IS on the camera body?

Is it a possibility for Canon to put IS on the body instead of the lenses? I understand that gyros move the lens to keep the image stable but couldn't the gyros move the sensor in the same way? Or digitally controlled IS - no gyros. It already exists in P&S cameras.

Would Canon be shooting itself in the foot by putting IS on the body and negating the need for IS lenses? If I buy 1 body with IS, that may be 3 lenses without IS that I buy.

Thoughts?

IS in the lens is more effective than IS in the body. That's why Canon and Nikon went this route.

And there may be patent issues if Canon tried to put IS in the body.

Samanax

Of course they can put it in the body. They haven't yet because the either think it is inferior, they don't want to negate the need for lense IS or they haven't felt any consumer pressure to do so.

Reasons why I don't want/care about in body IS: you can't see the effect of the IS to determing whether it's actually working; having it in the lense helps you frame the shot better; IS is most important on long lenses and in body IS is least effective on long lenses; the ideo of the sensor moving is disconcerting and could lead to premature failure.

I could be wrong but I don't thing it would be as effective as putting it in the lens.

Body IS is far inferior to lens IS, especially for longer lenses.
Also, one of the major advantages of in-lens IS is that you can actually see it in the viewfinder.
Not so with in-body IS.

If you look at the zoom lenses that Canon has released in recent years, you will see a pattern: 17-55 IS, 17-85 IS, 18-55 IS, 24-105 IS, 55-250 IS, 70-200 f/4 IS. The only recent lenses that Canon has not put IS in are ultra-wide angles. It's pretty clear than Canon has made their decision about where IS should be implemented.

Plain and simple - in-lens IS is more effective. You'll notice there are very few tests of in-body vs. in-lens IS out there. The only one I remember seeing showed that Sony's A100 with a 300 mm zoom was 2+ stops worse than an IS zoom 300 mm lens. And Cnon's 75-300 (what was out there at the time) only claimed 2 or 2-1/2 stops improvement. In addition, in-body IS will negate any "advantage" to "crop" lenses, since the image circle has to be large enough to cover the expanded field of the moving sensor.

Hermeto wrote in post #5698606
Body IS is far inferior to lens IS, especially for longer lenses.
Also, one of the major advantages of in-lens IS is that you can actually see it in the viewfinder.
Not so with in-body IS.

While not objecting inferiority of "in-body" IS (simply because of lack of good proof on hand, I do not think there are any major obstacles to achieving similar level of performance.), I would like to draw your attention to this Konika Minolta patent: http://v3.espacenet.co​m …7936&F=0&QPN=US​2007047936
It details a way to see "stabilized" picture in the viewfinder with in-body IS (just moving a lens/mirror in viewfinder itself, similar to what is happening in lens-IS system, only tied to the imaging sensor movements).
I would not be surprised if there are similar patents from e.g. Pentax.

Of course there are advantages to in-body IS too, it gets you at least some level of IS to your non-IS lenses which is great when there is notIS-version of a particular lens being produced (50/1.4 IS? 17-40L IS anyone? ), even if this system would be inferior to in-lens IS, nobody stops you from disabling it when IS-enabled lens is connected.
Another plus of in-body IS is that there are no big gyros you need to spin up, so system is ready to compensate movements instantly when you want to take a picture (even though some delay is usually recommended, so that the system can separate wanted movements from unwanted ones).

Jon wrote in post #5699022
In addition, in-body IS will negate any "advantage" to "crop" lenses, since the image circle has to be large enough to cover the expanded field of the moving sensor.

I think this is not entirely correct, since imaging circle does not abruptly ends, instead it is starts to falloff (vignetting) gradually. So with in-body IS you just have some probability of having uneven vignetting to one side of the frame, this could even be compensated with in-camera firmware, if desired.
Of course this is already happening in e.g. Sony world on lenses that have vignetting on crop sensors (because they were designed for crop sensors).
(yes, I have sony a100 kit and see something like this at 17mm).

Here we go again....

Some good threads to read on this:
https://photography-on-the.net …hlight=stabiliz​ation+body
https://photography-on-the.net …hlight=stabiliz​ation+body
https://photography-on-the.net …hlight=stabiliz​ation+body
https://photography-on-the.net …hlight=stabiliz​ation+body

Well, the way I see it, if the IS servo in the lens dies, I still can use the camera. Why having a single servo in the body doing all the work all the time?

I was in looking at tripods and bags at a local camera shop, which shall remane un-named (Tall's Camera in University Village, Seattle), and I overheard a conversation that went something like this:

Sales rep: "Hello ma'am, what can we do for you today?"

Lady: "Well, I think I'm finally going to get a SLR, but I don't know what exactly. I was told to get a Canon, and I was looking at the XSi and 40D. But some people told me Nikon is better..."

Rep: "Have you looked into Sony?" (plops a Sony on the countertop)

Lady: "Uh, no. Nobody ever mentioned Sony. Are they good?"

Rep: "They're the best you can get right now. Betting image quality, more reliable, easier to learn, and their IS is in the body instead of the lenses."

Lady: "What difference does that make, camera instead of lens?"

Rep: "With the Sony, all of your images are going to be much clearer than with a Canon or Nikon because they'll all be image stabilized. Any lens you put on this camera will be stabilized. But if you get one of the others, you'll have to buy special lenses with IS built into them, which is probably going to cost you thousands more over time."

Lady: (looking quite confused) "So if having it in the camera is better, why doesn't Canon do it?"

Rep: "It's pretty much a big marketing scheme. By having it in the body, it's closer to the camera's sensor and therefore more effective. But if they put it in the body, they'd only be able to charge you for the IS once. By puting it in the lens, they can charge you for it everytime you buy a lens."

Lady: "Oh wow, that's not very nice of them. So what Sony do you recommend?"

About five minutes later she was walking out with a Sony A350.

I really wanted to say something, but I didn't know what. The rep either really didn't know what he was talking about, or he was just lying through his teeth to get her to buy a Sony. I don't think I'll be going back there anytime soon though.

(sorry for the long post)

Im not gonna post my long drawn on reason on why IS is bad for in body.... I'll shorten it down..

I work with stabilization for aliving.....

For short lenses IS is great in body.

The further you move the end of lens away from the stable focal plane the less effective it is. IE: 400mm and inbody = VERY BAD

If you really want to know more about it or if you want me to explain it further shoot me a PM

IS in body= bad idea imho.

If you put it in a lens it can be tuned to exactly match the lens characteristics (ie a 300+mm lens will require vastly different amounts of stabilisation to a 55mm lens).

This means that the system designer would have 2 options: 1) over design the IS to allow for the biggest lens possible or 2) design it to a reasonable level and then as the focal length increases you get a diminishing return.

From what ive seen, most manufacturers of in body IS have gone route 2 which means if you shoot long lenses your out of luck if you want high levels of IS

IF you read the specs on IN BODY IS, the CCD floats and moves, its movement is limited HEAVILY. It can only move so far which is NOTHING compared to lens IS. the longer the lens, the more movement of the CCD required which wont happen. In body IS is a gimmick..... meant to attract the un-suspecting buyer. Yes, it might be cheaper but you get what you pay for. Try shooting at 400mm with NO IS when you subject is moving in pitch, roll, yaw, and attitude while you are pitching, rolling, yawing, and traveling... doesn't work... I get maybe 1 of every 5 shots in foucs and sharp.