Canon sensor based image stabilization

Elisha wrote in post #8955225
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.

I think it's due to the fact that Sony is a BIG name. They're up there with their video cameras, so wouldn't it make sense for people to think their DSLRs are a good choice? Of course in-body IS is a nice feature to have, but I don't think it's swaying people from buying Canon/Nikon. Low price and the Sony logo....

On a side note, if next month Canon were to release a 60D with in-body IS, I'm gonna be pi$$ed that I bought the Tamron 17-50 VC!! lol

DStanic wrote in post #8970679
I think it's due to the fact that Sony is a BIG name. They're up there with their video cameras, so wouldn't it make sense for people to think their DSLRs are a good choice? Of course in-body IS is a nice feature to have, but I don't think it's swaying people from buying Canon/Nikon. Low price and the Sony logo....

Their big name definitely contributes to the sales but also all the silent Minolta lovers suddenly had use for all their old lenses.
The prices of Minolta AF lenses started rising again from mid 2008 onwards because of Sony DSLR introduction.

Sony is a threat and right now the biggest one for Canikon. And they push Steady Shot Inside big time. Now if only the Sony Store sales people knew what they were talking about, Sony would have a bigger chunk of market share.

DStanic wrote in post #8936504
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.

Ah yes! Wikipedia, that paragon of accurate, complete, and up-to-date knowledge.

Canon has released thirteen (not nine) EF-S lenses. The ones with IS are in bold:

EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM
EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM
EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM
EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM
EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
EF-S 18-55mm f3.5-5.6
EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 II
EF-S 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 USM
EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 II USM
EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS
EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS
EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS
EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS

In my personal opinion, Canon will not produce an in-body IS system because such a system would be a step backwards. To produce maximum stabilization, the IS must be matched to the focal length of the lens. Canon does this with all their IS primes. And very well, I might add.

For their IS zooms, it seems that the IS is matched to (optimiz0ed for) about 75% of maximum zoom, especially on their zooms with a large zoom factor. Why? Because everything in life is a compromise. Matching to the 100% zoom value would produce relatively poor stabilization at minimum zoom. But then, the higher zooms benefit more from stabilization.

For a similar reason, the in-body stabilization of a Sony DSLR appears to be optimized for a focal length of around 50mm, which is equivalent in angle of view to around 100mm for a full-frame 35mm camera.

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.

You're fighting a losing battle, Skip. Basic optical concepts are lost here.

I've given up trying to patiently explain that every single point on the image used 100% of the lens. People just refuse to grasp the concept, even when it flies in the face of how an aperture works.

DStanic wrote in post #8936544
I thought EF-S lenses sit back further into the camera, and therefore use MORE of the lens compared to a regular EF lens.

No, they use the same amount, which is 100%. They just have a shorter back focus (the rearmost element is closer to the image plane).

20droger wrote in post #8971990
Canon has released thirteen (not nine) EF-S lenses. The ones with IS are in bold:

I said "Out of 9 total focal lengths" so I was not including all the different versions of the 18-55 (which are obsolete now nobody cares about them).

Canon will adopt what ever they feel is cutting into their market share.

The little m4/3 cameras look pretty neat and seems to be getting popular. Sony and Olympus have in body IS, not sure about Pentax. And I believe I just saw Ashton jumping around a runway full of models with a Nikon with an articulated screen. How long do you think we start seeing these options in Canon's next line?

Inferior or not, I wouldn't mind in body IS. It would make all those nice primes a lot more attractive, but I also see it cutting into the big dollar IS lens sales. Why spend $1900 on a 70-200 2.8 IS when I could squeek by with a $1200 non IS.

Balancing keeping up with the competition while protecting your big money items probably poses a bit of a problem. I can see them putting IS into all of their lenses though to counter. I think the next few releases are going to be pretty interesting for sure.

Dave.......

DStanic wrote in post #8970686
On a side note, if next month Canon were to release a 60D with in-body IS, I'm gonna be pi$$ed that I bought the Tamron 17-50 VC!! lol

I really appreciate the lens IS. Really nice when you are framing and you need precision. I sometime shoot with liveview on, magnified 5x. So even if there is in body IS, I'll still prefer the lens IS if it's equipped with one.