The 40D - is it the ultimate shaft of an 18 month wait?

AmericanFirst wrote in post #3838186
Well ... I'll make this real simple for you Canon-gurus ... NO IS ... NO MORE Canon CAMERA BODIES ... or IS-equipped lenses.

It's your choice, Canon ... you have me at "In-the-body-IS", otherwise ... keep the glass and the 40D, my bag is full. There is some "BUSINESS SENSE" for ya. I don't have money for coercive cop-outs. You want MY business ... then go use some sense.

If SONY pops for a full-sensor, IS-in-the-body offering ... I don't care if it is $2500 ... it's going in the bag! The Canon system gets sold and that's the end of this BUSINESS.

It only makes SENSE!

Actually...if you think about the price that you/others would really have to pay for in-body IS it might not be that attractive after all. So if they put the IS in body, the incentive to buy IS lenses would die down quite a lot. Where would canon make up the difference from? Pricing bodies higher...pricing lenses higher...and an off shoe cord might be $200. So we all switch to 3rd party lenses. This is a lose-lose situation for Canon financially. They can either sell less bodies and keep on touting the 4-stop IS...or they can sell more bodies and less lenses. For those with a 13 lens collection already, the choice is obvious. But the prosumer that's buying a first DSLR isn't going to want to fork over $1000 for a camera body, then buy a run-of-the-mill lens for $750.

I think the answer is simple: Make all Canon lenses IS lenses. This new IS system they have come up with is obviously cheaper to produce, and I am sure they have more than paid off their R&D on in-lens IS tech so far. If they make ALL their lenses with IS, they have not only matched the competition, but greatly surpassed it. Sure, it drops the price on their current non-IS lenses, but they can just sell through as many of those as possible before announcing the all-IS line. Yes, they would piss some old-timers off as the prices of their lenses would drop drastically, but that is inevitable as mounts and technology change once in a while (just ask FD owners). Besides, some of the owners of the non-IS lenses would take advantage of the situation and buy up all those non-IS lenses they always wanted (they won't be any worse, they just won't have IS). This would be the ultimate answer to the current marketing situation Canon (and Nikon for that matter) are in.

vic6string wrote in post #3847919
I think the answer is simple: Make all Canon lenses IS lenses. This new IS system they have come up with is obviously cheaper to produce, and I am sure they have more than paid off their R&D on in-lens IS tech so far. If they make ALL their lenses with IS, they have not only matched the competition, but greatly surpassed it. Sure, it drops the price on their current non-IS lenses, but they can just sell through as many of those as possible before announcing the all-IS line. Yes, they would piss some old-timers off as the prices of their lenses would drop drastically, but that is inevitable as mounts and technology change once in a while (just ask FD owners). Besides, some of the owners of the non-IS lenses would take advantage of the situation and buy up all those non-IS lenses they always wanted (they won't be any worse, they just won't have IS). This would be the ultimate answer to the current marketing situation Canon (and Nikon for that matter) are in.

Did you read the entire thread, or are you just an instigator? Just when there was a chance this would burn itself out YOU come along and stir the ashes!

Have Fun,

Glenn NK wrote in post #3843736
Don't ignore the possibility of any IS system failing - there are more than a few threads about lens IS failing, and in body IS would be just as susceptible to failure.

I am not sure that just as susceptible is quite accurate.

With lens based IS you just have to pivot a lens element in a horizontal orientation and another (or the same one) in a vertical orientation.

With camera based IS you have to slide the whole sensor both horizonally and vertically while keeping it in the focal plane. Also he electronic connections have to be maintained while it is sliding around.

Without having seen the actual designs, my first impression would be that a mechanism that simply pivots a piece of glass would be more reliable than mechanism that has to slice a heavier digital sensor around while maintaining electronic contacts.

Time will tell.

AmericanFirst wrote in post #3715294
There have been many discussions, of late, concerning the new and secretive EOS 40D. No one seems to be absaolutely certain of what comprises this camera, but word has it ... it's one of "the crappiest improvements ever."

Remember back when the EOS 30D came out ... and it was considered the EOS 20D Mk II, for lack of a better description. Well, it seems that the EOS 40D is just a recomposition of the EOS 30D with the XTi's sensor assembly thrown.

I have to ask ... we waited 18 months for the EOS 20D MK III or worse yet ... the EOS 20Di? I swear, I could have done that level of nonsense in my basement. I don't know about the rest of you, but I had anticipated a truly improved mid-grade body ... with something significant inside it ... not just a reharsh of old technologies.

I don't know ... this is probably the worst excuse for an 18-month upgrade that I've heard about. It's almost on the same level as the S3 IS to S5 IS update. Just a bigger sensor with a much higher price.

What do you guys think? Are we just spinning our wheels waiting for something new and improved from the Canon-machine?

It's pretty much the same price, pretty much the same camera..whyat's wrong with that?

I don't think canon are upgrading to swing last itteration users (30D this time) to buy again, it's more to keeps sales up of a perfectly good and well specced camera in the face of competition

( soory if that's just been said but Im not reading 16 pages to find out)

I will need to see it before I decide if the 30 or 40 is the upgrade for me!

Dragos Jianu wrote in post #3836032
From your gear list i see you have quite a few primes. You would rather have NO IS on them rather then a "lower quality" 2stop IS, even if you IS lenses would still use the superior lens IS they are equipped with ?]

I wouldn't particularily want IS on any prime L lens that doesn't already have it, e.g I cannot imagine using the 135L, 35L, 85L, 50L,14L etc in any situation where i'd need IS, hey that's why the fast f-stops are for!

I have never seen a need for any lens under 200mm to have IS for that matter and IS is available on most (if not virtually all) lenses of 200m and over. ( I can only once remember wishing such a thing existed on the FD lenses when shooting without a tripod in an Algerian village in virtual darkness in 1983, ahh how these moments stick in the mind). Good technique does away for the need for IS in most siutuations IMO. Where there is IS I would afr rather have the best quality IS than not = in lens IS rather than in body IS, also it gives the consumer more choice , which IMO is a good thing

(I know you didn't specify L and not saying some might need it, but not me)

Those that disagree with Canons policies can and will leave Canon IM sure , but just as many will fill their place

The "no-change is good" attitude will not get us very far.

You need to ask ... "What would Canon actually lose if they did make EVERY single APS-C sensor body with IS?" Most people in this category could not afford Canon IS-equipped lensing, anyway. The idea that you would buy a lens that actually costs more than the camera is almost unthinkable for many people. Personally, I see it as just a move to improve the early starters ... and when they are ready to advance to superior glass and bodies, they will come.

Personally, I don't see the big boys dropping their 1Ds MkII or MkIII to go to an APS-C sensor body, just for IS, unless they simply wanted the feature for their many high-priced PRIME lenses during handheld shots.

No ... this is a win-win proposal ... for the little guy and Canon takes the market by storm. I'm sorry, but as I stated from the very beginning, I suspect they are just missing the boat on this one and no posting submitted, yet, has made me feel I'm out-to-lunch on it. I am out to advance my photography ... the EOS 40D won't take me much further than the 20D could, two years ago. That's not advancement ... that's stalling.

I Simonius wrote in post #3850356
( soory if that's just been said but Im not reading 16 pages to find out)

Half the fun of having a thread this size, to read, is actually seeing the arguments involved. I mean ... "You got something better to do?" LOL Much like the Harry Potter-series, what fun is reading the end of the 7th book? It's the journey, my friend.

I have to admit, when I started it ... I had no idea it would be so popular, but with CoolToolGuy's steadfast opposition to change and unrequitered love for "Canon-mind control" ... it's been rather ... lengthy.

AmericanFirst wrote in post #3854568
I have to admit, when I started it ... I had no idea it would be so popular, but with CoolToolGuy's steadfast opposition to change and unrequitered love for "Canon-mind control" ... it's been rather ... lengthy.

Perhaps I should feel honored to be considered responsible for such a lengthy discussion.

Steadfast opposition to change? I'll consider buying the first Canon IS body that they announce. Until then, I like what I have.

Unrequitered (sic) love for Canon-mind control? Well, I guess when you stick with a single camera brand for over 30 years you tend to buy the party line. And OBTW, happy to be here.

Have Fun,

AmericanFirst wrote in post #3854568
The "no-change is good" attitude will not get us very far.

You need to ask ... "What would Canon actually lose if they did make EVERY single APS-C sensor body with IS?" Most people in this category could not afford Canon IS-equipped lensing, anyway. The idea that you would buy a lens that actually costs more than the camera is almost unthinkable for many people. Personally, I see it as just a move to improve the early starters ... and when they are ready to advance to superior glass and bodies, they will come.

Personally, I don't see the big boys dropping their 1Ds MkII or MkIII to go to an APS-C sensor body, just for IS, unless they simply wanted the feature for their many high-priced PRIME lenses during handheld shots.

No ... this is a win-win proposal ... for the little guy and Canon takes the market by storm. I'm sorry, but as I stated from the very beginning, I suspect they are just missing the boat on this one and no posting submitted, yet, has made me feel I'm out-to-lunch on it. I am out to advance my photography ... the EOS 40D won't take me much further than the 20D could, two years ago. That's not advancement ... that's stalling.

Half the fun of having a thread this size, to read, is actually seeing the arguments involved. I mean ... "You got something better to do?" LOL Much like the Harry Potter-series, what fun is reading the end of the 7th book? It's the journey, my friend.

I have to admit, when I started it ... I had no idea it would be so popular, but with CoolToolGuy's steadfast opposition to change and unrequitered love for "Canon-mind control" ... it's been rather ... lengthy.

I'm sorry but if you think that it's the camera that will advance your photography, then you are out to lunch.

AmericanFirst wrote in post #3854568
The "no-change is good" attitude will not get us very far.

You need to ask ... "What would Canon actually lose if they did make EVERY single APS-C sensor body with IS?"

And the answer is: reliability and the ability to compete on price.

Reliability because in-camera IS adds moving parts that can fail. I'm not sure how much data is available on how much of a reliability impact in-camera IS has, but it is certainly nonzero.

The ability to compete on price because in-camera IS adds expense to the manufacturing process that wouldn't otherwise be there. Whether it's worth that expense is an entirely different question, but there's no question that it'll add expense, and thus make it harder for Canon to compete based on price if they ever get into a situation where they have to.

The point here is that in-camera IS isn't a no-cost option. It has downsides.

It has benefits too. It's just that the greatest benefits are to those who already have a significant lens collection, not to the new buyer. Canon is addressing the latter with their inexpensive in-lens stabilization technology.

Canon's latest two IS entries, the 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 IS, and the 55-250 f/4-5.6 IS, are designed to address precisely this problem, and are an existence proof that in-lens IS doens't have to be expensive. Just how well it works, on the other hand, remains to be seen, but it's hard to see how it would be any worse than in-camera IS.

jwil wrote in post #3855629
I'm sorry but if you think that it's the camera that will advance your photography, then you are out to lunch.

Okay, we just got back from lunch ... and I guess I have to agree with all of you died-in-the-wool "IS-in-the-lens and there is no other option out there" types.

You've convinced me.

There, now. Ya happy?

Where's my 40D? I wants one. (yeah, as if ...) Just let me know when Canon decides to join in on the fun ... and offers contemporary technology, too ... and not just a new selection of old lenses. Gosh, what a bunch of lapdogs.

"Oh, look what Canon did ... a 20mm lens .. with a big ol' IS ON/OFF button on it." That's going to look real cute. So much for neatness. Switches all over my lenses.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

kcbrown wrote in post #3855670
Reliability because in-camera IS adds moving parts that can fail.

this is a very important point AFAIC

AmericanFirst wrote in post #3856034
Okay, we just got back from lunch ... and I guess I have to agree with all of you died-in-the-wool "IS-in-the-lens and there is no other option out there" types.

Where's my 40D? I wants one. (yeah, as if ...) Just let me know when Canon decides to join in on the fun ... and offers contemporary technology, too ... and not just a new selection of old lenses. Gosh, what a bunch of lapdogs.

I don't think agreeing with or liking Canons policy neccessarily equates to lapdogism

It just means they have got it right for tose that like it that way. Some like salt on their food, others detest it. You can't tell a chef how to cook! There is no point in insisting one way is better than the other, only in voting with your pocket. If you're in the majority canon may listen, if not then they're unlikely to. That's all there is to it. It doesn't matter how crazy we think any given decision is, there is always going to be compromise to some extent.

We all have gripes of one sort or another about our cameras

If you really don't like a chefs cooking just go eat elsewhere , don't rail against the punters

I Simonius wrote in post #3857142
If you really don't like a chefs cooking just go eat elsewhere , don't rail against the punters

And that says it all.

I've had EOS cameras since 1989. Why? Not because I'm in Canon's pocket but from the first I preferred Canon ergonomics to Nikon.

Also, they did have a huge lead in Digital IQ which, at last, Nikon appear to be catching up on. Does that mean I don't like Canon anymore? Of course not, IQ is MORE than enough for my needs, I get damn good 30x20 enlargements from my 8mp 30D thank you. And I still can;t stand the Nikon interface.

Others are the opposite.. each to his own. Just don't read any more into it than that.