Canon sensor based image stabilization

tkbslc wrote in post #8951660
Except now Sony has some fairly decent cheap primes that would be stabilized. Lots of newbs buy the nifty 50 on their Canon. Sony just came out with a nice 50mm of their own. 50mm 1.8 with 3 stop IS could make for some low light fun for sure.

There's no doubt those primes would benefit, but the line of thought that was being carried through was for the consumers. Most typical, entry-level consumers (read: soccer moms and dads) don't want those primes because they don't understand the appeal. To them, it's just another lens that they have to carry around, and switch on and off often because "it doesn't even zoom."

..

I don't believe in-body IS should be added anywhere in the Canon line-up. I would have to pay extra for a system that I wouldn't use much (as many of the lenses I'm looking at buying/upgrading to have IS). Also, Canon would have to take away some R&D time and cost from other endeavors; this would probably cause more folks to whine about Canon being so far behind in technology...

bjyoder wrote in post #8952554
Also, Canon would have to take away some R&D time and cost from other endeavors

Like adding video recording features that most don't want?

In body IS is a feature that would actually get me to upgrade to a new camera... unlike video. I'm not sure Canon will ever do it, but I wish they would!

dustyporch wrote in post #8952654
Like adding video recording features that most don't want?

In body IS is a feature that would actually get me to upgrade to a new camera... unlike video. I'm not sure Canon will ever do it, but I wish they would!

They already spent the time producing the video features for their P&S line. So getting in into the DSLR only required a bit of adaptation to make it fit in the menu system. And as has already been noted - the initial 5Dmk2 firmware did contain an absolute minimum of adaptation - not even support for selecting ISO or aperture.

Personally, I love the Lens IS. It is WAY better to have your VF stabilized too, and have a tailored IS unit specifically for each lens. BUT, the two systems are not mutually exclusive. You could have an IS sensor AND a body sensor and the lens could just take over it if it had IS.

You wanna talk about wasting R&D? How about reingineering perfectly good lenses just so they can have IS? Why not develop the the tech once or twice for teh body and then all of a sudden every lens in your lineup has a new life. The only lenses I see it killling sales for are the two IS 70-200Ls, but really the lens IS is a lot better at that length. Perhaps many serious shooters would still choose them.

manipula wrote in post #8951718
Didn't when I fitted a Panasonic 14-45 OS onto an Olympus Pen. No conflicting stuff either.

Manual, pg. 63. See notes

bjyoder wrote in post #8952554
...
I don't believe in-body IS should be added anywhere in the Canon line-up. I would have to pay extra for a system that I wouldn't use much ...

I don't know that would be the case. It is very clear Canon sells cameras and probably lenses for what the market will bare.

More importantly, is there any technical reason why you might not want in body IS?
Is it detrimental to reliability or image quality in some way. If properly engineered in I don't see why unless an industry expert here wants to say otherwise.

So it is clear Canon don't want to introduce in-body IS. Although inferior to lens IS it is also clear the real reason for this is not to compromise IS lens sales.

So I agree, if Canon starts loosing sales like they did for not having video, better AF and weather proofing (if I can use that word) in a APS-C body, and possibly live View too (I may be wrong on that one), then it will be introduced.

So yes the place that Canon will feel the loss of sales (if that happens) will be the lower cost end.

But if Canon has to introduce it I can't see it not being across the whole range including the pro bodies. Why not; the only possible reason is if there are reliability or IQ reasons and that does not seem credible.

Lester Wareham wrote in post #8954321
I don't know that would be the case. It is very clear Canon sells cameras and probably lenses for what the market will bare.

More importantly, is there any technical reason why you might not want in body IS?
Is it detrimental to reliability or image quality in some way. If properly engineered in I don't see why unless an industry expert here wants to say otherwise.

So it is clear Canon don't want to introduce in-body IS. Although inferior to lens IS it is also clear the real reason for this is not to compromise IS lens sales.

So I agree, if Canon starts loosing sales like they did for not having video, better AF and weather proofing (if I can use that word) in a APS-C body, and possibly live View too (I may be wrong on that one), then it will be introduced.

So yes the place that Canon will feel the loss of sales (if that happens) will be the lower cost end.

But if Canon has to introduce it I can't see it not being across the whole range including the pro bodies. Why not; the only possible reason is if there are reliability or IQ reasons and that does not seem credible.

To add in-body IS, the consumer would be paying for it somehow; either on the front end (in higher cost cameras) or on the back end (with fewer features in the camera). Also, it is just one more thing to break, and may add complications when trying to fix other parts of the camera, raising prices there as well.

I'm not fundamentally against in-body IS, rather, I prefer lens-based because of it's advantages. Canon has a great lineup of lenses with IS, and I'm sure we'll see more introduced. I don't think Sony is that big of a threat; and even so, I'm sure Canon

beeng wrote in post #8935866
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.

You have that wrong. Since the EF-S is designed for a smaller sensor the lens is made smaller. This makes it cheaper to manufacture but it also means that the sensor is capturing all the way to the edges of the lens so corner sharpness becomes as much of an issue as it is when using EF lenses on full-frame.

bjyoder wrote in post #8954454
I'm not fundamentally against in-body IS, rather, I prefer lens-based because of it's advantages. Canon has a great lineup of lenses with IS, and I'm sure we'll see more introduced. I don't think Sony is that big of a threat; and even so, I'm sure Canon

You do realize Sony captured almost 9% market share by the end of summer 2008 since introducing it's a100 in September 2006?

So Canikon is obviously loosing sales.

krb wrote in post #8954493
You have that wrong. Since the EF-S is designed for a smaller sensor the lens is made smaller. This makes it cheaper to manufacture but it also means that the sensor is capturing all the way to the edges of the lens so corner sharpness becomes as much of an issue as it is when using EF lenses on full-frame.

Note that a 100/2.8 is a 100/2.8 even if designed for EF-S. It still has to collect the same amount of light. The only difference is that it doesn't need to light out the same size of image circle. So it isn't obvious that the lens will be smaller, and it isn't obvious what will happen to corner sharpness for the simple reason that it isn't obvious how many of all the lens elements that can take advantage of the EF-S mount.

You only know that a lens can be made smaller when you are reducing the FL at the same time. And it is only for the UWA where you can really take advantage of the shorter distance between lens and sensor allowed by the EF-S mount.

pwm2 wrote in post #8956513
Note that a 100/2.8 is a 100/2.8 even if designed for EF-S. It still has to collect the same amount of light. The only difference is that it doesn't need to light out the same size of image circle. So it isn't obvious that the lens will be smaller, and it isn't obvious what will happen to corner sharpness for the simple reason that it isn't obvious how many of all the lens elements that can take advantage of the EF-S mount.

You only know that a lens can be made smaller when you are reducing the FL at the same time. And it is only for the UWA where you can really take advantage of the shorter distance between lens and sensor allowed by the EF-S mount.

I'm not sure that I follow what you are saying. A lens that is designed for the APS-C sensor projects a smaller image circle than a lens designed for a 35mm sized sensor. When you combine a small sensor with a larger image circle then you are "cropping" off the edges where image quality is most likely to be reduced. You would get the same effect if you used a "full frame" disgital camera like the 5D with a lens designed for medium or large format cameras.

krb wrote in post #8957299
I'm not sure that I follow what you are saying.

I am saying that the Olympus 300/2.8 is 3.3kg despite using the 4/3 format.

The Canon 300/2.8 is 2.6kg while being designed for FF35.

The front part of the lens will not be able to take advantage of the smaller sensor size since it will be the aperture size that decides how big maximum opening the lens must have. In the end, it will be hard to tell how many of the lens elements that can be made smaller, and where not all of the lens is used together with the smaller sensor.

So it isn't a known fact how much lighter the EF-S lens would be compared to an EF lens with same FL and aperture.

And it isn't a known fact exactly how the corner sharpness would change when creating an EF-S lens with same FL and aperture.

The only real gain in weight from EF-S is that you will get the same field-of-view with a lens with 1.6x shorter FL. And the shorter distance between lens and sensor makes it easier to make a 10mm EF-S lens than a 10mm EF lens. But the shorter distance between lens and sensor, or the smaller sensor, doesn't give much advantage for long focal lengths.

manipula wrote in post #8951718
Didn't when I fitted a Panasonic 14-45 OS onto an Olympus Pen. No conflicting stuff either.

This is what I've been expecting actually. So when you stick the lens and both IS turned on, you get stabilized image in the viewfinder too? And results were ok? Did you get any boost up IS effect? Perhaps with lens or camera IS alone, you normally gain 2 stop advantage, but with the combo, the advantage goes up to 3 stop?

Bodog wrote in post #8954243
Manual, pg. 63. See notes

Rio Sundoro wrote in post #8957763
This is what I've been expecting actually. So when you stick the lens and both IS turned on, you get stabilized image in the viewfinder too? And results were ok? Did you get any boost up IS effect? Perhaps with lens or camera IS alone, you normally gain 2 stop advantage, but with the combo, the advantage goes up to 3 stop?

I don't own either camera, and frankly I wouldn't own a Pen if it was given to me (though a GF1 partly appeals), so I won't be checking user notes in manuals. I do however, work in the industry as well as work freelance taking snaps. So given the opportunity to put both side by side, I swapped the Panasonic lens onto the Pen and it didn't kick up a fuss. It didn't provide bonkers uber-OS, it just didn't freak out. After years in the industry, this simple fact that complimentary but competing products actually work together impressed me, especially seeing as when it happened it didn't start flagging warnings asking me switch X, Y and Z about to stop them arguing.

JWright wrote in post #8934876
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...

+1
Simple and clear.

Note:
I would add the same answer is valid even for Nikon.