of the lens' surfaces. What is true, and probably what you are thinking about, is the fact that an APS-C camera (a so-called "crop" DSLR) will not record the whole image projected by a lens designed for the 35mm film format. That does not mean that the edges of the lens elements do not contribute to forming the smaller image.
You're fighting a losing battle, Skip. Basic optical concepts are lost here.

I've given up trying to patiently explain that every single point on the image used 100% of the lens. People just refuse to grasp the concept, even when it flies in the face of how an aperture works.

[20droger]

I thought EF-S lenses sit back further into the camera, and therefore use MORE of the lens compared to a regular EF lens. ???
No, they use the same amount, which is 100%. They just have a shorter back focus (the rearmost element is closer to the image plane).

[DStanic]

Canon has released thirteen (not nine) EF-S lenses. The ones with IS are in bold:



I said "Out of 9 total focal lengths" so I was not including all the different versions of the 18-55 (which are obsolete now nobody cares about them).

[dave sparks]

Canon will adopt what ever they feel is cutting into their market share.

The little m4/3 cameras look pretty neat and seems to be getting popular. Sony and Olympus have in body IS, not sure about Pentax. And I believe I just saw Ashton jumping around a runway full of models with a Nikon with an articulated screen. How long do you think we start seeing these options in Canon's next line?

Inferior or not, I wouldn't mind in body IS. It would make all those nice primes a lot more attractive, but I also see it cutting into the big dollar IS lens sales. Why spend $1900 on a 70-200 2.8 IS when I could squeek by with a $1200 non IS.

Balancing keeping up with the competition while protecting your big money items probably poses a bit of a problem. I can see them putting IS into all of their lenses though to counter. I think the next few releases are going to be pretty interesting for sure.

Dave.......

[Rio Sundoro]

On a side note, if next month Canon were to release a 60D with in-body IS, I'm gonna be pi$$ed that I bought the Tamron 17-50 VC!! :) lol

I really appreciate the lens IS. Really nice when you are framing and you need precision. I sometime shoot with liveview on, magnified 5x. So even if there is in body IS, I'll still prefer the lens IS if it's equipped with one.