«

I'm about to order an expensive Canon lens with IS, but I wonder if Canon
won't soon join the other manufacturers and put out a decent DSLR with
stabilization built into the camera. If I thought they were, I might put off
my lens purchase, later buying the new camera and a non-IS lens (saving
about $400 on the lens). Any Comments?

There is a very little chance of in-camera IS on DSLR's. See below from
Chuck Westfall who is a very switched on guy when it comes to Canon
products:

"Canon pioneered the concept of image stabilization for SLR lenses starting
in 1995 with the EF75-300mm IS lens, and we are still the market leaders
with 16 IS lenses in our current line-up. Moreover, we are firm believers in
the superiority of lens-based image stabilization versus body-based
stabilization in terms of performance, so chances are good that you will see
more IS lenses from Canon over time. "

http://www.digitaljournalist.org/iss...tech-tips.html




"Al Clark" <> wrote in message
news:NPWdnRTzhYA-...
> I'm about to order an expensive Canon lens with IS, but I wonder if Canon
> won't soon join the other manufacturers and put out a decent DSLR with
> stabilization built into the camera. If I thought they were, I might put
> off my lens purchase, later buying the new camera and a non-IS lens
> (saving about $400 on the lens). Any Comments?
>

Haydon wrote:
> There is a very little chance of in-camera IS on DSLR's.

Pentax K100D, Pentax K10D, and I believe some of the Sony DSLRs have
in-camera stabilization.

> See below from
> Chuck Westfall who is a very switched on guy when it comes to Canon
> products:
>
> "Canon pioneered the concept of image stabilization for SLR lenses starting
> in 1995 with the EF75-300mm IS lens, and we are still the market leaders
> with 16 IS lenses in our current line-up. Moreover, we are firm believers in
> the superiority of lens-based image stabilization versus body-based
> stabilization in terms of performance, so chances are good that you will see
> more IS lenses from Canon over time. "
>
> http://www.digitaljournalist.org/iss...tech-tips.html
>
>
>
>
> "Al Clark" <> wrote in message
> news:NPWdnRTzhYA-...
> > I'm about to order an expensive Canon lens with IS, but I wonder if Canon
> > won't soon join the other manufacturers and put out a decent DSLR with
> > stabilization built into the camera. If I thought they were, I might put
> > off my lens purchase, later buying the new camera and a non-IS lens
> > (saving about $400 on the lens). Any Comments?
> >

On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 10:36:16 -0800, Al Clark wrote:

> I'm about to order an expensive Canon lens with IS, but I wonder if Canon
> won't soon join the other manufacturers and put out a decent DSLR with
> stabilization built into the camera. If I thought they were, I might put off
> my lens purchase, later buying the new camera and a non-IS lens (saving
> about $400 on the lens). Any Comments?

Well, let's see, you save $400 in the lens now so you can spend more than
that on a new body later?

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Uh? I think you missed the words 'Canon' in both the original post and in
my reply.


"Dan Sullivan" <> wrote in message
news: ups.com...
>
> Haydon wrote:
>> There is a very little chance of in-camera IS on DSLR's.
>
> Pentax K100D, Pentax K10D, and I believe some of the Sony DSLRs have
> in-camera stabilization.
>

Errr... No...
you said "There is a very little chance of in-camera IS on DSLR's."
not "There is a very little chance of in-camera IS on CANON DSLR's."

so technically he was right...and if he hadn't beaten me to it I would have
said it too..

The Sony does, I believe, have IS in the body - I think it is based on the
Pentax (or vice-versa)

Simon

--


www.srsteel.co.uk
http://www.srsteel.co.uk/Panorama
http://www.srsteel.co.uk/landscape
http://www.srsteel.co.uk/Peru


"Haydon" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Uh? I think you missed the words 'Canon' in both the original post and in
> my reply.
>
>
> "Dan Sullivan" <> wrote in message
> news: ups.com...
>>
>> Haydon wrote:
>>> There is a very little chance of in-camera IS on DSLR's.
>>
>> Pentax K100D, Pentax K10D, and I believe some of the Sony DSLRs have
>> in-camera stabilization.
>>
>
>

OK, I give up. I should have put the word Canon in the first line as well.
However, it isn't rocket science mate, when the original post was referring
to Canon, and my post was obviously also referring to Canon too.


"simon" <> wrote in message
news:eknci5$kfd$...
> Errr... No...
> you said "There is a very little chance of in-camera IS on DSLR's."
> not "There is a very little chance of in-camera IS on CANON DSLR's."
>
> so technically he was right...and if he hadn't beaten me to it I would
> have said it too..

Al Clark wrote:
> I'm about to order an expensive Canon lens with IS, but I wonder if
> Canon won't soon join the other manufacturers and put out a decent
> DSLR with stabilization built into the camera. If I thought they
> were, I might put off my lens purchase, later buying the new camera
> and a non-IS lens (saving about $400 on the lens). Any Comments?

Canon is in business to make money. If they get more money by selling you
IS lenses, that's what they'll do. At least until they start selling
fewer systems because other manufacturers offer better value for money.
The will rely on customers not wanting to change brand.

David

On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 19:48:22 +0000, simon wrote:

> Errr... No...
> you said "There is a very little chance of in-camera IS on DSLR's."
> not "There is a very little chance of in-camera IS on CANON DSLR's."
>
> so technically he was right...and if he hadn't beaten me to it I would have
> said it too..
>
> The Sony does, I believe, have IS in the body - I think it is based on the
> Pentax (or vice-versa)

Nope, Sony is based on Konica-Minolta, not Pentax. While both move the
sensor the details are different.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"David J Taylor" <david->
wrote in message news:YQGbh.9534$ k...
> Al Clark wrote:

>
> Canon is in business to make money. If they get more money by selling you
> IS lenses, that's what they'll do. At least until they start selling
> fewer systems because other manufacturers offer better value for money.
> The will rely on customers not wanting to change brand.
>
> David
>

These "other manufacturers" won't be "in business to make money" then?

As an aside, does anybody know what would happen if you left lens IS
switched on while using a body which also has IS switched on?

Just wondered......