Is in body image stabilization inevitable?

I can't see it any other way really.

Sure it may take time because the full electronic version will require a bigger chip (to give the image room to move) and so making it very expensive for some time to come.
I wonder about the movable chip version?That would only reqire a normal sized chip but can they really attach a whole bunch of flexable connecting wires to a chip reliably?

Honestly this is the only advance that would make me update my 300D in the foreseeable future
Interestingly this is one technology that canon doesn't have any head start in.
In fact all those IS lenses out there might make them VERY reluctant to change to in body stabilization!

Minolta's proposed Dynax 7D is looking very desirable (even at an inevitably high price).Imagine being able to use ANY minolta AF lens in image stabilized mode!!!
A stabilized 50/1.7 lens? Bring it on!

That's why I'm gutted that I have canon equipment now, I had some really yummy Minolta kit; had I known that Minolta were bringing out a DSLR I would have bought it (I must have been nieve because you couldn't be in the camera business without a DSLR these days). I just like Minolta and am not to fussed on Canon, if the Dynax D7 turns out to be a winner I might just jump ship as I don't currently own a DSLR just a somewhat dissappointing EOS 33 with a couple of L lens.

Ron, I don't think in-camera IS it will happen at the mid/upper end of the EOS range and for one main reason. The IS built into a lens is tuned for the specific lens. If it is the sensor that moves I would imagine that it would need a whole lot of communication from the lens to keep the same level of accuracy. Also, why should Canon open up the market even more to Tamron etc. where they can sell all the IS lenses they make.

I feel it is a nice 'prosumer' gadget idea to attract the sort of buyer who likes to see lots of megapixels and things like movie mode, but I don't see a market for it outside that, unless it is something way better than the current system, which is unlikely.

Good point kenny about the specific-to-each-lens aspect of IS.
I'm sure it wouldn't stop it though as they'd find some way 'round that.The focal length info that canon DSLR's read off all(?) EF lenses is one way

And yes,a VERY good point about them not wanting to give anything away to the aftermarket lens makers!!
The trouble for canon though is that they will eventually HAVE to offer in body IS because everyone else will do so.....
They may hate it with a vengence but they will have no choice.

My IS lens eats up batteries, how much more will the in-camera use?
I think the IS needs much more tweaking before I'd change my whole system for it.

Yeah,i wonder how much energy the all electronic type would use?Basically it would need a fair bit of computer power (?)
It still could perhaps be way better than the mechanical type though....

Frankly, I don't see how other than a token, for marketing purposes only, IS could be easily integrated into the body. In the lens, there is a reasonable amount of room and a lens element is physically moved to alter the image to bring it back into focus upon certain movements. There is distance between the lens element and the film/image plane.

To do the same within the body itself, you would either need to make the image sensor do the offsetting movement (don't know how this would be easily done, nor how you could ensure that the sensor returned to exactly the right place afterwards) or include some moving lens element in the body. Neither seem reasonable.

In internal gyroscope within the body that would use the spinning inertia of the gyroscope to "steady" the camera would seem a much more likely option for a consumer point & shoot. It would likely require a switch so that it would not be a major battery drain when not used...similar to the flash.

See the following for basic IS function

http://www.canon.com …ecorrect_shift/​index.html