where's the IS? (and spotmetering)

[Cesar]

Hi, I'm a bit new to the SLR-scene and I'm amazed that a new SLR like the 400D doesn't have a spot-meter or an image stabilizer. Is this because we're dealing with SLR's or doesn't Canon want to make the perfect camera right away? I'm asking because even my Powershot S2 IS has these options...

[cwphoto]

Well the 400D is entry-level for an SLR - there's got to be a compelling reason to look at the 30D and up, and for some people a spot-meter would be justification enough to "upsize".

As for IS, Canon gives you a choice of around fourteen lenses if IS is important to you. If not, you can save money and buy lenses without. Horses for courses - it's the whole reason for SLR; a myriad of choice and flexibility.:)

And as for the perfect camera; is there such a thing? Everything is a compromise and everyone's needs are different (although the 5D surely must come close :D ).

[cdifoto]

Well the 400D is entry-level for an SLR - there's got to be a compelling reason to look at the 30D and up, and for some people a spot-meter would be justification enough to "upsize".

As for IS, Canon gives you a choice of around fourteen lenses if IS is important to you. If not, you can save money and buy lenses without. Horses for courses - it's the whole reason for SLR; a myriad of choice and flexibility.:)

And as for the perfect camera; is there such a thing? Everything is a compromise and everyone's needs are different (although the 5D surely must come close :D ).

3FPS keeps it from being perfect.

[cwphoto]

3FPS keeps it from being perfect.

See Cesar, there's always something!:D

[24Peter]

Personally I don't think Canon can avoid in-body IS much longer - esp on their entry level bodies b/c of exactly the question posed by the OP. Here's someone new to DSLR saying why isn't Canon competitive with what else is out there on this issue. Does IS in the lens work better in some situations? Yes, I sure, esp. on telephoto lenses. But there's clearly a benefit to having IS in the camera body on shorter zoom lenses and esp. primes for those of us who hate high ISO and aren't shooting moving subjects. For instance I had a shoot last week and I kept getting SS of 1/60 on my 85 1.8 at ISO 200. Would have loved to have in-camera IS at that moment. In fact, I'm pretty sure my next body will have to have in camera IS even if it means switching brands... I'm hoping SONY does release a cheap FF DSLR with in-body IS next year. That should really light a fire under Canon's butt. :eek:

[adam75south]

Personally I don't think Canon can avoid in-body IS much longer - esp on their entry level bodies b/c of exactly the question posed by the OP. Here's someone new to DSLR saying why isn't Canon competitive with what else is out there on this issue. Does IS in the lens work better in some situations? Yes, I sure, esp. on telephoto lenses. But there's clearly a benefit to having IS in the camera body on shorter zoom lenses and esp. primes for those of us who hate high ISO and aren't shooting moving subjects. For instance I had a shoot last week and I kept getting SS of 1/60 on my 85 1.8 at ISO 200. Would have loved to have in-camera IS at that moment. In fact, I'm pretty sure my next body will have to have in camera IS even if it means switching brands... I'm hoping SONY does release a cheap FF DSLR with in-body IS next year. That should really light a fire under Canon's butt. :eek:
no kiddin...i was reading about the sony they released today. i wonder how effective their in camera IS is compared to the canon IS on the lenses.

[cwphoto]

no kiddin...i was reading about the sony they released today. i wonder how effective their in camera IS is compared to the canon IS on the lenses.

It will be interesting to see what Canon does. My personal take is that lens-based IS has some distinct advantages:
1) You can see the compensation in the viewfinder (a legacy of having an OVF).
2) It gives greater compensation.
3) How do you move the sensor outside the image circle and still get nice corners?