In preparation for the Full Frame

[TenD]

Don, in body IS is simply not up to the quality of in lens IS. 1.6 stops against over 3 stops! Yes, as I have stated it is somewhat nice to have IS for every lens, but in most cases handholding a 28mm lens @ 1/30 is within just about anyone's capabilities with good technique. Handholding a 300mm at 1/30 isn't.

I don't find Canon's(or Nikon's) lack of in body IS is disturbing at all, even their point and shoots have the IS in the lens. It just makes sense, more stops, more efficient, the viewfinder becomes stable. They have an IS system that works, and works better than any other camera manufacturers system. Why change? Oly, Pentax, Sony, Minolta etc. needed a gimmick, something to set them apart, in body IS is that thing. It's a great idea, it's not close to mature yet.

[DonSchap]

Well, I find my "immature" shooting a far cry better than the shots I had serious trouble getting from the Canon EOS 20D, w/o a tripod or some other stable support. Where it really bugged me, to be honest, was in venues that forbid stability enhancing devices (such as tripods, monopods ... what have you), such as museums; stadiums; aquariums; train stations; ... aw heck, just about any "controlled access" public forum.

So when I pluck my SONY (in-the-body-IS) camera from its camera case ... throw on a 50mm f/1.4 lens ... and take a low-light shot at 1/15th - ISO 800 ... I get something other than a fuzzy smudge for a subject, like I used to with the EOS 20D.

I know that can be hard to understand for someone who has ONLY shot with a Canon device, but ... I tell you, it is true. A stabilized shot with a PRIME lens! Yes, Virginia ... it is possible.

[dr4gon]

Don, in body IS is simply not up to the quality of in lens IS. 1.6 stops against over 3 stops! Yes, as I have stated it is somewhat nice to have IS for every lens, but in most cases handholding a 28mm lens @ 1/30 is within just about anyone's capabilities with good technique. Handholding a 300mm at 1/30 isn't.

I don't find Canon's(or Nikon's) lack of in body IS is disturbing at all, even their point and shoots have the IS in the lens. It just makes sense, more stops, more efficient, the viewfinder becomes stable. They have an IS system that works, and works better than any other camera manufacturers system. Why change? Oly, Pentax, Sony, Minolta etc. needed a gimmick, something to set them apart, in body IS is that thing. It's a great idea, it's not close to mature yet.

Do you have a source regarding 1.6 vs 3 stops with in-body vs. in-lens?


From reading up now and before I bought my camera, it seems the difference isn't that big. You benefit mostly throughout the lens lineup at about sub ~300mm since compensation is much lower at wider shots.

http://www.adorama.com/catalog.tpl?o...article=041607

However in-camera stabilization works with just about any lens you mount on the camera, so you only have to pay for it once and the cost isn't very high (maybe $100-$200). In-lens stabilization adds at least $200 (sometimes more) to the cost of every lens that it's used in--and not all lenses (particularly wide and normal prime lenses) are available in an IS version.

In practice, both systems seem to provide similar levels of stabilization for wide, normal and short telephoto lenses used on APS-C sensor DSLRs. If and when more cameras with full frame sensors become avialable, image stabilized lenses will still be effective on them (as they are on current 35mm film cameras). With the additional size and mass of a full frame sensor, it may be difficult to impement a full frame sensor camera with in-body stabilization.

In-lens stabilization may also be more effective than in-body stabilization for long telephoto lenses. This is because the image shift is proportional to focal length and can become quite high at long focal engths. For example for a 0.5° deflection of a 600mm lens, the image moves by about 5.5mm, and Canon IS telephoto lenses can shift the image by this amount. Moving a whole sensor +/- 5mm both horizontally and vertically to compensate for image movement is difficult, even for APS-C sized sensors, due to both space constraints and limitations on how fast the mass of the whole sensor assembly can be moved. Optical stabilization in the lens can be designed so that a small movement of the optical steering elements causes a large deflection of the image and so rapid and effective stabilization is possible even for large image shifts.

http://theonlinephotographer.blogspo...ens-image.html

It's a bit biased I must say, but these are true.

In-Lens Systems
Advantages
1. More effective with longer lenses
2. You don't pay for it except with the lenses you need it for
3. You see the stabilization effects through the viewfinder

Disadvantages
1. More expensive, especially if you want the feature in more than one lens
2. Not available with all lenses

In-Body Systems
Advantages
1. Works with every lens you mount to the body, and may be the only option for many shorter and faster lenses
2. Less expensive, especially if you want the feature with more than one lens

Disadvantages
1. Progressively less effective with longer and longer lenses (you would probably use a tripod anyway or at least be in good light!)
2. Progressively harder to implement with larger image sensors. (not an issue yet with the current a100-700 lineup )

[DonSchap]

@Dr4gon ... it's kind of pointless with the "drink the kool-aid" bunch. They've got a lot of cash tied up in their systems ... I know, I was one of them ... and just chucked it all, when Canon refused to put IS in the camera, TOO!

I wasn't afraid to pop the "single-gun salute" to an organization that put corporate greed ahead of good sense. That, plus the fact that Minolta has always been a fun line of cameras ... their challenge to improve photography was commendable, although cutting edge can kill ya. Now, is SONY up to the same thing? I suppose, but my bag is pretty complete, at this point. The cameras do what I want ... and that, my friend, is half the battle. The Canon EOS-system did not ... and still, does not.

So ... we are where we are. Shooting with our respective equipment ... and trying to justify the choices.

[TenD]

Do you have a source regarding 1.6 vs 3 stops with in-body vs. in-lens?

DPreview I can't find the specific pages but it's in there, Don doesn't refute this.

From reading up now and before I bought my camera, it seems the difference isn't that big. You benefit mostly throughout the lens lineup at about sub ~300mm since compensation is much lower at wider shots.

True, because the in body IS is not tailored to anything, it has diminishing returns as the focal lengths increase. In lens IS is tailored to the lens it is placed in.

Cost? Sony's non IS lenses cost more than Canons lenses with the IS built in. If you want top quality glass, you pay for it, if you have a Sony you pay a little more for it. In the end it becomes a wash, with Sony being slightly more expensive. ex. Sony 70-200 f/2.8 @ 3 lbs B&H price $1799, Canon 70-200 f/2.8 @ 3.5 lbs $1699, where are the savings?

Your final statements are all true, although very biased toward in body IS. Although as you can see above the $$ savings aren't necessarily true. True with primes, true with lesser lenses. When you get to the pro level, not true at all.

[DonSchap]

Excuse me, "TenD" ... are you going for the new 50D, this time? Or are you done with the "kool-aid" and making your way to the new wave of professional standards?

We're all friends, here. 'fess up?

[Rooz]

http://forum.xitek.com/showthread.php?threadid=556627

[DonSchap]

http://forum.xitek.com/showthread.php?threadid=556627

Just have CW send the lens to the house. Thanks. LOL

[Rooz]

looks a little too real to be a fake. it says "steadyshot inside", is that the normal way they normally describe it ? i thought it was called super steady shot or something like that.

[DonSchap]

They are apparently going with the "Intel Inside" approach, to reduce the name size.

I just found out that the camera has an APS-C crop mode, which means ALL lens will be usable on this baby!

Holy cow ... now, I've got glass galore!

Also, most of the focusing and metering takes place within the APS-C frame ... not full frame, so that might speed up the AF quite a bit and limit issues with edge sensors.