IS on the camera body?

I don't think it is a gimmick, it obviously works for a certain set of conditions, so it is not a gimmick. If Canon could put IS in the body, and have it automatically shut off given a CF function setting you set (300mm for example), when it reads the FL of the lens it could either engage or disengage the IS. The only foreseeable issue would be cost per body and wear/tear/longevity.

hehehe, it IS a gimmick.... This is what I deal with everyday.... I KNOW STABILIZATION!!! I work on stable elements....

Go play with a in body IS with a 400mm lens and then try the canon IS 400mm lens and tell me which one is better.....

I used to shoot Pentax, and it was great having a stabilized sensor, because my fast primes (50mm f/1.4 and 35mm f/2) were stabilized. I personally had great luck out to 300mm, but folks on pentaxforums.com seemed to have good luck shooting the Bigma at 500mm at slow shutter speeds handheld, so I would say that body-IS seems to work pretty well at long focal lengths. Also, once Tamron and Sigma release their 70-200mm for Pentax, you'd be able to buy a 70-200mm f/2.8 "IS" for $699 instead of $1699!

HOWEVER, having a stabilized viewfinder with a big heavy lens like the 100-400 is a GREAT advantage to lens-based IS, as once I turn IS off, the view @400mm through the viewfinder shakes like crazy! (maybe I just need to cut back on the coffee )

Take those pentax guys, give them a canon or nikon and see what they say about their in-body IS then....


heheheh, last time this topic came up I said I wouldn't say anything anymore and look what happens... lol

I'm sure you know quite a bit about the mechanics involved, I was just relaying my experience with both systems. All in all, I prefer Canon's, but it does come out costing quite a bit more $$$$$ in the end, so if you're on a budget I think Pentax's SR works as advertised. I think their entire system is a decent choice if you're on a budget, don't need blazing fast autofocus, and you want some kick*ss primes (their Limited series)

Kenski wrote in post #5701141
hehehe, it IS a gimmick.... This is what I deal with everyday.... I KNOW STABILIZATION!!! I work on stable elements....

Go play with a in body IS with a 400mm lens and then try the canon IS 400mm lens and tell me which one is better.....

I didn't say with long FLs, read my post again. Inbody IS would be handy with something like a wide angle or small prime. Once you get to a certain FL, then it is moot. That is not what the inbody IS would be handy for. Imagine a Sigma 17-70 on a body that had IS, it would be very nice. If it works at all, even within a tight set of conditions, it is not a gimmick. It is, however, a marketing tactic that leaves out the details about how useless inbody IS is for longer lenses.

Gimmicks are things like the fuel line magnet or color changing bristles on a toothbrush. In body IS would have some limited uses, especially when using short FL non-IS lenses. However, with the advent of the latest IS kit lens, Canon has proven that they can put IS into small lenses very cost effectively, and that is maybe where they should continue their efforts. The price difference between the 70-200 f2.8 and its IS counterpart just seems to be out of whack, as an example, ditto with the f4L and f4L IS.

Color changing bristles on a toothbrush are a gimmick?????

hahaha, color changing bristles are the only way I know when to change my tooth brush so I guess it is limited uses then lol

Kenski wrote in post #5701141
Go play with a in body IS with a 400mm lens and then try the canon IS 400mm lens and tell me which one is better.....

Of course I can propose you to play same game, but this time with 50mm lens. Good luck finding 50mm IS, too.

verygreen wrote in post #5699120
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.

I don't understand how firmware could compensate for the loss of the light rays that form the image?

Vignetting on one side? PP software can handle axially symmetrical vignetting - can it handle off centre vignetting too?

I too would like in-body IS if it worked as well as IS in the lens (that is designed for that particular lens), but the concept sounds like "one size fits all". Something of which I've always been suspicious.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #5699131
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

And did we resolve the problem then?

Glenn NK wrote in post #5702281
I don't understand how firmware could compensate for the loss of the light rays that form the image?

Boost sensor sensitivity in that area, for example. Or just increase values received by some amount.

I believe it is possible to set how off-center your vignetting is in adobe raw.

In-body IS is already good enough in many use cases. It oes not stop you from usin in-lens IS when you want to.

Well if one isn't satisfied with Nikon and/or Canon with lens IS, there are plenty of other superb choices in other brands.

I strongly recommend this approach.

Glenn NK wrote in post #5702352
Well if one isn't satisfied with Nikon and/or Canon with lens IS, there are plenty of other superb choices in other brands.

I strongly recommend this approach.

The problem currently, there is no way to get both of the worlds with one body (i.e. in-lens + in-body is. olympus exception with only one IS lens does not count.)

verygreen wrote in post #5702046
Of course I can propose you to play same game, but this time with 50mm lens. Good luck finding 50mm IS, too.

Ummmm, 17-55mm IS..... That wasn't so hard....