«

> One has to ask oneself why Canon does not put IS into its camera
> bodies...
> --
>
> Alfred Molon

... because in-lens IS performs better, and provides stabilisatino of the
image in the viewfinder and on the focus and exposure sensors. Note that
Nikon also use in-lens IS, as to Leica/Panasonic for their well-respected
compact cameras.

Cheers,
David

"Trevor" <> wrote in message
news:4e88388f$0$3035$ ...
>
> "David J Taylor" <david-> wrote in
> message news:j69ado$b4g$...
>>> One has to ask oneself why Canon does not put IS into its camera
>>> bodies...
>> .. because in-lens IS performs better, and provides stabilisatino of
>> the image in the viewfinder and on the focus and exposure sensors.
>
>
> And not forgetting they can charge significantly more for the lenses.
> Check out the price differences of the popular 70-200L IS versus the non
> IS equivalents for example.

Canon seem to be quoted as doing this more often than Nikon. The price
Nikon charge for IS lenses which I buy (not the top end of the range) seem
not unreasonable to me.

> And many of those camera bodies that do have in camera IS/VR, can also
> use many 3rd party lenses with in lens IS/VR as well. Seems to me having
> the option would be a good thing, (think slower hand held shutter speeds
> for wide angle lenses that aren't even offered with IS/VR, even if you
> could afford IS/VR for *every* lens you buy, and have no older lenses
> you still wish to use).

Having the option could be useful, I suppose, but I'm not convinced. More
likely I would end up with both lens- and body-IS enabled, and make things
worse rather than better! I think all my lenses have IS/VR except the
10-24 mm zoom and the 35 mm f/1.8. As the latter is for low-light
working, IS might be sensible for it.

> But I wouldn't hold my breathe waiting for Canon or Nikon to provide in
> body IS/VR
> Would have been nice if Canon copied Olympus like they did with the
> ultrasonic sensor cleaning, but I sure didn't expect them to, so wasn't
> disappointed. At least they have started to offer things like sensor
> cleaning, and adjustable displays on some models now, so who knows,
> maybe in a decade or two
>
> Trevor.

LOL! Yes, perhaps. I'll not hold my breath!

David

"David J Taylor" <david-> wrote in message
news:j69ado$b4g$...
>> One has to ask oneself why Canon does not put IS into its camera
>> bodies...
> .. because in-lens IS performs better, and provides stabilisatino of the
> image in the viewfinder and on the focus and exposure sensors.


And not forgetting they can charge significantly more for the lenses. Check
out the price differences of the popular 70-200L IS versus the non IS
equivalents for example.
And many of those camera bodies that do have in camera IS/VR, can also use
many 3rd party lenses with in lens IS/VR as well. Seems to me having the
option would be a good thing, (think slower hand held shutter speeds for
wide angle lenses that aren't even offered with IS/VR, even if you could
afford IS/VR for *every* lens you buy, and have no older lenses you still
wish to use).
But I wouldn't hold my breathe waiting for Canon or Nikon to provide in body
IS/VR
Would have been nice if Canon copied Olympus like they did with the
ultrasonic sensor cleaning, but I sure didn't expect them to, so wasn't
disappointed. At least they have started to offer things like sensor
cleaning, and adjustable displays on some models now, so who knows, maybe in
a decade or two

Trevor.

"David J Taylor" <david-> wrote in message
news:j69epn$1f0$...
> Canon seem to be quoted as doing this more often than Nikon. The price
> Nikon charge for IS lenses which I buy (not the top end of the range) seem
> not unreasonable to me.

Wel the price on the couple of IS kit lenses Canon make is reasonable too,
if that's all you are after. The rest have BIG differences.


>> And many of those camera bodies that do have in camera IS/VR, can also
>> use many 3rd party lenses with in lens IS/VR as well. Seems to me having
>> the option would be a good thing, (think slower hand held shutter speeds
>> for wide angle lenses that aren't even offered with IS/VR, even if you
>> could afford IS/VR for *every* lens you buy, and have no older lenses you
>> still wish to use).
>
> Having the option could be useful, I suppose, but I'm not convinced. More
> likely I would end up with both lens- and body-IS enabled, and make things
> worse rather than better!


Would be VERY easy for the camera to disable in-body IS if in-lens IS was
engaged. Although I see some lens manufacturers claim that both can be used
together. Not owning such a camera I can't say if they will work together,
against each other, or a mixture depending on conditions.
But I'd prefer the option in any case.

>I think all my lenses have IS/VR except the 10-24 mm zoom and the 35 mm
>f/1.8. As the latter is for low-light working, IS might be sensible for
>it.

And the 10-24 as well since it needs a slower shutter speed more often! And
would even like it on the 50mm f1.4, and especially the 200 f2.8. But ALL my
non IS primes in fact!

Trevor.

"Trevor" <trevor@> wrote in message
news:4e8843cc$0$22470$ u...
>
> "David J Taylor" <david-taylor@> wrote in message
[]
>>I think all my lenses have IS/VR except the 10-24 mm zoom and the 35 mm
>>f/1.8. As the latter is for low-light working, IS might be sensible for
>>it.
>
> And the 10-24 as well since it needs a slower shutter speed more often!
> And would even like it on the 50mm f1.4, and especially the 200 f2.8.
> But ALL my non IS primes in fact!
>
> Trevor.

I find that the 10-24 is mostly used outdoors in good lighting. Were I to
use it indoors at low light levels, I would try and brace the camera
against some convenient support (as I prefer to travel without a tripod).
Certainly if you have existing non-IS lenses I can see the attraction of
in-body stabilisation - I have tended to buy my stuff more recently after
selling all my film gear, and have tended to get IS lenses where possible
or necessary.

Cheers,
David

"David J Taylor" <david-> wrote in message
news:j69oag$m2d$...
> I find that the 10-24 is mostly used outdoors in good lighting.

Mine is used both indoors and out. Flash can often be tricky, so slow
shutter speeds means IS would be a definite benefit.

>Were I to use it indoors at low light levels, I would try and brace the
>camera against some convenient support (as I prefer to travel without a
>tripod).

Right, so IS *would* be useful!


> Certainly if you have existing non-IS lenses I can see the attraction of
> in-body stabilisation - I have tended to buy my stuff more recently after
> selling all my film gear, and have tended to get IS lenses where possible
> or necessary.

As I said, not all lenses are made with IS, especially the primes which
still have the best performance. And adding up to $500 (or even more) for
every lens soons gets expensive.
I'd rather have more lenses for the same money! Especially for those I don't
often need IS, but WOULD find it useful on occasion.

Trevor.

"Trevor" <> wrote in message
news:4e892424$0$22474$ u...
>
> "David J Taylor" <david-> wrote in
> message news:j69oag$m2d$...
>> I find that the 10-24 is mostly used outdoors in good lighting.
>
> Mine is used both indoors and out. Flash can often be tricky, so slow
> shutter speeds means IS would be a definite benefit.
>
>>Were I to use it indoors at low light levels, I would try and brace the
>>camera against some convenient support (as I prefer to travel without a
>>tripod).
>
> Right, so IS *would* be useful!

Well, yes and no. With 10 mm focal length, you would need to be working
at a very slow shutter speed to be worried about camera shake, say 1/4s or
longer opening time. I think you will find that most IS systems don't
claim to stabilise in that range, they are designed for faster shutter
speeds. Does anyone have a reference for this?

> As I said, not all lenses are made with IS, especially the primes which
> still have the best performance. And adding up to $500 (or even more)
> for every lens soons gets expensive.
> I'd rather have more lenses for the same money! Especially for those I
> don't often need IS, but WOULD find it useful on occasion.
>
> Trevor.

Perhaps we will start to see some IS large aperture lenses? For now, you
will need to choose a camera range other than Nikon or Canon.

Cheers,
David

"Trevor" <> wrote in message
news:4e897581$0$22469$ u...
[]
> Rubbish, the old rule of thumb would suggest 1/15th second (at the
> 10mm=15mm eff. end), BUT if you want *real* sharpness you need to be at
> least a stop faster. And of course double that at the 22mm end!

In my experience, I can easily hold at 1/10 s, to provide adequate
sharpness for my needs. I accept your needs and experience may be
different, but that doesn't alter my experience.

> My 17-85 stabilises pretty well at 17mm for hand held shots around
> 1/5-1/10th second, when compared with the IS off. Much slower and it
> will probably not help as much. I usually expect to use a tripod by
> then. Not always having to is a plus AFAIC.

... and when you would use a tripod, I would brace against some available
object.

>> Perhaps we will start to see some IS large aperture lenses? For now,
>> you will need to choose a camera range other than Nikon or Canon.
>
> Given the performance of some of their camera's at high ISO these days,
> I tend to think it might be better to actually choose Canon or Nikon,
> and just forget about IS/VR!
>
> Trevor.

Yes, and there should be more to come as sensors approach the limiting
quantum efficiency.

Cheers,
David

"David J Taylor" <david-> wrote in message
news:j6big6$8n9$...
>>
>> Right, so IS *would* be useful!
>
> Well, yes and no. With 10 mm focal length, you would need to be working
> at a very slow shutter speed to be worried about camera shake, say 1/4s or
> longer opening time.

Rubbish, the old rule of thumb would suggest 1/15th second (at the 10mm=15mm
eff. end), BUT if you want *real* sharpness you need to be at least a stop
faster. And of course double that at the 22mm end!


>.will benefit from IS IMO, and I think you will find that most IS systems
>don't claim to stabilise in that range, they are designed for faster
>shutter speeds. Does anyone have a reference for this?

My 17-85 stabilises pretty well at 17mm for hand held shots around
1/5-1/10th second, when compared with the IS off. Much slower and it will
probably not help as much. I usually expect to use a tripod by then. Not
always having to is a plus AFAIC.


> Perhaps we will start to see some IS large aperture lenses? For now, you
> will need to choose a camera range other than Nikon or Canon.

Given the performance of some of their camera's at high ISO these days, I
tend to think it might be better to actually choose Canon or Nikon, and just
forget about IS/VR!

Trevor.

David J Taylor <david-> wrote:
> "Trevor" <> wrote in message
> news:4e892424$0$22474$ u...
>>
>> "David J Taylor" <david-> wrote in
>> message news:j69oag$m2d$...
>>> I find that the 10-24 is mostly used outdoors in good lighting.
>>
>> Mine is used both indoors and out. Flash can often be tricky, so slow
>> shutter speeds means IS would be a definite benefit.
>>
>>>Were I to use it indoors at low light levels, I would try and brace the
>>>camera against some convenient support (as I prefer to travel without a
>>>tripod).
>>
>> Right, so IS *would* be useful!

> Well, yes and no. With 10 mm focal length, you would need to be working
> at a very slow shutter speed to be worried about camera shake, say 1/4s or
> longer opening time. I think you will find that most IS systems don't
> claim to stabilise in that range, they are designed for faster shutter
> speeds. Does anyone have a reference for this?

>> As I said, not all lenses are made with IS, especially the primes which
>> still have the best performance. And adding up to $500 (or even more)
>> for every lens soons gets expensive.
>> I'd rather have more lenses for the same money! Especially for those I
>> don't often need IS, but WOULD find it useful on occasion.
>>
>> Trevor.

> Perhaps we will start to see some IS large aperture lenses? For now, you
> will need to choose a camera range other than Nikon or Canon.

Look at the long term. How often do you upgrade your camera lenses?
How often do you upgrade your camera body? The point is that both
kinds of IS keep improving.

If you have IS in the camera, then every time you upgrade the camera
body you upgrade the IS performance of all your lenses. Whereas if
it's in the lenses, you have to upgrade your lenses every few to
several years to keep up with the improvements in IS technology.

--
Chris Malcolm