Lens stabilization vs Camera stabilization

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/issue0610/tech-tips.html

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

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......

 

LOL. I was thinking the same thing!

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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.

 

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?

 

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