[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 .....

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.

[Mike.P®]

Originally Posted by TarMoo

Nikon has VR and now VR II on their latest lenses, so image stabilisation technology is evolving.

Not really knowing much about Nikon and Canon lenses do they have the same lens line up both with and without IS, for example a 300mm for the pro and one without for someone that doesn't want to pay the premium?
From what I have seen a lot of sales are lost to the novices (myself included) who think that built in IS is important, therefore to have it built in (with the option to switch off ) as well as in the more expensive lenses would seem a good marketing stratergy.

[technofan]

There are lots of different points of view here; claims and counter-claims, which is good for debate For me I still think I would prefer to hold off from another Canon or Nikon body and will see what comes out of the wash at Photokina. I have my eye on a Oly 520, but do not want to be disappointed with image quality compared to my old EOS 350d with L glass. Having said that I am sure there are lots of Oly owners who may disagree?? At the end of the day my G9 gives strong results and that's just a compact!!
Oh and it has in body IS

[springtide]

Originally Posted by 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.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydslra700/page15.asp

Hand-held, with Super SteadyShot (75 mm equiv. FOV)
With 'Super SteadyShot' switched on you can see an immediate improvement. At 1/40 sec we had a total of seven sharp images, at 1/20 sec an impressive four sharp images and six other 'acceptable but soft' and even two sharp images at 1/10 sec. Overall a good performance.

So, between 2-3 stops for the A700 - which was about a 1 stop 'real' (rather than claimed) advantage over the A100.

Not sure what Canon, Nikon, Sigma, Tamron etc claim for their IS lens systems.

There have been some forum claims that Body IS isn't as good as lens IS for longer lenses, but this has never been backed up with any evidence (i.e. an official review).

There have also been claims that IS lenses are not as sharp as non IS (due to the moving internals) - but again this has never been backed up with any evidence.

As always, there have been many claims on forums that have been proved wrong. Just look at the discussions about how 'Body IS' on a FF camera was impossible - people has all sorts of maths going on showing why it was impossible, and others with similar counter claims with their calculations showing that it wasn't actually much harder to implement than on an APS-C camera.

We all know the pros and cons of each technology (they have been discussed enough), so which technology is better will be a personal choice based on personal requirements.

I read this article ...
http://www.largeformatphotography.in...ic-bullet.html
.. a few months ago and it really made me rethink about my photography.

I am trying to change my ways of thinking, including discussing technology and chasing 'the magic bullet'. I truely believe that if instead of discussing 'which is best' I had put that effort into 'producing photographs' I would be a better photographer than I am.

I also believe that the 'magic bullet' doesn't exist and technology will help you with the 5%, but the other 95% that really matters isn't down to my camera or whether I have lens or body IS, but down to me.

[technofan]

Well put, and very true. My G9 will take excellent pictures just as well as really poor ones and that's all down to me the end user. But IS has its place as we can't prevent shake without a tripod so it will always be a hot topic I guess. But thank you again your post was very good.

Pete

[Liquid101]

Originally Posted by springtide

I truely believe that if instead of discussing 'which is best' I had put that effort into 'producing photographs' I would be a better photographer than I am.

Very true.

I still the think the best way to improve your photography is to turn everything off - including the Autofocus and Auto metering - Put everything into manual and feel your way to the right exposure and focus point.

Give me a D50 in M mode with a 30 year old Nikon AIS lens any day

[ryart]

Its interesting how many of todays "must have features" (at least for some), such as IS didn't even exist 35 years ago. My first job was with a freelance news agency using a Pentax with match needle metering, no autofocus, no motordrive, no IS, no stratospheric ISO speeds, no zoom lenses.

The thing is, one had to learn how to hold a camera with telephoto lens steady, anticipate action and press the shutter at just the right time instead of relying on umpteen fps to get near enough, and do a few calculations when setting the dials. Liquid is right; if you want to improve your photography switch all the gizmos off, only then will you know how to have control of the fantastic features in a modern camera.

I no longer have to satisfy a client, and now shoot to please myself (and not very often at that ), and have become rather lazy so leave all the gadgets on..... but it doesn't make my pictures any better .

Oh dear; I think I might be showing my age .

[technofan]

Brilliant

In my mind I am the worlds greatest ever photographer!!! Ta Daaa

And then I wake up

[ryart]

Originally Posted by technofan

In my mind I am the worlds greatest ever photographer!!! Ta Daaa

And then I wake up

Dreaming about photography? Now that is serious . Perhaps a visit to the doctor for some anti-psychophotographotic medication ....... which will probably make you shaky to the point where IS really is a necessity .

[RobDickinson]

Originally Posted by springtide

There have been some forum claims that Body IS isn't as good as lens IS for longer lenses, but this has never been backed up with any evidence (i.e. an official review).

Not true, there is a review out there somewhere, must be a year old or so now.

They stested short and long lens/body IS and found on average the in body toped out at 2 stops and performed poorer on longer focal lengths, whereas newer lens IS worked 3-4 stops. On average there at the time wasnt much in it but they did skew the results a bit by choosing some old IS canon lenses like the 100-400.

Cant be bothered to hunt it down right now but it is out there somewhere

[Ian_S]

I prefer optical IS personally because I find it very useful to actually see the effect through the viewfinder. I can judge pretty much by movement and shutter speed whether it's worth actually taking a picture. (In body IS can't do this, so your left with shooting and chimping.) This of course is much more effective at longer focal lengths where you can see slight movement more easily.

On my 17-85 which has IS, but not because I particularly wanted it, it's much harder to tell, and is only useful anyway for static shots. Most of the time I photograph my 1yr daughter with that lens and she has this horrible habit of moving around which makes IS somewhat redundant.

Another 'in-use' feature of on lens IS that is harder to emulate (without yet another button close to hand) on in body systems, is that it's quite easy to turn it on and off with your other hand, or change mode, which again means you can keep camera to eye. If in-body is menu driven that's another usability minus. Why would you want to turn it off? Well sometimes it can be a battery drain and also it can take a little time to stabilise when you first depress the shutter to focus, and if you don't want to constantly ride the shutter IS can result in OOF pictures if you mash the shutter too quickly. (Especially if you use Canon AI Servo mode.)

So I find on lens IS more usable in some scenarios, whether that makes it better or not is really down to what you shoot I guess.

[Strobe]

My camera has in-body IS and it certainly has benefits. 2-stop advantage is pretty good, and together with good hand-holding technique I don't find many real world situations where I have needed more. I agree that the general 'word on the street' opinion is that in-lens IS performs better. Biggest advantage for me with in-lens IS is seeing the benefits of the IS in the view-finder, something you don't get with in-body IS. On the other hand, having all stabilised primes is also nice, something which the Canon/Nikon brigade do not have. It's swings and roundabouts and you make your choice.

[richard plumb]

to answer the question

I don't think Canon ever will. I might have thought their super entry level DSLRs might have eventually, but the new 18-55IS puts paid to that I think.

they have IS in their cheaper kit zooms now, so I don't think you'll ever see it in bodies.

[Ikki]

I know that every time that this debate appears there will be many comments from Canon/Nikon users to say how in lens IS is better. It's probably the case that IS will be at it's most effective where it is designed for a specific optical system (lens) but in the real world I have found that:

1. In body IS works well even at long focal lengths and all my shorter focal length lenses including macro lenses etc are stabilised..
2. The lenses are much smaller and less bulky because they don't need to include the IS system. Just compare the respective sizes of the Sigma 18-200mm and Sigma 18-200mm OS lenses for example.
3. I have been able to build up a set of good quality lenses sourced new and used for far less than the equivalent IS lenses would have cost. In fact it has made the difference between having them and not having them.

I'm not dissing in lens IS, just saying that in body IS has real plus points that make it the choice for myself.

[technofan]

If Olympus just gets their sensors a little better then it will be game over for me! I have had IS lenses (the 'cheaper variety') from Canon on my old EOS350 and the poor results in terms of chromatic abberation, softness and colour reproduction made a nonsense of what the sensor could do (in my opinion of course). My L lenses were better, but it was a real premium to get a 2.8L, which made a nonsense of my wallet. The Zuikos though are supposed to be very good and the Olympus series now has IS built in but there sensors are more noisy.

Talk about swings and roundabouts!!!

Still I think I may get an Olympus in the near future, camera bodies get updated but good lenses can be keepers for years and years! The Oly Zuiko12-60mm F2.8 is one such contender.

[Oddbodd]

Recently got myself an Olympus E-3 with the 12-60mm SWD lens which on a four thirds camera equates to 24-120mm. It really is a cracking lens, great walk around lens, relatively small & lightweight (no IS), dust and splash proof and most importantly pin sharp.
Olympus make excellent camera equipment especially their lenses, even their standard kit lenses get good reviews, their pro and top pro lenses are rated very highly. They seem to have been making small inroads into the Canon/Nikon dominated market with their recent slr cameras. The most recent E-420 and E-520 both get reasonable reviews, the E-420 is a very compact and lightweight slr, the E-520 is larger and has in body IS, the E-3 is larger again and also has in body IS.
To be honest I'm not sure who's system is best, I have owned a Canon slr and several L lenses with IS, they can be rather expensive and quite heavy.
I think they both work well and I suppose there is an argument that good quality IS lenses are always going to be expensive having said that Olympus Zuikos are not cheap, quality costs I'm afraid