Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon EOS dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Sep 4, 2006, 7:22 AM   #11
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

eric s

Have you seen the pictures from liquidstone (2263mm @ 1/80s)?
http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...mp;forum_id=65
-> He regularly shoots birding image at super slow-shutter speed without IS with the tripod: :idea:
Here's one: http://www.pbase.com/liquidstone/image/52817418

IMO the IS in the super teles is a nice to have, but from what I've seen I'm not so sure IS is absolutely required once they are mounted on a sturdy platform (which is needed anyway because of their weight!), and like you said the Nikon folks are doing just fine...

Regardless there's no proof that IS in the body does not work with telephoto, quite the contrary, theses links show it works quite well with the 500mm Bigma which is the most folks would be able to handhold anyway:
1/80s: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=17791050
again: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=16254160
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 4, 2006, 10:58 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 183
Default

Just out of curiosity.

Did Canon introduce IS lenses while they were making Film SLRs ?

If that is the case then it makes all the more sense to have in lense IS, I
can't imagine how they would have gone about putting anti shake into the
film SLR body.

And ever since they had already put in so much of money into developing
IS lenses ... probably it doesnt make business sense for Canon to introduce
in body IS at this point of time.

--
Gaggu
gaggu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 4, 2006, 11:00 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 183
Default

I think spending on a sturdy tripod and a remote release should
give a fairly good IS solution ... for all the lenses you have.

--
Gaggu
gaggu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 4, 2006, 12:35 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
BoYFrMSpC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 339
Default

The first IS lens was the 75-300 IS in 1995. I think that's the same time when Canon released their first digital cameras the DCS1 and DCS3 models. So their main selling products were probably film-based.

The next IS lens was the 300 f/4L IS in 1997. The one after being the 100-400LIS and the 28-135 IS in 1998. In 1999, all 4 white primes (300 f/2.8 , 400 f/2.8, 500, 600) were "IS"ed. None were released in 2000.

So, looking at this, 6/8 of the IS lenses were L by 2000.
BoYFrMSpC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 4, 2006, 1:22 PM   #15
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

NHL what you are forgetting is that it is an often repeated mantra that the body (especially in these relatively early days of digital) will be changed quite frequently, but good lenses will last for 10 years or more.

So with IS in an expensive lens you get IS with ALL your bodies, instead of having to pay for it each time. :blah:
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 4, 2006, 1:24 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

NHL,
You give examples that it can be done like that really matters. (And I have to say its a beautiful bird. I've always through the US got short-changed on kingfishers. Ours is so bland compared to the rest of the world.)

Of course it can be done. In fact I explicitly said that it could.
One photo, or even a gallery of photos does nothing other than confirm what I already know. It can be done.

Because of IS, I don't have to lock down my tripod and head completely. That means that I can get publishable images, or images that I can print at 17x22", and still be ready for the next bird photo in an instant. I don't miss shots because I've locked down my system. People shooting without IS have to have better technique than me (yes, I admit to using IS as a crutch) or have to lock down more. The first I strive to improve, the second I don't consider acceptable in real world situations. (BTW, I don't consider 1/2 second wildlife photos to be real world. At least not in my world. I've shot one owl with a setting like that in... 4 years.

You can absolutely go without IS if you're willing to lock down your system as hard as a rock. Clearly this works, it's worked for many, many years. Personally, I'd rather have the flexability of not having to do it. And IS saves me when the wind catches that big lens hood and shakes the lens just a little bit.

We certainly have digressed from the original question, haven't we.

I still think that Canon could add in-camera IS if they wanted to. They have the money, they could license any patents in the area and build it. I just don't think it *currently* makes business sense for them to. Maybe I'm wrong, I certainly don't study the market (I'd rather be outdoors photographing.) I'm waiting for their market share to take a more sustained hit (and that hit would have to come from an IS in-camera body) before I think they'll do it. I hope I'm wrong, I'd like more innovation in camera bodies! But I don't see it.

And I agree, NHL, we need more evidence about using incamera IS with long lenses (I'm talking 500mm+) It might be out there and I don't know it. If Canon would like to send me their new 1D III, which merges the 1Ds & 1D + incamera IS I'd happily test it for them on my 600mm + 1.4TC.

All I'm saying is that jacks' logic sounded good to me. Doesn't make it right, just sounds plausable.

Eric
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 4, 2006, 3:57 PM   #17
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

peripatetic wrote:
Quote:
So with IS in an expensive lens you get IS with ALL your bodies, instead of having to pay for it each time. :blah:
Doesn't the body's cost go down with each generation... unlike a lens
-> My Nikon 990 costed more initially than what a 30D now go for and it was just a P&S


So how do you get a fast 50mm prime with IS or a macro with IS? Buy another lens?
-> You are forgetting in one swoop Sony and Pentax just upgraded their entire line of lenses to IS... many more IS than Canon (or Nikon VR) has to offered and we're not even counting the 3rd party lenses yet that got a free ride out of this feature! :blah:


In body IS just make too much sense - Don't forget in the early days Canon made the same mistake by putting the AF in each lens instead of the body - Minolta and then Nikon made them change their mind in just two years time:
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography..._T80/index.htm
-> My bet is that Olympus would probably be next to put IS in the body since they just lost their anti-dust advantage: if you look at the link that JimC posted their dSLR market share (already dismal) took the biggest hit @ about -50% decline over the month surveyed...
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 5, 2006, 2:23 PM   #18
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

Of course you're right.

Putting it in the body does make more sense; but there are still some advantages to having it in the lens. We've been over those enough.

The most interesting thing is that it seems clear that adding the extra IS element does actually degrade image quality on the best Canon lenses. The 70-200 f2.8 is universally regarded to be sharper in its non-IS form for example. It's not too surprising of course - why would adding an extra (moving) element make it sharper?

If Canon were able to make a body IS system that "stacked" with their lens IS (or at least didn't interfere) then that would be the best of both worlds.

I suspect that what we are likely to see is that Canon will put such a system in the small-sensor cameras and leave the in-lens IS for the larger sensors. For one thing I suspect that it might add size to cameras which are already quite big, and it would give them another way of differentiating consumer and pro lines.


peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 5, 2006, 6:58 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
BoYFrMSpC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 339
Default

One thing I think would be cool is if canon could make an IS add-on (like a tele-converter) and you just simply lock it on the back of a lens.

But I also think it would be cool to have an in-body IS that complements the IS in a lens. 6 f-stop gain when using both!
BoYFrMSpC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 6, 2006, 7:08 AM   #20
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

BoYFrMSpC

IMO you have to turn the lens IS off to use the IS in the body - Making the lens and the camera work together would require the two to 'communicate' to each other which will lenghten the control loop for IS. We don't want the IS in the lens to be out of sync with the IS in the body and fight each other do we? Beside the existing IS lenses do not provide any feedback to the camera so you would need to upgrade to a new lens anyway for this 'combined' IS to work
-> Along the same line as the suggested converter, when Minolta(now Sony) put the IS in the body they also implemented the full-time AF manual overide in the body so all their existing lenses also benefited from this added feature - no need to buy the newer SSM (Minolta/Sony version of USM) to enable this full-time manual overide of the AF!

Plus there's other trade-off...
Take the Canon AF motor in the lens for example which seems to be a smart thing to do at first - i.e. each drive is matched to the lens for one (which I really like), but as new Canon body are developped theses new body are always going to be stuck with the same motorized lens used previoudly, and some older lenses especially the ones designed years ago may not have the most up to date motor... (and this go for IS too).
On the other hand if you contrast this with Nikon which kept their mechanical screw on top of their electronic AF-S drive, they were able to keep improving the efficiency of their in-body motor and upped the number of shots per charge to the thousands instead...
-> even the older D100 with a CCD, which is supposed to be power hundry, outlasted my 10D's CMOS in the number of shots/charge!
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:26 AM.