Canon sensor based image stabilization

I have recently read articles on speculation and various technical issues should Canon put IS on the body. What I've always been curious, has anyone ever tried putting a Panasonic image stabilized lens on an Olympus body which has in built IS? Do the two systems actually contradict one another?

In the unlikely event Canon adds inferior in body IS presumably it will be set to only operate with non-stabalised lenses.

There has been a lot of chat about this, a search should turn up lots of threads.

People have done sigma stabalized lens on in body stabalized cameras. Do a search..

if they do implement it, it would give users much more choice of lenses. No need to always get IS lenses. But I would get an IS telephoto lens just to have the viewfinder stabilized at longer focal lenghts.

Canon will not release a camera with in-body stabilization. They make way too much money selling IS lenses to kill off that cash cow...

Imagine if they released a body with IS and it had issues, everybody would be in an uproar and start switching to Nikon

I guess they would probably put it in a Rebel first but there are so many EFS lenses that have IS that it really wouldn't make any sense at this point in the game.

DStanic wrote in post #8934931
Imagine if they released a body with IS and it had issues, everybody would be in an uproar and start switching to Nikon

You could say that about anything Canon does :P

That is one of the main reasons it won't happen any time soon. Not only would they be cannibalizing their own business, but they would need to revamp the majority of their lens line and re-release them without IS.

DStanic wrote in post #8934931
I guess they would probably put it in a Rebel first but there are so many EFS lenses that have IS that it really wouldn't make any sense at this point in the game.

Take a look at the Canon USA website... When you look at it, there really aren't that many EF-S lenses at all. The Canon site shows only eight EF-S lenses, six of which are IS.

There are 53 EF lenses with 21 having IS. All together, about 30% of Canons current lens lineup is IS.

Considering that EFS was only released in 2003, that is quite amazing. EF has been around since '87 and has had plenty of time to develop a long line of lenses. :P

A more important factor is that there is no need for a full set of EF-S lenses, since a large number of EF lenses are available. It is only on the wide end that there are something to really gain by creating unique EF-S lenses.

Well, from a business perspective there is. EFS lenses are marketed as digital only (ie consumer level). EFS lenses don't need to be as good quality compared to their full frame counterparts. Crop sensors use less of the lens and Canon can afford to go a bit lax on quality as long as the center of the lens is sharp.
Is there a -need- for EFS lenses on anything but wide angle lenses? No. But that won't stop them

JWright wrote in post #8935758
Take a look at the Canon USA website... When you look at it, there really aren't that many EF-S lenses at all. The Canon site shows only eight EF-S lenses, six of which are IS.

There are 53 EF lenses with 21 having IS. All together, about 30% of Canons current lens lineup is IS.

Well there are 7 that have IS, according to wikipedia. Out of 9 total focal lengths. I know the 17-85 is discontinued (I think) but it is still a popular lens.

15-85 IS
17-55 IS
17-85 IS
18-55 IS
18-135 IS
18-200 IS
55-250 IS

I consider that "alot" of EF-S lenses with IS. So why would they bother with in body IS?

And how about lenses such as the 70-200 f/2.8 IS where they can charge wayyy more money then the non-IS version, and people that need it WILL pay for it.

beeng wrote in post #8935866
Crop sensors use less of the lens and Canon can afford to go a bit lax on quality as long as the center of the lens is sharp.

The hilited part above is not true. Any camera image is formed using all of the lens' surfaces. What is true, and probably what you are thinking about, is the fact that an APS-C camera (a so-called "crop" DSLR) will not record the whole image projected by a lens designed for the 35mm film format. That does not mean that the edges of the lens elements do not contribute to forming the smaller image.

SkipD wrote in post #8936532
The hilited part above is not true. Any camera image is formed using all of the lens' surfaces. What is true, and probably what you are thinking about, is the fact that an APS-C camera (a so-called "crop" DSLR) will not record the whole image projected by a lens designed for the 35mm film format. That does not mean that the edges of the lens elements do not contribute to forming the smaller image.

What you said is what I meant... I just put it in very simple terms. My statement about quality requirements still holds true.

SkipD wrote in post #8936532
The hilited part above is not true. Any camera image is formed using all of the lens' surfaces. What is true, and probably what you are thinking about, is the fact that an APS-C camera (a so-called "crop" DSLR) will not record the whole image projected by a lens designed for the 35mm film format. That does not mean that the edges of the lens elements do not contribute to forming the smaller image.

I thought EF-S lenses sit back further into the camera, and therefore use MORE of the lens compared to a regular EF lens.