[shuttertalk]

I was just thinking - all the major manufacturers (Pentax, Sony/Minolta, Olympus) now offer an option of image stabilisation built into the DSLR body. All that is, bar two - Canon and Nikon, which are arguably, the leaders in the field. This technology is great because it means that lenses that are non-stabilised can take advantage of the extra steadiness, which is equivalent to around three to four stops of light.

Manufacturers such as Nikon and Canon though, have heavily invested in the image stabilisation feature in their top end lenses - charging a high premium to have this feature. Even though their compact and prosumer type cameras have had image stabilisation for a while now (e.g. Canon S3IS, Pro 1), I think this is the main reason why they have not yet put image stabilisation into their DSLR bodies - doing so will negate the effect of their costly IS/VR lens range and consumers will think twice before paying the high price.


Am I right, or is there something else here? Meanwhile, users from the other camps will get to enjoy the added image stabilisation with all their lenses, cheap or otherwise. *sniff*

[EnglishBob]

I don't see it happening anytime soon... large investment in lens technology..and it also keeps the IS lenses priced accordingly.

From reviews I have read in various sites it also seems that the in lense IS works better than the in body IS, but I am sure that will change.

[Banded Drake]

My first thought was that if they put IS in the camera then it would hurt there lenses. But there might be more to the story . Like EB said maybe they want to keep IS in the lens because they ( Canon and Nikon ) think its better .

Just my thoughts ....... Shawn

P S ... but i wish they would put it in the cameras then the high end lenses would be more affordable .

[matthew]

I don't see C&N putting IS into the camera body until they're forced to by market pressure. When other companies have it, and it's painfully obvious what a giant benefit it is, then they'll move. (Dust buster, anyone?) There's simply too much invested in the legacy system and the massive stable of lenses to risk devaluing their inventory and their customer's investments.

In-body IS is still in its first generation; I'd suggest that it's a better place for it simply because digital bodies are not a long-term investment. I rarely expect to replace a lens because of a technological improvement, but a camera body that's just three years old is likely to be sitting in a cupboard somewhere.

[shuttertalk]

In-body IS is still in its first generation; I'd suggest that it's a better place for it simply because digital bodies are not a long-term investment. I rarely expect to replace a lens because of a technological improvement, but a camera body that's just three years old is likely to be sitting in a cupboard somewhere.

Good point Matthew - you're less likely to replace good lenses as often as bodies. However, if every body you purchase from now on has IS built in then it sort of becomes a moot point...

[Wedding Shooter]

I read that the IS in the camera body is only really good for shorter length lenses. Once you put decent telephotos on the camera the IS system does not have enough movement inside the camera to adjust as well as an IS lens. That said - they could always set it up so that you could turn it off once you have IS on the lens.

[Peted]

I read that the IS in the camera body is only really good for shorter length lenses. Once you put decent telephotos on the camera the IS system does not have enough movement inside the camera to adjust as well as an IS lens. That said - they could always set it up so that you could turn it off once you have IS on the lens.

My Pentax K10D works up to 650mm, enough for most I would think.

The IS system only has to offset the amount the camera is moved by a shaking hand, why does it matter what size lens?

If I buy a couple of Canon lenses today with IS and there is an improvement in the technology then I have to buy a couple of lenes to get the benefit, if I have a hundred lenses with a in-camera IS system and the technology is improved then I only have to buy one camera to get the improvements to all my lenses.

Most of the time i leave SR turned off on my camera and try to use good technique and correct settings and it is only when I really need to grab an extra stop or two that I turn it on.

[shuttertalk]

My Pentax K10D works up to 650mm, enough for most I would think.

The IS system only has to offset the amount the camera is moved by a shaking hand, why does it matter what size lens?

650mm... that's good to know Pete.

Shaking hand with a long lens I can understand - basically your hand would be a fulcrum and any movement would be greatly magnified at the other end...

[Peted]

My Pentax K10D works up to 650mm, enough for most I would think.

The IS system only has to offset the amount the camera is moved by a shaking hand, why does it matter what size lens?

650mm... that's good to know Pete.

Shaking hand with a long lens I can understand - basically your hand would be a fulcrum and any movement would be greatly magnified at the other end...

Exactly right, the weight and size of the lens tends to stop the movement but as you are only moving the sensor at the camera end it is not actually that much.

Of couse you should always use the highest shutter speed you can and where ever you can, use a tripod.

[EnglishBob]

Hand holding my Bigma at 500 is all but impossible, a monopod helps somewhat.

[Peted]

Hand holding my Bigma at 500 is all but impossible, a monopod helps somewhat.

How do other large lenses like the Canon 500MM IS go by comparison?

[navis01]

I have heard some rumours of Canon producing the 40D this year and part of the rumoured spec list is in body IS. Anyone else heard anything on this?

[Peted]

I would have thought it more likely they would have put IS in there lower range and go for the 400D replacement.

[DickHaynes]

I agree with Wedding Shooter. Also, IS does NOT only counteract the movement of the camera. So it does matter what size lens you are using. When you are using a super telephoto lens camera shake is less of a factor than that of the movement of your lens. If you were using an extremely small focal length you can use a slower shuter speed, why? Because you are using a shorter focal length.

End statement: If you are using a huge lens, you need to be able to have a huge IS element to compinsate for the huge amount of movement.