«

LOL. I was thinking the same thing!


"embee" <> wrote in message
news:eknf3q$cme$...
>
> 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......
>

"embee" <> writes:

> "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?

My guess is the shake would be overcompensated resulting in
approximately equal amount of shake, only reversed.

--
Måns Rullgård

Haydon wrote:
> 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.

Not a problem.

But I mentioned the Pentax cameras because a complete K100D kit, with a
very well made 18-55 is about $600 in the US.

And any lens placed on the camera is image stabilized.

Just a thought.

If you read to the bottom, you will see the
original question related to Canon DSLRs.

Phil

Dan Sullivan wrote:
> 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?
>>>
>

>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?

I think the in-camera IS/VR solutions are giving around one f-stop of
benefit (at least the examples I've seen), maybe a bit more, but no
more than two stops ... Canon's first version of IS circa 10 years ago
offered around 2 stops, the improved version on later lenses like the
24-105 f/4 supposedly offered around 3 stops (I'm actually running some
tests right now to measure this), and Canon is claiming up to four
stops for their latest version of stabilization, shipping in the 70-200
f/4 L IS.

So my guess is Canon will keep putting IS in the lenses for the dSLR
systems since they probably feel they can do a better job there than
in-camera. But just a guess.

Buy the lens, you won't be sorry.

Bill

embee wrote:
> "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?

Of course they are, but they may need to do that by eating into the larger
user base of Canon and Nikon, rather than by retaining the established
user base that Nikon and Canon have. Hence producing more novel
solutions.

Just a thought.

David

"Bill Hilton" <> writes:

>>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?
>
> I think the in-camera IS/VR solutions are giving around one f-stop of
> benefit (at least the examples I've seen), maybe a bit more, but no
> more than two stops ... Canon's first version of IS circa 10 years ago
> offered around 2 stops, the improved version on later lenses like the
> 24-105 f/4 supposedly offered around 3 stops (I'm actually running some
> tests right now to measure this), and Canon is claiming up to four
> stops for their latest version of stabilization, shipping in the 70-200
> f/4 L IS.
>
> So my guess is Canon will keep putting IS in the lenses for the dSLR
> systems since they probably feel they can do a better job there than
> in-camera. But just a guess.

It just struck me that placing motion sensors in the lens and the
moving parts, be it extra glass element or the sensor itself, in the
body could possibly get the (supposed) benefit of lens-based IS as
well as needing only one set of complicated mechanics.

--
Måns Rullgård

On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 13:07:56 -0800, Dan Sullivan wrote:

> Haydon wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Not a problem.
>
> But I mentioned the Pentax cameras because a complete K100D kit, with a
> very well made 18-55 is about $600 in the US.
>
> And any lens placed on the camera is image stabilized.

Is that in fact the case? How does it know that you've got a 600 on the
camera and not a 6 unless there is some communication between the lens and
the body that provide this information? Or is the stabilization algorithm
based on image analysis rather than inertial sensing and
focal-length-based calculation?

> Just a thought.

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

Phil Wheeler wrote:
> If you read to the bottom, you will see the
> original question related to Canon DSLRs.
>
> Phil

No harm was done by what I posted.

Just info.

And Canon, being a competitive company in a competitive industry, will
certainly consider in-camera IS.

It's just a matter of time.

> Dan Sullivan wrote:
> > 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?
> >>>
> >

Dan Sullivan wrote:
> Phil Wheeler wrote:
>> If you read to the bottom, you will see the
>> original question related to Canon DSLRs.
>>
>> Phil
>
> No harm was done by what I posted.
>
> Just info.
>
> And Canon, being a competitive company in a competitive industry, will
> certainly consider in-camera IS.
>
> It's just a matter of time.
>

A very long time, I suspect. They have a very big
commitment to IS lenses .. and their system is
outstanding.

Phil