Youd dont need IS, damn!

darosk wrote in post #15933882
I've been wondering how well an in body IS system would translate to a full-frame or aps-c body. With the micro 4/3's bodies the sensor is small, and the implementation doesn't add much (if any) noticeable bulk or weight to the bodies.

As sensor-size increases though, it may not be the same. If CaNikon could get in-body IS in their bodies without adding too much size/weight, you'd best believe they'll sell a lot more goddamned cameras then they already are.

But they wont do that, so they can sell the lenses more expensive with IS

murkeywaters wrote in post #15933813
Fair enough, but for me they are and do the same job, weddings that I shoot or mainly people need a reasonable shutter speed, no point in me shooting 1/15sec as the still parts of the image will sharp but the person will more than likely moved so I would opt for high ISO over IS any day and I do have and shoot both primes and zooms with and without IS...remember its only recently that IS has been introduce and photographers didn't moan about not having it years ago they just stuck a fast film in.

People didn't moan about lack of airbags in our cars 30 years go. So should we then see airbags as not needed and happily buy a car without? Or should I consider the technical progress and decide that there really is no reason to now get a car that doesn't have airbags? Technological progress means we are constantly increasing our expectations - and IS means I can get photos I could not get before IS. Which doesn't mean I need IS all the time. Just that IS opens new options - even with quite wide lenses. But wide + IS + zoom can sometimes mean too big, in which case the IS can be a disadvantage. So there aren't any simple "best" solutions.

murkeywaters wrote in post #15933867
I wonder why Canon didn't introduce IS to its flagship standard focal length the 24-70 f2.8 MK2?? maybe because of the f4.0 version or the combination of f2.8 with its latest bodies ISO's and having a short focal length... me wonders..

The lens elements needs to be larger for IS, since you now have a lens that is able to look slightly sideways. The 24-70 is already a big and heavy lens with lots of big glass elements. So it is a very narrow path to follow if the value of the IS would have overcome the extra weight.

The 24-105 also needs to look slightly sideways, but f/4 instead of f/2.8 makes a big difference.

Personally, I would have like them to do both a 24-70/2.8 IS and a 24-70/2.8 - similar to 70-200.

davidfarina wrote in post #15933890
But they wont do that, so they can sell the lenses more expensive with IS

Sadly true.

The m43 ecosystem is an interesting place. While Panny bodies don't have IBIS, they make up for it with top of the line IS zooms. Oly on the other hand have IBIS bodies and focus on top of the line primes. It's taken them both a number of years, but they've finally arrived at a place where they have perfectly capable bodies, and perfectly capable lenses (for even pro work). All on one unified lens mount.

It will probably never happen, but can you imagine if such a thing happened between the big boys (CaNikon, and to an extent Sony)? It blows my mind to consider what we would see if such a merge could ever happen.

davidfarina wrote in post #15933873
Wow impressive. But at 1/8s its only for still useful, unless you dont want motion blur...
At another hand, the camera-built-in IS is better as a IS in a lens. The built in IS moves the sensor, while the lens-built-in moves the lens. Its more naturally to move the sensor instead of a few lens-elements, because moving lens-elements is much heavier than moving only a sensor. In fact the sensor-moving allows more precision..

There is where you are wrong. Moving the sensor means you can only shift the image a small percentage of the sensor width.

When you rotate one of the lens elements, then you get a greatly magnified result - a small rotation of the lens element can move the image as projected on the sensor a very large percent.

Next thing is that not all lens elements in a lens is big and heavy. And you don't need a huge rotation angle. So the mass of the lens element isn't really a problem.

Next thing is that IS in a lens means that it is technically possible to compensate both sideways shifts of the camera, and rotation of the camera. It is way harder to have a sensor that both shifts sideways and also supports the sensor to change the distance - especially while maintaining focus. Especially since different lenses projects the image circle slightly differently.

Don't forget the hybrid IS in the 100L macro.

davidfarina wrote in post #15933890
But they wont do that, so they can sell the lenses more expensive with IS

Remember that a well working in-body IS might mean you have to replace all your existing lenses, because they aren't designed to fulfill all the requirements to make that in-body IS work well enough.

This is easier for someone producing a completely new eco system where they already have all design specifications for the new body available when they design all the lenses.

Even simpler for a P&S where you have a fixed lens designed for that camera.

All besides that little issue that it is way easier to move a tiny sensor than it is to move a large sensor, since the amount of movement is proportional to the sensor size. A 5 times wider sensor requires 5 times larger sensor shift for same effect. But it still requires the same precision when it comes to the distance between lens mount and sensor.

pwm2 wrote in post #15933891
People didn't moan about lack of airbags in our cars 30 years go. So should we then see airbags as not needed and happily buy a car without? Or should I consider the technical progress and decide that there really is no reason to now get a car that doesn't have airbags? Technological progress means we are constantly increasing our expectations - and IS means I can get photos I could not get before IS. Which doesn't mean I need IS all the time. Just that IS opens new options - even with quite wide lenses. But wide + IS + zoom can sometimes mean too big, in which case the IS can be a disadvantage. So there aren't any simple "best" solutions.

You got me wrong there, what I was saying is people are probably a little hung up on having IS and years ago it wasn't a option but still managed to create wow images...really don't get your scenario of comparing to airbags as that's a life and death issue?

Came in hoping for flawed logic....left satisfied.

While I do not need it often, there have been instances where having IS in a wide angle lens has been useful. Shooting waterfalls while hiking through an area where taking a tripod along is not convenient and trying to blur the waterfall is a prime example for me -- I want somewhere between 1/4 - 1/2 second shutter speed to blur the waterfall.

Some of us take photos other than portraits. Image stabilization is just another tool to help achieve a goal. Just because you do not have a need for the feature, does not mean it is not useful at times.

This was taken at 1/4sec, 17mm on a crop body, while hiking through Watkins Glen.

So you don't need IS. Congratulations. PM me for your free cookie.

I appreciate it, like it, and use it whenever it's available even on short lenses. I believe IS does nothing but add to the functionality of any lens and question why any new lens is introduced without it. I believe the 24-70 f2.8 version 2 would sell even better with 4 stop IS. I believe people would rather buy the 24-105 f4 with IS than a 24-70 f4 without (if such an animal existed) unless the 24-70 offered dramatically better IQ.

IS is a tool.
Tripods are tools.
I have lots of tools.
I don't use every tool I have on every shot.
Tools are good.
Debate all you want.
I like tools.
I can figure out what tools to use and when.
Nobody is asking you to buy tools.

GoWolfpack wrote in post #15933971
I believe people would rather buy the 24-105 f4 with IS than a 24-70 f4 without (if such an animal existed) unless the 24-70 offered dramatically better IQ.

The animal exists...24-70 f4.0 IS L

murkeywaters wrote in post #15934057
The animal exists...24-70 f4.0 IS L

I said 24-70 f4 without IS

GoWolfpack wrote in post #15934071
I said 24-70 f4 without IS

As I said it exists...just turn it off!!!

I hear ya!
The whining that 24-70 2.8 needs IS is annoying. I use mine mostly for events and people (sometimes for random shots) IS would not help me at all, i will not do candids at 1/10 shutter speeds. Sore the IS will fix your hand shake, but it will not compensate for movement of people. If you need slow shutter speeds for landscapes/architectur​e why are you not using a tripod or a monopod?