IS - Canon V Other systems

I had a 28-135IS lens for my 350D which I sold to purchase a 17-85IS (For the extra width) and I've been very pleased with both of them. The IS works about 2 stops worth in my opinion, sometimes more and it's well worth having. For Xmas, my wife and daughters bought me a Panasonic FZ5, which I intend will live in my car to replace the Ixus 40 I keep there and also as an introduction to serious photography for my 15 year old daughter. (Sorry all you Canon diehards, but it's much better value and image quality than the S2IS!)

Since I started using it on Xmas day, I've been staggered by the image quality and the effectiveness of the IS. (It's not as good image quality as the 350D and I won't be getting rid of that, so please don't have a go at me) However my initial opinion is that the IS is far more effective than that on my Canon lenses - up to 4 stops or more - 2 stops better. I find this a little dissapointing when related to the Canon. My 17-85IS averages £425 or so in the UK for the lens alone, the FZ5 cost £240 including a body.

Has anyone else noticed this phenomena or compared Canon IS with other makes? (Or compared Canon IS lenses with Canon or other IS superzooms) Is it just the physics of the lens size? I know that compact superzoom lenses are much easier and cheaper to produce than DSLR ones because they are so much smaller. I'm intrigued and would be interested to see the comments and observations of everryone else on this erstwhile forum

This is a Canon G series forum. Last time I looked, they don't come with IS. I'm not sure what your point is. I'm happy for your FZ5 purchase, I guess. Congratulations.

Why the sarcasm? There is no need for it. The subtitle to this section says pro series belongs here and there are many posts about the S2IS in this section. They, for your information have stabilisation. I was looking around for someone who might have a clue.Obviously you don't have a clue, full stop.

You said "(Sorry all you Canon diehards, but it's much better value and image quality than the S2IS!) ". I'm sure you have done exhaustive side by side comparison and have made your choice. Good for you. But beyond coming to a Canon forum and bashing a Canon priduct (even off topic), the rest of your post compares a Panasonic P&S with a Canon dSLR? Why post here? Why not post in the dSLR forum or go to a Panny forum?

Since you posted here I will make a guess, even though I have no direct information. My guess ( could be wrong) is that the Panny's IS may be at the sensor like the K/M dSLRS. It would seem to me that the closer to the sensor you do your IS, the smaller the increments and the more accurate it would be. Just a guess and I'm not even sure your camera doesn't have the IS out in the lens.

The K/M system is sure an advantage, in that you don't have to buy expensive IS lenses. In fact if it weren't for the fact that the rest of the camera doesn't compare well to the XT, I would seriously consider it when I upgrade one of these days. Wonder why Canon insist on putting it in the lens? Couldn't be to sell more expensive glass, could it?

Try going to a Panny forum and start off with "(Sorry all you Panasonic diehards, but the S2 IS is a much better value and image quality than the FZ5!) ". See if you get a warm and fuzzy reception.

Still, congrats on your new purchase.

Hum! I was disappointed with FZ5. Looking at steves-digicams.com I compared the FZ5 and Canon S2. I see less noise in the S2 and it has 640x480 video, the FZ5 has 320x240. But the FZ5 has 15x right, so enjoy your camera.

I am looking for knowledge lefturn, which is why I did post this in the Canon DSLR forum and in the Panny forum at dcreveiws! As you will see from my signature, I am an avid Canon fan and have expended £0000's on their products. I just simply hold the opinion that the Panny FZ5 has better IS than my Canon lenses and is certainly better IMO than an S2IS. I'm not knocking Canon, I love the stuff. I am just seeking knowledge via forums. It's not about Canon,Nikon,Konica et al; It's about imaging

Could it be some other factor that gives the perception that it is the IS that is superior,.

When comparing an IS equipped SLR lens to one built into a small P&S we are not just comapring apples to oranges,. we are comparing apples to smoked herring...

The two have so many differences in how they behave optically and otherwise that they are hardly comparable on any one feature. The whole playing feild needs to be accounted for,. and the impact that this larger playing feild has is dramtic.

take for instance lens size and mm...

The elements on a P&S are 1/5th or less the size of those in your SLR lenses,.
The actual focal lengths are tiny... approx 1/4 that of the SLR where 7mm = 28mm after the "X-Factor" Who knows how much more wiggle room there is for an IS system built around such tiny elements.. how much faster such a small element can be moved,. and how much more leeway around the sensor for such movements..

And then of course that arithmetic leads us to working depth of feild...

@ 70mm (280mm effective) even wide open at whatever the P&S' largest aperture.. say around f/2.8... your depth of feild is 8 times as large as that of the DSLR @ f/2.8 for a subject at the same distance using an actual focal length of 280mm

This extemely forgiving DOF offers lots of additional sharpness to be had..

CyberDyneSystems - Thank you for an intelligent response. It offers potential answers to the questions I asked. My knowledge is expanded and hopefully the knowledge of other contributors.