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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Aug 20, 2007, 6:50 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 185
Default

i looked at all the updates of the 40d and what a shock ,no IS . of course i'm not serious .IS would have been the propper thing to do but then canon won't be able to stick it to people with their overpriced lenses .
camerageak is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Aug 20, 2007, 8:14 PM   #2
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

camerageak wrote:
Quote:
IS would have been the propper thing to do
Why would it be proper? Because you want them to do it?

That's silly. They're a company. Their job is to make money for their shareholders. Long ago they invested large amounts of R&D$ in in-lens image stabilization. It makes absolutely no business sense for them to change that decision now and lose out on all those over-priced IS lenses. I agree the lenses are overpriced. But I don't see any reason Canon should switch directions. When they start losing market share AND that lost share can be attributed to in-body IS then they'll change. Right now they're not there yet.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 20, 2007, 8:29 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
dr_spock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 879
Default

Why? Canon believe that in-lens IS performs better than in body IS.
dr_spock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 20, 2007, 9:46 PM   #4
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

I wouldn't expect Canon to say in-body IS is better if they don't have anything to offer... :-)

Why not let the customers decide?

-> In-body IS can always be turned off and see how many people are buying IS lenses (if they think are better)... So far I can only find non-IS version of the L to be sharper than their IS version, and not the other way around


Kind of odd that only the lens manufacturers with IS do not offer in-body IS. Everyone else (i.e. Pentax, Sony and Olympus) did the fast track and can claim in one swoop that all their lenses (yes even old screw mount) have IS without having to re-design a single element!
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 21, 2007, 3:10 AM   #5
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

Yes but I'm pretty sure you will find sharper pictures with in-body IS turned off rather than on.

So you've read all the whitepapers and you know why Canon say that in-lens is better, and gets increasingly better the longer the lens. You are also technically savvy enough to know that they are almost certainlycorrect.

The market has decided. What percentage of wildlife and sports photographers use Canon and Nikon? The quality end of the market knows that in-lens is better.

But at the cheap end of the market the other route is doing very well - and that could well be a problem for Canon, because they still make most of their money from the cheaper cameras. It's a risky market strategy to place yourself as the premium brand. But they seem to be doing well enough at the moment.

And as everybody knows in the digital world lenses last much longer than the camera body. So I don't have to pay for a new (inferior) IS system in every new body. And OK so I exaggerate here because I don't have or go through that many bodies (two IS lenses and two bodies since I went digital), but the sports and wildlife pros do.
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 21, 2007, 7:46 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
wsandman1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 318
Default

I think Canon has decided to bring IS tomore of themasses with the latest lens offering, the 18 - 55 mm IS for $200. Since the digital capture mode makes the bodies more of a commodity than the lenses, I'd rather see IS in the lenses priced more reasonably.
wsandman1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 21, 2007, 7:50 AM   #7
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

peripatetic wrote:
Quote:
The market has decided. What percentage of wildlife and sports photographers use Canon and Nikon? The quality end of the market knows that in-lens is better.

Well, as a sports shooter I can say IS plays little to no part in the decision (a bit more for wildlife). The system is the thing for sports and wildlife shooters. Canon & Nikon have the most robust lineup of camera bodies and the largest selection of lenses - in both cases ranging from consumer to top notch professional grade. The focus systems in their cameras are the best by far in the industry - especially when you look at the professional model cameras. Want proof? The majority of the pros on the sidelines of sporting events with 400mm 2.8 lenses? The IS is turned OFF!!! Because IS can fight you when you want to make a move of the camera to follow the action. Action doesn't always follow strait paths - (for sports like racing or track it does but not football, soccer, rugby etc).

In the end, and I know this is blasphemy for some, image stabilization is overrated. Gasp!!!!! There, I said it. Sure it can be useful. But, the VAST majority of shots I see touting image stabilization really aren't good shots. Image stabilization is used way too often as a crutch rather than using proper technique, or more importantly the proper tool for the job (faster lens, tripod or flash).

And, yes I own 2 lenses with IS - but to be honest the feature isn't used much (and I DO take photos besides sports - I take a lot of family photos and vacation photos - I just don't tend to post those photos).

But, just like live preview, IMO, this is a feature people have gotten used to in the digicam world so they want it in their DSLRs as well.

Edit:

Forgot a couple points on the 'system' front. Also have to consider focus speed as critically important. in-lens focus motors make a huge difference (hmmm... another example of a solution in the lens working better than in the camera). Again, Canon & Nikon top the fold (followed by sigma with their HSM lenses). Optics goes without saying - but there are some optically great lenses in the other camps - they just won't focus as fast.

JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 21, 2007, 8:00 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
wsandman1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 318
Default

I think Canon just incorporated body IS in the G9 point & shoot, soI think they are prepared to go with body IS if they are forced to. Notice the 40D followed the rest of the market in some innovations: Resolution, dust removal, and live view. Some features like John mentioned are traditionaly led by Canon or Nikon: focus speed & accuracy, buffer size and number of shots per second.
wsandman1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 21, 2007, 8:26 AM   #9
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

peripatetic wrote:
Quote:
Yes but I'm pretty sure you will find sharper pictures with in-body IS turned off rather than on.
Sure peripathetic, Just as I'm certain to get sharper action pictures with my IS turn off in the 500 f/4 than leaving it on... :-)

My experience has been the opposite: IS is less needed in the longer lenses. Think about it who would shoot a longer lens than a 500 f/4 handheld? No one I think, theses PRO's all have tripod if they know what they are doing, if not for their weight alone, and most longer Nikon lenses have no IS but they seem to be doing well here too

I'm also @ a quandary right now: I believe I need a longer lens, but I'm already there with Canon. I can't carry a 600mm (or longer) on any of my excursions. For action wildlife I can only use the center AF point on the 1D MrkII, and I rarely shoot burst. I'm seriously considering an Oly outfit with the Bigma (for the fraction on the cost of any Canon additional lenses) as a 100-1000mm lightweight alternative - Oh and it comes with IS in the body!




Quote:
And as everybody knows in the digital world lenses last much longer than the camera body. So I don't have to pay for a new (inferior) IS system in every new body. And OK so I exaggerate here because I don't have or go through that many bodies (two IS lenses and two bodies since I went digital), but the sports and wildlife pros do.
This argument goes both way too as the IS algorithm improved you get better IS with each new body. If in the lenses you're stuck with them, as you are aware, some older lenses do not have the latest generation IS...
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 21, 2007, 6:04 PM   #10
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

NHL - I was being serious. I think that good technique generally makes the IS redundant. For long lenses good technique means a good tripod, and it probably really depends on the conditions (e.g. wind) as to whether IS is of benefit or not.

We know that IS under perfect conditions is going to reduce image quality, be it a shaking sensor or extra lens element. If you have your camera and lens clamped you will be better off without it.

I find it moderately useful for hand-held telephoto work. I don't do a lot of it, and I don't use a tripod for it. Such shots for me are generally snapshots not my more "serious" efforts. So on my 70-300 I find it very useful. On my 24-105 it's OK but I could happily live without it.

If I was doing serious bird work with long lenses I would much rather use a good tripod and head. But I've never used a 600mm lens and I've read some people who say that even with a solid tripod and head they find the IS beneficial.

To be perfectly honest since I got the 5D the lens that sits on the camera by default and stays on most of the time is the 50mm f1.4. I find there is very little that I want to photograph that that lens is incapable of giving me.

I do have to say however that the sample images on the Canon website for the 40D are stunning. I would certainly choose the 40D over the 1DmkIII considering the price difference. It looks like Canon really tried to match the D200 on this one, arguably they have passed it by some margin.

http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/eos..._sample-e.html

Of course Nikon probably have something around the corner, but that 40D sure looks good. But if I had to choose a camera from the entire range I'd still go with the 5D.
peripatetic 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 6:23 PM.