Will Canon or Nikon ever IS their camera bodies?

[technofan]

I am looking forwards to seeing the new Sony A900. Full frame sensor with IS built in. Why doesn't Canon or Nikon do this it seems so popular amongst photographers. We don't always have a tripod to hand and the best light of the day usually comes with the penalty of needing longer exposure times, a very bright lens or high ISO settings. To me IS seems common sense or am I missing something here

[springtide]

Originally Posted by technofan

I am looking forwards to seeing the new Sony A900. Full frame sensor with IS built in. Why doesn't Canon or Nikon do this it seems so popular amongst photographers. We don't always have a tripod to hand and the best light of the day usually comes with the penalty of needing longer exposure times, a very bright lens or high ISO settings. To me IS seems common sense or am I missing something here

There are advantages of having IS within the lens rather than the camera body. And obviously vice-versa!

I guess we could also ask why Sony implements it's Liveview different to Canon and Nikon.

Different ways to solve a similar problem, which will always exist with technology.

So the answer to your question, Why? It's 'just because!'

[Mike.P®]

Originally Posted by technofan

Why doesn't Canon or Nikon do this it seems so popular amongst photographers.

So they can charge a premium for their lenses that do have IS built in?
Canon and Nikon have the market pretty much sown up at the moment so why would they want to include something in their body that would put an end to that extra profit.

Of course, I may be wrong .....

[mweb6161]

Quite right, Canon and Nikon make too much cash from wealthy enthusiasts and pro's who buy IS glass to cut their nose off to spite their face buy introducing it built in.

[Oddbodd]

One of the main reasons I bought Olympus, built in IS.

[technofan]

I think there is a consensus here. Optical IS lenses come at a premium. It makes complete sense to get an IS camera body, unless, you happen to manufacture expensive IS lenses. We would have had the 1980s EV1 electric vehicle all over the world by now if it was not for one small problem....you had nowhere to put the petrol

[Liquid101]

In camera stabilisation becomes less effective when you use longer focal lengths - which arguably is where stabilisation is most useful.

Both Nikon and Canon are pro camera manufacturers, they need to offer the best solution, whatever the cost.

It has also been suggested that in camera IS would be very difficult to implement on FF sensors because of the extra space needed to allow for the sensor movement/lens coverage. I'll be interested to see how Sony get over this.

[technofan]

Originally Posted by Liquid101

In camera stabilisation becomes less effective when you use longer focal lengths - which arguably is where stabilisation is most useful.

Both Nikon and Canon are pro camera manufacturers, they need to offer the best solution, whatever the cost.

It has also been suggested that in camera IS would be very difficult to implement on FF sensors because of the extra space needed to allow for the sensor movement/lens coverage. I'll be interested to see how Sony get over this.

But surely not all Nikon and Canon SLRs are considered 'pro'. The eos450d body with Canons £50 cash back can now be bought new for around £375, which to me is smack in the middle of the amateur photographer bracket? The price surely dictates the market and big lenses with OS built in can cost thousands. I would be prepared to try a 4 or 500m lens with in body IS, but would not dream of making such a purchase otherwise as it would be useless at big ranges without the sun shining like a super-nova.

[Liquid101]

Originally Posted by technofan

But surely not all Nikon and Canon SLRs are considered 'pro'. The eos450d body with Canons £50 cash back can now be bought new for around £375, which to me is smack in the middle of the amateur photographer bracket? The price surely dictates the market and big lenses with OS built in can cost thousands. I would be prepared to try a 4 or 500m lens with in body IS, but would not dream of making such a purchase otherwise as it would be useless at big ranges without the sun shining like a super-nova.

You may well start off with an entry level camera, but as many on here will testify - it doesn't always end there. The great thing about Nikon and Canon is the ability to buy pro level glass for your entry level cameras - knowing that your lenses will be with you as upgrade your camera body.

I would hazard a guess that 'in body' IS wouldn't be terribly effective at 500mm - and if you're happy to lug a 500mm lens around, you'll probably be just as happy to take a monopod, at the very least

[technofan]

Perhaps you are right, but I would be interested from those who really know just how much better optical IS is over body IS. I would guess (so I could be wrong) that it is not too different as the concepts are similar and from what I have seen on YouTube tests with live view the results look very similar to me. Perhaps its like differentiating between a £5000 hifi and a £2500 hifi, will the first one be twice as good......no probably not.

Still I am merely thinking aloud and having owned a 350d with 2 F4L lenses in the past I am all too aware of the limitations of not having IS available. If I had owned a camera body that could have accepted my glass with built in body IS I would have been over the moon.

I am sooo tempted to get a 450d because sony and olympus get flamed in comparison reviews despite built in IS and considering sony make sensors for the Nikons (i think) I am amazed that professional reviews are always praising the 2 big contenders but so much less so everyone else. But having bought a 450 I would be back to square one, I have been there and it is restrictive without wads of cash for the right OS lens.

I expect I will run through all this in my head a few dozen times tonight before deciding what to do....one thing is for sure though, I must try and wait until after Photokina this September before making a choice...albeit a very limited budget choice.

Kindest Regards,

Pete

[inkinoo]

Originally Posted by mweb6161

Quite right, Canon and Nikon make too much cash from wealthy enthusiasts and pro's who buy IS glass to cut their nose off to spite their face buy introducing it built in.

Actually, that is nonsense. In camera IS is woefully ineffective at long focal lengths which is when pros need it the most.

[Gingerbillc]

Would it not be better for them to put it in camera anyway and allow the user to decide which is best? They do this for autofocus and they still sell AF-s / USM lenses

Ow and as for the jest where to put the petrol if we used electric cars, in the powerstaions to make the electric of course!! The question you have to ask is where will all the sludge, benzene, phenols and cyanates leftover from making petrol go when the hippies ban plastic.

[Mike.P®]

Originally Posted by inkinoo

Actually, that is nonsense. In camera IS is woefully ineffective at long focal lengths which is when pros need it the most.

Strange, it seems pretty effective on my K10D with the Sigma 135-400mm attached. If I turn anti shake off there is a definite difference to when it is switched on. It also comes in very handy for macro, giving at least 1 stop, maybe two, advantage. It also means I can buy a 30 year old Pentax 300mm f4 prime cheaply from Ebay which weighs the best part of 1.5k and use it hand held if need be. Infact I very rarely use a tripod (actually only twice I think).
As Gingerbillc says, why not include it anyway and carry on making their IS lenses, as I see it there is an advantage in having it and if you say it is next to useless with longer focal lengths then it can be switched off and a IS lens used.

[TarMoo]

I saw a review of one of the Sony DSLRs on dpreview recently where they said that the in-camera stabilisation was good for up to 2 stops, which was less than the advertised benefits. This is obviously worth having, but the Canon/Nikon lens stabilisation can deliver better results. Nikon has VR and now VR II on their latest lenses, so image stabilisation technology is evolving.

[Fozzybear]

I seem to remember a test that compared the two as one camera had IS and a lens you could buy to fit it had IS too... no idea which one though! The conclusion seemed to be that in camera is good, but had it's limitations and that lens based IS could be matched to that particular lens and so was more effective. Running both at once was not recommended - they fought each other and the photos were a mess.

Swings and roundabouts. They all do a good job and it's better to have it than not have it.