Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
Thread started 27 Aug 2013 (Tuesday) 04:32
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Why no in body image stabilization?

 
NeonStar
Senior Member
253 posts
Joined Apr 2012
     
Aug 27, 2013 04:32 |  #1
bannedPermanent ban

I don't know how the image stabilization works on Sony cameras but just wondering why Canon hasn't implemented it?
Sure it'll eat up sales of lens models that cost much more just for IS but hey, better camera!




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
JeffreyG
"my bits and pieces are all hard"
Avatar
15,540 posts
Gallery: 42 photos
Likes: 615
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Detroit, MI
     
Aug 27, 2013 05:28 |  #2

NeonStar wrote in post #16243481 (external link)
I don't know how the image stabilization works on Sony cameras but just wondering why Canon hasn't implemented it?
Sure it'll eat up sales of lens models that cost much more just for IS but hey, better camera!

Canon was first to market with IS over 15 years ago, and they elected to make it work with a small group of lens elements moving to offset shake. They even have a technical reason that this is 'best', mainly that then the IS unit of each lens can be tailored to the lens focal length so that in theory the Canon IS system is more effective. They are probably even correct in this assertion, at least for the very long telephoto lenses.

That said, you can also see that IS in the lens kind of sucks for the consumer since you have to purchase IS with every lens. Add in the fact that Canon charges a forture for IS even though the feature cannot possibly cost so much to make (else....how does the EF-S 18-55 IS not cost $1000?), and you get some frustration.

The best solution for us, the Canon users, would for Canon to add IS to their bodies so that it would work with all of their non-IS lenses. Then, if an IS equipped lens was mounted, the body IS could turn itself off automatically.

But this would require Canon to make a reversal compared to things they have said publicly, and it would serve to devalue the lens equipped IS units Canon is selling now.

In some respects, Canon is so big that they tend to act like they are in competition with themselves. Selling lens IS still offers them more money overall than they can make selling better cameras that include body IS, apparently.


My personal stuff:http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jngirbach/sets/ (external link)
I use a Canon 5DIII and a Sony A7rIII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Unregistered.Coward
Senior Member
Avatar
884 posts
Joined Oct 2010
Location: Looking thru the viewfinder
     
Aug 27, 2013 05:56 |  #3

JeffreyG wrote in post #16243550 (external link)
Add in the fact that Canon charges a forture for IS even though the feature cannot possibly cost so much to make (else....how does the EF-S 18-55 IS not cost $1000?), and you get some frustration.

Curious to know what your estimate of the manufacturing (and recaptured development costs) are for an Image Stabalization system.

You do realize that the IS system in that 18-55 is significantly different than that of 300mm F/4L, right?


....the best camera is the one you have on you at the time.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Scott ­ M
Goldmember
3,276 posts
Gallery: 83 photos
Likes: 371
Joined May 2008
Location: Michigan
     
Aug 27, 2013 07:10 |  #4

One benefit to having IS in the lens and not the body is that the image in the viewfinder is stabilized, too, with a lens-based system.


Photo Gallery (external link)
Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
stevod
Junior Member
27 posts
Joined May 2009
Location: London
     
Aug 27, 2013 07:57 |  #5

^which is still one of the biggest usability USPs for SLRs - you can see what you're actually shooting!

(Well, as long as you have 100% coverage through the viewfinder....)

S


Stephen
Residence Interior Design Winchester, Hampshire and London (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
16,625 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 6595
Joined Sep 2007
     
Aug 27, 2013 08:12 |  #6

IS is a huge money maker for canon, why give it away? Smaller companies have to give it away to compete. When one of the big boys give it away, then the other will follow.

But for now, IS on lens creates differentiation between models and higher maintenance costs. What's not to like from a manufacturer's point of view? Canon has produced zillions of cameras with in body IS...kind of like articulating screens, wifi, GPS, auto panorama, and more. Those featureseither already exist, or will be standard one day. Canon will milk those features.


Sony A7siii/A7iii/ZV-1 - FE 24/1.4 - SY 24/2.8 - FE 35/2.8 - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - F 600/5.6 - CZ 100-300 - Tamron 17-28/2.8 - 28-75/2.8 - 28-200 RXD
Panasonic G9 - Laowa 7.5/2 - PL 15/1.7 - P 42.5/1.8 - OM 75/1.8 - PL 10-25/1.7 - P 12-32 - P 14-140

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
16,625 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 6595
Joined Sep 2007
     
Aug 27, 2013 08:22 |  #7

Scott M wrote in post #16243686 (external link)
One benefit to having IS in the lens and not the body is that the image in the viewfinder is stabilized, too, with a lens-based system.

Not sure where you got this info from, but are you saying that consumer stuff like the sx50 with 1200mm equivalent won't be stable till fired? Sounds very hard to believe.


Sony A7siii/A7iii/ZV-1 - FE 24/1.4 - SY 24/2.8 - FE 35/2.8 - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - F 600/5.6 - CZ 100-300 - Tamron 17-28/2.8 - 28-75/2.8 - 28-200 RXD
Panasonic G9 - Laowa 7.5/2 - PL 15/1.7 - P 42.5/1.8 - OM 75/1.8 - PL 10-25/1.7 - P 12-32 - P 14-140

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
apersson850
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
12,329 posts
Gallery: 11 photos
Likes: 430
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Traryd, Sweden
     
Aug 27, 2013 08:33 as a reply to  @ Unregistered.Coward's post |  #8

When Canon first implemented stabilization in their lenses, the main image sensor was still chemical film, not digital sensors. The film doesn't lend itself to moving around as well as the sensor.

Back then, Sony made Walkman players and stuff.


Anders

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JeffreyG
"my bits and pieces are all hard"
Avatar
15,540 posts
Gallery: 42 photos
Likes: 615
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Detroit, MI
     
Aug 27, 2013 08:45 |  #9

Unregistered.Coward wrote in post #16243584 (external link)
Curious to know what your estimate of the manufacturing (and recaptured development costs) are for an Image Stabalization system.

You do realize that the IS system in that 18-55 is significantly different than that of 300mm F/4L, right?

I'm pretty sure Canon has completely recouped the development cost of IS, since they launched it in 1996. The incremental cost of IS today is what it costs to make. And the incremental price of IS today is nearly all profit.

And no, the system in a 300/4 is not totally different. Same principle, same basic design. The L prime might have bigger and more robust bits....so if the 18-55 IS unit costs 15 bucks to make then the one in the 300/4 could be as much as 50 bucks. I make a lot of mechatronic systems and I know these IS units are not huge cost drivers. That's why Canon basically gives IS away on the entry level kit lenses in order to compete with the in-body IS from other systems. Then once you are an EOS user, they can charge you 500 bucks for IS on your L lenses.

Aperrson has it right, Canon put it in the lens because of film, and they have kept it there because of the market position of IS in their lens line and profitability. By giving IS away on the 18-55 and 55-250 they remain competitive where it counts, with new system buyers.


My personal stuff:http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jngirbach/sets/ (external link)
I use a Canon 5DIII and a Sony A7rIII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
SMP_Homer
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,709 posts
Gallery: 29 photos
Likes: 537
Joined Mar 2008
Location: London, Ontario
     
Aug 27, 2013 09:19 |  #10

JeffreyG wrote in post #16243550 (external link)
That said, you can also see that IS in the lens kind of sucks for the consumer since you have to purchase IS with every lens. Add in the fact that Canon charges a forture for IS even though the feature cannot possibly cost so much to make (else....how does the EF-S 18-55 IS not cost $1000?), and you get some frustration.

Pricing comp at B&H:
Sony 300mm 2.8 $6998
Canon 300mm 2.8 IS $6799

The Canon version WITH IS is cheaper than the Sony version w/o IS...

The Sony 70-200 2.8 is selling for the same price I paid for my 70-200 2.8 Mark II, which comes with IS (sidenote: wow, what a price jump on that lens now!)

I'm sure there are many more examples that will show that IS with Canon isn't all that more expensive than no IS with Sony lenses... and I'm sure there will be examples going the other way... but really, this idea that you're buying IS for every lens isn't as expensive as it sounds...


EOS R6’ / 1D X / 1D IV (and the wife has a T4i)
Sig35A, Sig50A, Sig85A, Sig14-24A, Sig24-105A, Sig70-200S, Sig150-600C
100-400L, 100L, 100/2, 300 2.8L, 1.4x II / 2x II
600EX-II X3, 430EX-III X3

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
slowfox
Member
145 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 12
Joined Mar 2011
Location: New Brunswick, Canada
     
Aug 27, 2013 09:40 as a reply to  @ SMP_Homer's post |  #11

In-body stabilization has one big advantage: ALL of your lenses are stabilized, no matter whether they are brand new or 30 years old (Pentax for example). On the other hand, you can always learn how to shoot without stabilization, given today's high ISO cameras with capable noise reduction.


Peter
http://www.flickr.com/​photos/plovell42/ (external link)
Canon G1X | Canon T5i | Canon EOS 60D |Canon EF-S 10-18| Canon EF-S 24mm pancake|Canon EF-S 17-55 |Canon EF 40 pancake| Canon EF 50 macro |Canon EF-S 60 Macro | Canon EF 100 macro | Sigma 8-16
Pentax K200D, K20D, and more K-mount glass than anyone has a right to.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
16,625 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 6595
Joined Sep 2007
     
Aug 27, 2013 10:28 |  #12

slowfox wrote in post #16244049 (external link)
In-body stabilization has one big advantage: ALL of your lenses are stabilized, no matter whether they are brand new or 30 years old (Pentax for example). On the other hand, you can always learn how to shoot without stabilization, given today's high ISO cameras with capable noise reduction.

high ISO abilities does not really compensate for IS, it just makes it a smaller issue for some people. Higher ISO is still a penalty you pay for.

you can use support systems to minimize shake, but not really feasible in a lot of scenarios.


Sony A7siii/A7iii/ZV-1 - FE 24/1.4 - SY 24/2.8 - FE 35/2.8 - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - F 600/5.6 - CZ 100-300 - Tamron 17-28/2.8 - 28-75/2.8 - 28-200 RXD
Panasonic G9 - Laowa 7.5/2 - PL 15/1.7 - P 42.5/1.8 - OM 75/1.8 - PL 10-25/1.7 - P 12-32 - P 14-140

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
amfoto1
Cream of the Crop
10,256 posts
Likes: 87
Joined Aug 2007
Location: San Jose, California
     
Aug 27, 2013 10:45 |  #13

Today there are basically two ways to implement IS:
1. In the lens, by moving a group of elements to compensate for movement
2. In the camera, by moving the image sensor to compensate for movement

Now, think about it.... Canon began implementing IS in 1996. There were no DSLRs in 1996! Or at least there were very few, and those were extremely expensive. Most of us were shooting film with our SLRs in 1996. And there is no way to move film around to compensate for movement. So Canon, being the first to implement stabilization on their SLRs, really didn't have much choice but to put it in their lenses, rather than in the cameras of that time.

The overwhelming success of IS on their long telephotos and expectations that Canon would lead the pack in the up-coming digital revolution were a couple key reasons I switched to Canon in 2001. A lot of us were still shooting film then, too. (Personally I didn't get my first DSLR until 2004, when something under $2000 finally was available: the 10D.)

So Canon was sort of fully committed to in-lens stabilization long before in-camera was even possible.

There are pros and cons to each method of stabilization.

In-lens IS can be tuned for the specific lens and focal length. And because an SLR's viewfinder is TTL (through the lens), your view of the subject is stabilized, too. You can see IS working and time your shots for when it's locked on and has done it's job.

On the other hand, In-Lens IS may add to the cost of lenses and you have to buy it over and over in each lens. Note the difference in price between Canon 70-200 lenses with and without IS. However, also note that there are IS lenses that are relatively inexpensive, such as the 18-55 and 55-250 kit lenses.

In-camera stabilization has an advantage of providing stabilization of every lens used on the camera. You only "buy it" once, when you buy the camera body (not that this seems to have very much effect on the cost of lenses in systems with in-camera stabilization).

But it also has a disadvantage of not stabilizing the viewfinder display, i.e. you don't see in-camera stabilization working and can only hope it's done its job properly when you press the shutter release. It is quick enough in most applications that this is not a problem. But you just have to hope that's the case. Note: in Live View (or any form of equivalent, including an electronic display viewfinder), the stabilization action would be visible.

Both types of stabilization are pretty reliable. But things do break.

If IS in a lens fails, the lens is still usable. You would likely want to send it in and have it repaired, but any other stabilized lenses you might have and use in the meantime will still provide stabilization.

If in-camera stabilization fails, it will be down for the count on all lenses. You should still be able to shoot without the benefit of stabilization. But for repair you'll need to send in the camera itself, which may be the end of your shooting for a while if you don't have a backup on hand.


Alan Myers (external link) "Walk softly and carry a big lens."
5DII, 7DII(x2), 7D(x2) & other cameras. 10-22mm, Tokina 12-24/4, 20/2.8, TS 24/3.5L, 24-70/2.8L, 28/1.8, 28-135 IS (x2), TS 45/2.8, 50/1.4, Tamron 60/2.0, 70-200/4L IS, 70-200/2.8 IS, 85/1.8, Tamron 90/2.5 Macro, 100/2.8 USM, 100-400L II, 135/2L, 180/3.5L, 300/4L IS (x2), 300/2.8L IS, 500/4L IS, EF 1.4X II, EF 2X II. Flashes, studio strobes & various access. - FLICKR (external link) - ZENFOLIO (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tkbslc
Cream of the Crop
24,604 posts
Likes: 40
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Utah, USA
     
Aug 27, 2013 10:53 |  #14

JeffreyG wrote in post #16243890 (external link)
And no, the system in a 300/4 is not totally different. Same principle, same basic design. The L prime might have bigger and more robust bits....so if the 18-55 IS unit costs 15 bucks to make then the one in the 300/4 could be as much as 50 bucks. I make a lot of mechatronic systems and I know these IS units are not huge cost drivers. That's why Canon basically gives IS away on the entry level kit lenses in order to compete with the in-body IS from other systems. Then once you are an EOS user, they can charge you 500 bucks for IS on your L lenses.

.

Isn't that kind of like saying that tiny disc brakes for a 13" wheel for a Toyota Echo and the disc for 20" wheels on a Porsche should cost about the same to produce? I mean they are both just disc brakes.

I am sure there is plenty of profit built in, yes, but they aren't the same.


Taylor
Galleries: Flickr (external link)
EOS Rp | iPhone 11 Pro Max

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tkbslc
Cream of the Crop
24,604 posts
Likes: 40
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Utah, USA
     
Aug 27, 2013 10:56 |  #15

It gets more interesting when you consider all the lenses and primes that get stabilization on Sony (or Pentax) that don't even have IS/VR options in Canon and Nikon. For example, 24-70 f2.8, 135mm f1.8, 50mm f1.4, 85mm f1.4, etc.

SMP_Homer wrote in post #16244001 (external link)
Pricing comp at B&H:
Sony 300mm 2.8 $6998
Canon 300mm 2.8 IS $6799

The Canon version WITH IS is cheaper than the Sony version w/o IS...

The Sony 70-200 2.8 is selling for the same price I paid for my 70-200 2.8 Mark II, which comes with IS (sidenote: wow, what a price jump on that lens now!)

I'm sure there are many more examples that will show that IS with Canon isn't all that more expensive than no IS with Sony lenses... and I'm sure there will be examples going the other way... but really, this idea that you're buying IS for every lens isn't as expensive as it sounds...


Taylor
Galleries: Flickr (external link)
EOS Rp | iPhone 11 Pro Max

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

9,476 views & 0 likes for this thread
Why no in body image stabilization?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Joeblow5411986
594 guests, 227 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.