On-board Image Stabilization

The technology is here, why do we not have it from Canon yet? How nice would it be to have every lens you owned suddenly be an IS lens because the IS was built into the body?
I guess that Canon hasn't figured out how to release it and not piss off the thousands that already spent $$$ on IS-equipped lenses.

Dead horse that has been beaten. Canon knows what they are doing. These threads are commonplace right now due to lots of in body IS coming out. I'm sure this thread will balloon into another discussion but I will exit and not mention using the s****h function.

So "Canon knows what they're doing" is your final answer then?

I think his answer includes an implied search a little here and you will find a lot of discussion in it. But basically, yes, they do know what they are doing.

Have Fun,

My implied "help yourself faster" wasn't clear I assume, so I dug the latest one up for you:

https://photography-on-the.net …1&highlight=sta​bilization

Two glaring problems with in-body IS are wrong framing in the viewfinder and vignetting.

Also it isn't as effective as in-lens IS i.e. lateral correction vs angular correction.

also...

The advantage of in-body IS, on the other hand, is that you offer your customers IS at enormous savings over putting it in the lens. Well, lenses, because they all would have it as a result.

As compared with in-body IS, having IS in all your lenses costs Canon owners thousands upon thousands of dollars more than if it were in the body -- money that one might choose to spend on something other than whatever advantage in-lens IS may have over in-body.

And it would be perfectly easy to turn in-body IS off if you happened to have an IS lens.

Frankly, Canon has made such technological strides with its in-lens IS that I think they could make great in-body IS too. The answer lies more in marketing than in technology.

So you're saying that all the P+S cameras out there with in-body IS, and now the Pentax K10D, all suffer from vignetting and inaccurate framing in the viewfinder?

Give it a couple of years, it will become a standard for cropped sensor cameras to have onboard IS and Canon will finally join the band wagon so teck geeks won't say "Canon is sorely lacking, blah blah"

I really don't care, as I shoot FF and you cannot have it with FF.

I curious though, why does adding IS to a lens cost so much? It can be carely seen that adding IS into a body doesn't drive the price of camera substantially up. I think a large part or reason why Canon doesnt want to add in body IS is because they will lose alot of money.

I think it’s kind of hard to compare IS in a body and IS in a lens. The shorter focal length lenses with IS are not THAT expensive, and this is also the only place where in body IS works really well. The longer focal length lenses with IS are very expensive, but here again in body IS wouldn’t do anything to help.

Mike V wrote in post #2099353
Two glaring problems with in-body IS are wrong framing in the viewfinder and vignetting.

Also it isn't as effective as in-lens IS i.e. lateral correction vs angular correction.

also...

Mike, that does make lots of sense. Which would be my guess: Consumer types like Rebel in the future might come with IS built in and use cheaper lenses like the ones with kit. Professionals might not come with it but newer lenses from canon will improve on IS. That's why they might release new models of IS next year. That is my guess.

Just a few points;

1. There's no denying that in-lens IS is superior but Canons own recent marketing has indicated the advantage comes with an unacceptable price penalty. Here in the UK, the new 70-200/4 IS is more expensive than the non-IS version to the tune of a new Sony Alpha or 400D body. Thats on one lens and I think, clarifies my point exactly. Canon are using IS to screw us over blatantly.

2. Its possible Pentaxs' new 'three-dimensional' in-body IS will be highly effective and narrow the gap further. In body IS is newer and development continues rapidly.

3. Lens IS is especially effective on the longer and larger telephotos for which Canon already have perfect cover. Its a trivial matter to have the lens communicate to the body the presence of lens IS and have that take priority over in-body.

4. Who wouldn't want an instant IS collection comprising 24/1.4L, 35/1.4L, 50/1.2L, 85/1.2L and 135/2.0L? Lets face it, its staggeringly unlikely that Canon will ever release IS versions and if they did, you'd need the GDP of a small country to buy them given Canons recent pricing as a yardstick.

5. The current affordable IS stuff isn't great. As above shows, in-body IS makes the greatest IS compatible.

6. The in-lens IS range isn't growing very quickly and it could be years before many people get the lens they want, if at all.

7. Given how many people seem to want IS updates to lenses like the 300/4.0L and the 100-400L for example, its clear that costs will be never-ending for some. How much simpler it is to buy a single updated body every 2 years or so than replace four or five lenses. My 85L is 17 years old. How cool to have that usable with state of the art image stabilisation.

8. How long before market pressures force Canon and Nikon to implement it anyway? Lens IS may be better than in-body, but only if theres a choice to be made. In-body IS is infinitely better than no lens IS at all. Take Canons 400/5.6L as a perfect example.


I'm sorry, but these arguments that in-body IS aren't as effective as in-lens don't gel with me for these reasons. I mean, if its not available on the lenses I want, or the financial penalty is extortionate, where's the argument?
This feature above all others is going to be the one that cost Canon major market share unless it competes. Simple as that. Its just too compelling, especially at the lower, volume end and thats where many of the future Canon users start off.

Sprout Crumble wrote in post #2121894
I'm sorry, but these arguments that in-body IS aren't as effective as in-lens don't gel with me for these reasons. I mean, if its not available on the lenses I want, or the financial penalty is extortionate, where's the argument?
This feature above all others is going to be the one that cost Canon major market share unless it competes. Simple as that. Its just too compelling, especially at the lower, volume end and thats where many of the future Canon users start off.

Finally someone with some sense addresses this issue. Thank you Sprout for a thorough and accurate analysis of the issue.

I'm pretty happy with Canon IS just like it is. I like my tripod and monopod too...

These lenses work great with a 1DSMKii:

70-200 f2.8L IS
300 f2.8L IS
600 f4.0L IS

I'm looking forward to seeing how the 400 f2.82L IS works. Probably pretty well...

Maybe Canon will lose the lower market share... but I don't think the lower market share has experienced the lenses listed above so how are they going to knw what they are missing? Which, by the way, is not that much. They invented the tripod a long time ago...

Mike, lens IS doesn't have to go away. On the high-end teles, for example, where its custom designed for every lens and highly effective, it has a place and a critical one at that. That does not, however, negate the fact that its useful to many other people in virtually every other lens.
Anyone with less than a solid grip or who takes photos in less than a perfect situation has some advantage to be derived from IS in one form or another and withholding that advantage makes no sense. Those lenses you list are high-end and there's no need to remove IS from them. A simple communication to the camera body of its presence and a choice of which to use is all it takes.

I just disagree with you on the last sentence. A tripod is a clunky, slow, over-complex way to stabilise the cameras sensor compared to IS and therefore no substitute in everyday use. Its often not even possible or practical to use or carry one. A monopod just isn't as effective. In body IS has a little extra battery drain as its only inconvenience and pushing a button turns it off. No comparison.

Canon can't afford to lose the lower market share. Its why they dominate. They'll never get rich on sales of the 1D series but they will on the 400D. Competing at the lower end is EVERYTHING. Without it you're a small time niche player like Leica, Contax or Hasselblad. Its also where competition is utterly cut-throat (the 1D2n has one competitor, the 1Ds2 has none) and market share is only a single model away from collapse. Canon and Nikon have had it easy since the transition to digital. Thats changing in a big way. Nikon have shown a little sense in minimising the cost of upgrading a lens to IS, perhaps sensing trouble ahead (I believe Nikon will go in-body before Canon as they're more vulnerable). Canons 70-200/4L IS price oozes a breathtaking arrogance. They'll learn that nobody is bigger than the market. Lets hope its not a costly lesson.

I just want IS on my 65MPE............