Lens stabilization vs Camera stabilization

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Al Clark, Nov 30, 2006.

  1. Al Clark

    Al Clark Guest

    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, Nov 30, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Al Clark

    Haydon Guest

    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/issue0610/tech-tips.html




    "Al Clark" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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, Nov 30, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Al Clark

    Dan Sullivan Guest

    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/issue0610/tech-tips.html
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > "Al Clark" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > 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, Nov 30, 2006
    #3
  4. Al Clark

    J. Clarke Guest

    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)
    J. Clarke, Nov 30, 2006
    #4
  5. Al Clark

    Haydon Guest

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


    "Dan Sullivan" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > 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.
    >
    Haydon, Nov 30, 2006
    #5
  6. Al Clark

    simon Guest

    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:...
    >>
    >> 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.
    >>

    >
    >
    simon, Nov 30, 2006
    #6
  7. Al Clark

    Haydon Guest

    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$2surf.net...
    > 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..
    Haydon, Nov 30, 2006
    #7
  8. 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
    David J Taylor, Nov 30, 2006
    #8
  9. Al Clark

    J. Clarke Guest

    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)
    J. Clarke, Nov 30, 2006
    #9
  10. Al Clark

    embee Guest

    "David J Taylor" <-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk>
    wrote in message news:YQGbh.9534$...
    > 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......
    embee, Nov 30, 2006
    #10
  11. Al Clark

    Haydon Guest

    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......
    >
    Haydon, Nov 30, 2006
    #11
  12. "embee" <> writes:

    > "David J Taylor" <-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk>
    > wrote in message news:YQGbh.9534$...
    >> 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
    =?iso-8859-1?Q?M=E5ns_Rullg=E5rd?=, Nov 30, 2006
    #12
  13. Al Clark

    Dan Sullivan Guest

    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.
    Dan Sullivan, Nov 30, 2006
    #13
  14. Al Clark

    Phil Wheeler Guest

    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/issue0610/tech-tips.html
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> "Al Clark" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> 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?
    >>>

    >
    Phil Wheeler, Nov 30, 2006
    #14
  15. Al Clark

    Bill Hilton Guest

    >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
    Bill Hilton, Nov 30, 2006
    #15
  16. embee wrote:
    > "David J Taylor"
    > <-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> wrote in
    > message news:YQGbh.9534$...
    >> 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
    David J Taylor, Nov 30, 2006
    #16
  17. "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
    =?iso-8859-1?Q?M=E5ns_Rullg=E5rd?=, Nov 30, 2006
    #17
  18. Al Clark

    J. Clarke Guest

    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)
    J. Clarke, Nov 30, 2006
    #18
  19. Al Clark

    Dan Sullivan Guest

    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/issue0610/tech-tips.html
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> "Al Clark" <> wrote in message
    > >> news:...
    > >>> 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, Nov 30, 2006
    #19
  20. Al Clark

    Phil Wheeler Guest

    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
    Phil Wheeler, Nov 30, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Alan Wonsowski

    Image Stabilization - What Lens Has This for D70

    Alan Wonsowski, May 24, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    2,226
  2. Norm
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    382
    David J Taylor
    Sep 20, 2004
  3. nospam
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    261
    nospam
    May 27, 2011
  4. David J Taylor

    Re: Macro lens without image stabilization: foolish purchase?

    David J Taylor, Oct 2, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    62
    Views:
    1,047
    John Turco
    Nov 12, 2011
  5. Paul Ciszek

    Image stabilization in body, camera held by lens?

    Paul Ciszek, Jun 4, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    503
    Chris Malcolm
    Jun 8, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page