Inbuilt IS

[simplicitee]

Just wondering...

Olympus and Sony are have IS inbuilt in the camera body.

thats a huge advantage to their line of DSLRs.

Any word if canon is about to do the same?

Business-wise may not be a good decision for their IS lens, but its really tempting for new comers like me when deciding on the DSLR system.

[Fragnatic]

i believe canon's definitely not going to do that.
cos this means their IS lens lineup might not be compatible. or becomes useless.

BUT, the advantage of IS on the lenses means u can actually see the effects of IS just through the VF. it helps in composing the photo b4 u actually shoot!

[LawrenceTeo]

According to what I understand from their rep, Canon is not building IS into their camera body because the IS mechanism needed to cater for lens from 10mm (ultra wide) all the way to 600mm and above (super tele) is very different. (Not sure is cost a factor not to build an all-in-one IS mechanism in the body or the technology level is not there yet) That's why they prefer to build the IS on the lens itself.

Not sure how other manufacturers (Sony, Olympus) is doing it. Do they have such a wide spread of lenses compared to Canon and Nikon?

[flipfreak]

inbuilt shake reduction is more useful for short focal length. at telephoto distance, the compensation from the IS in the camera will not be as good as the ones build into the lens.

[alternatve]

It's highly unlikely that it'll ever come out since so many of Canon's lenses now have IS.

Samuel

[zj2000]

Originally Posted by flipfreak inbuilt shake reduction is more useful for short focal length. at telephoto distance, the compensation from the IS in the camera will not be as good as the ones build into the lens.

That's what canon (and nikon) says in their official statements about IS in lens but ask any sony / pentax/ olympus user and they'll tell you that they do get the 3 stop handholding advantage even with a 300mm lens. It's possible that when you reach 600mm or 800mm inbody IS will not be as efficient but I'm willing to give up this efficiency with 600mm lenses so that I can get IS with all my 300mm and below lenses. In spite of what canon (or nikon) says about better efficiency with in lens IS, the main resistance to the change to inbody IS is profits profits profits. Look at the 70-200 2.8, the diff in price between IS and non IS is more than 1k!!!! The price diff between the old 300 2.8 non IS and the current 300 2.8 IS is 3k!!! How do you justify that? Considering that the 18-55 IS can be had for $200 how much is the cost of the IS lens group and mechanism???

[grantyale]

Originally Posted by zj2000 That's what canon (and nikon) says in their official statements about IS in lens but ask any sony / pentax/ olympus user and they'll tell you that they do get the 3 stop handholding advantage even with a 300mm lens. It's possible that when you reach 600mm or 800mm inbody IS will not be as efficient but I'm willing to give up this efficiency with 600mm lenses so that I can get IS with all my 300mm and below lenses. In spite of what canon (or nikon) says about better efficiency with in lens IS, the main resistance to the change to inbody IS is profits profits profits. Look at the 70-200 2.8, the diff in price between IS and non IS is more than 1k!!!! The price diff between the old 300 2.8 non IS and the current 300 2.8 IS is 3k!!! How do you justify that? Considering that the 18-55 IS can be had for $200 how much is the cost of the IS lens group and mechanism???

The thing is, lenses from those selling in-body IS cameras are not really cheaper even compared with Canon/Nikon IS lenses. Lens IS in a 200mm+ lens is very useful for composition. That said, in-body IS is still welcome anytime.

[flipfreak]

Originally Posted by zj2000 That's what canon (and nikon) says in their official statements about IS in lens but ask any sony / pentax/ olympus user and they'll tell you that they do get the 3 stop handholding advantage even with a 300mm lens. It's possible that when you reach 600mm or 800mm inbody IS will not be as efficient but I'm willing to give up this efficiency with 600mm lenses so that I can get IS with all my 300mm and below lenses. In spite of what canon (or nikon) says about better efficiency with in lens IS, the main resistance to the change to inbody IS is profits profits profits. Look at the 70-200 2.8, the diff in price between IS and non IS is more than 1k!!!! The price diff between the old 300 2.8 non IS and the current 300 2.8 IS is 3k!!! How do you justify that? Considering that the 18-55 IS can be had for $200 how much is the cost of the IS lens group and mechanism???

then it depend on what is more impt to u. getting a good pic at 600mm or the ability to handhold the lens.

i choose the former.

[zj2000]

Originally Posted by flipfreak then it depend on what is more impt to u. getting a good pic at 600mm or the ability to handhold the lens. i choose the former.

Not that I don't agree with you. Canon can always have in lens IS for they telephoto lenses and in body IS at the same time. In body IS can be programmed to be switched off when a telephoto lens with IS is attached.

[flipfreak]

Originally Posted by zj2000 Not that I don't agree with you. Canon can always have in lens IS for they telephoto lenses and in body IS at the same time. In body IS can be programmed to be switched off when a telephoto lens with IS is attached.

too much work to turn around what they have done so far. not a smart biz move.

[chopper]

Originally Posted by Fragnatic BUT, the advantage of IS on the lenses means u can actually see the effects of IS just through the VF. it helps in composing the photo b4 u actually shoot!

If there is live-view with the sensor IS, wouldn't the effect of the sensor IS be shown on live-view ? Just curious how that works.

[Fragnatic]

Originally Posted by chopper If there is live-view with the sensor IS, wouldn't the effect of the sensor IS be shown on live-view ? Just curious how that works.

yes. but how often do u use live view to shoot?
IS in lens, u'll get the IS effect thru VF and live view.. even better right?

[simplicitee]

just a pity that cant take advantage of IS for 3rd party lens....

[GavinTing]

Originally Posted by simplicitee just a pity that cant take advantage of IS for 3rd party lens....

Some third party lens got "IS" for eg, the sigma 18-200 got the OS version, which is optical stabilisation.. But I feel it doesnt work as well.

[Pablo]

If image stabilization is performed in the lens (the image before it hits the sensor) will the image that the sensor reacts upon be more accurate than an image that hits a moving sensor ?

Taking a sensors point of view.... is it not positioned with precision to accept the image given to it by the lens ?

Can a moving sensor still retain that accuracy ???

just a question I wonder about

[emerald]

As some other threads noted, the non-IS lenses for the camera with built-in IS are not as cheap as we expected, and may still comparaple with the IS lenses. So it may not be the case that u buy a camera with built-in IS, then u can get cheaper lenses. For Canon or Nikon cases, the non-IS lenses will be significantly cheaper compare to the IS versions, then we have more flexibility when choosing lenses.

However, if Canon or Nikon can add in the built-in IS, it will be more than welcome! And the built-in IS will not compete with the telezoom IS lenses.

[GavinTing]

Originally Posted by emerald As some other threads noted, the non-IS lenses for the camera with built-in IS are not as cheap as we expected, and may still comparaple with the IS lenses. So it may not be the case that u buy a camera with built-in IS, then u can get cheaper lenses. For Canon or Nikon cases, the non-IS lenses will be significantly cheaper compare to the IS versions, then we have more flexibility when choosing lenses. However, if Canon or Nikon can add in the built-in IS, it will be more than welcome! And the built-in IS will not compete with the telezoom IS lenses.

Hmm.. Yes.. But den how to choose which IS to use? You can either have IS in the body on, or the IS in the lens on.. IF both are on.. Your picture will be very very very blurr

If canon come out IS in body, we will have a very very very very very long debate on which IS is bettter

[calebk]

Originally Posted by Pablo If image stabilization is performed in the lens (the image before it hits the sensor) will the image that the sensor reacts upon be more accurate than an image that hits a moving sensor ? Taking a sensors point of view.... is it not positioned with precision to accept the image given to it by the lens ? Can a moving sensor still retain that accuracy ??? just a question I wonder about

You have raised a very valid point, which was on my mind but I couldn't exactly put my finger on. Since most of the time, especially with a longer lens, most of the movement does occur at the front of the lens; in such a case, if the sensor was to move to correct shake instead of a moving lens group within the lens, would stabilisation still be as proficient?

[weixing]

Originally Posted by calebk You have raised a very valid point, which was on my mind but I couldn't exactly put my finger on. Since most of the time, especially with a longer lens, most of the movement does occur at the front of the lens; in such a case, if the sensor was to move to correct shake instead of a moving lens group within the lens, would stabilisation still be as proficient?

Hi,
IMHO, I think the IS built in the lens will be more versatile than IS built in the camera body.
1) The camera body designer doesn't need to take into account on what lens is going to be use on the camera body and concentrate on designing a good camera body.

2) The lens designer also doesn't need to take into account that whether the camera body IS can handle the lens, but just design a lens and IS that will work well base on a fixed sensor position.

As a result, all lenses work well on current/previous camera body will work well on all future body. Any new IS technology can be applied on just the lenses and all current/previous body will benefit from it.

But if you built the IS in the camera body, some lenses in the future which may require special IS handling won't be able to use or may not work well on a previous camera body and any new IS technology will not benefit previous camera body owner. As a result, user may need to change camera body more frequent than necessary just to use the new lenses.... good for the camera company, but not to the user.

Just my S$0.02.

Have a nice day.

[calebk]

Originally Posted by weixing Hi, IMHO, I think the IS built in the lens will be more versatile than IS built in the camera body. 1) The camera body designer doesn't need to take into account on what lens is going to be use on the camera body and concentrate on designing a good camera body. 2) The lens designer also doesn't need to take into account that whether the camera body IS can handle the lens, but just design a lens and IS that will work well base on a fixed sensor position. As a result, all lenses work well on current/previous camera body will work well on all future body. Any new IS technology can be applied on just the lenses and all current/previous body will benefit from it. But if you built the IS in the camera body, some lenses in the future which may require special IS handling won't be able to use or may not work well on a previous camera body and any new IS technology will not benefit previous camera body owner. As a result, user may need to change camera body more frequent than necessary just to use the new lenses.... good for the camera company, but not to the user. Just my S$0.02. Have a nice day.

If you realise, either way, it's also good for the camera company; remember that you also pay a premium for IS lenses