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. Advertisements

  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

    "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. "

    Haydon, Nov 30, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. Al Clark

    Dan Sullivan Guest

    Pentax K100D, Pentax K10D, and I believe some of the Sony DSLRs have
    in-camera stabilization.
    Dan Sullivan, Nov 30, 2006
  4. Al Clark

    J. Clarke Guest

    Well, let's see, you save $400 in the lens now so you can spend more than
    that on a new body later?
    J. Clarke, Nov 30, 2006
  5. Al Clark

    Haydon Guest

    Uh? I think you missed the words 'Canon' in both the original post and in
    my reply.
    Haydon, Nov 30, 2006
  6. Al Clark

    simon Guest

    simon, Nov 30, 2006
  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.
    Haydon, Nov 30, 2006
  8. 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 J Taylor, Nov 30, 2006
  9. Al Clark

    J. Clarke Guest

    Nope, Sony is based on Konica-Minolta, not Pentax. While both move the
    sensor the details are different.
    J. Clarke, Nov 30, 2006
  10. Al Clark

    embee Guest

    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
  11. Al Clark

    Haydon Guest

    LOL. I was thinking the same thing!
    Haydon, Nov 30, 2006
  12. My guess is the shake would be overcompensated resulting in
    approximately equal amount of shake, only reversed.
    =?iso-8859-1?Q?M=E5ns_Rullg=E5rd?=, Nov 30, 2006
  13. Al Clark

    Dan Sullivan Guest

    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
  14. Al Clark

    Phil Wheeler Guest

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

    Phil Wheeler, Nov 30, 2006
  15. Al Clark

    Bill Hilton Guest

    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 Hilton, Nov 30, 2006
  16. 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

    Just a thought.

    David J Taylor, Nov 30, 2006
  17. 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.
    =?iso-8859-1?Q?M=E5ns_Rullg=E5rd?=, Nov 30, 2006
  18. Al Clark

    J. Clarke Guest

    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?
    J. Clarke, Nov 30, 2006
  19. Al Clark

    Dan Sullivan Guest

    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, Nov 30, 2006
  20. Al Clark

    Phil Wheeler Guest

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

    Phil Wheeler, Nov 30, 2006
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.